UPDATED: 5:30 PM, December 11, 2013
SCHOOL OF Social Sciences (SOSS) Secretary-Treasurer (Sec-Treas) Marvin Lagonera has filed for a motion to dismiss the six impeachment cases filed against him by the Ateneo Student Judicial Court (SJC) Prosecutor’s Office on December 9.
On December 2, Lagonera was accused of violating the 2005 Constitution of the Undergraduate Students of the Ateneo de Manila Loyola Schools (LS), also known as the LS Undergraduate Constitution, based on the following counts: Unconstitutional appointments in the SOSS School Board (SB) and Central Board (CB), usurping the SOSS chairpersonship, implementation of an illegal committee system, corruption and failure to keep transparency in the SOSS SB.
Lagonera’s motion to dismiss states that:
• The complaints do not constitute impeachable offenses
• The complaint asserting the claims states no cause of action
• The Court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the claims
• The complaints are defective for their failure to seek adequate reliefs
• The question of constitutionality asserted by the complaints raises prejudicial questions which must first be resolved in a separate suit
• [Lagonera], as Secretary-Treasurer, acted in good faith pursuant to Resolution No. 1 which is attended by the presumption of regularity, and is thus not a ground for impeachment
• The matter of appointments raised by the complaints are political questions and are thus outside the jurisdiction of the Student Judicial Court.
Lagonera’s motion was filed on his behalf by his legal counsel, lead by Andre Miko Alazas. Both Lagonera and Alazas are members of the Christian Union for Socialist and Democratic Advancement (Crusada), the only accredited political party in the Ateneo. A version of the motion was posted in Crusada’s Facebook and Scribd accounts.
The SJC magistrates are set to release their official decision on December 11 whether or not any of the impeachment cases filed against Lagonera hold merit in court.
Should the magistrates accept the validity of any of the claims, Lagonera’s hearing shall be held no later than seven days after the announcement of the decision.
Prosecutor Mayen Pineda from the SJC Prosecutor’s Office has declined to make an official statement regarding the matter for now.
“The prosecution will wait for the magistrates’ decision concerning the Motion filed by Crusada,” she said.
“Until then, we continue to make our preparations,” Pineda added.
Magistrate for Internal Affairs Leo Abot has also declined to make an official statement.
“The magistrates are currently deliberating and will release a consolidated decision on the complaint and the motion to dismiss by today, December 11,” he said.
“No usurpation”
According to the prosecution, Lagonera usurped the SOSS chairperson position left unfilled after the 2013 Sanggunian General Elections and the 2013 Sanggunian Freshmen and Special Elections.
According to the 42-page complaint, Lagonera identified himself as the SOSS chairperson through an online post, an official document as well as through official actions and correspondence.
However, the motion to dismiss says that Lagonera, by introducing himself as “acting chairperson,” merely “made such statements in his capacity as duly elected secretary-treasurer in accordance to his interpretation of an existing provision.”
As per the constitution, the sec-treas assumes the responsibilities of the chairperson if the chairperson is absent or incapacitated. Meanwhile, the sec-treas automatically assumes the chairpersonship in the event that such office is permanently vacated.
“Mr. Lagonera acted in good faith and in the exercise of political wisdom and discretion,” the motion said.
The motion added, “No usurpation as defined by the SC of this land existed in fact or in law.”
Wrong resolution
Lagonera was also charged by the prosecution for making unconstitutional appointments in the SOSS SB.
The prosecution stated that Lagonera made 27 appointments to various SOSS SB positions, including the appointment of two CB representatives, two executive officers and 23 course and block representatives.
The prosecution filed charges against Lagonera because the constitution does not state “that it is within the power of the Secretary Treasurer to fill the vacant positions in the School Board via appointment.”
However, the accused’s legal counsel wants the charge dismissed on the basis that the prosecution called for the wrong settlement concerning the charges.
The counsel argued that if “the appointments made by Mr. Lagonera cannot be supported by any [exact] provision in the constitution,” then his alleged offense is not impeachable.
In addition, the motion said that the gravest punishment that can be issued to Lagonera is the voiding of all his appointments, not impeachment.
Lagonera’s counsel further said, “Based on the statutory grant given to him to assume the responsibilities of the chairperson if the chairperson is absent or incapacitated, or in other words as long as the chairperson is unable to act, Mr. Lagonera can make [interim] appointments.”
Misinterpretation
Lagonera’s legal counsel also called for the dismissal of the corruption case filed against the accused.
According to the prosecution, Lagonera violated the LS Undergraduate Constitution by “committing an act of graft and corruption by showing preference towards members of Crusada in the appointment for Committee Chairpersonship.” The prosecution’s complaint also said that Lagonera reportedly violated Republic Act Number 3019, also known as the “Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.”
Lagonera allegedly caused material injury by offering a position in the SOSS SB to a student with the condition that she leaves her political formation and join Crusada. However, Lagonera reportedly retracted the conditional statement and the student in question assumed the position.
However, Lagonera’s motion states that the prosecution’s use of the RA does not “constitute a cause of action nor a proper case cognizable by the Student Judicial Court.”
Lagonera’s legal counsel said they found this case problematic, particularly because it classified the accused as an elected public officer.
According to them, definitions found in the RA as well as the Revised Penal Code do not count Lagonera as an elected public officer, thus making the prosecution’s argument invalid.
“Clearly, the law refers to officers of the Government of the Philippines and not of private bodies such as the Sanggunian,” Lagonera’s motion said.
In addition, the motion said that the “the provisions cited by the prosecution clearly requires causation of injury in order that a cause of action against an officer may arise.”
Furthermore, the legal counsel argues that because Lagonera withdrew his initial offer, “any allegation of injury on the part of other political parties is mere conjecture and speculation.”
“It is worth noting that [the student’s] appointment pushed through even without assenting to the supposed condition that [the student] must be a member of Crusada,” the motion said.
“Fatal procedural error”
The prosecution also charged Lagonera with “usurping the legal and executive powers of the School of Social Sciences Sanggunian Executive Committee (Execom).” Lagonera allegedly implemented a new committee system without the approval of the Execom members.
In the complaint, the prosecution maintains that the SOSS SB Resolution No. 1, written by accused himself, prevents certain officers of the SOSS SB to perform their duties efficiently.
However, Lagonera’s legal counsel argued that the facts presented by the prosecution do not call for an impeachment case, as Lagonera “acted in good faith in executing a resolution attended to by the presumption of [his assuming of Chairperson responsibilities].”
Furthermore, the motion to dismiss argued that “the question of constitutionality of the aforementioned resolution does not belong in an impeachment complaint,” but rather in a separate case.
“The prosecution committed a fatal procedural error when it prayed that this Court both declare Resolution No. 1 unconstitutional and to impeach Mr. Lagonera in the same petition,” the motion added.
Regarding the elected SOSS SB officers who were not able to participate in the planning and execution stages of committee projects, the legal counsel said that “the inability of these elected officials to assert their mandate by failing to participate actively in the affairs of their school board could hardly be attributed to Mr. Lagonera.”
The motion said, “In the first place, no one has a vested legal right in the appointive positions. No one had a vested right in the appointment to the committees.”
Insufficient claims
Lagonera’s counsel has also called for the dismissal of the case against him regarding the alleged falsification of the minutes of various SOSS-related meetings, as well as failure to keep the SOSS SB transparent.
The motion to dismiss said that the allegations put forward by the prosecution “lacks basis in fact, established principles of law and logic.”
Lagonera’s counsel argued that the claims of the prosecution “are insufficient to constitute an act of falsification.”
They further stated in the motion that the Revised Penal Code gives different definitions of falsification, depending on the type of document that are allegedly falsified.
The motion to dismiss added that “the minutes of the meeting in question in the present case are clearly of a private character, [and] they are not official documents issued by the Government of Philippines nor private documents notarized to convert them as admissible public documents.”
“In other words, to constitute falsification of private documents, it must be clearly established that the accused acted with intent to cause damage or has caused damaged to third persons,” the motion said.
In addition, the legal counsel argued that the responsibility of taking the minutes for the SOSS SB falls upon the sec-treas.
“It is then peculiar for the Prosecution to give [more] credence to the minutes submitted by [the official SOSS SB scribe] rather than [the minutes submitted by] Lagonera,” the motion said.
“In case of conflict between the files submitted by Lagonera and [the official SOSS SB scribe], the Secretary-Treasurer’s copy should bear more weight,” the motion added.
With regard to the allegation that Lagonera failed to keep a transparent SOSS SB, his motion said that “nowhere in the charges was it alleged that a specific constituent was prejudiced or injured or denied of their right to information when it was requested from Mr. Lagonera.”
Lagonera’s legal counsel further said, “[To make a ruling on the case] on the basis of hypotheticals will be dangerous, as it will reduce the Honorable Court to speculating on possibilities.”
With reports from Mara D. Cepeda
