A Response to the Petitioners Case regarding the Call forOpen Applications for the Positions of the Buklod AtenistaAmbassador and Buklod Atenista Trainees Jann Railey E. Montalan Respondent Versus Saje Miguel Molato Kristoni Go Edna Africa Julia Li Petitioners To the Honorable Magistrates of the Student Judicial Court, The respondent, Railey Montalan, 2nd Year SOSE Central Board Representative, in counsel with the Central Board, calls for a motion to wholly dismiss the petitioners' case due to factual issues with the matter. Inresponsetothepetitionersarguments,therespondentprovidesthefollowing counterarguments and clarifications: 1)The petitioners claim that, The initial draft of our resolution was scrapped in order to create a revised version, and that the revision would be written by the respondent under the the supervision of the DEA Chairperson in order to assure that the initial proposalsandideasremainedintact.Therespondentclarifiesthatwhilethe respondent did in fact scrap the petitioners resolution (which was acknowledged and accepted by the DEA Chairperson), the respondent did not have an agreement with the DEA Chairperson with regards to keeping his said resolution and using it as a basis for theresolutionthattheCentralBoardhadpassed.Therespondentonlysaidthathe would make a new resolution, however it was not explicitly agreed upon that it would be any kind of revision of the petitioners resolution. Moreover, it was not explicitly agreed upon that the new resolution would be written underthesupervisionoftheDEAChairperson;assuch,therewasnoneedforthe consent of DEA or the DEA Chairperson regarding the new resolution the respondent hadstartedcrafting.WhatwasagreeduponwasthattheCentralBoardwouldrelay developmentsregardingthenewresolution.AndtheCentralBoarddidassuch;the newresolutioninitiallycraftedbytherespondentwasuploadedtotheSanggunian DropboxforcollaborativeviewingandeditingbytherestoftheCentralBoarda facilityinwhichtheDEAChairpersonhadaccesstomeaningthattheDEA Chairperson was capable of seeing and discerning what was written and stipulated in the new resolution weeks prior to its approval by the Central Board. The standardized protocolisthatallTop52officerscanhaveaccesstoallfoldersoftheSanggunian Dropbox, which was explained and instituted during the Central Board meeting of June 19,2015.However,theDEAChairpersonmayhaveoverlookedthis,thusfailingto understand that he, in fact, had access to the new resolution being written. It is the duty of the the Top 52 Officers of the Sanggunian to be aware of facilities provided to officers of the Sanggunian, which includes all Sangguanian files that the officer has access to. Furthermore,theresolutionthattherespondenthadcraftedwasnotbasedonany stipulations from the resolution that was written by the DEA Chairperson. Rather, the newresolutioncraftedbytherespondentwasonlyinfluencedbythemanifestofthe incumbentBuklodAtenistaAmbassadorregardingtheAmbassadorshipthatwas presentedintheCentralBoardmeetingofJune11,2015anddiscussionswiththe incumbent following the presentation of the manifest. 2)The petitioners claim that they were explicitly told that the Central Board Member presenting the resolution to the Central Board had the capacity to make changes to our resolution without prior notice and without our consent. The respondent clarifies that therespondenthadneverexplicitlynorimplicitlytoldDEAthathe,northeCentral Board, had the capacity to make changes and revisions to their resolutions. What the respondent had said was that he, in counsel with CB members, wished to raise major revisions to it. However, after discussing this personally to the DEA Chairperson, it was decided that the DEA Chairpersons resolution would be scrapped, as confirmed by the petitionersintheircase.Furthermore,itwasdecidedthattherespondentshallbe creatinganewresolutionwithouttakingfromorusinganystipulationsstatedinthe DEA Chairpersons resolution, as clarified above. 3)ThepetitionersclaimthattheywereinformedthattheCentralBoardhadmadea collective decision regarding the matter without providing us an actual document indicating the passing of such a decision. The collective decision referred to the verbal acknowledgementoftheCentralBoardmembersthatwereavailableandcapableof considering this affair, thus there is no written documentation of this decision. 