appeal of sce reso no 21

8/6/2019 Appeal of SCE Reso No 21

1/14

April 12, 2011

To: Ms Isabelita C. Celestino, EdD

Dean, Office of Student Services

Chairperson, Magistrate

From: Mr Kevin Irvin Bare

Representative, SENTRO Political Party

Re: Petition to Appeal SCE Resolution No 21 Series of 2010 2011

Dismissing the Complaint by SENTRO against SINAG Political Party's

Deployment of Campaign Managers as Poll Watchers during the March 10 & 11

Election Days

Comes now Petitioner, as SENTRO Political Party Representative and unto this

Honorable Magistrate, in accordance to Art. III, Sec. 15 of the 2008 Revised StudentElection Code of DSLUD, respectfully submits this appeal and avers that:

Prefatory/Introductory Statement

In promulgating Resolution No 21 the Student Commission on Elections has raised more

questions than answers. They have done so by being silent on the many arguments both

legal and based on law and jurisprudence we have raised in our main complaint filed

March 12, 2011 and the subsequent response to SINAG Political Party's Marc 17 Reply.

Not only did the SCE chose to be silent on the issues of great importance we raised in our

complaint, they chose to blindly ignore such transcendental issues by basing ResolutionNo 21 on mere technicalities.

Their silence and evasion of countering our legal arguments with their own, has left us

fearful that with such a decision, it would become a very dangerous precedent wherein

grave and serious violations of the 2008 Revised Student Election Code can be easily

swept under the rug just because complainants or victims of such violations inadvertently

fail to follow mere technical proecedures.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

On March 10 and 11, 2011, designated as Election Days by the Student Commission on

Election, SINAG Political Party deployed several of its Campaign Managers as Poll

Watchers in the Polling Stations for the College of Engineering, Architecture and

Technology and College of Liberal Arts.

SINAG Political party justified such deployment of their Campaign Managers as Poll

Watchers by invoking Section 58, Article IX of the 2008 Revised Student Election Code of

DLSU D.

On March 12, 2011, SENTRO Political Party furnished copies of its complaint to SINAG

Political Party, the Student Commission on Election and the Student Development and

Activities Office.

On Marh 17, 2011, SINAG Political Party submitted a letter stating their position that

1


2/14

SENTRO's complaint did not strictly comply with the technicalities stated in the 2008

Revised Student Election Code and that they further explained that the deployment of

their Campaign Managers as Poll Watchers during the Election Days had the approval of

the SCE Chairperson.

On March 25, 2011, the SCE called for a hearing which were attended by representatives

from both SENTRO and SINAG in which they discussed the complaint and issue of

technicalities.

On April 8, 2011 the SCE promulgated Resolution No 21 series of 2010 2011 which

dimissed SENTRO's complaint based on mere technicalities.

ISSUE

1. Whether or not SENTRO Political Party has complied with the

essence and spirit of the technical procedures outlined in Sections 96

and 98 of the 2008 Revised Student Election Code.

2. Whether or not the SCE Chairperson alone can make decisions,

orders or interpretation of the 2008 Revised Student Election Code

for the Student Commission on Election.

3. Whether or not Campaign Managers can be deployed as Poll

Watchers.

4. Whether or not SINAG Political party has erred on its interpretation

of Section 58, Art. IX of the 2008 Revised Student Election Code.

5. Whether or not SINAG Political party is liable for committing an

Election Offense when it deployed its Campaign Managers as Poll

Watchers.

DISCUSSION

Since the issues are related and intertwined, the same will be discussed in together inseriatim to simplify the issues.

1. SENTRO Political party has complied with the essence and spirit of

Sections 96 and 98 of the 2008 Revised Student Election Code

It is a settled rule in our legal system that in administrative proceedings like this instant

case, the niceties of procedural regulations do not always apply to the former. The

complaint should not be discounted just because of the fact that it was filed in a manner

inconsistent with the technical procedures outlines Sections 96 and 98 of the 2008

Revised Student Election Code.

Such technicalities were meant to ensure that parties involved in cases be assured of

their substantive and procedural due process, which essentially means that in every case

brought against it, those involved are informed in writing of the nature and the facts of

2


3/14

the case, so that they may be given ample time to prepare their defense.

