Anda di halaman 1dari 14

AteneoStudentJudicialCourt AteneodeManilaUniversityLoyolaSchools BarangayLoyolaHeights,QuezonCity SITTINGASTHEIMPEACHMENTCOURT IN THE MATTER OF THE IMPEACHMENT OF MARVIN LAGONERA AS SECRETARYTREASUREROF THE SCHOOL OF SOCIAL SCIENCESSCHOOLBOARD,

CHIEF PROSECUTOR CLYDE MARAMBA, PROSECUTORS BEATRIZ BEATO, ROBERT MARI IBAY, JULIA DARYL LENARZ, MAGDALENA MARIE PINEDA, JIEGO MICHAEL TANCHANCO, CRISTINE MARIE VILLARUEL, SPECIAL PROSECUTOR JAYVY GAMBOA, AND DEPUTY CLERK OF COURT PATRICK JOSEPHNG xx URGENTMOTIONFORRECONSIDERATIONURGENTOMNIBUSMOTIONSFOR RECONSIDERATION,POSTPONEMENTOFHEARING,ANDDISMISSAL MarvinLagonera(Mr.Lagonera),bycounsels,respectfullystates:

That the Court, on January 8, 2014 promulgated Resolution No. 01082014 In Re: The CancellationoftheHearingontheChargeofMismanagementwhichstates:

Given the reasons submitted by both parties, the Courthas decided that, through its discretionary power of deciding whether to hold hearings, not to push through with the hearing. Sincethe21school day period for resolving the complaintasset

in the Constitution is to expire on the 10th of January (Friday),theCourt therefore found that holding another hearing would be logistically impossible because both partiesnolongerhaveacommontime.

In lieu ofthehearing,theCourtrequestsbothpartiestosendintheirstatementsand arguments regarding the Mismanagement case. The Court has decided to judge the case basedon theparties statements and theaffidavitsofthewitnesseswhich wassubmittedduringthepretrialconference.

ThatthedispositiveportionoftheabovecitedResolutionreads:

WHEREFORE, the hearing set for the Mismanagement case is hereby cancelled due to logisticalconstraints that renderitimpossibletomeetwith bothpartiesatacommontime.Moreover,bothpartiesareorderedtosubmit theirfinalstatements and arguments onthechargeofMismanagementby6 pmonThursday,January9.

SOORDERED.

Thedefendantwouldliketoarguethat nothavingatrialatthispointinthecase willbe extremely prejudicial to the rightofthedefendanttoaspeedyandimpartial trial.Itis inthe interest ofthestudentbody,thedefendant,aswellastheCourtthatthetrial beconcludedthrough the proper processes.The highlypublicizedand novelnatureofthis impeachment case simply cannot be ignored by theCourt. Handingout amere summary judgmentonthechargeof mismanagementwouldbetodenythedefendanthisrightto substantive and procedural due process. This impeachment process takes on the novel character underthe currentsituation, andpublicinterestrequiresthatdueprocessof

the law be followed, lest the Court be accused of railroading this entire process of impeachment. The Court should seetoitthatthedefendantseeshisdayinCourt,forinall controversial questions, [the Courts should] render its decision in such a manner that the parties totheproceedingcan know the various issues involved, andthereasons for the decision rendered. The performance of this duty is inseparable from the authorityconferreduponit.1

Thus,thedefendantpraysthattheCourtreconsideritsdecisiontocancelthetrial formismanagementandsetanothertimeanddateforthetrial.

However,thedefensewillstillcomplywiththeorderoftheCourttosubmititssubstantive argumentsregardingthemismanagementcase.Thedefense,however,submitsthereply inprotestoftheCourtsdecisiontocancelthetrialandtosimplydecidethecase inasummaryproceeding.Thedefensestronglybelievesthatthedefendantshouldbe givenhisdayincourt.Thedefendantisapublicofficial,anditisintheinterestofthe studentbodythatanelectedpublicofficialsubjectedtoanimpeachmentcasebegiventhe righttodefendhimselfandhisoffice.

REPLY

Defendant Marvin Lagonera, by counsel and before this Honorable Court, most respectfully submits the arguments of the Defense as regards the charge of mismanagement and incompetence on thebasis of Case2013001 Decision12112013 on the impeachment caseforfailure of keep correspondencewith theSecretaryGeneral, andfollowingthepromulgatedCourtResolutionNo01022014whichstatesthat:

AngTibayv.CIRandNLRC,G.R.No.L46496

In lieu of the hearing, the Court requests both parties to send in their statements and arguments regarding the Mismanagement case. The Court has decided to judge the case basedontheparties statementsand theaffidavitsofthewitnesses whichwassubmittedduringthepretrialconference.

Last December 11 2013, the Court released a consolidated decision on the impeachment complaint filed by the Petitioners and the motion to dismiss filed by the Respondent.The Courtacceptedthesixth impeachmentcasewithheadingfailingtokeep the records of the School Board transparent and falsification of official School Board documentsinthecourseoftheinvestigationonthefollowinggrounds:

WHEREFORE, the Court accepts the impeachment complaint of failing to keep the records of the School Board transparent and falsification of official School Board documents in the course of the investigation, solely on the grounds that there arediscrepancies betweenthe documents submittedbytheRespondentwho isa party in interest, and the documentssubmitted bytheofficialscribeMs.Lazaro, the discrepancies being substantiated by written testimonies from SOSS SB officers, and that the Petitioners can offer evidence showing that the Respondent hadfailedtokeepappropriatecorrespondencewiththeSecretaryGeneral,whichis mandatedbytheSangguSBCIP.[emphasisours]

Last December 192013,the Petitionersdecidedto drop thefalsificationcharge.Withthe falsification charge dropped, thefirstoftwogroundswhichstatesthatitistheburdenofthe Petitionerto prove thatthere arediscrepancies betweenthe documents submittedbythe Respondent who is a partyin interest, andthe documents submittedby theofficial scribe Ms.Lazarohasbeendroppedtogetherwithit.

Hence,the only acceptableground ofimpeachmentthatremainsbasedonCourtdecision

Case 2013001_Decision 12112013 isifthePetitionerscanofferevidenceshowing that the Respondent had failed to keep appropriate correspondence with the SecretaryGeneral,whichismandatedbytheSangguSBCIP.[emphasisours]

Accused through counsel comes before the Honorable Student Court and pleads not guilty of the mismanagement charge against the Respondent for failing to keep appropriate correspondence with the SecretaryGeneral, under the Articles of Impeachmentonthefollowingarguments: I.LackofSpecificationofDeadlinesandTime FramefortheSubmissionofMinutes oftheMeetingtotheSecretaryGeneralintheSchoolBoardCIP II.ArgumentofPrecedencetofillinthegapsintheSchoolBoardCIP III.ThereisnoCorrespondenceonthepartoftheSecretaryGeneral. IV.ThedefactoChairpersonandSecretaryTreasurerhaveconflictingfunction V.Itisnottheappropriatereliefprayedfor.

DISCUSSION

I.Lack of Specification of Timeframe for the SubmissionofMinutesoftheMeeting totheSecretaryGeneralintheSchoolBoardCIP

TitleIIISection24oftheSanggunianSBCIPstatesthat:

Section 24. Minutes of the Meeting. The SecretaryTreasurer together with his/her deputies is tasked topreparethe minutes of all themeetings ofthe School Boardand ExeCom. He/sheis required totransmitasoftcopyoftheminutestothe egroup of the ExeCom 2 days after the meeting in PDF file.The SecretaryTreasureristaskedtosubmitasoftcopyoftheapprovedminutes to the SecretaryGeneral for compilation. A hard copy of the minutes shall be kept at the Sanggunian Room. He/she is also tasked to send soft copies of the

approved minutes to all members of the Board within 2 school days after its approval.OtherProtocolsregardingminutes,attendance,reportsandstatusreports from the Code ofInternal ProceduresoftheSanggunianSecretaryGeneralwillalso befollowed.[emphasisours]

It is specifically stated in the Title IIISection 24of the SanggunianSB CIPthat the SecretaryTreasurer is tasked to submit a softcopy of the approved minutes to the SecretaryGeneral [emphasis ours]. Given the sentence immediately preceding this, approval refers totheminuteshaving to be formallyapprovedbytheExecutiveCommittee as a prerequisite before the submission to the SecretaryGeneral. Without the formal approval of the Executive Committee, it is no longer within the capacity or power of the SecretaryTreasurer to move and submit the approved minutes of the meetings to the SecretaryGeneral.

Both the testimonies of Mr Marvin Lagonera and Mr Altheo Catalo would have revealed that the Executive Committee has not yet initiated the process to approve the minutes of themeetings. Thetestimony of Mr Theo Catalowouldhave shown that,even if MrCatalohadobtained copies oftheminutesof the meetings ofthe SOSS ExeComand SchoolBoard, hehad not yet approved anyof the minutes ofthe meetings forfurnishing totheSecretaryGeneral[emphasisours].

