Statement of Support for 11 SE Students’ Call for Due Process
To The University Council:
“No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of the law, nor shall any person be denied equal protection of the law.”[1]
The case of the eleven graduating students undergoing disciplinary proceedings before the Student Disciplinary Tribunal for charges of cheating is yet to be resolved. The administration of the School of Economics have decided to prevent them for graduating as they await, for an indeterminable period, the final resolution of the case.
The students stand to lose more if they are prevented from graduating and subsequently found innocent, than the university if the students are later found guilty. Although commencement exercises are but a formal ceremony, it nonetheless is not an ordinary occasion, since such ceremony is the educational institution’ s way of announcing to the whole world that the students included in the list of those who will be conferred a degree during the baccalaureate ceremony have satisfied all the requirements for such degree.[2]They will not only be deprived of their right to attend their much awaited graduation, but will be stigmatized before their future colleagues. They will likewise be prevented from seeking immediate employment, and effectively, from getting on with their lives.
Under the rules, every student undergoing disciplinary proceedings shall not be subjected to any disciplinary penalty except upon due process of law[3]and that pending final decision on any charges the said student shall enjoy all his rights and privileges as a student.[4]
It is in this regard that we, the members of the University Student Council, urge the University Council to allow the eleven students from the School of Economics participate in the commencement exercises on April 25, in accordance with the rights set forth in the Rules and Regulations on Student Conduct and Discipline.
We likewise urge the Board of Regents to convene and amend the rules, setting forth guidelines in order to protect the rights of graduating students with unresolved cases, and to ensure the speedy disposition of these proceedings.
Due process, we must not forget, is not merely a high ideal that we seek to uphold but a right to which everyone is entitled. It is guaranteed by no less than our country’s constitution and reaffirmed by the very rules which students adhere to and which the university is mandated to protect.
[1] Section 1, Article III, 1987 Philippine Constitution
[2] University of the East vs.Jader, G.R. No. 132344 (2000)
[3] id Section 22, paragraph a
[4] id Section 22, paragraph c
To the 2008-2009 University Student Council: In behalf of all “the eleven”, I thank you so much for your help and your support.
The decision of the University Council to allow the 11 students to graduate is somewhat expected. Precedent decisions not only by the university but by the court as well (remember the case of PhD Anthro student that was allowed to graduate inspite of accusation of plagiarism) can be applied to this case. If upon the determination of the Student Disciplinary Tribunal that those 11 students really committed “academic dishonesty”, the University has the power to revoke the conferment of the degree, even if the students have already graduated from the University. (You can refer the particular case of the PhD student guilty of plagiarism whose case even reached the Supreme Court). Let me reiterate that I’m not taking sides here, I’m just telling an imminent possibility.
There’s something wrong with this statement.
The biggest of which is the assertion in the second paragraph: “The students stand to lose more if they are prevented from graduating and subsequently found innocent, than the university if the students are later found guilty.”
The reason why this is a hasty generalisation is because we’re comparing two different entities here: individual lives and an institution. While it is morally acceptable that each life is important, there’s no clear-cut cost-benefit analysis that went into the creation of the previous statement. Let’s do this thing properly. The assumption is that due process will be able to determine the guiltiness or the innocence of the accused, after the graduation ceremonies of 2008 and would be determined in a future time, say 2009.
Case 1-A: They are not allowed to graduate and they were innocent.
Yes, it’s so unfair that the notorious econ 11 (hereby refered to as NE11) were not awarded the rights and privileges that came with graduation a year earlier. So there’s an opportunity cost of one-year productivity wherein NE11 could have been employed, gone to law school, or done an activity that requires a university degree. The university, on the otherhand, is not going to be much affected. They followed due process (and when I say due process, the process of determining guilt or innocence) and suspended the recognition of graduation, but awarded it to them eventually, the time lag will have not have severe institutional repercussions, it just goes to show that they were using one of their institutions, in this case, the Student Disciplinary Tribunal
Case 1-B: They are not allowed to graduate and they were guilty.
Happy scenario. No degrees to be revoked, and the guilty ones are punished.
Case 2-A: They were allowed to graduate and they were innocent.
Of course the accused are currently insisting that this is the scenario. This is another happy scenario, wherein a degree was granted and doesn’t need to be revoked, and the NE11 are able to work/study/do-whatever-they-want-with-a-bachelor-of-science-in-business-economics
Case 2-B: They were allowed to graduate and they were GUILTY.
Uh-oh. This means that the NE11 were able to get away with graduation. Because people only care about the graduation. No one really knows what happens after graduation, who are revoked of their rights and privileges or whatnot. What suffers the most, is the institution. Because simply put, the academic integrity is questioned. While NE11 will probably not get away with it scot-free, the illusion that they were innocent was already made. And UP will be known as a university that grants cheaters’ degrees and honours they don’t deserve. What’s so dangerous about this? Well, it’s easy to rebuild 11 tarnished lives, it’s not as easy rebuilding institutions once they’re tarnished. Yes, this might be a doomsday scenario, but I’m just saying that the initial assertion I quoted, is too WRONG to work for an appeal. It casts doubts on the student council for releasing such strong statements in a very controversial issue, the bias is clearly unbelievable.
The university council had the power to choose between Case 1 and 2, but outcomes could be different. Since 2-A cancels 1-B, it’s about pitting Case 1-A against 2-B. Of course, the way I phrased things have my personal bias, but it’s a simple question to the original statement: does the university really have very little to lose? Obviously not.
Yes, innocent until proven otherwise is the most basic of all basic legal premises. However, we have to consider the role of an academic institution, and the validity of completion of academic requirements. How valid is the completed course requirements of an individual if someone is casting a shadow-of-doubt on its integrity?
The second comment I’d like to raise is the idea of due process. If there’s really faith in due process, why is there a request for the BOR to amend the rules governing unresolved cases as this one? Isn’t due process, from the words itself, the process following existing rules?
Again, I’m very disappointed with the way the USC responded to this. The USC is supposed to be representative of student sentiments on student issues, not release biased statements under the guise of the entire student body.
I don’t agree with Little Miss Fighting Maroon,
- she is exaggerating Case 2-B.. if found guilty after the due process and after the commencement exercise, the university can still reclaim their diploma and employ proper sanctions. what we can’t set aside is the right of every student undergoing due process.
-The fact that UP students were accused of “cheating”, hampers the institution’s academic integrity.. But accusations were mere accusations until proven guilty.
*Well, it’s easy to “rebuild 11 tarnished lives”, it’s not as easy rebuilding institutions once they’re tarnished…. –i don’t know where that statement is coming from. It is as if the writer is playing god.
-Handling issues like this is difficult. Objectivity is very important. The most objective thing that we could do is to refer to the constitution/rules/etc. I think the citations below the statement is enough.
-May I reiterate that the statement is a call for “due process” and not for anything else.
The fact that the students were allowed to attend graduation by the BOR, a separate body from the USC capable of thinking on its own, suggests that the USC just did enough in terms of handling the issue. I agree that the USC should be representative on “student sentiments on student issues” but more importantly it should protect the rights of the students, accused or not.
- The reason why Little Mr Fighting Maroon is finding Case 2-B exaggerated is because it has not been taken into consideration. And so your response is “it’s exaggerated”. Parallel to the fact that if these eleven don’t get their degrees, the idea of their lives being tarnished is also “exaggerated”. We’re truce.
-Accusations are not “just accusations”. They are not baseless, due process are prompted by accusations. As mentioned, accusations cast shadows of doubt on the validity of something, in this case, the academic integrity of eleven students.
-I am not a god(dess), but the point regarding lives vs institutions is simple. Lives only live for a lifetime, institutions are built and maintained within several lifetimes, and tarnishing institutions are an insult to the years dedicated in building the integrity of the institutions. People are more prone to mistakes, but it also means that it is more conventional for mistakes to be remedied on an individual basis, rather than on an institutional basis.
- On objectivity and due process: well, obviously, the title of this statement is already redundant to begin with. The first paragraph (after the quote) indicates that due process is going on. But still the “USC” ask for due process. Um… okay. The title of the statement is mismatched with what it wants, which is to award graduation rights/privileges to the eleven accused before the conclusion of the due process. That makes it a request, not an entitlement to due process. GEEZ. It’s as simple as that.