It has to be put in mind, that the irregularity of SINAG's deployment of its campaign

managers as poll watchers on the Election Days has already been the subject of

inquiry/discussion by the SCE itselft as early as March 10, 2011. SINAG itself does not

deny that they have received a written copy of the complaint by SENTRO. SINAG does

not claim that they haven't been given ample time to study the complaint and prepare

their defense. Clearly, it is essentially demonstrated that SINAG's rights to substantive

and procedural due process were not violated. Without doubt the purpose for which the

technicalities were put in place have been essentially realized, respected and followed.

In the case ofGeneral Milling Corporation vs National Labor Relations Commission and

Dativo M. Cacho, G. R. No. 153199 (December 17, 2002), the Supreme Court educates us

about this great principle of justice:

The rules of procedure are intended to promote, rather than frustrate, the

ends of justice, and while the swift unclogging of court dockets is a laudable

objective, it, nevertheless, must not be met at the expense of substantial

justice. Technical and procedural rules are intended to help secure, not

suppress, the cause of justice and a deviation from the rigid enforcement of

the rules may be allowed to attain that prime objective for, after all, the

dispensation of justice is the core reason for the existence of courts.

When we tilt in the balance of justice the issues of gravity of known act/s or issues as

against procedure or technicalities, the gravity of an known act or issue should be

favoured especially if one of the issues is whether it has undermined the integrity of the

elections and whether it is in truth and fact contrary to the 2008 Revsied Student

Election Code. Another principle in Statutory Construction can testify on this when it

states that, A construction should be rejected that gives to the language used in a

regulation a meaning that does not accomplish the purpose for which the regulation was

enacted. Surely, it is not the intention of the framers of the 2008 Revised Student

Election Code of DLSU D nor of the Honourable Student Commission on Elections to

have the student electorate be fooled by student candidates and political parties by hiding

their illegal activities which violate our established laws and regulations and undermine

the good name of our beloved University through mere technicalities.

No where in Resolution No 21 does the SCE say that SENTRO's complaint deal with

small or insignificant issues nor is it without merit, in fact, the complaint is full of merit

because it raises major issues of the greatest importance with regards to the DLSU D

student elections and the implementation of the 2008 Revised Student Election Code.

This is proven by the fact that the SCE conducted a hearing last March 25, 2011 to

discuss the said issues in the complaint. Surely, the time and resources spent on the

hearing were not meant to be wasted by simply dismissing the complaint on mere

technicalities. It also to be noted that during said hearing, the substantial issues raised

in the complaint were discussed.

A prime example would be last year's February 8, 2010 complaint by SENTRO about

SINAG's Off Campus Activity which was given due course by the SCE despite some

lapses in the technicalities of its filing because the issues in that case, like the issues in

this present case, are far more important to be simply dismissed and brushed aside on

mere technicalities.

3


4/14

The Supreme Court in Spouses Juan Diaz vs Jose Diaz, G.R. No. 135885 (2000) ruled

that:

Suits should as much as possible be decided on the merits and not on

technicalities. Courts should be liberal in setting aside orders of default as

default judgments are frowned uponand not looked upon with favor for they

may amount to a positive and considerable injustice tothe defendant. Since

rules of procedure are mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment of

justice, it is well recognized that the Supreme Court is empowered to

suspend its operation, or except a particular case from its operation, when

the rigid application thereof tends to frustrate rather than promote the

ends of justice.

2. The SCE Chairperson alone can not make decisions, orders or

interpretation of the 2008 Revised Student Election Code for the

Student Commission on Election.

At this point, it is to be stressed that there is the fact that SINAG has not directly

addressed or rebutted the arguments we raised in the complaint and during the March

25, 2011 hearing to prove that their interpretation of Section 58 is not erroneous,

mistaken, wrong and in fact contrary to the 2008 Revised Student Election Code of

DLSU D.

Instead, they hide behind the flimsy and weak defense that they consulted and relied

upon the SCE Chairperson to confirm whether or not their interpretation of Section 58 is

correct. This is undeniably another fatal mistake SINAG has committed.

SINAG claims that the SCE Chairperson has agreed with their interpretation of Section

58, they even produced a letter dated March 15, 2011 with the latter's signature attesting

to this fact.

