UNIVERSITY STUDENT GOVERNMENT

MIKEE DE VEGA and JASON DIZON

PETITIONERS
Vs
CARLO INOCENCIO, University Student Government President
PATRICK KAHN, University Student Government Chief Legislator
RESPONDENTS
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND DISMISSAL
I.

INTRODUCTION

COMES NOW, the undersigned respondents hereby file this motion for reconsideration
from the judgement rendered by the University Student Government Judiciary.
WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed that the instant petition be considered by
the Honorable Court on the following premises:
The respondents believe that the respected Judiciary has committed grave errors on many
grounds with regards to their recent decision of implementing a Temporary Restraining Order in
response to the centriorani petition of De Vega and Dizon. We now URGENTLY file this
motion to respectfully ask them to reconsider their decision and call off the Temporary
Restraining Order as the entire right of the studentry to participate in the amendment of the
constitution will be prejudiced and infringed upon.
We ask that the Judiciary URGENTLY RECONSIDER AND DISSOLVE the
Temporary Restraining Order filed by petitioners De Vega and Dizon regarding the USG
Plebiscite citing its unconstitutionality. We will be presenting reasons as to why the Judiciary
does not have sufficient grounds and power to grant such TRO.
II.

STATEMENT OF FACTS AND ARGUMENTS

First, the TRO approved by the Judiciary was invalid due to lack and absence of due
process. On November 4, 2014 when the TRO was filed, respondents Mr. Carlo Inocencio and
Patrick Kahn were not notified and given copies of the formal pleading filed by the petitioners.
To add to that, the receiving body, which was the Judiciary, also failed in notifying Mr.
Inocencio and Mr. Kahn about the existence of such preliminary injunction filed against them.
This impedes on the right of response and due process of the respondents. The respondents were
only made aware of the petition via hearsay, and not by any direct nor legal notice. This is a clear
violation of the constitutional rights of both Mr. Inocencio and Mr. Kahn to receive due process
of law (Section 1, Article III, 1987 Constitution).
Respondents here, in view of the foregoing circumstances, have opted to use the Rules of
Court of the Philippines as a guide in resolving the issue at hand. Section 5, Rule 58 of the Rules
of Court states No preliminary injunction shall be granted without hearing and prior notice to
the party or person sought to be enjoined. If it shall appear from facts shown by affidavits or by

the verified application that great or irreparable injury would result to the applicant before the
matter can be heard on notice, the court to which the application for preliminary injunction was
made, may issue ex parte a temporary restraining order to be effective only for a period of
twenty (20) days from service on the party or person sought to be enjoined, except as herein
provided.
It is our humble opinion that the TRO should not have been granted as there was no
hearing and prior notice on the part of the respondents. This, again, is a clear violation of due
process granted to us by the Constitution. Furthermore, the issue at hand cannot fall on the
phrase great or irreparable injury on behalf of the party because the petitioners have failed to
prove that they have been under such instances due to the lack of an affidavit. Lastly, the basis of
a TRO is irreparable injury. The petitioners in this case has failed to prove the same. There is no
sign of any injury on the complainant, except on the speculation or presumption of a low voters
turnout for the plebiscite. Assuming arguendo that the plebiscite fails to achieve its quota, there
is still no basis for the granting of a TRO as the execution of the plebiscite and how it will reach
its quota is a purely political process.
FURTHERMORE, as to the content of the petition, we shall discuss why it is incorrect
for the Judiciary to grant this petition by petitioners who clearly do not have any Locus Standi
and furthermore lack compliance with the four requisites of Judicial Review, as recognized by
the Legislative Assembly in A.Y 2012-2013. The Judiciary was correct in explaining Locus
standi or proper standing and relating it to the Direct Injury test through these statements hereto:
"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."
However, the court failed to recognize that aside from an error in interpreting what
proper locus standi means, they also failed to implement the four requisites of Judicial Review
before they can take cognizance of any case that they conceded to be a constitutional issue.
These are:
1. That the petitioners are real parties in interest or have locus standi
2. That there is an actual controversy
3. That the constitutional issue is the very lis mota of the case
4. That this constitutional issue were raised in the earliest opportunity as to prevent any
unnecessary damage or prejudice to any sector.

