Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 4

14 February 2017

xx
-
-
-
-

Attn:xx
Chairman
======================

Re: Letter-reply dated 07 February


2017
=====================

Dear xxxx,

This serves as a rejoinder to the above-captioned matter.

In said reply-letter (the Letter), it is alleged, in essence, that:


a) the adjudicators as a body have the power to unilaterally
modify, change, and even outright ignore the rules as they see fit;
and, b) decisions arising from such unilateral actions are, under
all circumstances, deemed final and not subject to appeal.

With all due respect, we beg to disagree.

The Rules must be followed,


otherwise, they will become
meaningless and useless.1

Before anything else, it should be emphasized that rules play an


integral part of any aspect of life, whether it be professional,
academic, or even personal. And it is by these established
formalities that our society qualifies as one which is civilized;
otherwise, it would simply be one of senseless anarchy. As such,
we shall refute the allegations in seriatim.

First, according to the Letter, the honorable adjudicators have


exercised their discretion in the determination of the winners
using the most logical means for doing so. This is in direct
contradiction to the Debate Competition Guidelines (the
1
Sps. Bergonia & Castillo v. CA & Bravo, Jr., G.R. No. 189151, 25 January 2012 citing
Dumarukot v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 183975, 20 September 2010
Rejoinder: CBA-Debate

Guide). It is the Chairman himself who had caused the


publication and dissemination of this comprehensive set of rules
intended to govern the entirety of the conduct of said
competition. The said Guide clearly defines, inter alia, the
nature, scope and extent of all powers granted to the
adjudicators. In fact, it painstakingly outlines and dedicates a
specific section on the whole process of adjudication, including
the manner by which the winners are determined. In unequivocal
terms, strict compliance was enjoined. Therefore, regardless of
personal misgivings, the rules contained therein must remain
effective and binding on everybody involved.

Specifically, in the section termed Adjudication, the Guide


states:

IV. Other Guidelines

xxx

8. Adjudication

xxx

iv. x x x. Total points earned by the members of


each team will be the basis for declaring
winners.

xxx

10. The top three scoring teams will be declared


as first, second, and third. x x x. (emphasis ours).

Based on the foregoing, winners are determined simply on the


total number of points granted by the adjudicators themselves.
And on the basis of the said totals, the winning teams are to be
ordinally declared. Frankly, the matter is straightforward and
fairly simple.

Unfortunately, based on the Letter, the adjudicators still insisted


on one, disregarding the Guide; and, two, adopting rules of their
own. Both of which are powers not granted by the any rule,
procedure or anything else for that matter. Incredibly, it seems at
the critical moments, the Chairman, of all people, failed to
recognize that said Guidelines are binding, not only upon the
participants, but on the adjudicators as well. By its nature and
the Chairmans own directive, the Guide must remain in full
force and effect at all times. However, the Chairman simply
decided to adopt such unwarranted actuations. In effect, the

2
Rejoinder: CBA-Debate

Guide is being classified as always mandatory, yet directory


whenever opportune. This is in conflict with the Chairmans
original position and is, at best, illogical.

Second, it is also alleged in the Letter that the adjudicators


decided that under no circumstance shall their decision be
changed for their judgment is deemed final and unappealable.
While the Chairman strongly adheres to this claim, it once again
defies sound reason. To recall, the adjudicators unilaterally
decided to set aside the Guides provisions and adopt their own
set of rules. Once challenged, the Guide is again adopted in an
attempt to justify finality and secure immutability. This is absurd.
One cannot choose to ignore the rules and conveniently invoke
them at the same time.

The Guide was disregarded in the determination of winners.


Finality of the adjudication rests on the assumption that the
decision was rendered in accordance with the rules in place. An
act done contrary to or well beyond these rules can be clearly
seen, easily assessed, and branded effortlessly. Now, should an
act patently against the prescription of the Guide be considered
legitimate? This cannot be. Remember, by the Chairmans own
injunction, the Guide is not a mere set of suggestions. It is
mandatory for both contestants and adjudicators alike. It is the
source of the adjudicators powers from which the spring can
never rise higher. Therefore, an act done in violation of the Guide
should be considered as no act at all.

Let it be clear that we do not question the wisdom of the


adjudicators assignment of points. This is well within their
discretion and in accordance with the Guide. What we find
questionable is the means by which winners were declared. As
cited above, the manner of adjudication is incapable of
misinterpretation. It is clear and unequivocal. In the present
case, the adjudicators exercised powers which they did not
possess and, consequently, performed acts they were never
empowered to do. The result is a decision that should amount to
nothing, has no force and effect, and which cannot be a source of
rights and obligations. In simple terms, the decision is void and it
can never attain finality.

On these premises, we propound a call to action. Rather than


turning a blind eye and feigning deference, the decision of the
adjudicators should be reversed or annulled and set aside. In its
place, a new decision should be rendered in conformity with the
Guide and the actual results of the competition. And as much as
we appreciate the Chairmans congratulatory gesture, we are
inclined to refuse to accept it completely. For the record,

3
Rejoinder: CBA-Debate

regardless of the outcome of the exchange of correspondence,


our position remains the same based on the Guide as written,
the CBA Debate team is the winner of the competition and should
rightfully and publicly be declared as such.

Lastly, in the interest of transparency, we request copies of the


Guide, our appeal, the Letter, this rejoinder as well as any other
document the Chairman may wish to draft be printed in the
widest circulating publications and posted in the most
conspicuous places to provide as much exposure as possible. This
is so the people may be sufficiently informed of the proper
context, complete process, and ultimate outcome of this issue.

Noteworthy is the good Chairmans unrelenting effort towards


achieving his ultimate purpose. We trust all is well with him and
may the future bring him countless blessings.

Sincerely,

Atty. Jose Maria Baronia Duhaylongsod, J.D., CTEP

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi