DATE:

November 12, 2014

TO:

Ms. Mikee Karina De Vega, PETITIONER

Mr. Jason Don Dizon, PETITIONER
Mr. Carlo Inocencio, President, University Student Government,
RESPONDENT
Mr. Patrick Khan, Chief Legislator, University Student
Government, RESPONDENT

FROM:

The Judiciary

CC:

Ms. Fritzie Ian P. De Vera, Dean of Student Affairs

Ms. Izel Marie B. Guatno, Director, Office of Student LIFE
Mr. Aaron U. Quidilla, Chairperson, Commission on Election
Mr. Ronaldo Manzano, Editor-in-Chief, The Lasallian
Ms. Larisa Jane Salaysay, Punong Patnugot, Ang Pahayang Plaridel

DECISION
On November 10, 2014, the Judiciary conducted a special Hearing regarding the
constitutionality of the Plebiscite. The Judiciary, in a quorum of the magistrates present and
after a thorough deliberation, unanimously decided that the petition be dismissed. Hence, the
Temporary Restraining Order ruled on November 4, 2014 is lifted effective immediately. The
Commission on Election shall resume their duties upon this decision. Furthermore, the
Judiciary, in unanimity, decided that the Plebiscite shall resume prospectively. The votes
gathered during the first two days of the plebiscite before the Temporary Restraining Order was
granted will remain as good and valid votes.
The petition was accepted as a case of Judicial review by the Judiciary having met the
four necessary requisites. First, there was an actual concern of the possibility of
unconstitutionality. Second, the petitioners had locus standi as they are undergraduate students
of De La Salle University thus making them direct stakeholders of but not limited to the actions,
activities, projects, and/ or programs of the University Student Government engages itself in or
with. Third, the case may only be resolved with a question of constitutionality (lis mota). Lastly,
the issue of constitutionality was raised at the earliest opportunity since it was included in the
initial petition filed by the petitioners and not at any time during the hearing.
After deliberations, the Judiciary unanimously dismissed the petition for the following
reasons:
The petition claimed to contest the constitutionality of the plebiscite. However, the issue
of constitutionality in its basic sense and dynamics was not substantially discussed or
deliberated and was not evident during the hearing.
The petitioners argued and expressed their concerns regarding matters that the USG
may have failed to do for the Plebiscite preparation. Hence, this does not contest
constitutionality because the act of the Plebiscite itself contradicting certain provisions of the
constitution must be the issue and not the requisites.
So Ordered.

APPEALS
The Petitioners may file for a motion for reconsideration if they disagree with the
Judiciarys decision provided that new evidence/arguments are found. The motion must be
submitted, within three (3) school days after the ruling of the USG-SC has been made, to the
Judiciary. Upon receipt of the complaint, the Magistrates shall deliberate and rule on the Motion
for Reconsideration.

Respectfully,
Sermae Angela Pascual
Chief Magistrate, School of Economics
Nadine Martinez
Magistrate, College of Science
Michael Matawaran
Magistrate, Ramon V. Del Rosario College of Business
Harold Pasion
Magistrate, College of Liberal Arts