Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Decision On SAJE MIGUEL MOLATO Et Al. v. JANN RAILEY E. MONTALAN
Decision On SAJE MIGUEL MOLATO Et Al. v. JANN RAILEY E. MONTALAN
The Petitioners have filed an appeal for a Temporary Restraining Order on the
The Petitioners assail the legitimacy of the resolution and the alleged violations of the
Central to the acceptance or dismissal of any petition filed to the Court is the
appropriateness of the legal relief, as specified by the Petitioners. While the Court finds the
Judgment
2015 SJC 3
The Court finds that there is no mention of the Petitioners role in the application
process for the new position of Buklod Atenista Ambassador and Buklod Atenista Trainees
in the resolution in question. Rather, the resolution empowers the Incumbent Buklod Atenista
Ambassador and the Central Board to take charge in this matter.
[5]
The Court remains unconvinced of the connection between the actions, as stipulated
in the resolution and by the Petitioners. Consequently, the Court then does not rule in favor
of the Petitioners main argument that the application and opening of the Buklod Atenista
position is in violation of the Petitioners right to participation in the formation and
application of regulations that directly affect their wellbeing.
[6]
As such, the Court believes that a Temporary Restraining Order would not be the
The Petitioners assert that they were effectively excluded from the crafting of the
The Court finds merit in the Respondents foundational assertion that the resolution
passed on July 21, 2015 is not the draft authored by the Petitioners. As such, the Court agrees
that there is no legal obligation for the Central Board to invite the Petitioners to dialogue.
Judgment
[9]
2015 SJC 3
The Petitioners as members of the Atenean student body, do not err in assuming that
they may participate in any regulations-making activity. However being that all legal sources
point to the Department of External Affairs position as an auxiliary committee under the
Central Boards jurisdiction, the extent of the Departments autonomy in the determination of
its responsibilities remains unclear to the Court. As such, the Court cannot
[10]
As the Grassroots Empowerment Act took effect ante factum this case, the Court
finds no legal error in the Central Boards process of receiving and deliberating on the
recommendations formerly filed by the Petitioners. Despite the Courts ruling that the issue
is non-justiciable, the Court heavily contends with the Respondents dismissive nature in
assuming accountability for the facilitation of an inclusive democratic arena. The Court notes
that this is indeed a basic obligation of the Sanggunian, of which the Respondent is a part of.
[11]
The Court notes that while there is no clear obstacle hindering any person protected
by the constitution from filing a resolution, the Central Boards actions as alleged by the
Petitioners would perpetuate an exclusive culture of democracy.
[12]
The Court endeavors that the members of the Central Board to adhere to the
Wherefore the Court rules against the Petitioners request for a Temporary Restraining
Wherefore the Court rules in favor of the Petitioners request for a mediation between
the Department of External Affairs and the Sanggunian Central Board on a date and time to
be agreed upon by the parties concerned and the Court;
SO ORDERED.
Magistrate
Magistrate
Magistrate
Magistrate
(sgd)
Judgment
2015 SJC 3
seeking it. If a Temporary Restraining Order is not issued and the complained act is carried
out (in this case, the Resolution in question), there is no way of undoing it without causing
injury
and
damage.
Judgment
[17]
2015 SJC 3
A Temporary Restraining Order does not stop forever the complained acts in this
particular case, the Petitioners seek to temporarily stop the application process and request
for a mediation process between the Petitioners, the Respondent, and the Central Board
which the Respondent is a part of. Temporarily stopping the application process until such a
time that a mediation process is conducted shall surely not result in damage or injury to the
Respondent, or the Central Board as a whole, if a Temporary Restraining Order is issued.
On the Mediation Process
[18]
Order, I concur with the majority of the Court on the issue of a mediation process being
conducted between the Petitioners, Respondent, and the Central Board, with reservations.