SINAG committed the fatal mistake of taking the Chairperson's consent and approval of

their deployment of their Campaign Managers as Poll watchers as the consent and

approval of the Student Commission on Election. The nature and structure of the SCE

contradicts this and it's the reason why it was a fatal mistake. SINAG has forgotten or is

conveniently ignoring the fact that the SCE is a collegial body composed of nine (9)Commissioners, the Chairperson being just one of nine Commissioners that act and make

decisions as a group through a majority vote.

The Supreme Court in Assistant Special Prosecutor III Rohermia J. Jamsani

Rodriguez Vs. Justice Gregory S. Ong, et al.1 discussed the nature of a collegial body and

held that the act of a single member, though he may be its head, done without the

participation of the others, cannot be considered the act of the collegial body itself.

It gave an example in citing an earlier ruling in GMCR, Inc. v. Bell Telecommunication

Philippines, Inc.,2 in which the Court ruled that:

First. We hereby declare that the NTC is a collegial body requiring a

majority vote out of the three members of the commission in order to

1 A.M. No. 08-19-SB-J. August 24, 2010

2 G.R. No. 126496 and 126526, April 30, 1997, 271 SCRA 790.

4


5/14

validly decide a case or any incident therein . Corollarily, the vote alone

of the chairman of the commission, as in this case, the vote of

Commissioner Kintanar, absent the required concurring vote coming

from the rest of the membership of the commission to at least arrive

at a majority decision, is not sufficient to legally render an NTC

order, resolution or decision.

Simply put, Commissioner Kintanar is not the National Telecommunications

Commission. He alone does not speak for and in behalf of the NTC. The NTC acts through

a three-man body, and the three members of the commission each has one vote to cast

in every deliberation concerning a case or any incident therein that is subject to the

jurisdiction of the NTC.

Paraphrasing the Supreme Court and applying it to the Student Commission on Election,

it's clearly a fact that the SCE is a collegial body requiring a majority vote out of the nine

commissioners in order to validly decide a case or any incident therein. Corollarily, the

vote alone of the Chairperson, absent the required concurring vote coming from the rest

of the commissioners to at least arrive at a majority decision, is not sufficient to legally

render an SCE order, resolution or decision.

Simply put, the Chairperson is not the Student Commission on Election. He/she alone

does not speak for and in behalf of the SCE. The SCE acts through a nine man body, and

nine commissioners each has one vote to cast concerning a case or any incident therein

that is the subject to the jurisdiction of the SCE.

Again, SINAG's consultation with the Chairperson regarding their interpretation of

Section 58 is a matter/incident not for the Chairperson to decide alone for she has not

been granted the powers and authority to act for and in behalf of the SCE by the 2008

Revised Student Election Code of DLSU D. This has been spelled out and limited in

Section 20 Art. II which says:

Powers, Duties and Responsibilities of the Commissioners, Officers, College Heads

and SCE Members.

A. The Commissioners

A.1 The Chairperson shall:

Preside in all meetings of the Commission

Nominate the secretary and treasurer of the SCE

Enforce this Code, all resolutions, and decisions made by the

SCE

Make sure all members of the SCE perform their duties and

responsibilities

Signs all letters coming from the SCE

Perform all other functions and exercise duties as may be

provided by this Code

No where in Section 20 does it say that the decision of the Chairperson is the decision of

the SCE. No where in Section 20 does it say that he/she alone can decide on matters as

serious and extremely important as interpreting the 2008 Revised Student Election Code

of DLSU D.

5


6/14

At best, what the March 15, 2011 letter of the SCE Chairperson is nothing more than her

own opinion. Absent a resolution concurred in by a majority of the other eight (8)

commissioners and signed by all of them, that letter has no legal effect that will make

SINAG's deployment of their Campaign Managers as Poll Watchers during the Election

Days valid and legal.

Even to cold and neutral observers, it cannot be hard to believe that since the letter is

dated and signed March 15, 2011, four days after the Election Days in which the

irregularity that SINAG has committed, SINAG could be using the SCE Chairperson as

an excuse and a scapegoat to hide their unlawful actions and escape the due and lawful

penalty it deserves. SENTRO prays that this is not true. We believe that the SCE

Chairperson will not allow herself to be dragged into this controversy and become a

willing partner in SINAG's blatant violation of the 2008 Revised Student Election Code of

DLSU D.

