A Response to the Petitioners Case regarding the Call for

Open Applications for the Positions of the Buklod Atenista

Ambassador and Buklod Atenista Trainees
Jann Railey E. Montalan
Respondent

Versus
Saje Miguel Molato
Kristoni Go
Edna Africa
Julia Li
Petitioners

To the Honorable Magistrates of the Student Judicial Court,

The respondent, Railey Montalan, 2nd Year SOSE Central Board Representative, in counsel
with the Central Board, calls for a motion to wholly dismiss the petitioners' case due to factual
issues with the matter.
In response to the petitioners arguments, the respondent provides the following
counterarguments and clarifications:
1)! The petitioners claim that, The initial draft of our resolution was scrapped in order
to create a revised version, and that the revision would be written by the respondent
under the the supervision of the DEA Chairperson in order to assure that the initial
proposals and ideas remained intact. The respondent clarifies that while the
respondent did in fact scrap the petitioners resolution (which was acknowledged and
accepted by the DEA Chairperson), the respondent did not have an agreement with the
DEA Chairperson with regards to keeping his said resolution and using it as a basis for
the resolution that the Central Board had passed. The respondent only said that he
would make a new resolution, however it was not explicitly agreed upon that it would
be any kind of revision of the petitioners resolution.
Moreover, it was not explicitly agreed upon that the new resolution would be written
under the supervision of the DEA Chairperson; as such, there was no need for the
consent of DEA or the DEA Chairperson regarding the new resolution the respondent
had started crafting. What was agreed upon was that the Central Board would relay
developments regarding the new resolution. And the Central Board did as such; the
new resolution initially crafted by the respondent was uploaded to the Sanggunian
Dropbox for collaborative viewing and editing by the rest of the Central Board a
facility in which the DEA Chairperson had access to meaning that the DEA

2)!

3)!

4)!

5)!

6)!

Chairperson was capable of seeing and discerning what was written and stipulated in
the new resolution weeks prior to its approval by the Central Board. The standardized
protocol is that all Top 52 officers can have access to all folders of the Sanggunian
Dropbox, which was explained and instituted during the Central Board meeting of June
19, 2015. However, the DEA Chairperson may have overlooked this, thus failing to
understand that he, in fact, had access to the new resolution being written. It is the duty
of the the Top 52 Officers of the Sanggunian to be aware of facilities provided to officers
of the Sanggunian, which includes all Sangguanian files that the officer has access to.
Furthermore, the resolution that the respondent had crafted was not based on any
stipulations from the resolution that was written by the DEA Chairperson. Rather, the
new resolution crafted by the respondent was only influenced by the manifest of the
incumbent Buklod Atenista Ambassador regarding the Ambassadorship that was
presented in the Central Board meeting of June 11, 2015 and discussions with the
incumbent following the presentation of the manifest.
The petitioners claim that they were explicitly told that the Central Board Member
presenting the resolution to the Central Board had the capacity to make changes to our
resolution without prior notice and without our consent. The respondent clarifies that
the respondent had never explicitly nor implicitly told DEA that he, nor the Central
Board, had the capacity to make changes and revisions to their resolutions. What the
respondent had said was that he, in counsel with CB members, wished to raise major
revisions to it. However, after discussing this personally to the DEA Chairperson, it was
decided that the DEA Chairpersons resolution would be scrapped, as confirmed by the
petitioners in their case. Furthermore, it was decided that the respondent shall be
creating a new resolution without taking from or using any stipulations stated in the
DEA Chairpersons resolution, as clarified above.
The petitioners claim that they were informed that the Central Board had made a
collective decision regarding the matter without providing us an actual document
indicating the passing of such a decision. The collective decision referred to the verbal
acknowledgement of the Central Board members that were available and capable of
considering this affair, thus there is no written documentation of this decision.
The petitioners claim that they were not invited to any dialogues or joint sessions
regarding the approval of our resolution. The respondent clarifies that again, the
resolution that was passed was not the resolution that was written by the DEA
Chairperson. The respondent further stresses that no stipulation stated in the
aforementioned document crafted by the DEA Chairperson was used in the
respondents resolution. Rather, the resolution that was passed was a resolution that the
Central Board had collectively crafted and edited, only headed by the respondent, free
from any outside influence aside from the incumbent Bukload Atenista Ambassador.
Therefore, the Central Board was not obligated to invite the DEA Chairperson nor his
office to dialogues regarding this.
The petitioners claim that they were never provided the revised copy that was assured
during the initial, as well as the succeeding second dialogue with regards to the
resolution. The respondent clarifies that there was no explicit agreement between the
DEA Chairperson and the respondent with regards to furnishing copies of revisions
to their resolution. Furthermore, the new resolution crafted by the respondent was, in
fact, uploaded to the Sanggunian Dropbox weeks before the Central Board deliberated
on and approved it, ensuring the transparency between the units of the Sanggunian,
which includes the Department of External Affairs.
The petitioners claim that, The resolution that was recently passed contained only one
provision of the supposed 4 full length resolutions to be passed regarding our proposal.

Once more, the new resolution was not based on the DEA Chairpersons resolution nor
was it a revision of the said resolution crafted by said party. The resolution that was
passed was an entirely new document, initially crafted by the respondent and further
edited by the rest of the Central Board, and was only influenced externally by the
manifest of incumbent Buklod Atenista Ambassador and the discussions with the
incumbent that followed.
7)! In the second to the last paragraph of the case, the petitioners claim that for a CB
member, whose duty is to represent his constituents and their advocacies to the student
government.... However, according to Article 7, Section 2E of the Constitution,
Central Board members are only representative to their school from their year level.
Thus, seeing that all petitioners are from the School of Social Sciences, and the
respondent is only accountable for the Central Board and the 2nd Year students of the
School of Science and Engineering, the 2nd Year SOSE Central Board Representative
member is not accountable for the representation of the petitioners nor their advocacies
to the student government. Moreover, to say that the respondents decisions to
deliberately manipulate and intervene based on his own discretion, is outright
fallacious. The Central Board, and furthermore the incumbent Ambassador, have the
same outlooks with regards to their proposed plans. Furthermore, the respondent only
acted upon the counsel of the Central Board and the incumbent Ambassador. Thus, it
is unjust for the petitioners to deprecate and call the members of the Sanggunian
hypocritical for acting upon the problem that was caused by the petitioners foremost
disregard and ignorance despite all the access they had available with regards to the
resolution crafted by the members of the Central Board that was passed last July 21,
2015.
The respondent, in counsel with the Central Board, finds it disappointing and insulting that the
DEA Chairperson and the members of his office are blaming the Central Board, and especially
the 2nd Year SOSE Central Board Representative, for their own deliberate disregard and
oversight on this matter. The respondent wishes that the Court may consider all the points that
were clarified in this response to assist to the formation on your favorable decision on this
matter.
Lastly, the respondent calls for a motion for the extension of the deadline for the Student
Judicial Courts deliberation on this matter in light of the Court not being in session.

Jann Railey E. Montalan

Respondent
2nd Year SOSE Central Board Representative
raileymontalan@outlook.com