Assuming arguendo, that the minutes of the meeting were to be submitted regardless of whether they have been approved or not, there is no mentionof a specific time frame or deadline in which these approved minutes must be submitted to the SecretaryGeneral in Title III Section 24 of the School Board CIP. While the relevant provision indicates thatthe minutes haveto be submittedforreviewtotheExeComafter2 days, the same provision does not mention whether or not the SecretaryTreasurer is supposed to submit the minutes of themeetingto the SecretaryGeneral, and if it should be done on a regular basis. A careful reading of Title IIISection 24of the School Board

CIP clearly suggests that the approved minutes of the meetings canbesubmitted at any pointduring theelectedtermoftheSecretaryTreasurer,whichcanbeaslateastheendof his term.Sincethere is nomentionof specific deadlinesin TitleIIISection24,theSBCIP gives the SecretaryTreasurer the discretion to submit the minutes of the meetings anytime,whichincludeshavingtheright to submit compilation ofminutesof themeetings at theend oftheschool year.GiventhelackofanextantprovisionintheSchoolBoardCIP specifying a requirement for regular submission of the minutes of the meetings, the defendants inability to submit minutes so far in the school year cannot be faulted as a violationof the School BoardCIPand therefore,does notconstitute awillfulandrepetitive violationoftheconstitution.

Furthermore, the SecretaryGeneral did not promulgate the Code of Internal Procedures of the Sanggunian SecretaryGeneral because no such official document exists or has ever existed, according to the previous SecretaryGeneral Ms Catherine Sison andnowherecanitbefoundintherecordsofSanggunian(andlikely,theCourt).The last sentence of Title III Section 24 is very specific in referencing the Code of Internal Procedures as the basis for protocols: Other Protocols regarding minutes, attendance, reports and status reports from the Code of Internal Procedures of the Sanggunian Secretary Generalwillalso befollowed[emphasisours]. Assumingarguendo that Mr. Elicano createdsuchprotocols, theCourtcannotusethisasabasisforjudgmentbecause these protocols were not promulgated and are therefore not legally recognized regulations.Theyshouldholdnovalueorweight.

II.ArgumentofPrecedencetofillinthegapsintheSchoolBoardCIP

Notsubmittingthe minutes ofthemeetingshasbecomeacommon institutionalpracticein the School Boardin theSanggunian. BothMsKaylaTorres,SOSSSecretaryTreasurerof SY 20122013 and Mr. Bryan Chua, the SOSS SecretaryTreasurer of SY 20112012 submitted written affidavitsduring the pretrialconferencesexplainingthat notonceduring

their respective terms did theyfurnishcopiesof the approved minutesoftheExeComand SchoolBoardmeetingstothe SecretaryGeneral. NosuchofficialdocumenttheCodeof Internal Procedures oftheSanggunian SecretaryGeneralthatspecifically the authorizes anyofthemregardingspecificwaysofcorrespondingwiththeSecretaryGeneral.

BothSecretaryTreasurers attest tothecommonpracticeintheevidencepresentedduring the pretrial conference. This commoninstitutionalpracticeinSanggunianmusthavebeen influenced by the lack of specificity in the SB regarding deadlines for submission of the minutes of the meetings to the SecretaryGeneral and the absence of a Codeof Internal ProceduresoftheSanggunianSecretaryGeneral.

However, failure to submit of minutes of the meetings to the SecretaryGeneral did not pose the danger of mismanagement and incompetence that hindered the School Board from fulfilling its functions under theduring the administrationof both MsKaylaTorres and Mr Bryan Chua, SOSS SecretaryTreasurer. Similarly, nonsubmission to the SecretaryGeneral has not resulted in a negative impact on the SOSS School Board to carryoutitsfunctionsundertheadministrationofMrLagonera.

Hence,Mr Lagonera giventhegapsintheSchoolBoardCIPintermsofcorrespondence with the SecretaryGeneral and the absence of a Code of Internal Procedures of the SanggunianSecretaryGeneralmerelyactedbasedonprecedenceandingoodfaith.

III.ThereisnoCorrespondencefromtheSecretaryGeneral.

Mr Lagonera, in the written affidavit he submitted during theexchange of evidence inthe pretrial, narrated that not once did the SecretaryGeneral ever communicate or correspondwithhim.