3. Campaign Managers cannot be deployed/identified as Poll Watchers

Central to this first issue is answering the question What is a Campaign Manager?

Though the 2008 Revised Student Election Code, herein referred to as 2008 Election Code

afterwards, is silent about the exact definition of what a Campaign Manager is, its

common usage and practice under the previous and revised 2008 Election Code, and as

understood by all parties involved in the yearly elections for the University and College

Student Council would be great in value in determining its real meaning.

Optimus interpres rerum usus. The best interpreter of the law is usage. The SupremeCourt in the cases of Manila Jockey Club, Inc. v. Games and Amusement Board, 107 Phil.

151 (1960) and Phil. Long Distance Tel. Co. v. Collector of Internal Revenue, 90 Phil. 674

(1952) educates us about the meaning of this principle of statutory construction:

The principle of conemporenous exposition, common usage and practice

under the statute, or a course of conduct indicating a particular undertaking

of it, is frequently of great value in determining its real meaning, especially

where the usage has been acquiesed in by all parties concerned and has

extended over a long period of time.

For years during every USC and CSC elections, Campaign Managers have been

understood as students, mostly members of political parties who actively campaign for

their candidates, leading campaign rallies, accompanying and becoming part of their

candidates' routine during room to room campaigns and engaging the students via

conversations and handing out campaign materials like leaflets, ribbons, pins, etc.

As such, Campaign Managers are always in the presence of their candidates or in the

front lines of the party's campaign activities, which ultimately leads to phenomenon that

aside from its Candidates, Campaign Managers easily become the face of the party in

the eyes of the student voters.

Thus, by their presence alone, Candidates and Campaign Managers can

influence student voters in to supporting and voting for one candidate or the

other. Directly or indirectly, Candidates and Campaign Managers naturally

6


7/14

campaign during the Election Period which covers the Campaign Period and

Election Days.

It is for this reason, that since the very first student elections were held and the first

version of the Election Code have been in effect, Candidates and Campaign Managers

have been restricted in their movements and activities during Election Days. Because

on Election Days, campaigning or electioneering is strictly prohibited . Any and

all campaign materials are removed and strategic places in campus designated as polling

stations or places are cordoned off and restricted to Candidates and Campaign Managers

so as to give the student voters a secure, neutral and private place free from

partisan noise and influence so that they can freely cast their votes according

to their own choice.

This rationale has been the moving spirit behind the provisions of every Election Code

that prohibits Candidates and Campaign Managers from loitering and staying

within the polling places or stations. They are not only prohibited from doingso, they are given penalties for doing these very same acts.

From the foregoing discussion, it is reasonable and without doubt that, because of their

very nature, Cadidates and Campaign Managers cannot act/identified/designated

as Poll Watchers since the latter's role is to simply become the eyes and ears of the

party/candidate they represent, whose primary duty and function is to ensure the

conduct of fair, honest and free elections. Without a shadow of doubt, a partisan

agent/person would not be suitable and appropriate for the job .

4. SINAG Political party has erred in its interpretation of Section 58, Art.

IX of the 2008 Revised Student Election Code.

Since the moving spirit of the Election Code is to ensure the security, privacy and

neutrality of the polling place/station, it has spelled out this policy in Section 58, Article

IX of the 2008 Election Code which reads:

Section 58. Ten meter Radius Restriction. All candidates, campaign

managers and polical party members who are not identified as poll

watchers are restricted from loitering in the 10 meter radius of the pollingplaces during the election days as designated by the SCE.

It escapes reason and logic, as to how SINAG political party could have failed in

understanding and correctly following the aforementioned provision.

The argument they raise reflects the selective interpretation of Section 58. According to

SINAG:

All candidates, campaign managers and polical party members who are

not identified as poll watchers are [NOT] restricted from loitering in the10 meter radius of the polling places during the election days as designated

by the SCE.

The argument is not only selective but defies logic, the rules of English grammar and

statutory construction.

7


8/14


9/14

non partisan students to do the pollwatching for them which would also mean that those

students would again cease to become non partisan and become a de facto member of the

party and thus again be prohibited from loitering within a 10 meter radius of the polling

place. It will be a ridiculous and absurd never ending cycle in which no political party

can ever be lawfully allowed to designate its own poll watchers!

