The Ateneo Student Judicial Court (SJC) on Friday, April 29, released its final verdict on a petition filed Saturday, April 23 by the Office of the Ombudsman against the Ateneo Commission on Elections (COMELEC) and the Loyola Schools Constitutional Convention (ConCon).

This came after the Office of the Ombudsman called out Ateneo COMELEC and ConCon for inducing freshman candidates Karlo Lovenia and Francisco Vista III to back out from the Sanggunian elections, resulting in its closure.

SJC unanimously ruled that Ateneo COMELEC must conduct Special Elections in the first semester of school year 2016-2017, should the ConCon plebiscite fail.

According to SJC, it was a mandate for the Ateneo COMELEC to run such polls, as stated in Article X, Section 2.a of the 2016 COMELEC Electoral Code.

However, the Court rejected the plea of the Office of the Ombudsman to order Ateneo COMELEC and ConCon to issue a public apology, as it would not ensure that “genuine regret for the actions committed is present in doing so.”

SJC has reprimanded both bodies for influencing the said students to withdraw their candidacies.

Ombudsman Ayesha Del Rosario signed the petition for injunction, which was posted online Sunday, April 24 and reuploaded the following day without the supporting evidence that was included in the previous version.

SJC Chief Magistrate Cristine Villaruel and Magistrate for Public Information Jonnel Herbosa said that the legality of the said evidence had yet to be confirmed at that time hence the updated version.

According to Herbosa, the court wanted “to avoid any harm to the involved parties arising from popular consensus and a jury of popular opinion.”

No reply from respondents

SJC indicated that it both Ateneo COMELEC and ConCon issued no formal response, despite them being directed to reply not later than April 25.

The GUIDON tried to reach out to Ateneo COMELEC and ConCon for an official statement about the petition, but both groups have not responded as of press time.

However, Ateneo COMELEC Commissioner Patrice Gabito said, “We do, at this preliminary stage, believe that the petition, however well-intentioned, is in error; grossly misinterpreting the sequence of events that it is founded on.”

Meanwhile, ConCon Head Shiph Belonguel sent SJC a clarificatory letter Monday, stating her belief that the petition was null and void as it was filed by “a body that was not created or authorized by the Constitution, and filed without due process.”

Belonguel said that she was acting only in the interest of the student body as the head of the Constitutional Convention.

Ombudsman legitimacy

In response to Belonguel’s letter, SJC reaffirmed in its decision the legality of the Office of the Ombudsman, as it was created through Part 2, Section 9 of its Code of Internal Procedures and validated by virtue of Article XIII, Section 9 of the 2005 Constitution of the Undergraduate Students of the Ateneo De Manila Loyola Schools.

“The claim that the petition is null and void due to lack of legal personality is unfounded,” the Court stated.

Meanwhile, Del Rosario explained in an interview that the SJC structure includes two investigative bodies that function aside from the six magistrates who preside over the court: The Commission on Audit and the Office of the Ombudsman.

She said that the Office of the Ombudsman fulfills its duties independently of the SJC and may begin investigations without prompting from external bodies.

Of the nine members of the Office of the Ombudsman, five were involved in this particular petition and related investigations: Del Rosario, Glydelle Amon, Dale Dampil and Cath Manuel, and Stefano Lim.

According to Del Rosario, it was a joint decision to begin investigations, saying that the Office, upon knowing about the backing out of the three candidates from the elections, merely seeked to ask why they decided to withdraw their candidacies.

“We never imagined that it would be because of external influences,” Del Rosario said.

ConCon plebiscite

Suspending the conduct of the ConCon plebiscite was not an option for SJC, pointing out that it will never resort to “righting a wrong with another wrong.”

“While the influence on the candidates of the Elections clearly violates the rights of the students in which these candidates aimed to represent, suspending the plebiscite in its final stages shall also violate the constitutional rights of the students to enact a new constitution,” the Court stated.

Despite the irreversibility of the situation, the SJC hoped that it will become a lesson for the student body.

Meanwhile, the quota of the number of votes for the plebiscite has been surpassed, Ateneo COMELEC announced on its Facebook page Friday, April 29.

Partial tally showed that 4,125 votes were casted from April 25 to 29 and exceeded the quota of 3,359.

While the original required number of votes was set at 3,309, a resolution released by Ateneo COMELEC Friday stated a recalculation, which included non-graduating seniors in the new quota.

Absentee voting results have yet to be added.