Photo by Abram P. Barrameda

CONTROVERSY RESULTING from a voided constitutional plebiscite has trailed the February 2012 Sanggunian General Elections, which saw former Sanggunian Vice President Gio Alejo defeating former Central Board Representative Moses Albiento for the presidency. The unexpected plebiscite, which was held alongside the elections prior to its nullification, pushed a broad group of students to jointly file an impeachment complaint against Alejo last February 19.

The impeachment complaint pointed to Alejo’s involvement in the plebiscite, which the Ateneo Commission on Elections (Comelec) voided last February 15, as the primary grounds for impeachment, given Alejo’s former position as co-chair of the Sanggunian Committee on Constitutional Review (CCR).

However, the Ateneo Student Judicial Court (SJC), despite “[finding] CCR co-chairpersons Gio Alejo and Nicole Reyes accountable and subject to impeachment” in a ruling dated February 17, ultimately rejected the impeachment complaint filed against Alejo. In a decision promulgated last February 29, the court ruled that it “found the complaint without merit upon examination of the motion to dismiss filed by [Alejo].” The SJC voted 3-2, with one abstention.

Since the impeachment complaint singled out Alejo in his capacity as Sanggunian Vice President, the case was rendered moot upon Alejo’s assumption of the presidency last March 2. As such, appeals could no longer be filed, despite widespread criticism of the court decision.

The impeachment complaint was jointly filed by former Christian Union for Socialist and Democratic Advancement (Crusada) officers Miguel Rivera, James Roman and Bian Villanueva, former school chairs Ana Raymundo and Lance Viado, former Sanggunian Department of External Affairs Chair Reg Guevara, former Central Board (CB) Representative Dan Remo, incumbent CB representatives Polo Martinez, Felix Mintu, Alvin Yllana and AJ Elicaño, and incumbent school chairs Jiggy Villamin and Toni Potenciano.

Online exchange

Several students had urged Alejo to speak up about the plebiscite issue. Concerns were voiced on the Sanggu Bantay Halalan 2011 Facebook group.

The Assembly President Coco Navarro was the first to call on Alejo for a statement via the said group. On March 3, she posted, “I just find it particularly disappointing that you have not expressed a single public statement regarding the issue—whether in defense of yourself or to take responsibility for the mistake.”

Two days later, Crusada member Arnold Lau made a similar post. “With all due respect, silence is making you look bad. If you think you did the right thing, then you have nothing to hide,” he said.

Last March 6, Alejo posted a statement addressed to Navarro and Lau on the Facebook group, asserting that he had given “a lot of statements about the whole impeachment issue,” citing in particular his interviews with The GUIDON.

Motion to dismiss

Alejo shared his initial reactions to The GUIDON regarding the petition against him while it was under review by the SJC.

After SJC’s decision to drop the case, Alejo was interviewed again by The GUIDON. In the interview, Alejo said that his motion to dismiss the case might have contributed to the SJC’s decision. He also said that impeaching him was “not the proper way of addressing what happened.”

In the motion to dismiss filed by Carlo Africa, president of Ateneo Lex and Alejo’s chief legal counsel, last February 29, the defendant pointed out that the process of constitutional review for the Sanggunian is still a vague process. As such, Alejo as CCR co-chair “tried to go about the process as smoothly as possible by creating a framework which was followed until the end.”

“Although glitches were experienced during the plebiscite, there is not enough substantial basis to accuse him of gross neglect of duty given that the duty was not only his, but is shared with other representatives as well. Furthermore, impeaching him as Vice President of the Sanggunian seems to be questionable, given that it is not his job as such to amend the constitution, and, as proven previously, there was no willful and repetitive attempts to violate the [Code of Internal Procedures (CIP)],” the motion to dismiss said.

“Surprise” plebiscite

The contentious issue of the plebiscite first emerged when voters were caught off-guard by a question that popped up on the screen of the voting computers, after the accomplishment of the electronic ballot. The question asked whether the voter agreed to the proposed changes in the student constitution. There was no “abstain” option, and the default option had been set to “yes.”

On the night of the first election date, February 14, Crusada filed a petition with the SJC questioning the plebiscite’s validity and demanding accountability for the matter.

Grounds for impeachment

The February 17 SJC ruling that found Alejo and CCR co-chair Nicole Reyes liable for impeachment cited the two’s “gross neglect of duty, and mismanagement, inefficiency and incompetence” as specific grounds for impeachment, in line with Article II, Section 19, Letters b and e, of the 2005 Sanggunian Constitution. The ruling was a response to Crusada’s February 14 petition.

In a later interview, Alejo asked why he and Reyes were singled out. “I wonder why the SJC specifically singled myself and Nicole Reyes out when the decision to end the ConCon [Constitutional Convention] came not from us, and was not supposed to come from us in the first place.”

He also questioned why the SJC itself suggested impeachment, when the complainants from Crusada did not raise such a course of action in their petition.

With reports from Jyska A. Kuan Ken and Luther B. Aquino

Editor’s Note: Steffi Sales wrote for the Inquiry section of The GUIDON. She had no involvement with the News section of the publication.