You are on page 1of 6

De La Salle University

University Student Government


Judiciary Branch

MIKEE KARINA DE VEGA, and


JASON DON DIZON,
Petitioners

4 November 2014

- Versus -

CARLO INOCENCIO, in his capacity


as President University Student
Government, and PATRICK KAHN,
in his capacity as Chief Legislator
University Student Government
Legislative Assembly
Respondents
x-------------------------------------------x

PETITION FOR CERTIORARI AND PROHIBITION


With Urgent Application for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO)
and/or Writ for Preliminary Injunction
COME NOW, the aforementioned Petitioners, as concerned students, from which the
mandate of the University Student Government comes, respectfully state:

I.
Nature of the Petition
1.1. This is an original special civil action praying that the Honorable Court issue:
1.1.1.
A judgment invalidating the 2014 plebiscite on the proposed reforms on the
University Student Government 2009 Constitution
1.1.2.

A temporary restraining order on the current voting process

II.
Jurisdiction and Basis of the Petition
2.1 This petition is filed as there is no other available remedy to the petitioners for the cause
pursued by this petition
2.2 This petition is filed in time before the plebiscite is given any conclusive decision by the people
and is implemented by the University Student Government
2.3 The principle of administrative exhaustion does not apply since this petition is purely legal and
constitutional. The principle on hierarchy of courts also do not apply as the University Student
Government does not carry a similar structure available for the application of the principle, nor is
the nature of the case applicable since it is a question of constitutionality.
2.4 The petition prays for the issuance of a writ of prohibition and/or the execution of a Temporary
Restraining Order on the plebiscite on the following grounds on the basis of the following:

III.
Parties
3.1 Petitioner MIKEE KARINA DE VEGA, is of legal age, a Filipino, currently enrolled as a
student in De La Salle University Manila, carrying the ID number 11206012, falling under the
jurisdiction of the University Student Government. She may be issued notices and responses by
this court at Rm. 303, Br. Gabriel Connon Hall, De La Salle University Manila.
3.2 Petitioner JASON DON DIZON, is of legal age, a Filipino, currently enrolled as a student in
De La Salle University Manila, carrying the ID number 11316780, falling under the jurisdiction
of the University Student Government. He may be issued notices and responses by this court at
Rm. 303, Br. Gabriel Connon Hall, De La Salle University Manila.
3.3 Respondent CARLO INOCENCIO, is of legal age, a Filipino, currently enrolled as a student
in De La Salle University Manila, currently the President of the University Student Government.
He authorized the voting on the 2014 plebiscite on the proposed constitutional reforms.
3.4 Respondent PATRICK KAHN, is of legal age, a Filipino, currently enrolled as a student in De
La Salle University Manila, currently the Chief Legislator of the University Student Government.
He authorized and oversaw the preparations of the different constitutional reforms as head of the
Legislative Assembly.

IV.
Statement of Facts
4.1 That the proposed amendments were finalized by the Legislative Assembly before the election
of the Freshmen Legislative Assembly Representatives. Moreover, they were informed of the
conclusion of the discussion upon inquiry into the proposed amendments to the constitution.
4.2 That the Town Hall session was the University Student Governments official arm in
disseminating information to students on the ground, and that the first Town Hall was held in the
second term of AY 2014-2015, the same term as the scheduled vote
4.2.1 The Town Hall session for STC was scheduled on the first day of the plebiscite
4.3 That the Convention of Leaders (COLE) was the University Student Governments arm in
consulting and disseminating information to Student Leaders in the University, and that COLE
failed to include concerns of other leaders by ending the open forum at the point in which no more
questions was raised by the pre-determined leaders.
4.4 That the attendance records in the different Town Hall meetings, as evidence of the number of
students informed of the amendments, does not equal the amount of registered voters, nor does it
reach the amount of students required for a simple majority in the plebiscite. Moreover, the listed
attendees primarily come from University Student Government branches, rather than students
without affiliations.
4.5 That the only actual basis for reforming the constitution published by the University Student
Government read as follows:
The proposed amendments in the USG Constitution were crafted to ground the USG back
to its founding identity and purpose. It aims to maximize its many strengths and
capabilities, and to restore the faith of the Lasallian community in a system that has
potential to effect change not only inside the University but also in society.
May it be the student bodys collective hope that the USG strives to be the leading inclusivedriven student in the country that advances student-centered research-informed services,
policies and programs for the formation of Lasallian leaders engaged in the pursuit of
social relevance and community development.