Now to dispense with the other contention of SINAG political party that campaign

managers once identified as poll watchers can indeed act as poll watchers. Such an

interpretation would lead to another absurd and ridiculous situation.

Granted arguendo, that campaign managers once identified as poll watchers can

indeed act as poll watchers, it would lead to the absurd situation that after all the

efforts exerted in maximizing campaign strategies during the official campaign period set

before the election days4, with all the restrictions to keep campaigning objective, issue

based and befitting the nature of Lasallian students 5, and finally to cease and prohibit all

partisan/campaign related activities on Election Days

6

, including the removal of allcampaign materials and the restrictions on the movements of partisan agents like

candidates and campaign managers, such agents, specifically campaign managers

would be allowed to stay at the polling places, giving them all the opportunities to directly

or indirectly, campaign right then and there, moments before student voters mark and

cast their ballots. The secure, private and non partisan sanctuary provided by polling

places for student voters would be grossly violated and flushed down the drain.

Such an absurd and ridiculous sitauation created by SINAG's erroneous interpretation of

Section 58 has long been denied and rejected by the Student Election Code Revision

Convention when they took the original version of Section 58, which is Section 44 in the

then Revised Student Election Code of DLSU D and updated it to include another class ofpartisan agents that are prohibited from loitering within a 10 meter radious of polling

places: political party members who are not identified as poll watchers.This is because

such agents would endanger the secure, private and non partisan attributes of

the polling place.

A side by side comparison of the original Section 44 in the old Revised Student Election

Code and its updated version, Section 58 in the new 2008 Revised Student Election Code

would clearly demonstrate this fact:

Old Revised Student Election Code of

DLSU D

2008 Revised Student Election Code of De

La Salle University Dasmarinas

Section 44. Ten meter

Radius Restriction. All

candidates and campaign

managers are restricted from

loitering within the 10 meter

radius of the polling place,

during election days as

designated by the USCE.

Section 58. Ten meter

Radius Restriction. Ten

meter Radius Restriction.

All candidates, campaign

managers and polical party

members who are not

identified as poll watchers are

restricted from loitering in

the 10 meter radius of thepolling places during the

election days as designated by

4 Sec. 43, Art. VIII 2008 Revised Student Election Code of DLSU-D

5 Sec. 46, Ibid.

6 Sec. 75, Art. X 2008 Revised Student Election Code of DLSU-D

9


10/14

the SCE. (Underscoring &

Italics supplied.)

Clearly and without doubt, the Election Code Revision Convention never intended to

create the new exemption that allows campaign managers to be identified as poll

watchers as what SINAG argues, claims and has acted upon. On the contrary, theConvention intended to expand the list of those persons prohibited from loitering

within a 10 meter radius of polling places during election days from candidates and

campaign managers to include political party members who are not identified as poll

watchers.

With the intention, which is the spirit of the law, crystal clear, Section 58 expands the list

of persons prohibited from loitering within a 10 meter radius of the polling places and

affirms that candidates and campaign managers, the latter specifically, cannot be

identified and deployed as poll watchers.

Thus, from the foregoing discussion, it is now beyond reasonable doubt that SINAG's

intepretation of Section 58 is erroneous, void of any legal basis, unavailing and should

therefore be righfully rejected, for it leads to an absurd and ridiculous siutation.

Interpretatio telis in ambiguis semper fienda est ut evitetur inconveniens et absurdum.

Where there is ambiguity, such interpretation as will avoid inconvenience and absurdity

is to be adopted7.

Again, the Supreme Court educates in explaining this principle in People v. Duque, 212

SCRA 607, in which they held that:

The well known principles of statutory interpretation are that statues must

be construed in such a way as to give effect to the intention of the

legislature, and so as to give a sensible meaning to the language of the

statute and thus avoid nonsensical or absurd results, xxx xxx xxx.

5. SINAG Political party is liable for committing an Election

Offense when it deployed its Campaign Managers as Poll Watchers.

Now that SINAG's erroneous interpretation of Section 58 has been discredited, proven

wrong and rejected, their actions in which they deployed their Campaign Managers as

Poll Watchers during the Election Days on March 10 and 11, 2011 are now without legal

basis and it stands on virtually nothing.

