The CERIS Homeowners Association Incorporated (CHAI), the homeowners association of Ceris I & II Village, Canlubang, Laguna made it a rule that NO CAMPAIGN POSTER OF ANY CANDIDATE RUNNING FOR ANY ELECTIVE POST, WHETHER NATIONAL OR LOCAL, IS ALLOWED TO BE POSTED IN ANY OF THE COMMON AREAS OF THE VILLAGE, INCLUDING VILLAGE FENCES, TREES, AND THE LIKE. This is primarily because Ceris Village is a private property, and COMELEC did not include private subdivisions in the list of common poster areas.
This rule has already been enforced since the elections of 2004. Violators are to face protests from CHAI. All candidates and parties have been notified of this rule. CHAI Officers have been diligently removing these illegally posted paraphernalia.
However, as of 5pm of Monday, March 29, 2009: the following have already violated the said rule:
RAMIL HERNANDEZ, Nacionalista, for Laguna governor
DAVE ALMARINEZ, Nacionalista, for Laguna vice-governor
BIM BELARMINO, Lakas-Kampi, for Laguna 2nd District Board Member
RUTH MARIANO HERNANDEZ, Nacionalista, for Calamba City Councilor
MIRIAM PLATON, Nacionalista, Calamba City Councilor
PIO DIMAPILIS, Lakas-Kampi, for Calamba City Councilor
PEEWEE PEREZ, Lakas-Kampi, for Calamba City Councilor
EDDIE CATINDIG, Liberal, for Calamba City Councilor
CRIS CONTRERAS, Liberal, for Calamba City Councilor
How can they be Laguna's and Calamba's leaders if they themselves cannot follow simple rules?
So that the public may know.
Maybe you can reconsider voting for the abovementioned names.
forging a new brand of activism,
Ramon Angelo O. Robrigado
Alumnus,
Buklod-UPLB
Monday, March 29, 2010
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Injustice in the Judiciary
On March 17, 2010, the Supreme Court allowed Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to appoint the successor of Chief Justice Reynato Puno despite the ban on appointive posts during the election period.
Article VII Sec 15 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution states that Two months before the next presidential elections and up to the end of his term, the President…shall not make appointments….
The constitution does not state that this provision is exclusively for appointive government officials. Hence, it can be argued that this provision is also meant for the judiciary, whose top positions are all appointive.
But the decision of 9 Supreme Court Justices (who, mind you, were all Arroyo-appointed) was indeed, as UP Alyansa put it in a speech delivered at the March 19, 2010 indignation rally, a "bastardization of our Constitution."
This is a blatant effort made by Gloria Macapagal Arroyo (notice that I don't put the word "President" anymore because she is not worthy of the title) to perpetuate herself and her, as one blogger put it, "Satanic" family in power. Her strategy of appointing Bangit in the helm of the AFP and now, another Arroyo appointee in the helm of the Supreme Court, are just the preliminaries for a greater scheme of things - a fearsome nationwide system of organized cheating to declare a national-level failure of elections.
We, as Filipinos, must act now and save our nation from more years of repression.
Article VII Sec 15 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution states that Two months before the next presidential elections and up to the end of his term, the President…shall not make appointments….
The constitution does not state that this provision is exclusively for appointive government officials. Hence, it can be argued that this provision is also meant for the judiciary, whose top positions are all appointive.
But the decision of 9 Supreme Court Justices (who, mind you, were all Arroyo-appointed) was indeed, as UP Alyansa put it in a speech delivered at the March 19, 2010 indignation rally, a "bastardization of our Constitution."
This is a blatant effort made by Gloria Macapagal Arroyo (notice that I don't put the word "President" anymore because she is not worthy of the title) to perpetuate herself and her, as one blogger put it, "Satanic" family in power. Her strategy of appointing Bangit in the helm of the AFP and now, another Arroyo appointee in the helm of the Supreme Court, are just the preliminaries for a greater scheme of things - a fearsome nationwide system of organized cheating to declare a national-level failure of elections.
We, as Filipinos, must act now and save our nation from more years of repression.
RESPECT THE CONSTITUTION!
STOP THE MIDNIGHT APPOINTMENT OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE!
Friday, March 19, 2010
SR's Open Letter to the UP Student Community
BUKAS NA LIHAM SA MGA ISKOLAR NG BAYAN
HINGGIL SA PANGGIGIPIT AT PANUNUPIL NG BOR AT ADMINISTRASYONG PRESIDENT ROMAN LABAN SA OFFICE OF THE STUDENT REGENT
Opisina ng Rehente ng mga Mag-aaral
Unibersidad ng Pilipinas
March 8, 2010
Nagbabalik ang masalimuot na alaala at karanasan ng batas militar sa mga kasalukuyang pangyayari sa ating pinakamamahal na pamantasan.
Mula nang maitatag ang Office of the Student Regent (OSR) noong 1970, wala pang yugto sa kasaysayan ng ating Pamantasan kung saan nawalan ng kinatawan ang mga mag-aaral sa UP Board of Regents (BOR). Tanging sa loob ng isang dekada sa ilalim ng Batas Militar nilusaw ng diktadurya ang lahat ng mga institusyon at konseho ng mga mag-aaral, mga publikasyon at mga organisasyon sa loob ng pamantasan. Ngayong taon, matapos ang ilang dekada, Pebrero 25 nang ang BOR mismo ang tuluyang pumigil sa pag-upo sa kanilang pulong ang natatanging kinatawan ng mahigit 48,000 na mag-aaral ng Unibersidad ng Pilipinas.
Isang malaking kawalan at disbentahe sa libu-libong mag-aaral ng UP ang pagtatanggal ni President Emerlinda Roman at ng BOR sa ating Student Regent (SR). Tangan ang militanteng tradisyon ng institusyon, ang OSR ay inaasahang kumatawan at magsulong ng mga interes at paninindigan ng mga mag-aaral hinggil sa mga usapin ng pamantasan, hanggang sa mga usapin sa pambansang saklaw.
Sa kabila ng mahalagang papel ng OSR sa demokratikong pamamahala sa ating pamantasan, tayo ay tinanggalan ng representasyon sa BOR.
Malinaw sa atin ang dahilan: Alam natin na hindi ito simpleng usapin ng pagsunod sa mga panuntunan ng pamantasan, sa halip,
ito ay hakbangin upang magsulong ng makasarili at makauring interes ng iilan sa loob ng BOR.
Ngayon, hinubad na ng BOR ang kanyang maskara at inilantad ang sarili—hindi ito kailanman nagsilbi sa interes ng mga mag-aaral at iba’t ibang sektor ng pamantasan, pagka’t ito’y nilikha upang bigyang-wangis o bigyang-ilusyon lamang na may demokratikong pamamahala sa ating pamantasan.
Pebrero 17, 2010 noong makatanggap ang SR ng liham mula sa Secretary of the University and of the Board of Regents na si Dr. Lourdes E. Abadingo. Nakasaad rito na sa pulong umano ng BOR noong Enero 29, 2010, “the Board of Regents agreed that you should no longer be allowed to participate in its deliberations as Student Regent for your failure to comply with the qualifications to continue serving as Student Regent…The Chair, however, has instructed the undersigned to invite you as Observer in the meeting of the Board scheduled on 25 February 2010”.
Walang pagtatangging tinatanggap ng SR ang naging kahinaan nito na makapagpasa ng application for residency sa takdang panahon sa UP Los Baños, ngunit ito’y hindi mulat na paglabag sa mga panuntunan ng pamantasan.