With this, the USG will be more effective in leading and serving the student body through
proper student representation that constantly works to promote the many effects and
initiatives of its constituents and to bridge the needs and concerns of the student body to
the different sectors of the Lasallian community (as lifted from http://www.dlsuusg.com/plebiscite2014/)
4.6 WHEREFORE this petition is created

V.
Grounds for Granting the Petition

The call for a plebiscite vote on the ratification of the 2014 University Student Government
Constitution, otherwise known and hereafter indicated as Plebiscite 2014, is null and void
for being unconstitutional as they violate the following provision of the 2009 University
Student Government (USG) Constitution:
Article III. Section 1 The USG shall have the power of which emanates
from the student body. It shall be the sole, unified, autonomous and
democratic representative body of the students.
Article IV. Section 1 Every student has the right to be properly
informed of the programs, rules and regulations and policies of the
academic community.
Article IV. Section 9 Every student has the right to proper
representation and participation in all policy-making bodies inside
the University.
Article XXII. Section 3.1 The student leaders can suggest projects,
programs and actions to the USG regarding national, sectoral and
University-wide and academic-related issues.
Article XXII. Section 3.3 The student leaders can assess the
performance of the USG and recommend necessary steps to further attain
its objectives.
Article XXVI Section 1 Any amendment or revision of this
Constitution may be proposed by the students through an initiative upon
a vote of at least two-thirds of the members of the LA.

VI.
Discussion
Before the discussion of the issues of constitutionality, it is important to establish the petitioners
legal personality to impugn the constitutional validity of Plebiscite 2014, and the propriety of
this petition:
A. Petitioners have the requisite standing to institute the present action
A case is instituted by a real party in interest, which, in Philippine law, is defined as the
party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit or the party entitled
to the avails of the suit. In a public suit seeking the nullification of an illegal action, the
plaintiff must make out a sufficient interest in the vindication of the public order and the
securing of relief as a citizen or taxpayer.
Subsequently, another test called the direct injury test is also employed by the courts
wherein petitioners have the burden to prove that they are direct recipients of policies that
will be enacted by the government in this case, said plebiscite. The Court held that the
person who impugns the validity of a statute must have a personal and substantial interest

in the case such that he has sustained, or will sustain a direct injury as a result of that
action.
Petitioners DE VEGA and DIZON claim that they do have an interest in the current matter
at hand. A constitutional amendment is one that changes the entire course of student life of
a Lasallian because the University Student Government holds the sole authority in
representing the student body in most, if not all, arenas of multi-sectoral discussion within
the university. Currently, the continuation of a constitutionally invalid plebiscite is
contrary to the rights of both petitioners, as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights of Students,
as enumerated in Article IV of the USG Constitution. Moreover, both petitioners are
direct stakeholders as the USG is a direct recipient of an appropriation of funding coming
from the tuition paid by students. Given this logic, petitioners are virtually considered to
be taxpayers of the USG.
Petitioner DIZON is a sophomore student, who will be spending at least another year in
the university, whereas petitioner DE VEGA holds the intention of extending her stay in
the university for at least two (2) years by shifting to a double-degree program. Given these,
both petitioners will be direct recipients of the possible results of the plebiscite should its
invalidity continue to be unquestioned.
Lastly, given that the matter at hand is a question of constitutionality, the matter is
considered to be of transcendental importance. Assuming but not conceding the inexistence
of direct personal interest, petitioners may serve as representations of the public and the
raising of this matter of transcendental importance is a matter that must be resolved not
only for the current generation of Lasallians but also for the coming generations who
will be affected by the constitutional amendments.
B. Petitioner may seek recourse directly with this honorable court
Given the structure of De La Salle University, the Judiciary is empowered to resolve a
matter of this nature, as mandated by Article XVIII, Section 3 of the USG Constitution:
To sit en banc, hear, try and resolve, by a two-thirds vote of
the members present, within three weeks any complaint
involving the constitutionality, legality or jurisdiction of the
acts, policies and resolutions of USG officers.
As such, the Judiciary, through the Chief Magistrate is the official authority to resolve this
matter of constitutionality.
Plebiscite 2014 is unconstitutional and contrary to law due to the following:
A. That resolutions regarding the proposed constitutional amendments were crafted,
created and approved prior to the election of the Freshmen Legislative Assembly
Representatives.
The USG Constitution mandates that the ratification of any amendment be passed through
a plebiscite. This has two important implications. One, this means that all members of the
student body must be represented in the entire process of the amendment. Two,
subsequently, this means that the Legislative Assembly representatives must be able to
fully represent the entire student body through their respective constituents. This is
exemplified by Article III, Section 1 of the USG Constitution:
The USG shall have the power of which emanates from the
student body. It shall be the sole, unified, autonomous and
democratic representative body of the students.
However, it is important to note that most of the resolution of the Legislative Assembly
representatives regarding important and crucial amendments to the USG Constitution have
been crafted, created and approved prior to the election of the Freshmen Legislative
Assembly Representatives. For instance, the Resolution Calling for the Approval of the
Revised College Government Names of the University Student Government was approved