Yes, I know that the University Council already made the decision, but still, it is unfair that the USC is protecting a select group of people, without necessarily consulting all perspectives involved. And that includes mine. I’m not being self-indulgent here, I’m just mentioning that the USC just made a mess with this issue. Dapat di na kayo nakialam, this could be used against you politically pa.
This is in response to the statement of Little Ms. Fighting Maroon.
To be clear, this is not written on behalf of the USC, nor in my capacity as Law Representative. I write this in my capacity as Chair of the Student’s Legal Aid and Action Committee, as the duty to intervene fell upon me in that capacity.
“Yes, it’s so unfair that the notorious econ 11 (hereby refered to as NE11) were not awarded the rights and privileges that came with graduation a year earlier.”
Notorious is such a strong word, don’t you think? It implies a certain bias, much as “guilty” or “innocent” would. Clearly, Ms. Fighting Maroon, who, from her choice of words appears to be an econ student as well, is very much affected by this issue. Unfortunately however, the USC is not merely a representative of the students in general. We are mandated by our very constitution to promote and protect the rights and welfare of each and every student, however notorious.
I stand by what the USC has written—that the students stand to lose more if they are prevented from graduating and subsequently found innocent, than the university if the students are later found guilty.
You see, due process is not just a shorter term for “follow the rules.” There is a history behind due process which I hope you would permit me to elucidate. Due process in the context of criminal law (which is analogous to this situation) requires not only that an accused be given the presumption of innocence unless the contrary is proven although that is what many of us would think. No. Due process starts from the reading of Miranda rights to the accused (“you have the right to remain silent…) to the right of the accused to counsel, to the right of the accused not to stand witness against himself and to the right of the accused to appeal.
The question is why do we protect the accused? Why require such stringent measures before we take “life, liberty and property” from a person?
We require such exacting standards because from the moment the accused is taken into custody, or from the moment we file a case against the accused, the entire power of the state will be brought upon him, and the only protection that he has is the law. It then falls upon the judge to strictly uphold the law and to read ambiguities or vagueness in favor of the accused because as opposed to the state, he is but an individual, and nothing else can protect him but that.
In this case, the administration with all its resources can wield its power against the accused and the only thing that protects these “notorious 11” that you speak of is the rules that were written by the administration itself. And, as the rules are written, these “notorious 11” are to enjoy all rights and privileges as a student, until a final decision is made.
Unfortunately, as the rules are written, the sanction for cheating is 1-year suspension. That is all that the rules provide. Had the SDT hearing been concluded within the two-month period (which I believe I reiterated in the statement), and had they been found guilty, they would have been suspended for the rest of the school year and would have been prevented from graduating and would not have left the school “scot-free.”
So, as you can see, the academic institution you so heroically want to protect has also failed on its part.
And, to be quite frank, had the University Council decided otherwise, the University would stand to lose so much more. The case I cited in the statement (University of the East vs. Jader) is a civil case for damages filed by a student against UE. Because of the failure of the University to inform the student before his graduation that he has not completed the required units, the student was awarded hundreds of thousands in damages. The same would have applied here—it is because of the SDT’s failure that the students were uncertain as to their fate and, if I am not mistaken, they have enough resources to file the same civil case against our University—a case that would have dragged our University’s name to dirt.
To reiterate, due process does not simply require “following the rules.” It also requires that there be a rule punishing a crime (nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege). That is to say, the rules should clearly provide that graduating students can be prevented from graduating if the case is not yet resolved. Unfortunately for us, it does not provide that. That is why we asked for a review of the rules so that if another similar case arise, we are better prepared to respond and the accused do not simply go “scot-free.”
We do not intend to protect these students. We would have done the same thing even if the students involved were less notorious. We would have done the same thing if it were you.
I am certain that you still have much to say regarding this issue. I can see that you are emotional and that you clearly believe that the “notorious 11” are guilty. My advise to you, as a fellow advocate, is this: Do not let them go scot-free. If you truly believe in their guilt then see to it that the case is resolved and that the BOR revise its rules so that other “cheaters” will not be allowed to enjoy the same privilege as these students did. You have many avenues to resort to—the media, peyups, the UC, Admin, OVCSA, the USC, even.
Unfortunately however, we in the USC, cannot make these value judgments. We cannot go on witch-hunts simply because the emotions of certain students run high. We rely on existing rules and precedents. But we strongly encourage advocacies such as yours. If it is of your interest, I can recommend you to the Academic Concerns committee, and the Student’s Rights and Welfare Committee.
I am sorry that the USC has disappointed you. However much we want, we cannot please everyone. We can only try.
To Little Miss Fighting Maroon: Gauging from the tone of your comments and writing style, one can perceive that you sound very much like Prinsesaluna of Peyups.com.
http://www.peyups.com/posts.khtml?mode=viewtopic&topic=29867&forum=10&start=150
http://www.peyups.com/posts.khtml?mode=viewtopic&topic=32703&forum=10&start=330
You were a classmate/ friend of these students. You even claim that Ms. Lopez was your former editor. What do you have against them personally?
Then again, pardon me if I’m wrong. Although I highly doubt it.
I think it is petty to attempt to disprove the points raised by Little Miss Fighting Maroon by simply raising your intuitions, or just seemingly plain yet motivated gut feel, on her (online) identity. Not only that it doesn’t make sense (since there is no inherent value to attribution, if that is what you want), it doesn’t also have any rationale to ask about anything that she holds personally against the NE11. You simply jump to the conclusion that all logic she provided are just motivated by such trifles. That logic is just high schoolish.
@ Sophia: I don’t think the issue here is whether they deserve due process or not, because clearly, they do. And even Little Miss Fighting Maroon did not dismiss that. The question here is why did you even intervene in such issue, given that the University is already giving these people the “due process” that they have been asking for (er, which they just started to ask for when graduation was coming closer when they only felt the fear, after many long weeks of just ignoring the accusations thrown at them in the past)? Hence, the question is: is the University council’s action not due process enough for you, that you had to get the limelight and support these students under the, er, IMHO, cloak of protecting them?
No one knows if they cheated or not, and that’s why the University should do everything to finally resolve the issue. They should do that since it’s a job directly attached to them, not to you. That’s the issue behind this post, not the Platonic and very palatable due process concept.
Just a clarification: The USC Statement of Support was released during the University Council meeting itself. It was supposed to help gain support for these students come voting time by the professors. Maybe it did help, maybe it did not. We would not know for certain. But it is not an “intervention” or simply “pakikialam” after due process was accorded by the UC. Take note again that the support statement was released prior to the UC’s decision to let the 11 students graduate. It was simply posted in this website thereafter because it is an official stand.
Maroon can be cool too. Anyway, I have two points here as response to Stay Cool’s post.
“It was supposed to help gain support for these students come voting time by the professors.”
There, explicitly put. As far as the entry implies, as crystallized by the comments on this page, what the USC just wanted to gain was a calling for a due process. But why is it that now, you are saying that this was supposed to gain support for these students?
One can ask for due process without necessarily having to choose to which party will the outcome of the process favour. But in that remark, then is it proper for us to result in the semantic conclusion that after all, USC is not clamouring for “due process”, but just for “support for these students”.
Yes, I might be at the other side, but I have always asked for due process since before. From the very onset of the issue, I wanted due process. But never did I want to just “support these students” and label that “due process” in any case.
“But it is not an “intervention” or simply “pakikialam” after due process was accorded by the UC.”
- Where is this line coming from? By (1) giving out a stand on the issue and (2) saying explicitly that you wanted to be involved and (3) support these students, it immediately translates to “pakikiaalam” in any case. There was even an intent, again refer to the first quote in this comment, that you wanted to gain support. Tell me how that level of intent does not merit the label “pakikialam”.
I know for myself that you have the right to give out your stance as USC, just like any other group. However, in an issue where the students are divided (er, seemingly) on the issue, the best thing that the USC could have done is to represent both sides. How? Maybe by just demanding for a due process without necessarily asking for support to these students. That way, the USC could not have disappointed students who believe otherwise, and at the same time, expressed their wanting to accord due process to everyone, not just to the NE11 group. And also, perhaps that would also mean being consistent in the labels that you use in the stance itself.
“It was supposed to help gain support for these students come voting time by the professors.”
By this, gaining support simply means:
“It is in this regard that we, the members of the University Student Council, urge the University Council to allow the eleven students from the School of Economics participate in the commencement exercises on April 25, in accordance with the rights set forth in the Rules and Regulations on Student Conduct and Discipline.”