The Respondent is highly suspicious of the claim of the Prosecution that that

SecretaryGeneralhas promulgatedtheminutesofthemeetingmultipletimesinthelist of witnesses it submitted. According toMrLagonera,the SecretaryGeneralneveraskedhim fortheminutes of themeetings orclarificationsregardingtheSecretaryTreasurersrolein any mediumavailable, be it inan officialSanggunian meeting (such as the CentralBoard orTop55meeting)orvianontraditionalmeanssuchasonlinesocialmediaorFacebook.

This claim made by the SecretaryGeneral should alert the Court. It is the burden of the Prosecution to provide compelling evidence to show that the SecretaryGeneral has indeed promulgated the collection of minutes ofthemeetingsinanyoftheofficialchannels oftheSanggunian,specificallyduringtheCentralBoardorSchoolBoardmeetings.

In light of such, the Defense has immediately furnished copies of the minutes of the meetings in the Central Board meetings and submitted covers of these during the exchangeofevidenceduringthepretrialconference.

Official announcements from members of the CentralBoard and Top55 meetings,which includestheSecretaryGeneralandtheSOSSSecretaryTreasurerMrLagoneraashaving official observer status, aremadeduring theCentral BoardandTop 55 meetings, usually towards the end of the meeting that is specifically allocated for official announcements. These meetings are crucial because this is the only avenue or instance when the SecretaryGeneral and representatives from the Schoolboards, including the SecretaryTreasurer, are in their official capacity in an official meeting to make such announcements. The School Board CIP specifically gives observer status to the representatives of Schoolboard for the board to meet the Legislative branch (which includestheSecretaryGeneral)intheCentralBoardandTop55meetings.

It must be noted that nowhere in the Central Board meetings did the SecretaryGeneral ever make an official announcement regardingminutesof the meetings.The fullcopies of these transcripts can be accessed at http://www.scribd.com/sanggusecgen, a publicly

available official Scribdaccountof the SecretaryGeneral wherethe Defensederived and printed the proof of the covers ofthe minutes of theCentral Boardand Top 55meetings. Thefollowingare the all dates ofthe Central Board andTop 55meetings:August16(Top 55 Joint Session), August 23 (CB), August 28 (Curriculum Report), August 30 (CB), September 6 (CB), September 20, 27 and 28 (Budget Hearings)and November 22 (CB meeting). In all these Central Board and Top55meetings since the start ofLagoneras election the SecretaryGeneral made no announcement regarding minutes of the meetings.

The Court must also be alerted that only during the CentralBoard meeting on December 13 2013 did the SecretaryGeneral actually make an official announcement regarding minutes of the meetings which reflected in the minutes. This can be accessed through (https://www.dropbox.com/s/32jjtatvrzyutqo/Sanggu1314_Minutes_CB_121313.docx). In

page 8 of the December 13 2013 CB minutes of the meetings, the SecretaryGeneral makesafinalannouncement:

Elicao:Sendyourminutes.[emphasisours]

This announcement was made a day after the Prosecution had submitted the impeachment cases, andfour days after,Mr Lagonerahadtotake a Leaveof Absence (LOA)asmandatedbythe2005SanggunianConstitutioninlightoftheacceptancefortrial of the Court of the impeachment case. Certainly, the SecretaryGeneral hasnever made such similar announcement before in any of the minutes of the meetings of the Central Board, and that such sudden announcement in the middle of the impeachment case should be a warning to the Court to speculate the actions ofthe SecretaryGeneral. This clearaction tomanipulate orinfluencethe factsinthecourseoftheimpeachmenttrialmust alerttheCourt.

Finally, it is the burden of proof of the Petitioners to show that the SecretaryGeneral

indeed made anycorrespondencein anofficial meeting on aregularbasis. MrLagonera, however, insists that in the course of his term, Mr Lagonera was never contacted by the SecretaryGeneral regarding his duties as SecretaryTreasurer. Furthermore, no such evidentiary material was submitted by the Petitioners. There is no sufficient evidentiary material that was attached to show that indeed, the SecretaryGeneral promulgated the minutesofthemeetingsseveraltimestogetherwithhisaffidavit.

IV.ThedefactoChaipersonandSecretaryTreasurerhaveconflictingfunction.

Mr Lagonera holds an extraordinary case of being the de facto Chairperson and SecretaryTreasurer at thesametime dueto the massive failureofelectionsintheSchool Board.

There may be, however, a possibility ofaconfusion andconflictfunctionbetween the two responsibilitiesvestedbythe2005SanggunianConstitutiononthetwopositions.

