Ateneo

Student Judicial Court

Ateneo de Manila Loyola Schools
Quezon City, Philippines


Julia Daryl S. Lenarz
Constituent

Petitioner




---Versus---



Ateneo Commission on Elections

Marlex O. Tuason, Chief Commissioner
Patricia Jude R. Adolfo, Commissioner
Keith Nealson M. Penado, Commissioner
Audrey Joyce A. Lorilla, Commissioner
Pamela Lizelle F. San Luis, Commissioner

Respondent

PETITION FOR REVIEW AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION

The petitioner to this Honorable Court respectfully states:


Prefatory Statement

1. This case questions the constitutionality and legality of Memorandum No.
201527 published by the Ateneo Commission on Elections (COMELEC or
Commission) on the extension of the 2015 General Elections last February 23,
2015 that caused public uproar regarding the failure of the Commission to
provide a rationale for the decision and the Commissions seeming insistence to
extend the elections to reach the required quota.
2. This case also questions the validity of the provided explanation of the
Commission in COMELEC Memorandum No. 201528 published 11:45 PM last
February 23, 2015.
3. This case will present the illegality of the memorandum and how it violates rules
and stipulations stated in the 2005 Constitution of the Undergraduate Students
of the Ateneo Loyola Schools (Sanggunian Constitution) and the 2014 COMELEC
Electoral Code. It will argue this on three levels, namely; 1) the failure of the

Commission to provide a compelling, sound and substantiated rationale

regarding their decision to extend the election, 2) the Commissions violation of
their very own Electoral Code regarding the maximum hours it can extend an
election, and 3) the technicality of the memorandum and how this is not
equivalent to a resolution thus has no binding effect.
4. This Court should grant the petition for review and permanent injunction since
the extension of the election would violate the rights of the constituents of the
Sanggunian and would greatly undermine its value for democracy.

Questions Presented
1. Did the Commission on Elections properly prove the need to extend the elections
in the reason it provided, which is that it lacked manpower at the polling
stations? Did the inefficiencies resulting from this reason enough to merit the
extension of the elections ?
2. Did the Commission on Elections exceed their power when it extended the
elections for seven (7) and a half hours when the COMELEC Electoral Code states
that they can only extend it for a maximum of four (4) hours?
3. Did the Commission violate the 2005 Sanggunian Constitution when it released
the order to extend the elections via memorandum, not through a resolution?
Nature of the Petition

1. This is a petition for review under rule 12 of the Rules of Court of the Ateneo
Student Judicial Court assailing memorandum nos. 201527 and 201528 of the
Ateneo Commission on Elections with a prayer for a permanent injunction of the
extension of the General Elections.
Arguments

1. BOTH MEMORANDA FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE, CHARACTERIZE AND PROVE
HOW THE LACK OF MANPOWER AT THE POLLING STATIONS NECESSITATED
THE NEED TO EXTEND THE GENERAL ELECTIONS.

According to Article VIII, Section 2 a of the Electoral Code,

The casting of votes shall begin at 9:00 AM and end at 5:00 PM. Voters can vote only during this
period. However, the Ateneo COMELEC has the option to extend the period for voting if the need
arises (Emphasis Mine).

It is acknowledged by the petitioner that the respondent indeed has the power to
extend the period for voting, as defined by the Electoral Code. However, it is also
clear in the same provision that grants respondent the power to extend the
election that it may only do so when the need arises. It is believed that the
respondent could not simply extend the election on its whim without proper and
valid justification. It is this definition of need or necessity that the petitioner will
anchor her first argument.

It is then argued that respondent failed to provide justifiable cause when it
decided to extend the elections last February 23, 2015. Before proceeding, it is

noteworthy to state that it took more than four hours for the Commission to
provide the reason for extending the election before releasing its five-sentence
justification.

According to COMELEC Memorandum No. 201528, the Commission decided to
extend the elections after it realized that there were problems in manpower at
the polling stations since poll officers were not able to attend their shifts at
certain times leaving some stations unmanned.1

The petitioner argues that the justification presented by the Commission is not
enough to necessitate an extension of the elections. First, on the level of
technicality, the petitioner believes that the respondent failed to show how the
problems in manpower the Commission had translated to its need to extend the
election. The respondent never gave the data on how many shifts were left
unattended and how many possible voters this could have affected. The
petitioner then questions this Honorable Court how many poll shifts it needs to
have been unattended before the need to extend the election arises. The
petitioner believes that the respondent has given enough time for the student
body to vote in the four-day period with six different poll stations open,
regardless if at times certain poll stations were left unattended. Given the fact
that the respondent failed to provide proper documentation and data on the
unattended polling shifts, the petitioner now posits the claim that these
inefficiencies may not be enough to justify the need for the extension.