________
“However, in an issue where the students are divided (er, seemingly) on the issue, the best thing that the USC could have done is to represent both sides. How? Maybe by just demanding for a due process without necessarily asking for support to these students.”
Allowing them to graduate IS simply demanding for due process to transpire–the basic presumption of innocence until proven guilty.
“That way, the USC could not have disappointed students who believe otherwise…”
Disappointing emotional students is petty compared to seeking support for students whose lives were about to be destroyed.
Because Maroon is hot is quoted:
“However, in an issue where the students are divided (er, seemingly) on the issue, the best thing that the USC could have done is to represent both sides. How? Maybe by just demanding for a due process without necessarily asking for support to these students.”
I guess you have to understand the addressee of the USC statement, which on this particular case, is the University Administration. As a USC, the institution is duty-bound to protect the interest of the students — whatever side of the fence they may be found — when facing the administration. So, it is only expected for the USC to support these students in the face of a clear bias shown by the UP administration against the 11 alleged perpetrators. To this point, I agree with Sophie and the USC.
“Presumption of innocence until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt.” That’s the standard by which allegations of criminal activities are judged upon. It is not only a case of proving through circumstantial or prima facie evidence, but “beyond reasonable doubt.” As Sophie elucidated here, these students stand to lose their property (a University degree can be considered a property, similar to labor), and social standing if they are not allowed to graduate but later on was found to be innocent. In that case, the University will even find itself in a deeper shithole because these students can sue the University (actual damages resulting from opportunity costs of unemployment, plus moral and exemplary damages for the anguish, anxiety, and humiliation they suffered) which can run to hundreds of thousands, if not millions of pesos. The University will stand to lose little if they allow these students to graduate, resolve the case at the soonest possible time, and if found guilty, revoke their diplomas. This is the same procedure that the University did to erstwhile Student Regent Hannah Serana. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
What the SDT could’ve done is to have these 11 preventively suspended pending resolution of their case. But they did not do it. And absent such rule that graduating students be prevented from graduating pending an SDT case, I perfectly agree with Sophie and the USC’s call to have the SDT Rules of Procedure revisited and revised. This is not the first case that the SDT took years and years to decide a case. There are hundreds of cases lodged in the SDT that have been in limbo for many years.
@ Stay Cool:
This is not just one of another emotional qualms, or any form of sheer emotional protest coming from me. I think this is the same rebuttal that was used on Little Miss Fighting Maroon above, which as I have said in my first comment here, is petty. What I just want is for reason to be given with the credence that it deserves, and not just to be downplayed by the label of, er, “emotions”. And er, let’s stop exaggerating things here, like “destroying their lives” or whatever. Sure, even those “emotional students” can claim that you had their lives destroyed din by doing this, or kahit ano pa, since “destroying lives” as a label is never objective and is such a metaphor which is just emotionally-laden. Since walang objectivity ang words na yan, don’t just use them.
And again, I think you misrepresented what I said about why I don’t think it was right for the USC to do this. I agree, they should be considered innocent until proven guilty. But my point was, dapat hindi na nakialam ang USC. If sjsanjuan says that USC should intervene because
“the institution is duty-bound to protect the interest of the students — whatever side of the fence they may be found — when facing the administration”,
then I think that’s a petty reason. It’s not a matter of unconditional representation of students just because they are students. It’s counter-productive. And also, there were also a significant number of students who (1) wanted them not to graduate and (2) the “moderates” who just rely on what the UC can decide. Following your logic, don’t they deserve representation too because they are students rin naman?
Given that the student body is divided on the issue, what USC could just have done is to take a neutral stance. Just give the Admin the hand to decide. Ganun lang kasiple, hindi na dapat nakisama pa sa issue.
@ Because Maroon is hot
I think you’re losing sight of the bigger picture re: what interest is being represented against whom. In the case at bar, it is the USC representing the students in general versus that of the UC. That should be clear: the USC is performing its job of representing the students of whatever color, stripes, affiliations, beliefs, etc. against the adverse decision of the UC.
Now, when it comes to intra-students issues, I will agree with you that the USC cannot take side. It should only provide a neutral ground for parties with differing opinions on a student matter. Other than that, it cannot endorse or reject a particular student against a fellow student. But it should always endorse a student or student organization against the administration because the USC is primarily created to stand in favor of students rights and welfare, and not as a adjunct of the administration.
@ sjsanjuan
That was what I meant when I said that the USC’s support for a certain group of students (in this case, the NE11) should not be unconditional. If there is already a clear divide in a given issue, i.e. a significant number of students who are definitely against the group which the USC would choose to represent, then better not represent that group at all. What just happens is the stance becomes tokenistic and very much parasitic on other students as well. Never did I want to imply that the USC should be an adjunct to the administration; my point was, in this issue, it was not right to compromise the many other students just because of the NE11. Parang, there’s not yet an objective way of gauging which group of students to follow. Because of that, don’t aggravate the problem by taking a side.
Especially in the case when the USC claims that they are asking for due process, when due process was already happening. Parang, duh, the fact that they are submitting this to the UC and the fact that they know that there was gonna be a vote is already a manifestation that there is indeed due process happening. What then is the value of “asking for due process” if it’s happening anyway? Wala. What just happens is that the USC seems to be just “nakikialam” (mentioned above) or worse, that it just wants to protect that group. That’s bad because the significant amount of those against the group are deliberately ignored by the USC.
Because Maroon is Hot said:
“And also, there were also a significant number of students who (1) wanted them not to graduate”
Is this true? Was there really a significant number of students who did not want them to graduate? WHY?
And I quote:
“As the whistle-blower, you could consolidate public opinion and use a unique asset on your part (the witnessed event/s), to shift the power-structure. These students you’re going against might get the best grades in your undergrad career, have the leadership positions in your organisation, or got the internships you all fought for to have. Admit it, there were a lot of times they beat you at your own game, and those went to their resumes, not yours. Bitterness aside, you have to consider that this isn’t just a matter of revenge or finding out what’s “wrong” with them…”
Sound familiar? That’s sourgraping at its sourest for you.
Where’s the link? When I said that there was (or is) a significant number of students who did not want them to graduate, it isn’t because that they are all jealous of them, or worse, just bitter. If you talk to people around campus, you could get the same idea even from people who were not from SE or even from people who do not know the NE11 personally. The reason that they hold is that they feel that letting these people graduate taints the prestige of the university, which at the end of the day, is detrimental to them as well given that they are students of the same uni.
I do not necessarily say whether that’s valid or not as a reason. And of course there might be lots of other reasons as well. But the point is, not everything is about people feeling bitter of these NE11. Like, hello. Grow up, kids. It’s not about insecurity, it’s about academic integrity. Or the lack thereof.
I had been horrified at the opening statement of one of the first paragraphs:
“The students stand to lose more if they are prevented from graduating and subsequently found innocent, than the university if the students are later found guilty.”
Can these students not see that the academic integrity of the university is also at stake, should the university let them graduate and they were found guilty of cheating?
To taint the name of the university is also to mar the name of the thousands who stand up for it, for the years it has been been established as the premier academic institution here in the Philippines. To taint the name of UP with cheating is also to taint the name of the people who believe in it, who fight for it, and who stand by it.
And for what? Just to let several students with pending cases march up the stage to graduate.
Yes, the graduation ceremony is still just a ceremony–but it also is the symbol that the university is honoring the students who have upheld the ideals of the university, HONOR and EXCELLENCE. To let these students who have allegedly cheated walk up the stage is also to insult the others who are standing with them during that same ceremony. To infer upon them the honor of graduation with the same people who have upheld academic integrity, albeit not all are with latin honors, is to insult the name of UP.
If they are really found innocent, so many graduation ceremonies will be held, as every year it will be.
Due process will be given them, as I hope will be given them, but I find it insulting that simply for the name of several individuals, UP’s name will be tainted.
Luntian at pula and tsk tsk are soooo from Econ ^__~
I am now back to respond to the most salient issues of the post exchange, kudos to the UPD-USC website for creating such wonderful venue for the issue.
Sophia makes an excellent lecture on the basics of the legality of the situation. However, there’s a few things I’d like to question:
1. On the issue regarding USC’s biasness.
Staycool mentions that So, it is only expected for the USC to support these students in the face of a clear bias shown by the UP administration against the 11 alleged perpetrators.
