DISCLAIMER: These events reported are a work of fiction, and are a part of the ongoing Mock Trial: Javellana Case hosted by the Loyola Schools Office of the Ombudsman and The GUIDON.
The Student Judicial Court (SJC) has unanimously maintained its previous ruling in favor of the Office of the Sanggunian President and the validity of the 2017 Constitution despite more evidence presented by petitioners during the second trial.
The trial was set after petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration on Monday, September 25 after the SJC deemed the Plebiscite and the ratification of the 2017 Constitution valid and within bounds of the law.
Witnesses of the alleged unofficial plebiscite voting were presented to the Court, along with video interviews and transcripts from other members of the student assembly.
An interview with Abel Almario, a member of the Ateneo Commission on Elections (COMELEC), was also presented. Asked about the voting process, the commissioner stated that the COMELEC had indeed asked the student assembly to raise hands if they agreed to the Constitution.
Almario’s statement contradicted the witness’ stand.
One of the witnesses present during the Plebiscite said that they were “simply asked to stand up and raise hands,” unaware that they were voting for the ratification.
Despite opposition, the prosecution argued that the witnesses’ statements were consistent, such that the Plebiscite was not “properly handled,” and that the student assembly had not been briefed and had not given their consent on the ratification of the Constitution.
However, the Court dismissed the prosecution’s evidence on grounds of insufficiency, as narratives from only eight people were presented to the Court.
“It shows that these eight people and this one single Plebiscite that was held is not sufficient enough…to represent the supposed 95% of agreement from the student body,” the defense argued.
According to the Court decision press release, “The Court constrained to hold that…the people may be deemed to have cast their favorable votes in the belief that in doing so they did the part required of them.
It may be said that in its political aspect, which is what counts most, after all, said Article has been substantially complied with, and, in effect, the 2017 Constitution has been constitutionally ratified.”