Second, assuming that the inefficiencies in manning the poll stations were indeed
present, the petitioner questions the timing of the extension. The memorandum
on the extension was first published by the respondent at 7:32 PM last February
23, 2015 that happened to be on the last day of elections. The petitioner finds
this fact raising suspicion on the intent of the extension. The petitioner argues
that the problem of unattended shifts, supposedly big enough to merit the
extension should at the very least be known to the Commission on the second or
third day of the election. Contingencies for such should have been made earlier
on as the respondent had enough time to fix its systems. It is believed by the
petitioner that the respondent should have had the data on how big the problem
was by the second or third day of the elections. At 6:00 PM of February 23, 2015,
the supposed deadline for the elections, the quota has not yet been met. The
respondents decision to only avail of the extension past 6:00 PM of the last day
of elections seems to be an effect not of the manpower difficulties it had in the
entire duration of the election but due to the fact that by that time, the quota has
not yet been reached. The petitioner then argues that since the problem on
manpower, supposedly big enough to merit an extension was not addressed
earlier on, it is more believable to assume that the respondent caved-in to the
pressures of certain individuals, candidates and even administrators pushing for
them to extend the elections.

It is seen here that the respondents claim on the necessity of the extension is
unsubstantiated and unjustified at best, and a blatant lie to reach quota at worst.

1 COMELEC Memorandum No. 201528

2 http://blacks.worldfreemansociety.org/1/M/m-0766.jpg

On the first level, the respondent failed to provide the need to extend the
elections as it never showed how serious its problem was with its manpower to
merit the additional one day. On the second, by failing to act on something
supposedly as grave as the problems on manpower in a timely manner, the
respondents decision raises suspicion on the true intention of the extension.
Would the Commission have extended the elections if it reached quota last
February 23, 2015? If yes, why only announce the extension an hour and a half
after it almost declared failure of elections? These questions should be answered
by the respondent.


2. THE EXTENSION IS ILLEGAL AS IT EXTENDS THE ELECTION FOR MORE THAN
FOUR (4) HOURS, VIOLATING THE ELECTORAL CODE.

Article VIII, Section 2 b of the 2014 Electoral Code states that:

The Ateneo COMELEC can only extend voting hours for a maximum of four (4) hours past the
time stated. (Emphasis Mine)

Assuming the justification of the respondent is in fact legal, the petitioner argues
that its memorandum on the extension of the elections is still in violation of the
Electoral Code. In Memorandum No. 201527 of the COMELEC, it announced that
it will be extending the elections on February 24, 2015 from 9:00 AM to 4:30 PM,
a seven and a half hour period. This is three hours and a half more than the
maximum number of hours the respondent is allowed to extend the elections.
The petitioner believes that the extension of the respondent is in clear violation
of this provision.


3. MEMORANDUM NO. 201527 DOES NOT CARRY THE FORCE OF LAW AS THE
DECISION MADE IN THIS MEMORANDUM SHOULD HAVE BEEN IN A FORM OF A
RESOLUTION.

Article XIV, Section 3 of the 2005 Sanggunian Constitution states that:

(a) Exercise control, supervision and original jurisdiction over all matters pertaining to
Sanggunian candidacy, campaign, elections, plebiscites, and or referenda;

(b) Promulgate rules and regulations concerning the previously stated matters as well as execute
decisions, instructions and directives by virtue of a resolution (Emphasis Mine).

The decision of the respondent to extend the election was published in a form of
a memorandum, specifically COMELEC Memorandum No. 201527.

According to Blacks Law Dictionary, a memorandum is an informal note or
instrument embodying something that the parties desire to fix in memory by the
aid of written evidence.2 The same dictionary defines the word resolution as
The determination or decision, in regard to its opinion or intention, of a

2 http://blacks.worldfreemansociety.org/1/M/m-0766.jpg

deliberative or legislative body, public assembly, town council, board of directors

or the like. Also a motion or formal proposition offered for adoption by such a
body.3

It is with these definitions that the petitioner agrees with his Honorable Previous
Magistrate Leo Francis Abot when the latter argued online that a mere memo is
not the same as a resolution.4 The petitioner further believes the opinion of the
previous Magistrate that decision cannot be executed because it does not follow
the procedure stipulated by the Constitution, and the memo does not provide the
basis (legal or otherwise) for the decision, making it arbitrary.

As clearly expressed by the previous magistrate, and as seen in the definitions
above, a memorandum is entirely different from a resolution. The gravity of a
resolution is not comparable to that of a memorandum. On a primary level, this
shows that a memorandum cannot act as a substitute for a resolution and such
should be applied to the case against the respondent. Moreover, the 2005
Sanggunian Constitution stipulated the procedures on how to properly execute
decisions by virtue of a resolution. The respondents insistence on using the
memorandum to execute its decision is also the reason why it loses its bearing as
an official decision and directive coming from the respondent. Therefore, the
petitioner believes that technically, Memorandum No. 201527 is not binding as
the memorandum cannot be a basis for a decision, instruction or directive, as
stated by the Constitution. Thus this makes the order in the memorandum illegal.

3 http://blacks.worldfreemansociety.org/1/R/r-1033.jpg

4 https://www.facebook.com/leofrancis.abot/posts/1081476698545348?pnref=story

Prayer

WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court that:

1. Upon filing this petition, a temporary restraining order be issued ordering the
respondent, to desist from the implementation of COMELEC Memorandum No.
201527, the extension of the General Elections.
2. After due process and deliberation, declare NULL AND VOID COMELEC
Memorandum No. 201527.

The petitioner prays for such other relief and remedies this Honorable Court
may find equitable and proper in the premises.




Quezon City, February 24, 2015.






(Sgd.)
Julia Daryl S. Lenarz
Constituent