The question is, is there a true bias against these eleven biased perpetrators? Because clearly, the divide between the UPSE and the UP CBA faculty shows that this isn’t true. There’s a bias against the Eleven by the majority of the UPSE faculty, and a bias for coming from the UP CBA. Sure, it depends on how “UP Administration” is defined, but without being able to establish the clear bias of the administration or the faculty, the premise of which Staycool uses for USC’s support of the Eleven, his/her argument fails.
But s/he worked it out with an even-if (unconsciously). The constant remark coming from Sophia/Staycool is that “they deserve support no matter how notorious they are.” But support is not a (this might sound familiar) zero-sum game. The USC showing support to the Eleven should not exclude the support to the witnesses and other student opinions. Which clearly this statement does with the lack of consultation. The statement was even posted post hoc (my clear lack of legal jargon will make me stick to the basic latin phrases =P), and was done AFTER the UC decided on the issue. It makes it unfair since this is a statement representative of the student body, when it’s just you know, a piece of hair in the entire body. I made this clear ever since my first comment, and I do concede that support for the NE11 could exist independent for “support for all”, I just haven’t been hearing why there’s a clear lack of response of the USC in the “support of all” bit.
2. Case parallelism to UE
I will cast a shadow of doubt to this reference. Why? Because clearly, the students who filed the suit against UE were not accused of academic dishonesty, and their loss was clear negligence coming from the university. The situation is COMPLETELY different. This isn’t a question of whether or not UPSE’s ire came out of nowhere, but rather, a going concern for the validity of the accomplishment of academic requirements of the Eleven.
This is where “innocent until proven guilty” leaves me really torn. You can’t presume they’re “innocent” unless you cast an accusation of “guilt” to those witnesses who goes against them. This is the time when it becomes a zero-sum game. One’s innocence equates to the other person’s guilt [in this case, presuming the innocence of the cheaters, will mean that the witnesses/accusers are guilty of fraud/defamation of character/jealousy].
I am not certain to how this is affecting the student disciplinary tribunal hearings, but the fact that the Eleven graduated actually impeded due process, now there’s an incentive for the defendants to take the battle as long as possible seeing that as long as it’s still in proceeding, they still have their degrees, and at a certain point in the future, once they are found guilty, the fact that their degrees and honours are revoked will be largely, ignorable. Whatever would come out of the hearings would seem tokenistic and worst, just some urban legend of what happened to the centennial batch of the UPSE. Never mind the implicit damages incurred by the institution (unlike the tangible damages mentioned by posters who are for the graduation of the Eleven). It just seems so unfair.
Just a minor correction for Little Miss Fighting Maroon, it was sjsanjuan who said: “So, it is only expected for the USC to support these students in the face of a clear bias shown by the UP administration against the 11 alleged perpetrators.”
Little Miss Fighting Maroon said: “Luntian at pula and tsk tsk are soooo from Econ ^__~”
Little Miss Fighting Maroon and Because Maroon is Hot are soooo the same person and soooo from Econ too. ;-D
According to Little Miss Fighting Maroon,
“I am not certain to how this is affecting the student disciplinary tribunal hearings, but the fact that the Eleven graduated actually impeded due process, now there’s an incentive for the defendants to take the battle as long as possible seeing that as long as it’s still in proceeding, they still have their degrees, and at a certain point in the future, once they are found guilty, the fact that their degrees and honours are revoked will be largely, ignorable.”
Isn’t this a pre-judgment on your part?
__________
“This is where “innocent until proven guilty” leaves me really torn. You can’t presume they’re “innocent” unless you cast an accusation of “guilt” to those witnesses who goes against them. This is the time when it becomes a zero-sum game. One’s innocence equates to the other person’s guilt [in this case, presuming the innocence of the cheaters, will mean that the witnesses/accusers are guilty of fraud/defamation of character/jealousy].”
The basic Constitutional right of the presumption of innocence is found in ancient Constitutions worldwide. Are you saying there is a major flaw in the world’s legal system with respect to this particular human right? Not only is it in the Constitution, it is in the Student Handbook of the University as well. According to the Rules and Regulations on Student Conduct and Discipline (Rights of Respondents):
“Pending final decision to any charge, to enjoy his rights and privileges as a student…”
Rights includes graduation. Privileges includes graduation with honors.
__________
If the UPSE was allowed to bar these eleven students from graduating due to mere accusations, without even including them in any prior investigations, the event can be a dangerous precedence for future incidents regarding students accusing each other by mere hearsay. Then this shall be good news for the frats. Mag-akusahan nalang sila sa SDT ng cheating and no one would have to die.
__________
Little Miss Fighting Maroon also said,
“Never mind the implicit damages incurred by the institution (unlike the tangible damages mentioned by posters who are for the graduation of the Eleven). It just seems so unfair. :-(”
Don’t you see the damages to the University’s name, had it not allowed due process to ensue/ had it violated students rights/ had it not followed its own Handbook. You don’t jump the gun whenever something hot like this comes up. Not just because it’s cheating and it’s honor students that are involved. You’re not supposed to prejudge or believe mere hearsay right away. You investigate. Properly. And accord everyone involved their due rights. And follow due process. You don’t just talk to one side and not talk to the other. You’re not supposed to punish people without basis and evidence.
I take it back, Luntian at pula is not from econ, I just thought her emphasis on Honour and Excellence was reminiscent of Dean de Dios’s speech. ^__^
To Stay Cool:
No, I don’t make pre-judgements. Just rational judgements from logical assumptions. Why did the Eleven celebrate the fact that they are allowed to graduate? It’s because things are “going as planned”. With this initial accordance of rights and privileges (note that the moratorium that the Econ faculty provided by not recommending DOES NOT discount that rights and privileges not be accorded in the future), there’s an illusion that the issue is already resolved. Why? Because the validity of these rights and privileges that the SDT case is questioning!
The attack on my questioning of innocence-until-proven-otherwise was too simplistic. Just because it has existed since time immemorial, doesn’t make it close to questioning. What I am elucidating is the removal of the double standard. While you can presume the innocence of the accused cheaters, I am presuming the innocence of the accused accusers. Maybe, one can exist with the other, but as I’ve been saying, they’re mutually exclusive in this scenario.
And the nuances of the scenario is this: you just don’t reduce due process to what’s being said in the handbook. The handbook is very general, that’s why the USC clarified the call for amendments. Obviously, issues of academic dishonesty requires different specifications. The handbook just mentions “students with pending disciplinary proceedings”, the nature of student disciplinary issues goes beyond academic honesty. Say the case is about um… frat violence, obviously, it’s a student discipline issue, and if it’s pending when the defendant is about to graduate, you allow that person to graduate even with the pending case, because frat violence does not invalidate your academic achievement, just the violation of basic human rights and student rules and the Philippine Anti-Hazing Law. When you’re case is cheating, obviously, it questions the right/privileges about to be accorded to you. That’s why for me, it does not make a lot of sense why you give these rights and privileges prematurely, when the due process of validating this issue is already proceeding.
I forgot to mention, I’m from CMC.
Yes, Luntian at pula, your rhetoric shows it. Nicely packaged sentiments. (=
I forgot to mention one more point to Staycool’s comments, the issue on precedence. There is no issue with precedence because obviously, faculties are composed of rational people. It might be a hasty assumption to make because yes, some faculties have frat members that could be hijacked. But the point is this: there’s no such thing as a dangerous precedence because issues like this are judged on a case-to-case basis, and it’s not just the decision that stands in the future, but the process that lead to that decision. That’s why you make case references, not decision references.
At isa pa, the case isn’t based on hearsay. The case is based on signed affidavits of various, unaffiliated witnesses (by unaffiliated I mean they’re not related to each other except the fact that they’re classmates/batchmates). So your idea of dangerous precedence? FAIL.
@ tsk tsk:
Sorry, I am not Little Miss Fighting Maroon. :p Nice try anyway, and just like luntian at pula, I’m not from Econ too.
It is ridiculous how the whole matter has been blown out of proportion.
@ Little Miss Fighting Maroon: “The case is based on signed affidavits of various, unaffiliated witnesses (by unaffiliated I mean they’re not related to each other except the fact that they’re classmates/batchmates).”
On the contrary, I heard two of them are affiliated (both high officers of one org). Also with an Econ professor (org adviser) who has a crucial position in the School. The only thing I heard about the other one is that he/ she belongs to the bottom rank of the batch.
So what is the importance of this bordering on ad hominem attacks on the witnesses? This is getting really irksome— trying to reduce or devalue the testimonies of the witnesses by making it seem that they are bitter, envious, or whatever. PETTY.