in a 16-0-0 vote in July 25 according to the Minutes of the Meeting of the Legislative
Assembly. We call upon the Honorable Judiciary to further investigate on the matter by
going through the official documents of the Legislative Assembly particularly its Minutes
of the Meeting.
Petitioners find such an act of the Assembly reprehensible as the freshmen Legislative
Assembly representatives are empowered by the USG Constitution to represent the
freshmen students of De La Salle University. We find this a violation of the mandate of the
USG to fully represent all students, regardless of their age and batch. Representation in the
process of creating the amendments exists through the Legislative Assembly
representatives and the exclusion of the freshmen Legislative Representatives is
tantamount to an unjust exclusion of the freshmen Lasallian populace.
B. That said proposed amendments were subjected to poor information dissemination prior to
and during the Plebiscite 2014.
The reasonable expectation from any government, both in the nation and in the University,
is to make an act or offering known to all before it is imposed. Such was the case in Tanada
vs. Tuvera, where Courts demanded that any law be made known before it is enacted and
implemented. This case affirms the Governments threshold for choice that choices
should be properly informed before it is given any action. The same should be applicable
to plebiscites. Further cases would show that signatures and choices are meaningless if it
was not informed, or if the description came from the person or the body advocating the
choice (Capezzuto v. State Ballot Commission). This should be the standard of a
plebiscites validity.
The way the USG handled the Plebiscite 2014 information dissemination should be given
negative judgment. There are two main fronts for information dissemination on the given
plebiscite the Town Hall and the website (http://www.dlsu-usg.com/plebiscite2014). The
Town Hall sessions recorded poor attendance, with majority of the attendees coming from
the USGs different branches. We pray that the Judiciary demand the attendance records
from the concerned committees through the respondents to verify this.
The website however, was not sufficiently exposed which leaves most of the USGs
rationale and explanation, subject to the discretion of the viewer, which in cases of severe
academic load makes the website less likely to be accessed, or in the case of no internet
connection at all, makes it totally inaccessible.
Petitioners find this action to be reprehensible as voters as there is no reasonable diligence
on the part of the USG to make the information being decided on known and
understandable to the electorate ratifying the amendments they have made.
C. That said proposed amendments were created without the proper consultation of numerous
student sectors and stakeholders.
Part of the USG mandate is to consult the Universitys organization leaders on their
performance and the different needs of the USG. In the terms leading up to the
amendments, it was reasonably expected that COLE would be used to consult leaders on
the amendments that will be proposed to the plebiscite.
Firstly, weighed against the mandate of consulting majority of the student body, merely
coming up with a consultation with select leaders is severely insufficient, given that the
Town Hall was merely explanatory in nature, not consultative.
But even in this action, COLE failed to live up to its expectations, as the people raising
questions were pre-determined and the remaining time was not used to solicit questions but
instead to hold games more fit to a team-building activity rather than the consultative nature
of the convention.
Petitioners find this reprehensible as this proves that insofar as the Plebiscite is concerned,
the USG failed to live up to its consultative nature by merely restricting consultations to

leaders, but even in that effort failed to solicit consultations from leaders with actual
interests.
D. That there was poor handling of the voting procedures in Plebiscite 2014.
As stated earlier, the informed choice the governments threshold for morally and legally
acceptable choice. In the case Lambino vs. Comelec, in which the group of Raul Lambino
attempted to modify the Philippine Constitution, the vote of six million Filipinos (roughly
12% of the Countrys voters, fulfilling the requirements of the 1987 constitution) was
invalidated by the Supreme Court since the ballot did not adequately explain to the voters
what they were voting for.
The same case exists in the ballot for the 2014 Plebiscite. The ballot and the campaign
merely asks the students to vote yes or no to a New USG absent any idea to what New
USG means or what it implies. The absence of any public discourse which aids the
students in making suitable decisions does not help the fact that information on what is
being voted for is severely insufficient.
Any attempt at doing this is found in the brochures being circulated at the time of the
plebiscite, which does not give the students who receive it ample time to go over the
revisions and contemplate its efficacy before voting.

VII.
Prayer
WHEREFORE, petitioners implore and pray to this honorable judiciary that:
1. The Plebiscite 2014 be halted and overturned for its unconstitutionality until proper
amendments to its procedure be made
2. Restrain the consideration of the votes cast prior to this petition
3. Until the decision on its unconstitutionality be made, a Temporary Restraining Order
be issued in order to prevent any unintended consequence

Signed on this 4th day of November 2014.


Manila, Philippines.

MIKEE KARINA H. DE VEGA


Petitioner

JASON DON S. DIZON


Petitioner

You might also like