Since the court through its decision cited different jurisprudence we would like to state the basis
for these 4 requisite of judicial review which are the following Philippines Supreme Court
Decisions, we also advise the court to read on them to be guided accordingly:
1. Macalintal v. Commission on Elections, GR 157013, 10 July 2003
2. Nicolas-Lewis v. Commission on Elections, GR 162759, 4 August 2006,
3. Tecson v. Commission on Elections, GR 161434, 3 March 2004
4. Ma v. Fernandez, GR 183133, 26 July 2010
5. Roa v. Insular Collector of Customs, GR L-7011, 30 October 1912
6. Torres v. Tan Chim, GR L-46593, 3 February 1940
7. Tan Chong v. Secretary of Labor, GR 47616
8. Valles v. Commission on Elections, GR 137000, 9 August 2000
9. Republic of the Philippines v. Sagun
10. Republic of the Philippines v. Li Yao, GR L-35947, 20 October 1992,
11. Republic of the Philippines v. Lao Ong, GR 175430, 18 June
12. Jardeleza vs Serenno
13. Demetria vs. Alba, 148 SCRA 208 (1987)
14. Philconsa vs. Enriquez, 235 SCRA 508 (1994)
15. Belgica vs. Ochoa, G.R. No. 208493 (2013)
16. Araullo vs. Aquino, G.R. NO. 209287 (2014)
17. Jardeleza vs. JBC, G.R. No. 213181 (2014)
18. Estrada vs. Desierto G.R. Nos. 146710-15 (2001
19. Marbury vs. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)
20. Laurel v. Desierto, 381 SCRA 48
21. Veterans Federation of the Phils.v. Reyes, 483 SCRA 526B
On the first point petitioners DE VEGA and DIZON cannot claim they have
interest on the current matter, their direct injury is merely a far off and remote damage. First, we
have to take into account that they cannot qualify as tax payers standing because they were not
able to prove any appropriation made by the USG that would endanger and be tantamount to
misused public student funds. Though we agree that they are both qualified as stakeholders they
weren't able to show the causes and any remote possibility of actual and direct damage they
would incur from the plebiscite. Assuming the plausibility of this scenario, they could help the
court in defining actual damage by stating their reasons specifically.
The petitioners claim they were not informed of the amendments; or were not educated
properly about them. Were they not give the opportunity by the USG to raise their concern or
did the USG suppress their freedom of speech by not allowing them to talk in the Town Hall or
other venues? Their claims are limited to: "DE VEGA 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 doubledegree program. Given these, both petitioners will be direct recipients of the possible results of
the plebiscite should its invalidity continue to be unquestioned."
Petitioners cannot even be considered to qualify to have "Citizen standing" or how the
court discuss as follows:

" 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".
This is because they were unable to cite how they were actually damaged as constituents
of the USG. On that argument as well we would like to caution the court that Transcendental
Importance is a doctrine used to discuss moot and academic cases and serve as an exception to
it and not something that can be used as basis for petitioners to properly invoke Judicial Review.
These two concepts should be separated and not confused. The court may refer Banat vs
Comelec regarding this matter.
We STRONGLY RECOMMEND the court properly conduct an investigation through
its investigating panel as to the motive and intention of the two petitioners as to verify that their
petition was made in good faith, this should be placed under great scrutiny. We fear that these
actions may be politically inclined or worse; for the detriment of the entire Student Government
and the studentry at-large and much worse using the Judiciary as a tool to achieve delay and
impediment in this democratic process.
Second element: there is no actual controversy in this case as the petitioners failed to
prove what are the actual damages of a plebiscite. They did not even take the initiative to start a
petition (either written or online) to show that a substantial number of students agree with their
beliefs.
The petitioners outright assume that as ordinary undergraduate students that they
represent the entire majority of the student body and claim actual damage and such were already
actually ripe for adjudication. All of their claims are MERELY SPECULATIVE for not
providing any evidence to show the contrary. To be guided, we would like the court to read
Santiago vs Comelec and Lambino vs COMELEC. Those cases would show what proper student
or citizen initiative are.
Third point, the constitutional issue is not the lis mota of this case. Again, the court
premised its arguments on factual issues such as how the executive and LA acted pre-plebiscite
period. It is in a way declared that the LA did not do its job properly of when to amend the
constitution by saying that it only included those representatives before the freshmen election
and not after it, when it would be completed by the elected freshmen LA Representatives.
Respectfully, the court went beyond its realm by saying this and trying to usurp
legislative power to amend the constitution. This is a duty vested by the constitution to the
Legislative Assembly and not the Judiciary, neither does the constitution say that
amendments can be done only if the entire LA is complete after freshmen elections. By
declaring such the Judiciary is in effect making JUDICIAL LEGISLATION which is null and
void. Furthermore, if the judiciary attempts to continue in doing so it will violate the Doctrine of
Separation of Powers (which they can be guided by reading Santiago vs Sandiganbayan), in
effect, acting well beyond the jurisdiction of the court.