Based on my *somewhat reliable* sources, the affidavits of the affiants were all notarized and signed on the same day, which was a day before the report of the econ investigation was forwarded to the SDT.
Coincidence?
@Little Miss Fighting Maroon
Even if the affidavits were signed, they can still be based on hearsay. For example: Affiant A says, “X told me that he/she saw Y looking at Z’s test paper.”
“Even if the affidavits were signed, they can still be based on hearsay. For example: Affiant A says, “X told me that he/she saw Y looking at Z’s test paper.”
- This is such a childish response. Of course, the SDT, even SE, are not as stupid enough as centennial grad describes them. Who would honour affidavits based on such accounts alone? Of course this is a legal proceeding, such accounts would just be disposed of easily if the affidavits were really that… simply stupid.
The mere fact that the affidavits given by the witnesses are honoured and accepted is because they are potentially-capable to help the investigation. So now you are not just discounting the mental faculties of the witnesses, you are also extending that to SDT. And yes, you are asking for “due process” to be accorded by the SDT.
WOW.
@centennial grad
“Even if the affidavits were signed, they can still be based on hearsay. For example: Affiant A says, “X told me that he/she saw Y looking at Z’s test paper.”
As I heard, you’re quite right. And that they also did not prepare their affidavits. One supposed witness who does not read before signing even claimed “X told Y she called Z during the exam” when what she meant was “X told Y she called Z after the exam.” “During” is quite far from “after”, spells a whole lot of difference.
@centennial grad
“Based on my *somewhat reliable* sources, the affidavits of the affiants were all notarized and signed on the same day, which was a day before the report of the econ investigation was forwarded to the SDT.
Coincidence?”
Maybe they were coerced, or worse, paid! Haha, kidding. But I heard they did not swear to any notary public? You can verify with your *somewhat reliable* sources, perhaps.
@ Because Maroon is hot
It’s not a childish response. It’s the truth. You can even check with the notary public. And it is actually beyond me as to why the SDT found merit in the case to begin with.
The affidavits were prepared at the SE level. I’m not trying to say that SE was stupid enough to honor such affidavits, what I’m trying to say is that they were probably desperate since time was running out and they really didn’t know what they were doing. The “tainted” exam took place in August 2007 (1st semester), and if memory serves me right, Dean De Dios constituted the fact finding committee in late Feb 2008 and forwarded to their findings to the SDT in early March. If it was such an important issue, why did were investigations only carried out SIX MONTHS after the alleged incident?
Bottom line is, I am saying that SE did not accord the NE11 with their right to be heard as they were not questioned, or at the very least, named at their level. That’s probably why they had been quiet all this time.
@ tsk tsk
Yes, that’s what I’ve heard too. I wonder if we have the same source… Haha
I think it’s not so much that they got due process that’s abhorrent (because really, they deserve that at the very least) it’s that the full consent to their being given ‘due process’ doesn’t really feel like due process, but more like the first step in them getting away scot free.
what’s strange is that this should have been a simple case. One, they DID have a retake, which proves that at the very least, there WAS an anomaly in the original exam. That is already on record. Two, there’s now more than one witness testifying against them with regards to the incident, and although it’s the witnesses’ word against the Econ11, clearly the witnesses have less of an ulterior motive than they do to fabricate the truth (bitter retribution < salvaging academic and professional reputation).
Other than that, if the proctor of the exam is now saying that there was no cheating that took place, that places him/her in direct contradiction to the existence of the retake, which, again, makes his testimony untenable.
The point being, this hearing should’ve been done weeks ago, and it’s not. I don’t exactly know what’s been happening, but the fact that the proceedings have gone beyond the commencement exercises mean either
a) they ARE getting away scot free,
or
b) they have successfully delayed the proceedings to the point that they’ve basically gotten away scot free.
And obviously, either option is reprehensible.
What’s really depressing about this is, this just goes to show that corruption and lack of integrity in the Philippines isn’t exclusive to the government.
@Marooned:
“Other than that, if the proctor of the exam is now saying that there was no cheating that took place, that places him/her in direct contradiction to the existence of the retake, which, again, makes his testimony untenable.”
A retake could have been conducted to pacify the students complaining about the supposed cheating. It was what the teacher might have done to resolve the issue since no one wanted to come forward un-anonymously. A retake does not necessarily mean that there was indeed cheating by the eleven. And that the proctor is contradicting him/herself.
“a) they ARE getting away scot free,”
Once again a prejudgement on your part. Getting away with what scot free? Nothing has been proven. As for these eleven, they must have gone through such emotional and mental anguish the past couple of months. Their reputations and good standing are now tainted. We aren’t even sure yet if they did commit the crime.
“b) they have successfully delayed the proceedings to the point that they’ve basically gotten away scot free.”
I think it is in the best interest of the accused to finish the proceedings as fast as possible. As I understand, there has been no substantial evidence “beyond reasonable doubt” except for affidavits. Some of these eleven will be pursuing further studies, working, etc. Once again, you’re presuming guilt on their part. Very biased.
@ Marooned
“The point being, this hearing should’ve been done weeks ago, and it’s not. I don’t exactly know what’s been happening, but the fact that the proceedings have gone beyond the commencement exercises mean either
a) they ARE getting away scot free,
or
b) they have successfully delayed the proceedings to the point that they’ve basically gotten away scot free.”
This case cannot be possibly resolved with just one hearing, and it is common knowledge that SDT cases can drag on for months. From what I gather, there have been quite a number of hearings already, but not enough for the SDT to come up with a decision before graduation (which is basically the issue at hand here).
As for getting away “scot free,” let us consider the fact that their lives have been put on hold because of this case and they still stand to face consequences if they are found guilty. If they are innocent, then they can sue the School for damages and what not (this has happened to UPSE before, graduating batch of 1979).
And as for delaying the proceedings, I believe that the NE11 have been pushing for a speedy trial since day 1, but time simply could not permit. Likewise, I agree with Stay Cool that it is in the best interest of everyone (accused and accusers alike) that the case be resolved at the soonest possible time.
@tsktsk and centennial grad:
I am neither Ms Little Fighting Maroon or Because Maroon is so hot. I’m making this clear because it seems there is an ongoing bias as to the personalities of the posters here.
This post is in reference to your May 4th post, which will be herein quoted point by point later on.
* * *
I work at a Law Firm for more than 6 years already, and it seems that you both have limited understanding in making legal documents. Worst, you are using this to make your arguments valid, and I find this offensive.
Allow me to elucidate this point:
1) PREPARATION OF AFFIDAVITS
“As I heard, you’re quite right. And that they also did not prepare their affidavits.”
In almost all legal cases, Affidavits are made by the lawyers of the party and not by them. This is because Affidavits are already a chance for the party to strengthen their arguments, in which case they already cite laws and other jurisprudential edict (i.e. Rules of Procedures, RA, Acts, SCRA, etc.) that they believe are necessary. And obviously, only lawyers will know when such rule shall be applicable; thus, them making the Affidavits (OF COURSE with the consent and understandability of their client), and not their clients.
2) NOTARIZATION OF AFFIDAVITS
“Based on my *somewhat reliable* sources, the affidavits of the affiants were all notarized and signed on the same day, which was a day before the report of the econ investigation was forwarded to the SDT. Coincidence?”
If you will take a look at civil and labor cases, most of them usually have at a minimum 10 complainants who filed Complaint-Affidavits separately; however, with the judiciary wanting a speedy process, said Compalint-Affidavits are consolidated for easy trial. Moreover, if and when the complainants are indigents who cannot afford the services of a lawyer INDIVIDUALLY, they take it upon themselves to hire one or two lawyers to represent them. If lawyers can be consolidated, how much more Affidavits?
Remember that: a Notary Public HAS NO SAY whatsoever as to the contents of the Affidavit. The Notary is primarily there to assure the courts and other quasi-judicial body that the statements made therein are the “sole doing of the Affiant, and those are true based upon his own belief and knowledge.” In fact, quoted phrase is a required statement in making a Affidavit, even in Verifications and Non-Forum Shopping. Check them out, and you will see my point.
To say that all witnesses only used one Notary Public is just… plain ignorant.
3) COERCION/APPEARANCE OF/IN THE NOTARY PUBLIC
“Maybe they were coerced, or worse, paid! Haha, kidding. But I heard they did not swear to any notary public? You can verify with your *somewhat reliable* sources, perhaps.”