Sa panahong iyon, mapagpasyang inuna ng SR ang paggampan sa kanyang mga tungkulin at gawain sa buwan ng Nobyembre at maagang bahagi ng Disyembre. Bumisita ang SR sa iba’t ibang mga yunit ng UP upang maglunsad ng konsultasyon, umupo sa mga dayalogo hinggil sa pagtataas ng mga bayarin sa mga laboratoryo, magsaliksik sa mga usaping nakasampa sa BOR, at magbigay ng mga pag-aaral sa mga kapwa Iskolar ng Bayan. Lalo na’t iyon ang kritikal na panahon ng deliberasyon ng badyet para sa mga State Colleges and Universities (SUCs), kabilang na ang UP na kumakaharap sa P2 bilyong kaltas sa badyet. Naging bahagi rin ang SR ng mga pamprobinsiya at pambansang aktibidad ng mga kabataan. Hindi rin ito nawala sa mga pambansang araw ng pagkilos ng mga kabataan at mamamayan para sa kanilang karapatan sa edukasyon at batayang serbisyong panlipunan.
Bukod rito, hindi na kailanman naging maluwag at ganap na malaya para sa SR ang pagluwas papuntang UPLB nang walang pangamba sa seguridad matapos makaranas ng red-tagging, sampu ng mga naging kasamahan nito sa Konseho ng Mag-aaral ng UPLB, UPLB Perspective at Samahan ng Kabataan para sa Bayan (SAKBAYAN), mga lehitimong estudyante, at miyembro ng kaguruan sa UPLB. ng Kasabay ng naging hayagang presensya ng mga militar sa UPLB campus, palagian at masaklaw rin ang pagpapakalat ng mga black propaganda sa UPLB campus, pinararatangan ang SR at mga kasamahan nito bilang mga terorista at kasapi ng CPP-NPA-NDFP—suliranin na matagal nang naiulat sa administrasyon ng UPLB ngunit hanggang sa kasalukuyan ay wala pang wastong tugon mula sa Chancellor nito na si Dr. Luis Rey Velasco.
Mariin nating pinabubulaanan ang ipinapalaganap ng administrasyon ni President Roman na ang mayor na dahilan sa pagtatanggal sa SR ay ang usapin ng bona fide status nito.
Kung ito nga ang mayor na dahilan, madali itong maresolba sa pamamagitan ng pag-rekomenda at pag-aapruba ng kanyang application for residency sa UPLB.
IBAYONG PANGGIGIPIT AT PANLILINLANG ANG DINANAS NG SR
Sa kasalukuyan, naisasandal ang administrasyon ni UPLB Chancellor Luis Rey Velasco sa hindi nito pantay na pagturing sa SR at sa iba pang estudyante ng UPLB. Malinaw na kaiba ang pinagdadaanang proseso ng SR sa karaniwang proseso ng late application for residency. Bago pa ang pagpupulong ng BOR noong Disyembre 18, 2009, gumawa na ang SR ng liham para sa application for residency sa payo ng College Secretary ng College of Arts and Sciences (CAS) sa UPLB. Matapos makuha ang endorsement ng Adviser, Department Chair at College Secretary, ipinadala ang mga dokumento sa Office of the Chancellor.
Buwan ang lumipas at hindi pa rin ito inaaprubahan sa kabila nang napag-alaman natin na noong Pebrero 3 at Pebrero 16, 2010, dalawang estudyante mula sa UPLB ang kagyat na nakakuha ng late residency sa mismong araw na iyon. Tanging endorsement lamang ng kanilang College Secretary ang kinailangan upang payagan ang mga ito na mag-enroll. ‘Di tulad ng dalawang nasabing estudyante, kahit na residency form lamang ay hindi ibinibigay sa SR, bagama’t may endorsement na ng College Secretary ang application for residency ng SR.
Sa regular na proseso ng late application for residency, hindi na kinakailangang umabot sa Office of the Chancellor ang nasabing application, kaya naman kagyat na humingi na rin ang SR ng aksyon mula sa Dekano ng CAS na si Dr. Asunsion Raymundo sapagkat ito ang may pangunahing jurisdiction upang magpasya sa application. Bilang aksyon, iniakyat muli nito ang mga dokumento ng SR sa Office of the Chancellor—prosesong hindi naman pinagdaanan ng mga estudyante ng UPLB o ng anumang UP unit na humingi rin ng late application for residency. Bagama’t maaaring umaksyon ang Dekano ng CAS at bagama’t sila mismo ang nagsabi na dalhin sa Office of the Chancellor ang application, ang naging tugon ng Dekano sa liham ng SR ay “since you had already elevated the matter to the level of the Chancellor, the decision/mandate now lies on him”.
Pinabubulaanan natin ang ipinapalaganap ng administrasyon ni President Roman sa kanilang mga opisyal na pahayag na iniatras ‘di umano ng SR ang application for residency nito noong Enero 12. Kahit kailan, hindi sumulat at nagpasa ang SR ng pormal na liham sa Office of the Chancellor na iniaatras nito ang application for residency, hindi kailanman ito sumulat ng pormal na liham na pinahihintulutan ang sino man na iatras ito sa kanyang ngalan. Patunay rito ang mga liham ni Chancellor Luis Rey Velasco sa SR noong Pebrero 18 at Marso 3 kung saan dine-deny nito ang pag-aapruba sa nasabing application.
Pinabubulaanan rin natin ang ipinapalaganap ng administrasyon ni President Roman na aktwal na pagfa-file ng Leave of Absence (LOA) ng SR. Sumulat ang abogado ng SR na si Atty. Julius Matibag sa Dekano ng CAS upang tunggaliin ang sinasabi ng UPLB na hindi maaaring mag-LOA ang SR dahil sa mga nakabinbin na kaso sa Student Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) at may intensyon itong mag-file kung gayunman. Ipinagkamali ng Dekano ng CAS ang liham na ito sa aktwal na pagfa-file ng LOA. Ito ay mga impormasyon hindi wastong inilalathala ng administrasyon ni President Roman.
Mapagbalat-kayong nagdadahilan ang administrasyon ni President Roman na ang pagsunod sa panuntunan ang tanging dahilan kung bakit tinanggal ang SR sa BOR, samantalang malinaw na sila at si Chancellor Luis Rey Velasco mismo ang tunay na nagmamalabis, lumalabag, at nag-mamaniobra sa mga proseso ng pamantasan upang maging pabor sa kanila. Malakas ang loob ni Chancellor Luis Rey Velasco na sabihin na siya ay nagpapasiya batay sa “merits” at pantay umano ang pagturing niya sa kaso ng SR at ng iba pang estudyante ng UPLB, habang ang administrasyon niya mismo ang nanlinlang sa SR mula sa wastong proseso na dapat nitong pagdaanan. Mapagbalat-kayo nitong sinasabi na ang kaso ng SR ay kakaiba, ngunit ang malinaw na tanging kaibahan ni Charisse Bernadine Bañez sa iba pang estudyante ng UPLB ay siya ang tanging kinatawan ng mga mag-aaral sa pinakamataas na lupon nito at susi ang pusisyong upang ilantad ang pagmamalabis ng administrasyon ng UPLB. Mapagbalat-kayong nagdadahilan ang BOR na ang dahilan sa pagtatanggal sa SR ay ang “failure to comply with the qualifications to continue serving as Student Regent” habang “incapacity to enroll or file an LOA” at hindi “failure” ang nakalagay sa CRSRS. Malinaw na may kapasidad ang SR na mag-apply kundi lamang iniipit at inaabuso ni Chancellor Luis Rey Velasco ang discretion ng administrasyon nito.
Sa lahat ng ito, hindi maitatanggi na may panlilinlang, panlilito, at pagkukubli ng mga detalye sa bahagi ng UP administration upang ipagtanggol ang pagtatanggal sa SR.
PAGTANGGAL SA SR, SUSI SA PAGPAPATALSIK RIN SA PGH DIRECTOR
Ang pagkakapanalo ni Dr. Jose Gonzales bilang bagong direktor ng UP Philippine General Hospital (PGH) ay isa sa minsang mga pagkakataon na nagtagumpay ang mga sektoral na representasyon sa BOR—ang Student, Faculty at Staff Regents—at nanaig ang desisyon ng mga sektor ng Unibersidad. Ngunit malinaw na hindi ito mapahintulutan nina President Roman at ng Malacanang.
Sa araw ng Disyembre 18, 2009, alinsunod sa palagiang ini-invoke¬ ng administrasyon ni President Roman at kanyang Vice President for Legal Affairs na si Atty. Theodore Te na Section 13 (T) ng UP Charter “the Board of Regents has the power ‘to prescribe rules for its own government’” (na nangangahulugan na may kapasyahan ito sa mga usapin inihahapag rito) pinagbotohan ang mosyon ni President Roman na gawing observer lamang ang SR. Natalo ang kanyang mosyon, 5-4 (pabor sa OSR).
Kabilang sa mga pangyayari na hindi inilalathala ng administrasyon ni President Roman ay ang pagpayag nila mismo na lumahok sa nasabing botohan at hindi pagrehistro ng anumang pagtutol rito. Kahit sa usapin ng paglahok at pagboto ng SR, sila ay pumayag at walang bakas ng pagrerehistro ng anumang “objection” rito. Matapos silang matalo sa botohan para sa PGH Director, saka nila tumutol sa resolusyong sila mismo ang lumahok. Ibinabato ng administrasyon ni President Roman na hindi dapat bumoto ang SR sa nasabing usapin, simple lang ang kasagutan—hindi katulad ng mga Malacañang Appointees na ang tanging kinakatawan ay ang kanilang mga sarili (o di kaya’y ang naglagay sa kanila sa pusisyon),
kinakatawan ng SR hindi ang kanyang sarili ngunit ang pinakamalaking sektor sa Unibersidad ng Pilipinas—ang mga mag-aaral. Ang hindi pagboto ng SR ay hindi pagboto ng mga mag-aaral.
Sa kaparehas na araw, Disyembre 18, mapagpasyang boto ang ibinigay natin kay Dr. Jose Gonzales dahil, ‘di gaya ng mga kandidatong may basbas ng Malacañang, malinaw ang kaniyang paninindigan na ang batayang serbisyong pangkalusugan ay karapatan ng mamamayan at gayundin ang sa kanyang matibay na pagtindig laban sa pribatisasyon ng Philippine General Hospital. Si Dr. Gonzales ang napili ng BOR sa botong 6-5 (kabilang ang boto ni Sen. Mar Roxas at Cong. Cynthia Villar).
Hindi kailanman naipaliwanag ni President Roman at ng mga Malacañang Appointees kung bakit hindi nila gusto si Dr. Gonzales bilang bagong halal na direktor ng UP PGH. Matapos ang muntikan nang hindi pag-appoint at pagbibigay ng oath of office kay Dr. Gonzales sa maagang bahagi ng Enero, agad nilang sinubok na tanggalin ang PGH Director at ang SR sa pulong ng BOR noong Enero 29, 2010. Dahil sa malinaw na maniobra sa proseso, nagpasya ang apat na rehente—student, faculty, staff at alumni regents—na mag-walkout sa nasabing pulong. Sa kabila ng kawalan ng quorum o sapat na bilang upang magpasya, unilateral na tinanggal President Roman at ng mga Malacañang Appointees ang SR sa BOR.
Nagsampa na ng kaso ang SR laban sa UP Board of Regents sa Quezon City Regional Trial Court.
PAGKUKUBLI AT KATIWALIAN, KINAKANLONG NG ADMINISTRASYON NG PAMANTASAN
Isang taon nang ikinukubli ng adminstrasyon ni President Roman at ng mga Malacañang Appointees sa komunidad ng UP na lagpas isang taon nang expired ang mga termino ng appointments ng tatlong Malacañang Appointees na sina “Regents” Francis Chua, Nelia Gonzales at Abraham Sarmiento; isang katohohanang ikinubli at kailanman ay hindi binabanggit nina Pres. Roman sa tuwing nagtatanong ang BOR Chair kung may quorum ba sa mga pulong. Ang mga nasabing “Regents” ay hindi appointed bilang regular regents (na may tiyak na termino sa loob ng 2 taon) kundi bilang acting regents lamang, na sa ilalim ng Administrative Code of 1987, hindi maaaring lumampas ang termino ng isang taon—usapin na hindi masagot ng administrasyon ni President Roman at may pagtatangka pang lusutan sa pamamagitan ng pag-iiba ng pakahulugan sa “acting” sa “temporary”.
Sa pulong ng BOR noong Pebrero 25, 2010, maka-isang panig na tinanggal si Dr. Gonzales bilang PGH Director (nang wala pa ring paliwanag) at sa kabila ng paggigiit ng mga sektoral na representasyon sa BOR na magkonsulta, sa mosyon ni President Roman, maka-isang panig rin na inaprubahan ni President Roman at Malacañang Appointed “Regents” ang pagrerekomenda ng kanilang mga pangalan kay Gng. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo para sa kanilang regular appointment.
Sa mga pangyayaring ito, lantad na sa atin ang tunay na katangian ng UP Board of Regents at kung kaninong interes ang pinagsisilbihan ng mga ito. Payag ang iilang makapangyarihang ito sa prosesong sila mismo ang lumikha hangga’t ito’y paborable sa kanilang pangkat. Minamalaki ang pagkukulang ng tumitindig laban sa komersyalisado at pribatisadong landas na tinatahak ng pamantasan habang minamaliit at ikinukubli ang panlilinlang ng mga kakatig nila sa pagtataas ng matrikula at iba pang bayarin at paglalako ng pamantasan sa pribadong interes.
Tinanggal sa Board of Regents ang Rehente na may tunay na mandato habang abot-langit na pinagtatakpan ang panlilinlang ng mga Rehente na ang tanging kinakatawan ay interes ng Malacañang sa pamantasan.
Hindi Board of Regents ang magdidikta sa pagtatanggal sa ating kinatawan. At ang sino mang magtangkang humati sa ating hanay ay walang ipinagkaiba sa kanila.
Hindi kinakatawan ng SR ang kanyang sarili. Ang bawat atake na tinatanggap nito ay hindi atake sa kanyang sarili kundi atake sa karapatan sa representasyon ng lahat ng mag-aaral ng Unibersidad ng Pilipinas.
Ang bawat bigwas na tinanggap nito ay bigwas sa ating karapatan sa edukasyon na pinagbayaran ng mga naunang mabubuting anak ng ating pamantasan. Ang laban ng OSR ay laban ng lahat ng mag-aaral ng pamantasan ng bayan.
Totoo at materyal ang tunggalian ng mga interes sa loob ng pamantasan. At tanging sa sama-samang pagkilos lamang tayo matagumpay na mananaig. Mananaig tayo hindi para sa ating mga sarili, kundi para sa interes at karapatan ng kabataan sa edukasyon at upang itaguyod ang tunay na demokratikong pamamahala sa pamantasang walang-imbot na nagsisilbi sa sambayanan.
Para sa mga mag-aaral at sa sambayanan,
CHARISSE BERNADINE I. BAÑEZ
UP Student Regent
HINGGIL SA PANGGIGIPIT AT PANUNUPIL NG BOR AT ADMINISTRASYONG PRESIDENT ROMAN LABAN SA OFFICE OF THE STUDENT REGENT
Opisina ng Rehente ng mga Mag-aaral
Unibersidad ng Pilipinas
March 8, 2010
Nagbabalik ang masalimuot na alaala at karanasan ng batas militar sa mga kasalukuyang pangyayari sa ating pinakamamahal na pamantasan.
