SCHOOL OF Social Sciences (SOSS) Secretary-Treasurer (Sec-Treas) Marvin Lagonera has been acquitted of the two impeachment cases filed against him by the Ateneo Student Judicial Court (SJC) Prosecutor’s Office.

The verdict was released by the SJC magistrates on the evening of January 10.

Lagonera was charged with two impeachment complaints: Illegal appointments of Central Board (CB) representatives and Executive Officers (EOs), and failure to keep the records of the School Board (SB) transparent.

The Court acquitted him on both charges. However, Lagonera was found guilty of mismanagement for failing to be transparent with the official SB documents.

His sanctions include the following: A written reprimand from Sanggunian President Dan Remo which will be made available to the student body and mandatory work for the Office of the Secretary-General (Sec-Gen), the nature of which will be specified by Sanggunian Sec-Gen AJ Elicaño.

Lagonera’s first impeachment case was tried in court on December 20, 2013. Meanwhile, the hearing for the second impeachment case was cancelled because the parties involved had no common time to hold the trial before January 10, the deadline for the verdict.

The defense, led Andre Miko Alazas, filed a motion to reconsider the cancellation but it was denied by the Court.

The magistrates instead based its decision for the second complaint on written statements submitted by the prosecution and defense, respectively, on January 9.

Even without the second trial however, Alazas was elated by the Court’s final verdict.

“As of tonight, we are extremely happy that justice ultimately prevailed,” he said in a text message sent to The GUIDON on January 10.

“The SJC was fair, though we were hoping to have the mismanagement case junked. This is nonetheless an acceptable compromise, since the verdict does not impute moral turpitude on Marvin as a person,” he added.

Chief Prosecutor Clyde Maramba was understandably upset by the final verdict.

“The Prosecution is disappointed by the Court’s decision to let Mr. Lagonera, a man guilty of mismanagement and failing to keep the School Board’s documents, a grave impeachable offense, still be in the institution he failed to serve properly,” he said in a Facebook message sent to The GUIDON the morning of January 11.

Removed clause

Before the final verdict, Lagonera’s second impeachment charge originally included the following clause: “Falsification of official School Board documents in the course of the investigation.”

On December 19, 2013, however, the prosecution withdrew the said complaint but gave no reasons for it.

After being granted an extension by the Court, the prosecution submitted its rationale behind the withdrawal of the clause on January 5 of this year.

Meanwhile, on December 20, 2013, the defense counsel sent a motion to dismiss the impeachment charge of failure to keep SB documents transparent.

Three days later, the defense filed an Urgent Ex-Parte Motion for Reconsideration, arguing that the prosecution could not prove beyond reasonable doubt the charges with the withdrawal of the last clause in the second impeachment case.

The defense also said that the prosecution did not exhaust all administrative remedies stipulated in the SB Code of Internal Procedures before filing the complaint.

On January 6, 2014, the Court rejected the defense’s motion and still accepted the mismanagement case filed against Lagonera.

“Illegal” appointments

On the case of illegal appointments of CB representatives and EOs, Lagonera was accused of making unconstitutional nominations for the following positions: Junior SOSS CB representative, junior SOSS EO, senior SOSS CB representative and senior SOSS EO.

The Court based its final verdict for the case on the three points: Whether or not the appointments of CB representatives and EOs were substantial, whether or not the appointments were done legally and whether or not the appointments were done in good faith.

Regarding the first point, the Court said in its verdict that it took into consideration whether or not the CB recognized the appointments and whether or not the appointees took the position voluntarily.

Through the review of the testimonies of witnesses acting SOSS Senior CB Representative Kevin Mizon and elected SOSS Sophomore CB Representative Abbo Hernandez, the Court ruled that the CB did not recognize Lagonera’s appointees as official officers.

In addition, the Court also ruled that the acting CB representatives were “volunteers,” referring to Lagonera’s testimony, where he states “that the appointments he made are “…to be called ‘volunteers’ or ‘point-persons’ until clarified with the Court.’”

Regarding whether or not the appointments of EOs were substantial, the Court enumerated three points that would be discussed: If the acting EOs were recognized by the SB, the powers that the acting EOs held and if Lagonera had the final say in what the appointed EOs will do.

Given the testimonies of witness acting SOSS Junior EO Christopher Cunanan and acting SOSS Senior Year EO Jomar Villanueva, the Court ultimately ruled that the appointed EOs were recognized as acting representatives only. The appointees have similar powers with the elected EOs, although the appointees do not have voting powers.

On the issue of legality, the Court ruled that Lagonera’s ad-interim appointments were legal, their reason being that “the course or block representatives had not convened and thus were unable to act.”

The Court also ruled that Lagonera made the appointments in good faith, as a response to the failure of elections in SOSS during the 2013 Sanggunian General Elections and the 2013 Sanggunian Freshman and Special Elections.

“[Lagonera] cannot be faulted for making such appointments out of necessity due to the gravity of the context,” the verdict said.

In conclusion, the Court found Lagonera not guilty of this charge, and he was subsequently acquitted of the impeachment complaint.

Mismanagement

On the case of mismanagement for failure to keep the SOSS SB transparent, Lagonera was accused of failing to keep in touch with Sanggunian Sec-Gen Elicaño with regard to the submission of official documents. Lagonera was also accused of failing to make official documents available to the public.

According to the verdict, the Court established three main points that they used to properly determine a fair conclusion: Whether or not communication had been established between Elicaño and Lagonera, whether or not there was a failure of Lagonera to keep his SB transparent and accountable, and whether or not the prosecution requested for the correct relief.

Regarding the first point, the Court took into consideration whether Elicaño asked Lagonera for official documents and whether there was any precedence on Lagonera’s part regarding the submission of the said documents.

According to the 2005 Constitution of the Undergraduate Students of the Ateneo de Manila Loyola Schools, it is under the powers of the Sec-Gen “to be the official custodian of all records and papers of the Sanggunian, in coordination with School Board Secretary-Treasurers.”

The Court determined that Elicaño exercised this power via a presentation he gave during an orientation for new officers after the conclusion of the 2013 Sanggunian Freshman and Special Elections.

Elicaño “specifically stated his policy with minutes [of official SOSS meetings], which were to be submitted to him on the first Monday of every month at 9:00 AM.”

Given this evidence, the Court ruled that communication had been established between Elicaño and Lagonera.

Regarding whether or not Lagonera failed to keep his SB transparent and accountable, the Court considered the following: The importance of official school documents, such as minutes, to the SB and the implications of failing to send these documents.

The Court ultimately ruled that “[Lagonera] failed to live up to the standards of transparency and accountability expected of Sanggunian officers.”

Meanwhile, as regards the issue of a proper relief, the Court ruled in favor of the defense, who “successfully argued that the non-exhaustion of all administrative remedies [by the prosecution] is fatal to an impeachment complaint.”

“It is very clear then that the Respondent does not deserve to be impeached,” the verdict said.