As I have ealier mentioned, the Notary Public holds no interest in this situation, as it has similarly designed itself in other cases.
Swearing to the Notary Public is a required activity, but let it be stressed that in extreme cases, it is but a normal practice in the field of law that the affiant does not appear anymore because of certain constraints (i.e. uncontrollable distance, fortuitous events). This is ALSO the reason why Affidavits or any sworn Statements require the exhibition of the Affiant’s Residence Certificate No. and other relevant data because such are presumed to be personal information, which upon its presence in the document can be, at the very least, also a representation of the affiant.
* * *
Please be careful with your arguments, especially since you are already questioning the NOTARY PUBLIC here. Take your arguments within the subject’s line of thinking.
@ Notary Public
Thank you for your extensive explanation of the process of making legal documents involving a notary public. While you are correct in saying that I have limited information in this arena, I would like to point out that I was not questioning the notary public. I was actually questioning the intentions of the complainants.
Yes, affidavits can be consolidated for easy trial, and I perfectly agree with this. And yes, it may be normal practice for affiants not to appear before the notary due to certain constraints, as you pointed out. It’s just that I can’t seem to understand why they couldn’t just cross the street from UPSE and appear before the notary public at the College of Law (although I don’t know if that was the notary public they actually went to). My point is, they’re not “indigent” and I’m pretty sure they had the means to go to a notary public personally. Anyway, I digress from the topic at hand.
I apologize for not taking the notary argument into context, but I’d rather not get into that here because I *at least* know that whatever happens in legal proceedings is confidential. And more importantly, I am not in the position to make that argument
I had the same perceptions as Notary Public, but of course, I wouldn’t have placed it in a more sophisticated jargon than him/her. Thank you so much for the detailed explanation. (=
And I have to admit, tsk tsk and centennial grad are just hinging their ad hominems on practically every little detail they could hold on to. I just want to say one thing, these witnesses who signed affidavits for their testimonies have nothing to gain by doing this, except perhaps the honour and integrity in being able to expose the truth. I’m so sick and tired of hearing “oh they’re just jealous because they’re losers” or “they’re officers of an organisation” (how does that even supposed to make sense? The fact is, there is still one witness who’s not affiliated with these officers, which makes the point on disaffiliation still valid). Other than the BA 161 case, which was the main case in contention at the student disciplinary tribunal (wherein there are three main witnesses), there were other signed affidavits coming from other witnesses in other incidents that involved academic dishonesty from a couple of the eleven. I guess the biggest problem is that some of them are direct testimonies of the defendants admitting to cheating when they thought it was something their schoolmates tolerated, and then realise that their seemingly ignorable comments about cheating in classes would come back to haunt them. And upon further investigation, there are other people who witnessed the event (BA 161 cheating case), and were not able to participate in the proceedings because a person I talked to have said “he wasn’t approached”. I guess this goes to show how SE probably had to work with tight time constraints in consolidating the merit for filing a case in SDT, but just because they worked on a limited time frame, does not mean the case is NOT valid. As for the “coincidence” that all the affidavits were filed on the same day, the economic jargon to match what Notary Public said is called: “economies of scale”. Any decent economic graduate should have a concept of that. Legal counsel does not come cheap, and since it was SE who vouched for the witnesses’ testimonies, they were the ones who accorded them with lawyers as well.
So the point is, there are more than three witnesses to these events, and there are a lot of other witnesses who can vouch for the character of the accused eleven. And I will punctuate my post with another statement on unfairness. I find it unfair that these witnesses cannot really speak for themselves in public forum because they want to stand for the sanctity of their testimonies (that or because they don’t have fathers as columnists of business broadsheets or kabarkadas in the USC *peace USC*), and while I’m not really chums with the three main witnesses of the BA 161 case (and I know that this is where I try to discount all the personal bias people think I have for the witnesses), I just want to do the same for people who are extremely biased with the accused eleven because they’re their friends, and try to protect these witnesses’ integrity: because it’s not easy to fight for the truth, and what they’ve done is laudable and I must admit, something this country needs to have. Even if people would reduce them as “jealous” I don’t see how their “jealousy” will be appeased if the accused individuals are convicted. It’s not as if they’re going to gain all the honours and merits that the accused eleven were accorded to during commencement. That’s why I highly believe that what they are doing is for the quest of the truth, regardless of the perceived ulterior motives.
“This case cannot be possibly resolved with just one hearing, and it is common knowledge that SDT cases can drag on for months. From what I gather, there have been quite a number of hearings already, but not enough for the SDT to come up with a decision before graduation (which is basically the issue at hand here).”
Which is what the point of my reply was — why the hell is it taking so long?
And fact of the matter is, a) it’s the UPSE’s fault for not pushing through with the issue during the first semester but rather pushing through with it ONLY when the issue arose again during the Gawad Chanselor awarding. b) it probably (and I say this with complete ignorance of what exactly has been happening so correct me if I’m wrong) has to do with the Econ11’s delaying of the eventual decision, which leads me to…
As for getting away “scot free,” let us consider the fact that their lives have been put on hold because of this case and they still stand to face consequences if they are found guilty. If they are innocent, then they can sue the School for damages and what not (this has happened to UPSE before, graduating batch of 1979).
No, their lives are not put on “hold”. Living on “hold” means staying in a jail cell NOT living your life until a verdict actually comes in. Living on “hold” means NOT graduating and not being allowed to participate in the commencement exercises UNTIL a verdict comes in. Last I checked, that wasn’t the case. Instead, their lives are put in a distorted reality where, thanks to THEIR taking advantage of a system, they are presumed INNOCENT until proven GUILTY. That means as long as there is no final verdict, they can go on living their lives as if this never happened. Professionally, their prospective employers need not know that the summa cum laude that they’re actually hiring might just be stripped of her credentials. Hell, for all we know they can leave the country and never come back, and since they already have their diplomas and medals on hand, even if UP does strip them of their credentials later on, unless whoever employs them vigorously fact checks their records (which rarely is the case), no one would be the wiser.
Which brings us to…
And as for delaying the proceedings, I believe that the NE11 have been pushing for a speedy trial since day 1, but time simply could not permit. Likewise, I agree with Stay Cool that it is in the best interest of everyone (accused and accusers alike) that the case be resolved at the soonest possible time.
No it is not for the best interest of the accused to have this case resolved at the “soonest possible time” because with their participation in the commencement exercises, they’ve effectively graduated, and they can go on living that illusion as long as the issue isn’t resolved. Moreover, the LONGER the issue stays unresolved, the HARDER it is for the university to run after them and actually strip them of their credentials. That means that they have a better chance of getting away with this the LONGER this stays in the SDT.
Which is why it’s really stupid for anyone to believe this whole “The students stand to lose more if they are prevented from graduating and subsequently found innocent, than the university if the students are later found guilty.”
All the Econ11 are risking is a day’s worth of memories. What UP is risking is their academic reputation for the rest of its existence.
@Marooned
“That means as long as there is no final verdict, they can go on living their lives as if this never happened. Professionally, their prospective employers need not know that the summa cum laude that they’re actually hiring might just be stripped of her credentials. Hell, for all we know they can leave the country and never come back, and since they already have their diplomas and medals on hand, even if UP does strip them of their credentials later on, unless whoever employs them vigorously fact checks their records (which rarely is the case), no one would be the wiser.”
On the contrary, so long as there is a pending SDT case, graduation or no graduation, these students cannot get clearance with the University Registrar. They cannot get their diplomas, nor get Transcript of Records so their plans of applying for grad school, jobs, etc. might be impeded for the time being. That being the case, yes, their lives are put on hold, even in spite of the fact that they have graduated.
With the intent of making the witnesses appear as if they were spreading malicious rumors, centennial grad says this:
“You can even check with the notary public. And it is actually beyond me as to why the SDT found merit in the case to begin with.
The affidavits were prepared at the SE level. I’m not trying to say that SE was stupid enough to honor such affidavits, what I’m trying to say is that they were probably desperate since time was running out and they really didn’t know what they were doing.”
Yes, also saying that the School of Economics was not rational enough and were just “desperate” on how to catch those alleged cheaters. However, after Notary Public’s clarification (read: proving that centennial grad’s points were mere a) pointless and b) not true), centennial grad wants to get away with his/her claims scot free (hmm. familiar?) by saying this:
“I *at least* know that whatever happens in legal proceedings is confidential. And more importantly, I am not in the position to make that argument :D”.