AccordingtoArticle8Section2(B)(d)ofthe2005SanggunianConstitution,the Chairpersonhasthefollowingresponsibility: (d)TomaintaintheautonomyoftheSchoolBoard

This particular line in theConstitution requires the Chairperson tokeep theSchoolBoard autonomous. While autonomy can have various interpretations, keeping correspondence with an outsideofficer is certainlyalmostopposite to thefunctionto maintainautonomyof theSchoolBoard.

This runs contrary to, and inevitably brings in confusion to the real responsibility of the SecretaryTreasurer, to keep in constant correspondence with the SecretaryGeneral. In this case, the choice of the SecretaryTreasurer to remain loyal and accountable to a higher positionlodgedintohimasdefactoChairperson,whichistomaintain theautonomy

of the School Board, has to be given greater premium given this extraordinary case followingthefailureofelectionsintheSchoolofSocialSciencesSanggunian.

V.Itisnottheappropriatereliefprayedfor.

The defense herein once again submits that a careful reading of the Articles of Impeachment regarding the falsification chargesprays visavisthefailure ofRespondent to submit theminutesto theSecretaryGeneralonlyprays thattheCourtapplyappropriate sanctions. TitleXISection66ofTheSanggunianCodeofInternalProcedures(CIP)states that the failure to abide by itsprovisions mustfirst be dealtwith throughtheimpositionof prior penalties (i.e. written reprimands), by the President of the Sanggunian. In the Respondents case, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that suchwritten notices were ever given to Mr. Lagonera over the course of his tenure. It is clear in the abovementioned provision that a call for impeachment can only be filed upon the third infraction of the CIP. Thus,theRespondent prays that thisHonorableCourtrecognize the improperreliefinitiatedbytheProsecution.

The Prosecutor failed to exhaustallavailableadministrative remedies and insteadchose to taxthisHonorable Courtwith the burden to sitasanImpeachmentCourtwhenthereare more legallyefficient, practical, and proper means ofmakingthedefendantaccountable,if such charges prove to have any semblance of merit. Specifically, Section Title XI of the Sanggunian Internal Procedures recommend the issuance of two written reprimands before the filing ofafinal reprimand togetherwith an impeachment case. The submission of minutes and all regulations appurtenant to this duty are in the same document, under Title III, placing it within the ambit of Section 66, following the principle thatprovisionsof laws mustbe harmonized.Nosuchreprimandwasissued tothedefendantbeforethefiling ofthiscase.

However, in Case 2013001 Decision 010614, the Courtkeptthe mismanagement case

despitethis argument forthe reasonthatitis the dutyof the SecretaryTreasurertobethe caretakeroftheSchoolBoardCIP.

However,itstillshouldhavebeenthedutyoftheSecretaryGeneraltoadvise thePresident regardingtheissuance of a written reprimand inthe caseof MrLagonera violatingtheSB CIPinaccordancewithTitleXISection64oftheSchoolBoardCIP:

Section 64. Any infraction to this code must be informed to the SecretaryGeneral and the President through the SecretaryTreasurer for immediateaction.[emphasisours]

In this case, theresponsibility ofexhausting administrativeremedy isstilllodgedwithinthe SecretaryGeneral, evenifthe SchoolBoardCIPmentionsthatitistheresponsibilityofthe SecretaryTreasurer to keep track of the School Board CIP. To assume that the SecretaryTreasurer will never deserve therightto receivewrittenreprimandjustbecause heor sheis thecaretakeroftheSchoolBoard CIPisunjustonhisorherposition.Ifreadin its entirety, the SB CIP still provides checksandbalance on the performance of the SecretaryTreasurer through the SecretaryGeneral who should have used administrative remedy topenalize him.Hence, theimpeachment caseisnottheappropriatereliefprayed forbecausetheadministrativeremedieshavenotbeenexhausted.

RELIEF WHEREFORE,withtheabovesubmissionsonsubstantive andproceduralgrounds, the defendant requests for his acquittal on the charges against him under the Articles of Impeachment,inviewoftheprosecutionsfailuresandoversightsinrelationthereto.

SecretaryTreasurer Marvin Lagonera further prays forsuchother reliefasmaybe justandequitableunderthepremises.

QuezonCity,9January2014 RespectfullySubmittedby CounselforSecretaryTreasurerMarvinLagonera

(sgd.) ANDREMIKOALAZAS LeadCounsel