Title DECISION ON RETRIAL_LIM VS WATANABE.pdf ✅

DECISION (RE: Retrial on Frances Lim vs. Aya Watanabe dated June 22, 2018) The Judiciary have arrived at a decision through the following reasons: 1. Ms. Aya Watanabe was informed by OVPEA, Ms. Gabbie Perez that College Presidents are not required to go to the Activities Assembly Meetings. 2. Ms. Aya Watanabe was merely following the orders of her superior. If told otherwise, Ms. Watanabe stated that she would attend the Activities Assembly meetings.. 3. Despite being absent, Ms. Aya Watanabe was still able to fulfill her other duties and obligations as a College President of the College of Liberal Arts. 4. The court acknowledges that Ms. Aya Watanabe acted in good faith, and given the spirit of the law, Ms. Watanabe will not be reprimanded for her actions. WHEREFORE, Ms. Aya Watanabe is found to be NOT GUILTY of gross negligence. Given her statement and those of the defendant’s witnesses, we have found that Ms. Watanabe only acted in good faith. The SPIRIT OF THE LAW prevails in this decision. We would like to solemnly request her to issue a formal statement regarding this matter through the ACG page to be shared by the Student Media Organizations. The details of the requested statement to be given can be found below within the last paragraph of the Majority Opinion section of this decision document. Furthermore, given the evidences and testimonies in this case, the Judiciary will look further into the policies implemented by the Activities Assembly chairs so as to see if any USG officer committed gross negligence on their part. Given Article XVIII Section 3.2 of the USG Constitution, the Judiciary hereby exercises its power to SUMMON AN INVESTIGATION on the chairs of the Activities Assembly.

MINORITY OPINION IGNORANCE OF THE LAW EXCUSES NO ONE. ​Although the ruling on the case filed against Ms. Watanabe was NOT GUILTY of gross negligence, the minority of the Magistrates, still believes that Ms. Watanabe is still at fault for NEGLIGENCE in some of her responsibilities as a College President, specifically her attendance during the Activities Assembly meetings given that College Presidents are REQUIRED ​to attend. ​It was mentioned that Ms. Watanabe did not attend the Activities Assembly meetings as per the instruction of OVPEA and OVPIA, which was validated by the statement of OVPEA Ms. Gabbie Perez. It should be stressed that the decision of an incumbent officer such as the OVPIA or OVPEA should never and will never supercede any article nor section of the USG Constitution and its bylaws as NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW. If there were any agreement during their first Activities Assembly meeting regarding the non-requirement of the College Presidents to attend the meetings, it should have first been reflected through the revision of the Code of Conduct as the effectivity clause states that it be effective INDEFINITELY​. Furthermore, Ms. Watanabe argued that she is still able to fulfill her tasks as the CLA College President despite her absences. It should be clear that her duty to represent her college in Activities Assembly meetings is crucial for college-wide student representation. Ms. Watanabe’s ability to fulfill one duty should not automatically equate to her ability to fulfill another duty, as they are two different things. Quoting the Vice President of External Affairs Ms. Perez, stating that Activities Assembly Meetings are different from EXECOM meetings; therefore the presence of a College President, for both meetings is necessary as different matters are discussed for each. The minority of the Magistrates believes that the reason as to why the Constitution stipulates that the College Presidents should be at the meetings is because they exist to lead their whole college for university-wide projects. College Presidents and Batch Presidents are there to discuss matters pertaining to their college and batch respectively. Therefore, minority of the Magistrates see a lack of student representation with the absence of a College President during Activities Assembly meetings. A matter of who is present in the meetings to speak for and serve their fellow students as a whole college is lacking. WHEREFORE, minority of the Magistrates agree that Ms. Watanabe is not guilty of gross negligence, but is still guilty of negligence as ignorance of the law excuses no one. Given that her actions were in good faith, we see no merit in her removal as the CLA College President. Although, we would request a public apology from Ms. Watanabe regarding this issue. This is to ensure the accountability of the actions of all USG officers stated under Article VI of the USG
Constitution stating that “All USG officers shall at all times be accountable to the studentry who they must serve with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, efficiency and ​ professionalism.” The purpose of public apology is to acknowledge the shortcomings both by the College President of CLA and Chairs of Activities Assembly for not having the amendments legally written for it to be constitutional or passed into a resolution and it was practiced without it being formally and officially revised be it on the USG Constitution or its bylaws. The public apology is also to ensure the entire studentry that despite her lack of attendance and responsibility to find another representative upon her absence, aside from her chief-of-staff, the student body that she serves will be assured of the proper representation they deserve in future Activities Assembly meetings. SO ORDERED. Manila City, 24 June 2018. Christine Hizon Sean Pobre Chief Magistrate Deputy Chief Magistrate John Eric Voo Benedict Lewis Ebuen Magistrate Magistrate