QUITE UNDERSTANDABLE. Retracting from a claim that he/she him/herself knows doesn’t make sense.
Saying that the witnesses may just be “angry” or “jealous” at the accused group is just plain PETTY.
Aside from that, I can’t stand how members of that group keep making use of ad misericordiam arguments. Kawawa naman sila. They are the victims here, people are ganging up on them, etc etc. OO. Mahirap para sa kanila… Pero hindi ba nila naisip na mahirap rin ito for the witnesses? They incur costs too. It takes a lot of effort (emotionally, most of all) to attend hearings.
But I digress. The title of this statement is misleading. At first glance, I would have thought that no due process was in place. But there actually is (that is why the case is with SDT in the first place and why SE is taking all steps with their counsel’s guidance). Sana, USC, you clarified the statement man lang… Something along the lines of “Statement of Support for 11 SE Students’ Call for Graduation Rights and Privileges”
Ganun. Sa title pa lang, titirahin na talaga kayo diyan.
Higit sa lahat, dapat cool lang tayo.
Maroon Karma,
as mentioned earlier, I think your view of due process is rather limited. The requirement of due process does not only require that there be proceedings but it also requires that until the proceedings finally declares that the students are guilty, by virtue of the rules on student conduct and discipline, they are to be accorded their full rights and privileges.
Marooned,
Obviously, this debate will lead to nowhere seeing as we will disagree on your definitions.
Perhaps it would be nice if you cited sources?
“Living on “hold” means staying in a jail cell NOT living your life until a verdict actually comes in. Living on “hold” means NOT graduating and not being allowed to participate in the commencement exercises UNTIL a verdict comes in. Last I checked, that wasn’t the case. Instead, their lives are put in a distorted reality where, thanks to THEIR taking advantage of a system, they are presumed INNOCENT until proven GUILTY. That means as long as there is no final verdict, they can go on living their lives as if this never happened”
And, I believe the UC is sufficiently intelligent for it to be able to decide if the reputation f UP which you speak of will be “risked.”
Little Miss Fighting Maroon:
The statement released by the USC was not written by a person who knows these people personally. I assure you, I do not know any of them. No doubt, I may even believe in their guilt. But, like I said, I am not to be guided by my own judgments but by rules.
To Ms San Luis,
With due respect, just for clarification, I would just like to ask the motive and/or procedures your Committee/Office used in releasing Statements such as this. Did the accused ask for your Committee’s support on the issue, or is it that your Committee generally scans its environment, and upon a set of rules, chooses issues which it thinks merits a stand from the Committee?
Also, will your Committee be monitoring the progress of the case at the Student Tribunal?
Response to this shall be highly appreciated. Thanks.
Thank you Sophia, I do believe in your ground objectivity, but like Notary Public, I also question to why you had to “follow the rules” to begin with, obviously, there sould be some demand for support for you to release a statement of support, and this I believe, came from strong affiliation of the Eleven to some members of political parties in the USC.
@ centennial grad who’s quoted to have said:
Sorry, I find this such a nitpicky response which deserves and equally nitpicky response. If that’s the case, then the entire graduating batch of 2008’s lives are put on hold because no one in the batch has been cleared yet given the volume of transactions, and everyone will receive their diplomas on December 2008. In that case, everyone’s lives are still on hold. And again, to Sophia who trusts in the sufficient intelligence of the 198 UC members who voted for graduation, we (or at least I) also believe in the “sufficient intelligence” of the 12 UC members who voted against (note that only 17% of them were not SE faculty).
I quote from kdg for Little Miss Fighting Maroon, also known as prinsesaluna from peyups (http://www.peyups.com/posts.khtml?mode=viewtopic&topic=29867&forum=10&start=165):
“Choose your battles. In the next four years that you’re going to spend in the College of Law, it wouldn’t hurt to start swallowing the bitter pill of humility. Your posts reek with self-righteousness. As a future JD student, this early put premium on the fact that there is a presumption of innocence until proven otherwise.”
Moreover, for your own good, please review Article 353-356 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines.
While there is such a thing as freedom of expression, libel laws were created to protect people from crimes against honor. Be mindful of what you say, especially if your statements are not based on truth but on mere hearsay [a legal term referring to the use of out of court statements as evidence] and opinion alone. It would do you good to “start swallowing the bitter pill of humility.”
I don’t think my view of due process is limited, rather I think that YOUR statement is limiting. Although due process does involve the presumption of innocence, your statement chooses to focus on one aspect of this process while ignoring the bigger picture. (In the first place, if there was no due process, the UC meeting probably would not have taken place. The case would not have been in the SDT… and the 11 would have undergone a trial by publicity.)
Moreover, the USC should be transparent with regards to how this statement was released. (Because as the story is going around, to my utter chagrin, that this statement was drafted with one of the counselors being a friend and supporter of the 11. Okay, you might say. So what if he was a friend of the 11? Then let’s go on to the more negative story, that only one party was amenable to the drafting of this statement. The other party chose to shut up about it because they can use this against that OTHER party… that USC statements can be rushed as long as anyone can pull the right strings.)
Clarification, please. We need to know the truth about this.
The 11 and their supporters keep on bringing the issue of libel against those who seem to be spreading “rumors” about the case. In the first place, they were the ones who chose to publicize the case, even though it was supposed to be confidential. Have you ever stumbled across their blogs? Have you ever read that certain Business World article written by one of the parents? If they want people to shut up about it, they can set an example by shutting up themselves.
And if Little Miss Fighting Maroon is princesaluna, how is that relevant to your arguments? It is not. Completely IRRELEVANT.
Maroon Karma:
I’m sorry to say this, but your latest arguments do not make much sense. You are quite emotional and pointless. From your earlier comments, you sound like you could be one of the “witnesses”. You said that “they” incur emotional costs? Could you be extra emotional over this issue because you are? Just a thought.
I think that the issue of miss fighting maroon/prinsesaluna’s identity is not relevant to the argument, but to her well-being. Using Maroon Control’s link, I visited peyups and read up on the issue. If you go over the related peyups threads closely, you will discover that her statements are indeed libelious since some of them are too personal already. Thus, the advice is timely and apt.
As a curious outsider, I feel that there is assymetric information among the accused, the witnesses, and the rest of the community. Whether or not there was due process or whether or not trial by publicity condemned the accused early on is not ours to judge. To prevent further animosity, it’s best not to speculate and conclude unless we have all the authentic facts at hand.
Good day everyone.
Curious Boy:
Regardless of prinsesaluna’s commentaries on peyups, I find it strange that the advice for prinsesaluna and libel is done in this forum. Upon closer examination of all my posts here in the UPD-USC website, Maroon Control’s comment falls to nothing but an ad hominem (as you said), alongside you and When Maroons Fight’s presumption that I am prinsesaluna.
I personally take offence because it’s not enriching the discussion.
Re Maroon Karma’s post:
“In the first place, they were the ones who chose to publicize the case, even though it was supposed to be confidential. Have you ever stumbled across their blogs? Have you ever read that certain Business World article written by one of the parents? If they want people to shut up about it, they can set an example by shutting up themselves.”
Hi, I’d just like to say that as much as possible, I wanted to keep the issue under wraps. It has done huge damage to my name and my family’s. I got a lot of flack for my blog and my dad’s article. I was also an officer for an organization whose name I did not want to associate with such an issue. My infamous letter was not public and was given to the mentioned UP officials only. When I posted it, it was an emotional move to defend myself in public. Something that I could not reverse anymore. My dad’s article too was his own prerogative motivated by anger and protectiveness of a daughter. Looking back, sometimes I do regret that my dad wrote that article. We may have hurt a lot of people I didn’t intend to.
But it wasn’t me who first laid out the issue for public consumption. After my infamous Gawad was suspended due to those allegations, a friend told me about this. Although initially unnamed, “summa girl” seemed to be alluding to me. To be called a cheat, a flirt, a moron, and a liar was very damaging and very hurtful. This was very devastating for me and at that time, I felt I needed to defend myself out in the open already.
Notary Public:
“With due respect, just for clarification, I would just like to ask the motive and/or procedures your Committee/Office used in releasing Statements such as this. Did the accused ask for your Committee’s support on the issue, or is it that your Committee generally scans its environment, and upon a set of rules, chooses issues which it thinks merits a stand from the Committee?”