[19]
If no Temporary Restraining Order is issued, it will not prevent the Respondent and
the Central Board from implementing the Resolution in question. If they are not restrained
from implementing the Resolution in question, the mediation process may become an
exercise in futility and moot and academic if they continue with the complained act which is
sought to be restrained. Certainly, if the Resolution in question is implemented before the
mediation proceeding is started, an irreparable injury or damage will result affecting any or
all of the parties - the Petitioners, the Respondent and the Central Board, and
to the persons to be appointed to the position of Buklod Atenista Ambassador and Trainees.
Should the questioned act not be temporarily restrained by this Court, and the Respondent, or
the Central Board, continue with the process, the persons who are selected or appointed but
whose selection or appointment is subsequently revoked or recalled, will suffer undue
humiliation before their peers. This can be prevented by issuing a Temporary Restraining
Order, to be effective immediately and until the mediation proceeding is started and
completed.
[20]
Certainly, this is not what the Petitioners had in mind in requesting for a mediation
Judgment
2015 SJC 3
There will be no need for a joint session evaluation and clarification meeting with
regards to the Resolution if all aspects of the Resolution are already in full effect.
On the Arguments Presented
[22]
The Respondent, in his reply to the petition, stated that there was no need for the
consent of the Department of External Affairs and/or the Chairperson regarding the new
Resolution. This is contrary to the ideal of participation in the formation and application of
regulations affecting them. The mere fact that the Petitioners started an initiative to create a
legitimate and functioning Office of the Buklod Atenista Ambassador under their department,
which is part of their mandate, necessitates that they be consulted in policies that will affect
them.
[23]
Furthermore, the Respondents claim that the Central Board would relay
developments regarding the new Resolution does not equate to posting a draft on Dropbox
for collaborative viewing and editing by the rest of the Central Board. Regardless of
whether the Department of External Affairs Chairperson had access to the file during the
period of collaborative viewing and editing, in the spirit of transparency and consultation,
he should have been informed that the file was available on-line, given that technology is not
foolproof and that there is a possibility that the file cannot be accessed readily.
[24]
It is a fact that the Central Board is composed of other members other than the
Respondent and the other authors of the Resolution in question. The Petitioners claim that
the Central Board had made a collective decision without presenting to this Court an actual
document indicating the valid adoption of such a decision, therefore questioning the
legitimacy of the decision, is sound in nature. The Respondents admittance that such a
decision was arrived at, and his defense that it being a verbal acknowledgment, thus not
having a written documentation of this decision, holds the decision as questionable until such
a
time
that
the
Court
can
conduct
an
investigation
into
the
matter.
Judgment
[25]
2015 SJC 3
Lastly, the Respondents claim that the Central Board was not obligated to invite the
Petitioners into dialogues regarding the matter since their proposed Resolution was not used
goes against the right of the Petitioners to be consulted, as the Resolution in question has a
direct impact to their work as part of the Department of External Affairs.
On the Majority Opinion of the Court
[26]
The reluctance of the majority of the Court to issue a Temporary Restraining Order
but at the same time its acquiescence to the mediation process is very difficult to reconcile
given the circumstances.
[27]
The majority of the Court should have taken judicial notice of the second Resolution
issued by the Central Board, A Resolution to Commission the Incumbent Buklod Atenista
Ambassador and the Department of External Affairs in Training the Succeeding Ambassador
and Trainees (referred to as second resolution for brevity), as posted in the Scribd Account
of the Sanggunian Secretary General. This second Resolution contradicts the Respondents
claim that there was no need for the Petitioners to be consulted.
(1) Whereas, the Sanggunian recognizes the Department of External Affairs is
accountable for training and sending Sanggunian delegates to external functions
outside of the Loyola Schools (second resolution, p. 1)
[28]
This admission in their own Resolution puts the Petitioners, who are part of the
Department of External Affairs, under the qualified jurisdiction of both Resolutions, directly
involving them and thus granting them the right to be consulted since the Resolutions both
directly affect them.
[29]
It is with these points that I dissent from the majority opinion of the Court.
Judgment
2015 SJC 3
Judgment
2015 SJC 3