Mula nang maitatag ang Office of the Student Regent (OSR) noong 1970, wala pang yugto sa kasaysayan ng ating Pamantasan kung saan nawalan ng kinatawan ang mga mag-aaral sa UP Board of Regents (BOR). Tanging sa loob ng isang dekada sa ilalim ng Batas Militar nilusaw ng diktadurya ang lahat ng mga institusyon at konseho ng mga mag-aaral, mga publikasyon at mga organisasyon sa loob ng pamantasan. Ngayong taon, matapos ang ilang dekada, Pebrero 25 nang ang BOR mismo ang tuluyang pumigil sa pag-upo sa kanilang pulong ang natatanging kinatawan ng mahigit 48,000 na mag-aaral ng Unibersidad ng Pilipinas.
Isang malaking kawalan at disbentahe sa libu-libong mag-aaral ng UP ang pagtatanggal ni President Emerlinda Roman at ng BOR sa ating Student Regent (SR). Tangan ang militanteng tradisyon ng institusyon, ang OSR ay inaasahang kumatawan at magsulong ng mga interes at paninindigan ng mga mag-aaral hinggil sa mga usapin ng pamantasan, hanggang sa mga usapin sa pambansang saklaw.
Sa kabila ng mahalagang papel ng OSR sa demokratikong pamamahala sa ating pamantasan, tayo ay tinanggalan ng representasyon sa BOR.
Malinaw sa atin ang dahilan: Alam natin na hindi ito simpleng usapin ng pagsunod sa mga panuntunan ng pamantasan, sa halip,
ito ay hakbangin upang magsulong ng makasarili at makauring interes ng iilan sa loob ng BOR.
Ngayon, hinubad na ng BOR ang kanyang maskara at inilantad ang sarili—hindi ito kailanman nagsilbi sa interes ng mga mag-aaral at iba’t ibang sektor ng pamantasan, pagka’t ito’y nilikha upang bigyang-wangis o bigyang-ilusyon lamang na may demokratikong pamamahala sa ating pamantasan.
Pebrero 17, 2010 noong makatanggap ang SR ng liham mula sa Secretary of the University and of the Board of Regents na si Dr. Lourdes E. Abadingo. Nakasaad rito na sa pulong umano ng BOR noong Enero 29, 2010, “the Board of Regents agreed that you should no longer be allowed to participate in its deliberations as Student Regent for your failure to comply with the qualifications to continue serving as Student Regent…The Chair, however, has instructed the undersigned to invite you as Observer in the meeting of the Board scheduled on 25 February 2010”.
Walang pagtatangging tinatanggap ng SR ang naging kahinaan nito na makapagpasa ng application for residency sa takdang panahon sa UP Los Baños, ngunit ito’y hindi mulat na paglabag sa mga panuntunan ng pamantasan.
Sa panahong iyon, mapagpasyang inuna ng SR ang paggampan sa kanyang mga tungkulin at gawain sa buwan ng Nobyembre at maagang bahagi ng Disyembre. Bumisita ang SR sa iba’t ibang mga yunit ng UP upang maglunsad ng konsultasyon, umupo sa mga dayalogo hinggil sa pagtataas ng mga bayarin sa mga laboratoryo, magsaliksik sa mga usaping nakasampa sa BOR, at magbigay ng mga pag-aaral sa mga kapwa Iskolar ng Bayan. Lalo na’t iyon ang kritikal na panahon ng deliberasyon ng badyet para sa mga State Colleges and Universities (SUCs), kabilang na ang UP na kumakaharap sa P2 bilyong kaltas sa badyet. Naging bahagi rin ang SR ng mga pamprobinsiya at pambansang aktibidad ng mga kabataan. Hindi rin ito nawala sa mga pambansang araw ng pagkilos ng mga kabataan at mamamayan para sa kanilang karapatan sa edukasyon at batayang serbisyong panlipunan.
Bukod rito, hindi na kailanman naging maluwag at ganap na malaya para sa SR ang pagluwas papuntang UPLB nang walang pangamba sa seguridad matapos makaranas ng red-tagging, sampu ng mga naging kasamahan nito sa Konseho ng Mag-aaral ng UPLB, UPLB Perspective at Samahan ng Kabataan para sa Bayan (SAKBAYAN), mga lehitimong estudyante, at miyembro ng kaguruan sa UPLB. ng Kasabay ng naging hayagang presensya ng mga militar sa UPLB campus, palagian at masaklaw rin ang pagpapakalat ng mga black propaganda sa UPLB campus, pinararatangan ang SR at mga kasamahan nito bilang mga terorista at kasapi ng CPP-NPA-NDFP—suliranin na matagal nang naiulat sa administrasyon ng UPLB ngunit hanggang sa kasalukuyan ay wala pang wastong tugon mula sa Chancellor nito na si Dr. Luis Rey Velasco.
Mariin nating pinabubulaanan ang ipinapalaganap ng administrasyon ni President Roman na ang mayor na dahilan sa pagtatanggal sa SR ay ang usapin ng bona fide status nito.
Kung ito nga ang mayor na dahilan, madali itong maresolba sa pamamagitan ng pag-rekomenda at pag-aapruba ng kanyang application for residency sa UPLB.
IBAYONG PANGGIGIPIT AT PANLILINLANG ANG DINANAS NG SR
Sa kasalukuyan, naisasandal ang administrasyon ni UPLB Chancellor Luis Rey Velasco sa hindi nito pantay na pagturing sa SR at sa iba pang estudyante ng UPLB. Malinaw na kaiba ang pinagdadaanang proseso ng SR sa karaniwang proseso ng late application for residency. Bago pa ang pagpupulong ng BOR noong Disyembre 18, 2009, gumawa na ang SR ng liham para sa application for residency sa payo ng College Secretary ng College of Arts and Sciences (CAS) sa UPLB. Matapos makuha ang endorsement ng Adviser, Department Chair at College Secretary, ipinadala ang mga dokumento sa Office of the Chancellor.
Buwan ang lumipas at hindi pa rin ito inaaprubahan sa kabila nang napag-alaman natin na noong Pebrero 3 at Pebrero 16, 2010, dalawang estudyante mula sa UPLB ang kagyat na nakakuha ng late residency sa mismong araw na iyon. Tanging endorsement lamang ng kanilang College Secretary ang kinailangan upang payagan ang mga ito na mag-enroll. ‘Di tulad ng dalawang nasabing estudyante, kahit na residency form lamang ay hindi ibinibigay sa SR, bagama’t may endorsement na ng College Secretary ang application for residency ng SR.
Sa regular na proseso ng late application for residency, hindi na kinakailangang umabot sa Office of the Chancellor ang nasabing application, kaya naman kagyat na humingi na rin ang SR ng aksyon mula sa Dekano ng CAS na si Dr. Asunsion Raymundo sapagkat ito ang may pangunahing jurisdiction upang magpasya sa application. Bilang aksyon, iniakyat muli nito ang mga dokumento ng SR sa Office of the Chancellor—prosesong hindi naman pinagdaanan ng mga estudyante ng UPLB o ng anumang UP unit na humingi rin ng late application for residency. Bagama’t maaaring umaksyon ang Dekano ng CAS at bagama’t sila mismo ang nagsabi na dalhin sa Office of the Chancellor ang application, ang naging tugon ng Dekano sa liham ng SR ay “since you had already elevated the matter to the level of the Chancellor, the decision/mandate now lies on him”.
Pinabubulaanan natin ang ipinapalaganap ng administrasyon ni President Roman sa kanilang mga opisyal na pahayag na iniatras ‘di umano ng SR ang application for residency nito noong Enero 12. Kahit kailan, hindi sumulat at nagpasa ang SR ng pormal na liham sa Office of the Chancellor na iniaatras nito ang application for residency, hindi kailanman ito sumulat ng pormal na liham na pinahihintulutan ang sino man na iatras ito sa kanyang ngalan. Patunay rito ang mga liham ni Chancellor Luis Rey Velasco sa SR noong Pebrero 18 at Marso 3 kung saan dine-deny nito ang pag-aapruba sa nasabing application.
Pinabubulaanan rin natin ang ipinapalaganap ng administrasyon ni President Roman na aktwal na pagfa-file ng Leave of Absence (LOA) ng SR. Sumulat ang abogado ng SR na si Atty. Julius Matibag sa Dekano ng CAS upang tunggaliin ang sinasabi ng UPLB na hindi maaaring mag-LOA ang SR dahil sa mga nakabinbin na kaso sa Student Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) at may intensyon itong mag-file kung gayunman. Ipinagkamali ng Dekano ng CAS ang liham na ito sa aktwal na pagfa-file ng LOA. Ito ay mga impormasyon hindi wastong inilalathala ng administrasyon ni President Roman.
Mapagbalat-kayong nagdadahilan ang administrasyon ni President Roman na ang pagsunod sa panuntunan ang tanging dahilan kung bakit tinanggal ang SR sa BOR, samantalang malinaw na sila at si Chancellor Luis Rey Velasco mismo ang tunay na nagmamalabis, lumalabag, at nag-mamaniobra sa mga proseso ng pamantasan upang maging pabor sa kanila. Malakas ang loob ni Chancellor Luis Rey Velasco na sabihin na siya ay nagpapasiya batay sa “merits” at pantay umano ang pagturing niya sa kaso ng SR at ng iba pang estudyante ng UPLB, habang ang administrasyon niya mismo ang nanlinlang sa SR mula sa wastong proseso na dapat nitong pagdaanan. Mapagbalat-kayo nitong sinasabi na ang kaso ng SR ay kakaiba, ngunit ang malinaw na tanging kaibahan ni Charisse Bernadine Bañez sa iba pang estudyante ng UPLB ay siya ang tanging kinatawan ng mga mag-aaral sa pinakamataas na lupon nito at susi ang pusisyong upang ilantad ang pagmamalabis ng administrasyon ng UPLB. Mapagbalat-kayong nagdadahilan ang BOR na ang dahilan sa pagtatanggal sa SR ay ang “failure to comply with the qualifications to continue serving as Student Regent” habang “incapacity to enroll or file an LOA” at hindi “failure” ang nakalagay sa CRSRS. Malinaw na may kapasidad ang SR na mag-apply kundi lamang iniipit at inaabuso ni Chancellor Luis Rey Velasco ang discretion ng administrasyon nito.
Sa lahat ng ito, hindi maitatanggi na may panlilinlang, panlilito, at pagkukubli ng mga detalye sa bahagi ng UP administration upang ipagtanggol ang pagtatanggal sa SR.
PAGTANGGAL SA SR, SUSI SA PAGPAPATALSIK RIN SA PGH DIRECTOR
Ang pagkakapanalo ni Dr. Jose Gonzales bilang bagong direktor ng UP Philippine General Hospital (PGH) ay isa sa minsang mga pagkakataon na nagtagumpay ang mga sektoral na representasyon sa BOR—ang Student, Faculty at Staff Regents—at nanaig ang desisyon ng mga sektor ng Unibersidad. Ngunit malinaw na hindi ito mapahintulutan nina President Roman at ng Malacanang.
Sa araw ng Disyembre 18, 2009, alinsunod sa palagiang ini-invoke¬ ng administrasyon ni President Roman at kanyang Vice President for Legal Affairs na si Atty. Theodore Te na Section 13 (T) ng UP Charter “the Board of Regents has the power ‘to prescribe rules for its own government’” (na nangangahulugan na may kapasyahan ito sa mga usapin inihahapag rito) pinagbotohan ang mosyon ni President Roman na gawing observer lamang ang SR. Natalo ang kanyang mosyon, 5-4 (pabor sa OSR).
Kabilang sa mga pangyayari na hindi inilalathala ng administrasyon ni President Roman ay ang pagpayag nila mismo na lumahok sa nasabing botohan at hindi pagrehistro ng anumang pagtutol rito. Kahit sa usapin ng paglahok at pagboto ng SR, sila ay pumayag at walang bakas ng pagrerehistro ng anumang “objection” rito. Matapos silang matalo sa botohan para sa PGH Director, saka nila tumutol sa resolusyong sila mismo ang lumahok. Ibinabato ng administrasyon ni President Roman na hindi dapat bumoto ang SR sa nasabing usapin, simple lang ang kasagutan—hindi katulad ng mga Malacañang Appointees na ang tanging kinakatawan ay ang kanilang mga sarili (o di kaya’y ang naglagay sa kanila sa pusisyon),
kinakatawan ng SR hindi ang kanyang sarili ngunit ang pinakamalaking sektor sa Unibersidad ng Pilipinas—ang mga mag-aaral. Ang hindi pagboto ng SR ay hindi pagboto ng mga mag-aaral.
Sa kaparehas na araw, Disyembre 18, mapagpasyang boto ang ibinigay natin kay Dr. Jose Gonzales dahil, ‘di gaya ng mga kandidatong may basbas ng Malacañang, malinaw ang kaniyang paninindigan na ang batayang serbisyong pangkalusugan ay karapatan ng mamamayan at gayundin ang sa kanyang matibay na pagtindig laban sa pribatisasyon ng Philippine General Hospital. Si Dr. Gonzales ang napili ng BOR sa botong 6-5 (kabilang ang boto ni Sen. Mar Roxas at Cong. Cynthia Villar).
Hindi kailanman naipaliwanag ni President Roman at ng mga Malacañang Appointees kung bakit hindi nila gusto si Dr. Gonzales bilang bagong halal na direktor ng UP PGH. Matapos ang muntikan nang hindi pag-appoint at pagbibigay ng oath of office kay Dr. Gonzales sa maagang bahagi ng Enero, agad nilang sinubok na tanggalin ang PGH Director at ang SR sa pulong ng BOR noong Enero 29, 2010. Dahil sa malinaw na maniobra sa proseso, nagpasya ang apat na rehente—student, faculty, staff at alumni regents—na mag-walkout sa nasabing pulong. Sa kabila ng kawalan ng quorum o sapat na bilang upang magpasya, unilateral na tinanggal President Roman at ng mga Malacañang Appointees ang SR sa BOR.
Nagsampa na ng kaso ang SR laban sa UP Board of Regents sa Quezon City Regional Trial Court.
PAGKUKUBLI AT KATIWALIAN, KINAKANLONG NG ADMINISTRASYON NG PAMANTASAN
Isang taon nang ikinukubli ng adminstrasyon ni President Roman at ng mga Malacañang Appointees sa komunidad ng UP na lagpas isang taon nang expired ang mga termino ng appointments ng tatlong Malacañang Appointees na sina “Regents” Francis Chua, Nelia Gonzales at Abraham Sarmiento; isang katohohanang ikinubli at kailanman ay hindi binabanggit nina Pres. Roman sa tuwing nagtatanong ang BOR Chair kung may quorum ba sa mga pulong. Ang mga nasabing “Regents” ay hindi appointed bilang regular regents (na may tiyak na termino sa loob ng 2 taon) kundi bilang acting regents lamang, na sa ilalim ng Administrative Code of 1987, hindi maaaring lumampas ang termino ng isang taon—usapin na hindi masagot ng administrasyon ni President Roman at may pagtatangka pang lusutan sa pamamagitan ng pag-iiba ng pakahulugan sa “acting” sa “temporary”.
Sa pulong ng BOR noong Pebrero 25, 2010, maka-isang panig na tinanggal si Dr. Gonzales bilang PGH Director (nang wala pa ring paliwanag) at sa kabila ng paggigiit ng mga sektoral na representasyon sa BOR na magkonsulta, sa mosyon ni President Roman, maka-isang panig rin na inaprubahan ni President Roman at Malacañang Appointed “Regents” ang pagrerekomenda ng kanilang mga pangalan kay Gng. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo para sa kanilang regular appointment.
Sa mga pangyayaring ito, lantad na sa atin ang tunay na katangian ng UP Board of Regents at kung kaninong interes ang pinagsisilbihan ng mga ito. Payag ang iilang makapangyarihang ito sa prosesong sila mismo ang lumikha hangga’t ito’y paborable sa kanilang pangkat. Minamalaki ang pagkukulang ng tumitindig laban sa komersyalisado at pribatisadong landas na tinatahak ng pamantasan habang minamaliit at ikinukubli ang panlilinlang ng mga kakatig nila sa pagtataas ng matrikula at iba pang bayarin at paglalako ng pamantasan sa pribadong interes.
Tinanggal sa Board of Regents ang Rehente na may tunay na mandato habang abot-langit na pinagtatakpan ang panlilinlang ng mga Rehente na ang tanging kinakatawan ay interes ng Malacañang sa pamantasan.
Hindi Board of Regents ang magdidikta sa pagtatanggal sa ating kinatawan. At ang sino mang magtangkang humati sa ating hanay ay walang ipinagkaiba sa kanila.
Hindi kinakatawan ng SR ang kanyang sarili. Ang bawat atake na tinatanggap nito ay hindi atake sa kanyang sarili kundi atake sa karapatan sa representasyon ng lahat ng mag-aaral ng Unibersidad ng Pilipinas.
Ang bawat bigwas na tinanggap nito ay bigwas sa ating karapatan sa edukasyon na pinagbayaran ng mga naunang mabubuting anak ng ating pamantasan. Ang laban ng OSR ay laban ng lahat ng mag-aaral ng pamantasan ng bayan.
Totoo at materyal ang tunggalian ng mga interes sa loob ng pamantasan. At tanging sa sama-samang pagkilos lamang tayo matagumpay na mananaig. Mananaig tayo hindi para sa ating mga sarili, kundi para sa interes at karapatan ng kabataan sa edukasyon at upang itaguyod ang tunay na demokratikong pamamahala sa pamantasang walang-imbot na nagsisilbi sa sambayanan.
Para sa mga mag-aaral at sa sambayanan,
CHARISSE BERNADINE I. BAÑEZ
UP Student Regent
Atty. Te's reply on the PDI Article Re: SR Issue
REPLY TO ARTICLE BY MARICAR CINCO, PHILIPPINE DAILY INQUIRER
Monday, March 15, 2010
10 March 2010
Mr Jorge V. Aruta
Opinion Editor
Philippine Daily Inquirer
1098 Chino Roces Street
corner Mascardo Street
Makati City, Metro Manila
Dear Mr. Aruta:
On behalf of the University of the Philippines, allow us to react to the story by Maricar Cinco entitled “UP STUDENT REGENT: I WAS ALLOWED TO VOTE IN PGH POLL” (PDI, March 7, 2010) by stating the following:
1. It is untrue that Ms. Charisse Banez, former student regent, “was not enrolled this school year because she had completed her academic requirements ahead of schedule and was awaiting graduation.” She herself admitted on two occasions before the Board of Regents that she was not enrolled because she was “busy.” She also admits this in her Complaint before the RTC of Quezon City. Despite having completed all the academic requirements for her degree, she knew that she needed to enroll to be nominated and to remain student regent; this much she admits when she enrolled for residency for the first semester.
2. It is misleading and false to say that Ms. Bañez was allowed to vote on the election of the PGH Director because the BOR had deliberated and voted on a motion of the UP President to “revoke her right to vote on the ground that she was not a bona fide student of the state university.”
On December 18, 2009, the UP President, at the start of the meeting, brought up the issue of Ms. Banez’s disqualification as Student Regent because she did not enroll for the second semester, a fact she admitted. At that point, it was clear that she was not qualified to sit as Student Regent because she was not a student and there was no disagreement among the regents on this matter. In fact, the President had already pointed out that the seat has been ipso facto vacated by Ms. Banez’s failure to enroll.
The President’s motion to allow Ms. Banez to continue participating in the December 18, 2009 BOR meeting but only as an observer was in response to an observation by the Faculty Regent that the students would be deprived of representation if Ms. Banez was asked to leave. Clearly the context of the observation of the Faculty Regent was to allow Ms. Banez to remain in the room, despite a clear disqualification on her part to sit as Student Regent. For this reason, the President moved that Banez be allowed to remain in the room, even if she was no longer a regent, but this time as an observer. The only “error” was in allowing Banez to remain in the room when the President’s motion to have her sit as an observer was defeated; as a non-student, she was not entitled to be in the room.
3. Ms. Banez’s references to a Malacanang block are unfortunate and unbecoming of a regent. This is ad hominem argumentation and name-calling that has no place in the Board of Regents of the national university.
4. Ms. Banez faults the President and the three government regents for actively voting on the President’s motion. It is strange that she would say this if she understands basic parliamentary procedure. That President Roman and the other regents voted on the motion is insignificant because it was their job to do so; that Ms. Banez voted and voted for herself is the height of impropriety and lack of delicadeza. The vote on the UP President’s motion, taken by secret ballot, was 5-4; clearly, had she done the ethical thing, the vote would have been 4-4 and inconclusive and Ms. Banez would have been asked to leave the room.
5. Ms. Banez says that she was surprised that Dr. Rolando Enrique Domingo, the PGH Director, was elected in the February meeting because his name had been supposedly removed from the list.
Dr. Domingo had not been disqualified by the BOR on December 18, 2009. When the Board voted, they were voting on the three nominees, as forwarded by the Chancellor of UP Manila. There was nothing sinister about Dr. Domingo’s name again being considered during the February 25, 2010 meeting. The Board simply took up the original list after it had disqualified Ms. Banez and annulled the vote taken on December 18, 2009 because of the decisive nature of Ms. Banez’s vote (it being a 6-5 vote).
6. On the three regents whose continued stay in the BOR has been questioned by Ms. Banez indirectly in her Complaint for Injunction, it is sufficient to say simply that two of those regents were appointed before the UP Charter took effect and so their term of office is defined by the law prevailing at that time, which prescribes that they stay in office up to two years or until replaced. For the third regent whose acting appointment was issued in September 2008, the acting appointment is for a public office with a fixed term, two years; that term ends in September 2010. The only effect of an acting appointment is that the holder of the acting appointment can be replaced at any time before the two year period. None of the three regents holding acting appointments have been replaced. By law, their continued membership in the BOR is legal and they remain fully qualified. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of Banez.
7. As for the two UPLB students whose applications for late registration for residency were approved and which Ms. Banez claims is unfair, it is sufficient to say that Ms. Banez never complied with any of the rules prescribed for late registration or late LOA; the two students did. Moreover, the documents submitted to the UPLB Chancellor’s office show that a request for late registration was submitted and then later withdrawn by Ms. Banez’s authorized representative; later, she would ask her lawyer to submit a letter of intent to take a leave of absence without filing an actual application for LOA. Under these circumstances, it would be almost impossible for the UPLB authorities to act on her application because her intentions were unclear, at best.
The news item ends with a quote from Ms. Banez that “It is unfair.” Perhaps it is high time to ask Ms. Banez if it was fair to her constituents that she deprive them of representation simply by refusing to do something so fundamental and so basic and so elementary? The UP has been transparent on this issue. A factual chronology is available on the University website; UP officials are always available for comment or reaction. It is thus surprising that the news item was printed without reaction from UP’s part.
In the interest of fair play, may we request that this reply be given the same prominence as that given to Ms. Banez.
Thank you.