This now leads all to a discovery that by deploying their Campaign Managers as Poll

Watchers during the Election Days on March 10 and 11, they have committed an election

offense as defined in Section 75, c. Article X of the 2008 Revised Student Election Code,

which reads:

A. Offenses

Section 75. The following are guilty of an election offense on Election

days:

7 Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. TMX Sales, Inc., 205 SCRA 184 (1992)

10


11/14

Xxx xxx xxx

Xxx xxx xxx

c. Candidates and/or campaign managers loitering

within the 10 meter radius of the polling place.

It is undeniable that SINAG on March 10 and 11, Election Days as set by the SCE have

deployed their Campaign Managers as Poll Watchers in the CEAT Polling Place as well as

in CLA Polling Place, such act clearly falls under Section 75, c. of Art. X and decrees that

those who commit such acts are guilty of an election offense.

SINAG cannot raise as defense their interpretation of Section 58, because this has

already been proven to be erroneous, with the laws of logic, English grammar, statutory

construction and intent of the Election Code Revision Convention all revolt against and

reject such interpretation.

For again, granting arguendo and without conceding, that SINAG is correct, it would

mean that Section 58 as they interpret it would clash against Section 75 of Article X.

This would only be true atfirst glance and for those who would commit the fatal mistake

of failing to take time and diligently study the two provisions.

The situation that Section 58 of Article IX is in conflict with Section 75 of Article X and

that Section 58 would supersede Section 75 is nothing more than an illusion, void of any

logic and legal substance.

For upon closer study and taking the two provisions side by side, it would clearly paint a

picture that Section 58 and Section 75 are in fact complimentary to one another for

both serve to protect the sacred policy that polling stations should be a secure,

private and non partisan place for student voters to freely choose and cast

their votes on Election days.

Section 58 of Art. IX enumerates the persons that are prohibited from loitering within a

10 meter radius of a polling place on election days ; they are candidates, campaign

managers and political party members who are not identified as poll watchers. For if any

of those persons who would violate Section 58, would be ipso facto guilty of an Election

Offense as commanded in Section 75 of Article X.

Once more the Supreme Court's ruling in Sajonas v. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 102377

(1996), citing an earlier case, is educating. They held that:

In construing the law aforesaid, care should be taken that every part

thereof be given effect and a construction that could render a provision

inoperative should be avoided, and inconsistent provisions should be

reconciled whenever possible as parts of a harmonious whole8.

It is now without question that there is no conflict between Section 58 of Art. IX and

Section 75 of Art. X, the two provisions stand together side by side and give an effect of

8 JMM Promotions and Management, Inc. vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 109835, November 22, 1993, 228 SCRA 129.

11


12/14

twin protection to the ensuring that polling places remain secure, private and free from

partisan noise.

It is doubtful, ridiculous and dare say stupid to believe that the Student Election Code

Revision Convention intended to have conflicting provisions in the 2008 Revised Student

Election Code of DLSU D.

SINAG is conveniently forgetting and foolishly ignoring the fact that the very reason the

Student Election Code Revision Convention was convened, sat down and spent many days

in heated and intelligent discussion was to improve the old Election Code, cure its

defects, ensure that its provisions are not in conflict with one another.

Bakit pa magpapatawag ng E Code Revision Convention, gagastos ng malaking salapi

mula sa mga estudyante, gugugol ng mahabang oras, magsasakripisyo ng panahon,

talento at talino ang mga miyembro ng E Code Revision Convention kung sa bandang

huli ay hahayaan at sasadayain lang pala nila na magkaroon ng mga magkakasalungat

na probisyon ang 2008 Revised Student Election Code of DLSU D?

Only two classes of persons would believe so, fools that blindly refuse to reason and logic

and those who are twisting and misinterpreting the law to circumvent the law because

they have unlawful designs and intentions in mind.

Again all that remains now is the fact that SINAG has not only misinterpreted Section 58

of Article IX, they themselves, by deploying their Campaign Managers in polling places on

Election Days, have violated the very same provision. It afforded to them the perfect

opportunity directly or indirectly campaign for their candidates on election day. Quoaliquid prohibetur ex directo, prohibetur et per obliquum. What is prohibited directly is

prohibited indirectly. For this reason they are now under the provisions of Section 75, c.

Article X which clearly, unequivocally finds them guilty of an election offense.