4)Thepetitionersclaimthattheywerenotinvitedtoanydialoguesorjointsessions regardingtheapprovalofourresolution.Therespondentclarifiesthatagain,the resolutionthatwaspassedwasnottheresolutionthatwaswrittenbytheDEA Chairperson.Therespondentfurtherstressesthatnostipulationstatedinthe aforementioneddocumentcraftedbytheDEAChairpersonwasusedinthe respondents resolution. Rather, the resolution that was passed was a resolution that the Central Board had collectively crafted and edited, only headed by the respondent, free fromanyoutsideinfluenceasidefromtheincumbentBukloadAtenistaAmbassador. Therefore, the Central Board was not obligated to invite the DEA Chairperson nor his office to dialogues regarding this. 5)The petitioners claim that they were never provided the revised copy that was assured duringtheinitial,aswellasthesucceedingseconddialoguewithregardstothe resolution. The respondent clarifies that there was no explicit agreement between the DEA Chairperson and the respondent with regards to furnishing copies of revisions to their resolution. Furthermore, the new resolution crafted by the respondent was, in fact, uploaded to the Sanggunian Dropbox weeks before the Central Board deliberated onandapprovedit,ensuringthetransparencybetweentheunitsoftheSanggunian, which includes the Department of External Affairs.6)The petitioners claim that, The resolution that was recently passed contained only one provision of the supposed 4 full length resolutions to be passed regarding our proposal. Once more, the new resolution was not based on the DEA Chairpersons resolution nor wasitarevisionofthesaidresolutioncraftedbysaidparty.Theresolutionthatwas passed was an entirely new document, initially crafted by the respondent and further editedbytherestoftheCentralBoard,andwasonlyinfluencedexternallybythe manifestofincumbentBuklodAtenistaAmbassadorandthediscussionswiththe incumbent that followed. 7)Inthesecondtothelastparagraphofthecase,thepetitionersclaimthatforaCB member, whose duty is to represent his constituents and their advocacies to the student government....However,accordingtoArticle7,Section2EoftheConstitution, CentralBoardmembersareonlyrepresentativetotheirschoolfromtheiryearlevel. Thus,seeingthatallpetitionersarefromtheSchoolofSocialSciences,andthe respondent is only accountable for the Central Board and the 2nd Year students of the School of Science and Engineering, the 2nd Year SOSE Central Board Representative member is not accountable for the representation of the petitioners nor their advocacies tothestudentgovernment.Moreover,tosaythattherespondentsdecisionsto deliberatelymanipulateandintervenebasedonhisowndiscretion,isoutright fallacious. The Central Board, and furthermore the incumbent Ambassador, have the same outlooks with regards to their proposed plans. Furthermore, the respondent only acted upon the counsel of the Central Board and the incumbent Ambassador. Thus, it isunjustforthepetitionerstodeprecateandcallthemembersoftheSanggunian hypocritical for acting upon the problem that was caused by the petitioners foremost disregardandignorancedespitealltheaccesstheyhadavailablewithregardstothe resolution crafted by the members of the Central Board that was passed last July 21, 2015. The respondent, in counsel with the Central Board, finds it disappointing and insulting that the DEA Chairperson and the members of his office are blaming the Central Board, and especially the2ndYearSOSECentralBoardRepresentative,fortheirowndeliberatedisregardand oversight on this matter. The respondent wishes that the Court may consider all the points that wereclarifiedinthisresponsetoassisttotheformationonyourfavorabledecisiononthis matter. Lastly,therespondentcallsforamotionfortheextensionofthedeadlinefortheStudent Judicial Courts deliberation on this matter in light of the Court not being in session. Jann Railey E. Montalan Respondent 2nd Year SOSE Central Board Representative raileymontalan@outlook.com