ATTY. THEODORE O. TE
Vice President for Legal Affairs
University of the Philippines System
Monday, March 15, 2010
10 March 2010
Mr Jorge V. Aruta
Opinion Editor
Philippine Daily Inquirer
1098 Chino Roces Street
corner Mascardo Street
Makati City, Metro Manila
Dear Mr. Aruta:
On behalf of the University of the Philippines, allow us to react to the story by Maricar Cinco entitled “UP STUDENT REGENT: I WAS ALLOWED TO VOTE IN PGH POLL” (PDI, March 7, 2010) by stating the following:
1. It is untrue that Ms. Charisse Banez, former student regent, “was not enrolled this school year because she had completed her academic requirements ahead of schedule and was awaiting graduation.” She herself admitted on two occasions before the Board of Regents that she was not enrolled because she was “busy.” She also admits this in her Complaint before the RTC of Quezon City. Despite having completed all the academic requirements for her degree, she knew that she needed to enroll to be nominated and to remain student regent; this much she admits when she enrolled for residency for the first semester.
2. It is misleading and false to say that Ms. Bañez was allowed to vote on the election of the PGH Director because the BOR had deliberated and voted on a motion of the UP President to “revoke her right to vote on the ground that she was not a bona fide student of the state university.”
On December 18, 2009, the UP President, at the start of the meeting, brought up the issue of Ms. Banez’s disqualification as Student Regent because she did not enroll for the second semester, a fact she admitted. At that point, it was clear that she was not qualified to sit as Student Regent because she was not a student and there was no disagreement among the regents on this matter. In fact, the President had already pointed out that the seat has been ipso facto vacated by Ms. Banez’s failure to enroll.
The President’s motion to allow Ms. Banez to continue participating in the December 18, 2009 BOR meeting but only as an observer was in response to an observation by the Faculty Regent that the students would be deprived of representation if Ms. Banez was asked to leave. Clearly the context of the observation of the Faculty Regent was to allow Ms. Banez to remain in the room, despite a clear disqualification on her part to sit as Student Regent. For this reason, the President moved that Banez be allowed to remain in the room, even if she was no longer a regent, but this time as an observer. The only “error” was in allowing Banez to remain in the room when the President’s motion to have her sit as an observer was defeated; as a non-student, she was not entitled to be in the room.
3. Ms. Banez’s references to a Malacanang block are unfortunate and unbecoming of a regent. This is ad hominem argumentation and name-calling that has no place in the Board of Regents of the national university.
4. Ms. Banez faults the President and the three government regents for actively voting on the President’s motion. It is strange that she would say this if she understands basic parliamentary procedure. That President Roman and the other regents voted on the motion is insignificant because it was their job to do so; that Ms. Banez voted and voted for herself is the height of impropriety and lack of delicadeza. The vote on the UP President’s motion, taken by secret ballot, was 5-4; clearly, had she done the ethical thing, the vote would have been 4-4 and inconclusive and Ms. Banez would have been asked to leave the room.
5. Ms. Banez says that she was surprised that Dr. Rolando Enrique Domingo, the PGH Director, was elected in the February meeting because his name had been supposedly removed from the list.
Dr. Domingo had not been disqualified by the BOR on December 18, 2009. When the Board voted, they were voting on the three nominees, as forwarded by the Chancellor of UP Manila. There was nothing sinister about Dr. Domingo’s name again being considered during the February 25, 2010 meeting. The Board simply took up the original list after it had disqualified Ms. Banez and annulled the vote taken on December 18, 2009 because of the decisive nature of Ms. Banez’s vote (it being a 6-5 vote).
6. On the three regents whose continued stay in the BOR has been questioned by Ms. Banez indirectly in her Complaint for Injunction, it is sufficient to say simply that two of those regents were appointed before the UP Charter took effect and so their term of office is defined by the law prevailing at that time, which prescribes that they stay in office up to two years or until replaced. For the third regent whose acting appointment was issued in September 2008, the acting appointment is for a public office with a fixed term, two years; that term ends in September 2010. The only effect of an acting appointment is that the holder of the acting appointment can be replaced at any time before the two year period. None of the three regents holding acting appointments have been replaced. By law, their continued membership in the BOR is legal and they remain fully qualified. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of Banez.
7. As for the two UPLB students whose applications for late registration for residency were approved and which Ms. Banez claims is unfair, it is sufficient to say that Ms. Banez never complied with any of the rules prescribed for late registration or late LOA; the two students did. Moreover, the documents submitted to the UPLB Chancellor’s office show that a request for late registration was submitted and then later withdrawn by Ms. Banez’s authorized representative; later, she would ask her lawyer to submit a letter of intent to take a leave of absence without filing an actual application for LOA. Under these circumstances, it would be almost impossible for the UPLB authorities to act on her application because her intentions were unclear, at best.
The news item ends with a quote from Ms. Banez that “It is unfair.” Perhaps it is high time to ask Ms. Banez if it was fair to her constituents that she deprive them of representation simply by refusing to do something so fundamental and so basic and so elementary? The UP has been transparent on this issue. A factual chronology is available on the University website; UP officials are always available for comment or reaction. It is thus surprising that the news item was printed without reaction from UP’s part.
In the interest of fair play, may we request that this reply be given the same prominence as that given to Ms. Banez.
Thank you.
ATTY. THEODORE O. TE
Vice President for Legal Affairs
University of the Philippines System
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
It's PI100: memories
It's PI100
(to the tune of Love Story by Taylor Swift)
We were all old when I first saw you
I close my eyes and the flashbacks start
You're standing there
Behind you is Mam Beng
I see Rizal, I see the Fili, the Noli
I see you make your way to your seat
Mam Beng says hello
Little did we know
That you were seated there, I was seated here
Mam Beng said stay away from our cellphones
And she was sitting on her table
Telling us "ako ang panginoon"
No one said, Please take us somewhere
We wanna be alone
We were waiting for the semester to end
No one's a prince, no one's a princess
It's PI100, baby just say yes!
Then I sneaked out to the tindahan sa kanto
I was quiet coz i'm dead if she knew
Didn't close my eyes
Wanna escape this class for a little while
Then came the exam, I can't write a letter
Mam Beng said stay away from other papers
But I can't really answer
Exam, please just go
No one said, Please take us somewhere
We wanna be alone
We were waiting for the semester to end
No one's a prince, no one's a princess
It's PI100, baby just say yes!
Help us, save us, we wanna pass this course
This course is difficult, but it's real
I am afraid, wanna be out of this mess
It's PI100, baby just say yes!
Then we were waiting
At women's dorm, do the filming
Our group was really shaking
When we filmed on the freedom park
Aira said, Yaya take Pepe somewhere you could be alone
We'll be waiting, all you have to do is run
The sun's over my head, we don't know what we're doing
Someone fell to the ground, pulled out her hair and said,
"Ang hirap Aira, we can never be alone"
I hate this and that's all I really know
Can we talk to Mam Beng, and pick out another topic
It's Pi100, baby just say yes!
Now we were all old when we've done this!
(to the tune of Love Story by Taylor Swift)
We were all old when I first saw you
I close my eyes and the flashbacks start
You're standing there
Behind you is Mam Beng
I see Rizal, I see the Fili, the Noli
I see you make your way to your seat
Mam Beng says hello
Little did we know
That you were seated there, I was seated here
Mam Beng said stay away from our cellphones
And she was sitting on her table
Telling us "ako ang panginoon"
No one said, Please take us somewhere
We wanna be alone
We were waiting for the semester to end
No one's a prince, no one's a princess
It's PI100, baby just say yes!
Then I sneaked out to the tindahan sa kanto
I was quiet coz i'm dead if she knew
Didn't close my eyes
Wanna escape this class for a little while
Then came the exam, I can't write a letter
Mam Beng said stay away from other papers
But I can't really answer
Exam, please just go
No one said, Please take us somewhere
We wanna be alone
We were waiting for the semester to end
No one's a prince, no one's a princess
It's PI100, baby just say yes!
Help us, save us, we wanna pass this course
This course is difficult, but it's real
I am afraid, wanna be out of this mess
It's PI100, baby just say yes!
