DUE TO time constraints, only one of the two impeachment cases filed against School of Social Sciences (SOSS) Secretary-Treasurer (Sec-Treas) Marvin Lagonera was tried by the Ateneo Student Judicial Court (SJC) on December 20 at MVP 217-218.

Lagonera is facing two impeachment cases based on the following counts: Appointment of executive officers (EO) and Central Board (CB) representatives without due process, and failure to keep the records of the School Board (SB) transparent and falsification of SB documents during the course of the investigation.

The SJC originally wanted the prosecution and the defense to argue on both cases during the hearing.

However, the prosecution and the defense only finished their closing arguments for the first case almost at the end of the four hours and thirty minutes allotted for the whole impeachment hearing.

Chief Magistrate Roy Guerra said that the Court would announce its decision with regard to the first impeachment case next year. The adopted SJC Hearing Procedures allow the magistrates six school days to deliberate the ruling of the case.

Guerra added that another hearing would be held next year for Lagonera’s second impeachment case.

Aside from Guerra, the SJC magistrates include the following: Magistrate for Audit Danielle Joanna Gaite, Magistrate for Human Resources Lorenzo Pepito, Magistrate for External Affairs Ryan Gregory Nicolas and Magistrate for Project and Operations Management Aldwin Segismundo.

Magistrate for Internal Affairs Administration Leo Francis Abot inhibited from the hearing due to conflict of interest. Abot said that the SOSS SB funded one of his projects for The Ateneo Assembly, so Abot withdrew from judging to remove any possible sources of bias.

Controversial appointments

During the trial, the prosecution questioned the process by which Lagonera appointed officers to fill out the vacant positions in the SOSS SB.

The members of the prosecution team are as follows: Chief Prosecutor Clyde Maramba, Special Prosecutor Jayvy Gamboa, Prosecutors Beatriz Beato, Julia Lenarz, Cristine Marie Villaruel, Mayen Pineda, Robert Mari Ibay, Jiego Tanchanco and Jann Amorado, and Deputy Clerk of Court Patrick Ng.

To support their claims, the prosecution called on two witnesses: Appointed SOSS Senior EO Jomar Villanueva and appointed SOSS Junior EO Christopher Cunanan.

To begin the prosecution’s closing statement, Maramba noted that both the prosecution and the defense agreed that Lagonera contacted possible officers to assume the vacant positions of EOs and CB representatives only a few days after Lagonera was sworn in as SOSS sec-treas.

In addition, Maramba acknowledged the fact that “[the appointments] were not recognized by the Central Board representatives,” and that the appointed officers were not officially part of the top 55 Sanggunian officers.

However, he stated that, “we came here not to argue if these people did their jobs.”

“What we have been arguing all this time is if the appointments were proper, and Lagonera just simply [appointed officers] without going through the proper processes established,” Maramba said.

He also questioned the hastiness with which Lagonera made ad-interim appointments.

Someone who has been appointed ad-interim is an individual who fills in a position temporarily until a qualified person can claim the position on a full-time basis.

“[The prosecution believes] that with Lagonera appointing people five days after he won, he actually never gave the chance for these people to elect amongst themselves,”Maramba said.

According to the 2013 Sanggunian Code of Internal Procedures, in the event that a position in the SB is vacant, the elected officers must appoint either a block or course representative to the vacant position.

Maramba ended the prosecution’s closing arguments by pleading to the Court that the prosecution “take[s] home this case because he (Lagonera) clearly violated the Constitution [and] the Code of Internal Procedures.”

Good intentions

In retaliation, the defense argued that because of the failure of elections in SOSS, all decisions by Lagonera were executed “in good faith” to ensure an efficient SB for the rest of the school year.

On August 10, the Ateneo Commission on Elections declared a failure of elections for SOSS, where only 46 out of a possible 96 positions were filled after the end of the 2013 Freshman and Special Elections.

The defense counsel is composed of Andre Miko Alazas, Urania Lindo, Madeleine Ong, Mitch Tuazon and Guio Martinez.

The defense called on the following witnesses: Lagonera, appointed SOSS Senior CB Representative Kevin Mizon, appointed SOSS Junior CB Representative Polo Martinez, SOSS Sophomore CB Representative Abbo Hernandez, former SOSS Junior CB Representative Louis de Jesus, and former SOSS Senior CB representative Alyssa Nuqui (AB PoS ‘12).

Nuqui was a CB representative in school year 2011-2012. Initially, the prosecution questioned her testimony for only undergraduate students were allowed to testify. However, the defense argued that they were not informed of this provision.

Guerra overruled the prosecution’s objection but declared that Nuqui’s statements will have less weight over other testimonies.

During the trial, Alazas was the main spokesperson for the defense. However, Lindo delivered the defense’s closing arguments.

The prosecution objected the change in speakers. However, because the magistrates reached no majority decision, Guerra overruled the objection and Lindo was allowed to continue.

She began by recalling the events that led to Lagonera making ad-interim appointments in the first place.

“The respondent assumed the position [of sec-treas] after a massive failure of elections in the School of Social Sciences,” Lindo said.

“Thus, all of the assailed actions of the respondent as Sec-Treas were pursued in good faith, in order to enable the second-largest constituency of the student government to remain relevant and ready for service,” she added.

Lindo furter said, “We are not saying that [the process] is entirely legal, given the peculiar situation of a massive failure of elections. However, what we are saying is that Lagonera did not willfully violate the Constitution and therefore must not be impeached on this ground.”

She also discussed how Lagonera was forced to take action because of the non-cooperation of his fellow officers.

“The duly elected course representatives did not initiate a vote, or election, amongst themselves,” Lindo said.

“Discretionary power is lodged on the course representatives, but none of them exercised such power to elect amongst themselves, necessary replacements,” she added.

In addition, Lindo stressed that appointments made by Lagonera “were ad-interim, meaning there was never a claim to permanence.”

“Neither the accused, nor the appointees publicly represented the appointments as permanent ones. [Furthermore], the appointees were not given any institutional recognition by bodies such as the Sanggunian,” she said.

Lindo ended her speech by saying, “[May] justice be served where justice is due… Justice to the man who is Marvin T. Lagonera.”