Those who misinterpret the law, have acted upon that wrong interpretation of it and have

gained benefits cannot raise the defense that it was an 'honest mistake' and claim that

they are entitled to exemption from incurring any penalty. Nullus commodum potest de

injuria propriasua. No man should be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong.

As a rule in statutory construction, an erroneous contemporanous construction createsno vest right on the part of those who relied upon, and followed, such construction.

( Agpalo, Statutory Construction, 6th Ed., p. 197) The Supreme Court further instructs in

Legaspi v. Mathay, G.R. No. 36153, 68 SCRA 253 (1975) that:

Consequently, those who benefited from the erroneous contemporaneous

construction may not prevent correction of such construction, nor excuse

themselves from complying with the construction as corrected; nor can they

setup such error as legal obstacle against recovery from them of what they

received pursuant to, and on the basis of, the erroneous application of law.

It is quite disturbing and odd for SINAG political party to have arrived at an erroneous

interpretation of the 2008 Election Code, being the oldest active political party in DLSU

D, it is expected and presumed that they are well versed in the established practices and

regulations with regard to conduct of elections. Also note the fact that the part was also

represented and actively participated in the crafting of the 2008 Revised Student Election

12


13/14

Code in effect today. For this reason, SINAG's insistence on its wrong interpretation of

Section 58 and continued deployment of its Campaign Managers as Poll Watchers on the

two Election Days could only be viewed as a means to circumvent the 2008 Election Code

and gain an undue advantage right on the day of Elections. Playing the innocent victim to

a fatal mistake in order to escape any liability or punishment is void of any reason and

lawful basis.

Simply stated in Filipino, Ang isang pagkakamali, ay hindi maitatama ng isa pang

pagkakamali. It would be a fatal and dangerous mistake not follow what is stated in the

2008 Revised Student Election Code of DLSU D.

For it commands in Section 32 of Art. V of the 2008 Election Code states that:

After due notice and hearing, all registered and accredited political parties

shall be disqualifed on the following:

Xxx xxx xxx

Xxx xxx xxx

c. Culpable violation of this Code, the USC Constitution, and the Student

Handbook and other pertinent school regulations.

Xxx xxx xxx

In Section 109 of Article XII, it also commands that:

Any political party, through its members and officers, who have been

found guilty by final decision of the Magistrate, of any election offense

under this Code shall be punished by suffering the revocation of their

accreditation and being banned from participating in the immediately

coming elections. Their candidates shall also be disqualifed from continuing

as a candidate or if has been elected, from assuming the position.

The facts are clear. They are irrefutable. Reason and the solemn duty to Uphold and

faithfully implement the [2008] Revised Election Code9

falls upon the StudentCommission on Election. To run away from this duty would only lead to more fatal

mistakes and greater injustice to the student voters.

For it is established by the plain meaning rule or verba legis in statutory construction

that if the statute is clear, plain and free from ambiguity, it must be given its literal

meaning and applied without interpretation.10

Thus, it is the mandate of the SCE to apply what is given in the 2008 Revised Student

Election Code, not to interpret its provisions that punish those guilty of election offenses

with disqualification. No less than the Supreme Court has ruled that courts mustadminister the law, not as they think it ought to be but as they find it and without regard

to consequences. [Director of Lands v. Abaya, 63 Phil. 559 (1936)]

9 Sec. 19, a. Art. IIIPowers and Functions of the SCE

10 National Food Authority v. Masada Security Agency, Inc. G.R. No. 163448, March 8, 2005

13


14/14

Hoc quidem perquam durum est, sed ita lex scripta est, or it is exceedingly hard but so the

law is written.

SENTRO political party cannot and will not simply sit idle and silent in the face of

actions done by persons who take the law into their own hands. For it puts in place ad

hoc law, which in turn perpetuates disrespect for the law. And once we start to loose

respect for the law, we loose a bit of our humanity.

PRAYER

Wherefore, SENTRO Political party respectfully prays that the following:

1. Resolution No. 21 series of 2010 2011 be declared null and be

set aside.

2. That oral arguments to support our petition be called for

immediately.

3. Due to the violations SINAG has committed under the 2008

Revised Student Election Code, SINAG should be revoked of

its accreditation as a political party, and together with its

candidates be plenary disqualified from continuing as a

candidate or if has been elected, from assuming the position.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

14

appeal of sce reso no 21

Documents