Fourth point, this petition was OBVIOUSLY not raised at the earliest opportunity
thus manifesting bad faith on the side of the petitioners. The USG has been actively publicizing
this plebiscite for a very long period of time. There are even numerous articles in our student
publications such as The LaSallian and PLARIDEL discussing this plebiscite and constitutional
amendment starting way back in 2012. The petitioners however thought of it being
convenient to file this case of stopping the plebiscite only when the USG already started its
voting process, only after the COMELEC has spent on making ballots and preparing in
numerous polling station.
They neither approached nor made any attempt in meaningfully consulting with any of
their officers who they claim are their representatives to raise the concern. Instead they raised it
at a very prejudicial time wherein all branches of the government are working day and night to
ensure that all students can have a say with regard their constitution. We see that this is trying
to circumvent the proper method of democracy and representation by going to the court
directly and requesting a TRO.
We do not agree that the court should disregard the Doctrine of Exhaustion of
Administrative Remedies. The Office of the President, Legislative Assembly and in fact all
offices of the USG are more than willing to hear every concern of the students with regards
to USG Constitutional amendments. We would like to declare that the facts presented by
petitioners were INCOMPLETE and MISLEADING. The USG has been conducting
consultations both in the main campus and STC to discuss with the students possible
amendments of the constitution. The petitioners did not even attend one of these conferences,
again manifesting bad faith.
After proving that they failed to comply with the four requisites of Judicial Review
and given that clearly there is NO grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction that has been shown by the USG in conducting the plebiscite that could properly
warrant Judicial Intervention. The petition should have been DISMISSED OUTRIGHT.
We would also like to remind the court of both the doctrine of REGULARITY and
OPERATIVE FACT which should apply in this situation, wherein in order to fully comprehend
this the court could read the following cases:
CSC v. Joson, 429 SCRA 773
Tuandavs Sandiganbayan, 249 SCRA 342
Lino Luna vs Rodriguez, 37 Phil 136
US v. Abalos, 1 Phil. 73
Garchitorena v. Crescini, 37 Phil. 675
Dimaandalvs Commission on Audit, 291 SCRA, 322 and the recent case of Belgica vs.
Ochoa, G.R. No. 208493 (2013) regarding the PDAF Scandal
Also as held by the Philippine Supreme Court in Francisco vs House of Representative
the court should always favor constitutionality with regards to acts of the government in order to
ensure harmonious operation of governmental function, unless of course there be clear and
convincing evidence to the contrary that Petitioners clearly lack in this case.

However, as the USG, we would like to acknowledge the concern and initiative of the
petitioners. Since this situation has no PRECEDENT in the entire DLSU History and out of acts
of camaraderie we would like to amicably settle their concern by having a meeting with these
two petitioners while taking advantage of the TRO of the Judiciary. So that in time the Judiciary
may remove its TRO so we can peacefully continue with the plebiscite process.
III.

CONCLUSION

An act of Plebiscite is one of the cornerstones of democracy wherein it gives the entire
studentry the power to effect change in their own government and in the University. It should not
be stopped or abolished by any branch of the government or a handful of students as well. We
should respect it and as much as possible do not infringe it, because at the end of the day it
should be the entire studentry who should have a say in this democratic regime.
Judiciary, Executive and Legislative branches should work as one and fulfill its duty to
both the entire students and to the Constitution. Neither should step over or go beyond its realm
and always uphold the Doctrine of Separation of Powers. After all in the end no branch is higher
than the other and we are all equal and serving the people. The Constitution is above us all.
Therefore, the Court should grant the main request for motion for reconsideration.
IV.

PRAYER

For the foregoing reasons, the respondents ask this honorable Court to grant this motion
for reconsideration and dissolve the temporary restraining order issued last November 4, 2014.
Respectfully submitted,
______________________
CARLO IIGO V. INOCENCIO
Respondent
_______________________
PATRICK ANTHONY R. KAHN
Respondent