This matter was referred to me by the chair of the USC and was brought to his attention by Councilor Joseph Gutierrez who admittedly, is a friend of some of the E11 students. You can be rest assured however that I studied the matter objectively and had even consulted with a member of the local council who was, to say the least, very candid about what happened. After drafting the statement I posted it in our e-groups and texted the body to reply with their comments. No replies of opposition came hence, it was deemed adopted. Admittedly this procedure seems hasty but understand that the matter was brought to my attention less than 24 hours before the UC was set to deliberate.
Little Miss Fighting Maroon:
“Thank you Sophia, I do believe in your ground objectivity, but like Notary Public, I also question to why you had to “follow the rules” to begin with, obviously, there sould be some demand for support for you to release a statement of support, and this I believe, came from strong affiliation of the Eleven to some members of political parties in the USC.”
There is always a demand for support. On your part, there is a demand not to support and a demand for the SDT to convict these students, actually. Still, regardless of the demand, I decided to call for due process because that is what the rules require.
This is going to be a chicken and egg debate because I am certain you would ask me why I followed the rules again. YES. To be frank, the matter was referred to the chair by a friend who is likewise a councilor.
Unless you are prepared to defend your implied argument that the only reason we made the call was because they had a friend in the council, then I believe there is nothing left to be discussed. Like I said, I know none of them. I drafted the statement based on the rules and not based on anyone’s guilt or innocence. As a law student, that is how I am trained to think. If it were you who had made the call for support, I would have gone through the same process of referring to the rules for a basis for the USC’s support.
To everyone:
I am willing to have someone from my committee monitor this case. The problem however, is that SDT hearings are confidential and are held closed-doors. Nonetheless, we welcome any one who requires assistance from us.
No need to defend an implied argument Sophia, I just needed the clarification. Again, thanks.
To Ms San Luis,
Since we have no other information source, from a legal stand point, if and when some of the accuseds travel outside the Philippines (assumption of course is that no travel restraints were given), obviously this can cause delay of the proceedings. I believe a lot of those E11, especially since they are top graduates, already have job offers abroad. What shall happen then?
Correct me if I’m wrong but as I know the UP Student Handbook/ Faculty Manual state that hearings shall last no longer than two months. I think it’s the judging that actually takes long. Cases in UP have lasted for years.
Found this in peyups:
http://www.peyups.com/posts.khtml?mode=viewtopic&topic=29867&forum=10&start=165
“So the SE fact-finding committee did not once think to get the side of the accused and, in effect, heard only one side of the story? Am I the only one who finds something very troubling about this?
And re the CBA’s inaction. The Dean of the CBA herself expressed dismay at the SE’s lack of cooperation when they wanted to investigate the case as early as last year. She was also quite annoyed by the fact that th SE did not coordinate with CBA in the School’s investigation. The incident, after all, occurred in the CBA. Maybe you heard differently from your school’s faculty, but Dean Echanis’s statement re the SE’s unwillingness to cooperate when the CBA first looked into the incident is the UC’s official minutes. Interestingly enough, not one SE faculty member stood up to contest her words.
And BTW, gossip is never harmless when it blackens the reputation of a recognizable individual. Especially when the allegations are wholly unsubstantiated. You’ll learn all about that when you take up the laws on libel.
One more thing:the majority of a prestigious School’s faculty vs. eleven of their own students; who holds the power in this situation?”
Seems to me that the School has committed faults too that caused tarnish to its own name.
Am I the only one who finds it troubling that Dee Lopez, and er, When Maroon Fights have to refer to other forum discussions to defend herself? Can’t she do anything else but cite forum posts?
Just a short question to When Maroons Fight:
If the NE11 really wanted to clear their names on this issue (assuming they were really confident that they did not cheat), why did they not push for an investigation early on? Why did they not initiate a committee (or whichever move, like maybe protest? whatever) themselves to get their names and their very precious lives out of the issue? Why does it seem that all that they did was to think that the issue was dead, that they can get away with it, all until Miss Dee Lopez was disqualified for the Gawad?
Correct me if I am wrong about this, but given the very public nature of Miss Dee Lopez’s emotions (like writing an open letter with her look-my-grades-are-amazing section out of her emotions, and then becoming sorry if she hurt someone), it just seems very much unlikely of her to not initiate an investigation if she (along with the other NE10) was really confident that she did not cheat.
Whether they cheated or not is debatable; that’s why we have the hearings. But the “confidence” that they did not cheat is not. Why did that confidence that I expect they have not translate into action before. That makes even that confidence debatable now.
And if When Maroons Fight, blames the SE for its “lack of cooperation”, I think the fault should be shared with them as well, given that they know about this yet intentionally did nothing about it.
@Because Maroon is hot:
I don’t think it was necessary for the NE11 to stoop to the level of rumors. Since these were just rumors, it is possible that they could not have even been 100% sure they were the target of such. It might have also been a very sensitive matter they would rather shut up about. Silence does not always mean guilt. Even if innocent, you would not necessarily parade around that you were being accused of something as low as cheating, would you? It could have been self-preservation.
But when one’s graduation, and not just mere awards are clearly threatened, then it makes sense that the NE11 demand for… “a committee (or whichever move, like maybe protest? whatever) themselves to get their names and their very precious lives out of the issue.”
@Little Miss Fighting Maroon:
As a matter of fact, Maroon Control has also been citing forum posts. Is it prohibited? I do admit that I have been following this thread among other forums and I succumb to the arguments made in some of those. I couldn’t have said those better. I also admit that I am very biased towards the issue and feel protective of the “NE11″ since I am a friend of theirs and I believe in their innocence. As far as I know, as early as last year, some of them have confidentially asked for a two-sided investigation from the CBA, who was prepared to do so but couldn’t act without formal written complaints.
This forum is turning into one big trial by publicity, for both the witnesses and the accused. Stay cool, everyone.
Notary Public
“Since we have no other information source, from a legal stand point, if and when some of the accuseds travel outside the Philippines (assumption of course is that no travel restraints were given), obviously this can cause delay of the proceedings. I believe a lot of those E11, especially since they are top graduates, already have job offers abroad. What shall happen then?”
This is an interesting question. I’ve gone over the rules and as I understand, it does not provide for any safeguard against that. That is why in the statement, we made a call for the UC to urge the BOR to revise the rules because there are some shady areas in the rules which can be clarified by mere amendment.
I want to remind you though that this is not a criminal proceeding and that they are free to travel while the case is ongoing. The SDT hearings do not require their constant presence. If they do not appear to testify on the date when they are set to appear, without giving a valid and sufficient excuse, then they waive their right to testify.
If you are interested in volunteering for SLAAC (even if you’ve already graduated), just email me.
To everyone:
The SLAAC is still openly recruiting volunteers.
The perks? You understand these things better with paralegal training and legal research and writing training.
Peace.
Curious Boy:
Don’t call statements “pointless” just because they don’t happen to sit well with you. That’s just a sign of immaturity.
Moreover, I am not a witness. (I don’t believe that you are just a “curious outsider”, however, who just happened to access the peyups forum just because it was posted here. But that’s just my personal opinion.)
Anyway, my point was, it does not make sense to link princesaluna to anyone. It does not, for example, may Little Miss Fighting Maroon’s arguments any weaker or yours any stronger. If the intention was for anyone’s “well-being”, then people should state why and how statements are libelous in the first place. That involves the establishment that the writer (princesaluna, for example) has MALICIOUS INTENT. Which is pretty impossible to ascertain. The 11 can still try to go after people with libel… but it may just go nowhere.
About this,
“So the SE fact-finding committee did not once think to get the side of the accused and, in effect, heard only one side of the story? Am I the only one who finds something very troubling about this?”
The fact-finding committee’s objective is to determine if a case has merit. It is not an investigation; hence, the accused side need not be represented in the fact-finding. It only establishes the strength of the witnesses’ statements– Are the witnesses’ statements strong enough to establish a case (i.e. that the case be forwarded to the SDT)? The fact-finding committee does not establish anyone’s guilt at its level. To call any of the accused is unnecessary to the committee’s function.
A metaphor, if to make it clearer:
Say, for example, that Person A says “I was robbed by Person B.” Person C comes in and states “Person A says that he was robbed. I think that the police should come investigate.” Then, the police come in to talk to both Person A and Person B to get both their sides.
Person A is the victim of the crime (or the witness to the case).
Person B is the accused.
Person C is the fact-finding committee or SE. It is entirely in SE’s jurisdiction to establish such a committee with or without CBA’s participati