Then we were waiting
At women's dorm, do the filming
Our group was really shaking
When we filmed on the freedom park
Aira said, Yaya take Pepe somewhere you could be alone
We'll be waiting, all you have to do is run
The sun's over my head, we don't know what we're doing
Someone fell to the ground, pulled out her hair and said,
"Ang hirap Aira, we can never be alone"
I hate this and that's all I really know
Can we talk to Mam Beng, and pick out another topic
It's Pi100, baby just say yes!
Now we were all old when we've done this!
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Chronology of Events on the SR Issue
Student Regent Issue PDF Print E-mail
Written by Office of the Chancellor
Friday, 05 March 2010 17:10
CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS
SDT CASE 08-01
(UPLB and CEB versus Charisse Bernadine Bañez)
SDT CASE 09-14
(UPLB versus Charisse Bernadine Bañez)
Feb. 8, 2008
Five College Secretaries who were members of the Central Electoral Board (CEB) for the University Student Council elections, filed a formal complaint with the UPLB SDT against Ms. Charisse Bernadine I. Bañez, Vice Chair of the UPLB USC, for “behaving with gross misconduct and deliberate discourtesy” against College Secretaries during a meeting of the CEB on February 6, 2008.
Note: While the case was being heard, Ms. Bañez was elected as Chair of the UPLB Student Council for SY 2008-2009.
April 3, 2008
Ms. Banez wrote to Atty. Florinida Blanca, SDT Chair, providing clarification on the complaint filed by some college Secretaries against her, explaining her manner of debating from the perspective of parliamentary procedures, etc.
Sept. 10, 2008
OSA Director Severino E. Cuevas issued a Formal Charge for SDT Case 08-01, UP Los Baños and CEB versus Charisse Bernadine I. Bañez
Feb. 18, 2009
Another complaint letter was submitted by some bona fide UPLB students against all officers of University Student Councils of UPLB since the administration of Mr. Leo XL Fuentes (AY 2007-2008) to the present (AY 2008-2009) led by Ms. Charisse Bernadine Banez, for violations of the UPLB USC Constitution.
April 7, 2009
OSA Director Dr. Vivian A. Gonzales issued Formal Charge for SDT Case 09-14a, UP Los Baños versus Acuña, Arbeen et al which included Charisse Bernadine I. Bañez, for violation of the 1984 Constitution
April 13, 2009
The Student Disciplinary Tribunal rendered a decision on SDT Case 08-01 against Charisse Bernadine I. Banez, finding her “guilty of misconduct” and imposing the “penalty of EXPRESSION OF APOLOGY, both written and oral, and submission of certification that she executed both, with a warning that in case of a second offense, she shall be penalized severely.”
Note: On 14 April 2009, the General Assembly of U.P. Student Councils (GASC) unanimously selected Ms. Bañez as the new 2009 Student Regent.
Note: Ms. Bañez completed all academic requirements for the 2009 graduation but was not recommended for graduation by the University council because of her pending cases.
May 29, 2009
BOR acknowledged the election of Ms. Banez. However, her Oath as Student Regent shall be administered once she has complied with the requirements of the Board during the BOR 1243th meeting held on May 29, 2009 at UP Visayas, to wit:
“1) As required of her by the Student Disciplinary Tribunal, she is to apologize to those she has been found discourteous to, and such apology should be both oral and in writing, publicly made; and
2)As demanded by the UPLB student complainants and as provided for in the rules set by the UPLB students themselves, she is to submit financial reports and other documents to account for proceeds from the February Fairs for her term and that of her predecessor’s.
June 18, 2009
Ms. Bañez wrote a letter of apology to the UPLB CEB and specifically to Prof. Lolita Vega, Prof. Mutya Manalo, Dr. Benjamin Reuel Marte, Prof. Agnes Banzon and Prof. Myrna Borines. Attached to the letter was a certification of the expression of apology. It showed that both written and oral apology was not rendered to Prof. Lolita Vega and an oral apology was not rendered to Prof. Borines. An apology to the CEB as a body was not also rendered.
July 27, 2009
Atty. Peralta, SDT Chair, wrote Dean Asuncion Raymundo informing her that based on the certification submitted by Ms. Bañez, it appears that Ms. Bañez have partially complied with the penalty prescribed by the SDT for SDT Case No. 08-01.
Dec. 7, 2009
The SDT rendered a decision on SDT Case No. 09-14, finding Ms. Bañez guilty and seven other respondents to have “violated the provisions of the 1984 USC Constitution”…and were “ordered suspended for a period not exceeding six months pursuant to Sec 24 (m) of the Rules and Regulations of Student Conduct and Discipline approved by the BOR on June 1992.”
Dec. 10, 2009
Dean Asuncion Raymundo, Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, wrote to Chancellor Luis Rey I. Velasco informing him that Ms. Banez has not enrolled yet for the second semester of AY 2009-2010 and that her status is AWOL. The college also noted the receipt of the suspension order for Ms. Bañez thus she needs to file for Residence this Second Semester AY 2009-2010 to serve the suspension ordered by SDT
Dec. 15, 2009
Chancellor Luis Rey I. Velasco wrote to Pres. Emerlinda R. Roman informing her that UPLB SDT ordered the suspension of some members of the UPLB Student Council 2008-2009, including Ms. Bañez. He also informed the President of the need for Ms. Bañez to file for residence to serve her suspension but as of this time, she has not enrolled yet, rendering her as a non-bonafide student of UPLB.
Dec. 16, 2009
Ms. Banez wrote to Chancellor Velasco requesting that she be permitted to register or file for residency for the second semester AY 2009-2010. The letter, which was received by the Office of the Chancellor on January 11, 2010, included an authorization for a certain Ma. Elena Carlos to process the request to register or file for residency on her behalf.
Dec. 16, 2009
Ms. Banez submitted Motion for Reconsideration for SDT Case No. 09-14 through her counsel, Atty. Julius G. Matibag.
Jan. 11, 2010
Chancellor Velasco wrote Ms. Banez in response to her letter dated Dec. 16, 2009. He requested Ms. Bañez to submit a written explanation of why she failed to register during the regular registration period. The letter was sent to the Office of the Student Regent and a copy was sent through Ms. Elena Carlos on January 12, 2010.
Jan. 12, 2010
Atty. Julius Garcia Matibag, as Legal Counsel of Ms. Banez, wrote to Dean Asuncion Raymundo, requesting for a leave of absence for the Second Semester AY 2009-2010.
Jan. 12, 2010
The original letter of Ms. Banez addressed to Chancellor Velasco dated Dec. 16, 2009 was withdrawn by Ms. Carlos, accordingly, upon the instruction of Ms Bañez.
Jan. 15, 2010
Ms. Banez called the Office of the Chancellor and confirmed that she asked Ms. Carlos to withdraw her letter request. When asked if she will no longer pursue her request for registration, she said that she is putting it on hold pending the advice of her legal counsel. She also confirmed that she received the reply of the Chancellor dated Jan 11, 2010 to her letter dated Dec. 16, 2009. Further, she inquired if an explanation is the only requirement for the Chancellor to approve her late registration for residence.
Jan. 20, 2010
Ms. Banez responded to Chancellor Velasco’s letter dated January 11, 2010. In her letter, which was received by the Office of the Chancellor on Jan. 28, 2010, Ms. Bañez explained that “… it is most respectfully submitted that the filing of the application for residency of the undersigned for the second semester, 2009-2010, a few days after the regular registration period is not unreasonable.”
Jan. 21, 2010
Dean Asuncion Raymundo wrote to Atty. Julius Matibag disapproving the request for leave of absence (LOA) of Ms. Bañez for the following reasons:
1. The UPLB calendar provides that the last day for filing a leave of absence for those who are not enrolled was on 17 November 2009;
2. Application for leave should be accompanied by the approval of her adviser and her parents, which documents were not submitted;
3. Her application for leave was not accompanied by a clearance required by the College of Arts and Sciences;
4. The reason why she is filing a leave of absence is not clear and not adequately explained;
5. The above requirements should have been filed on or before 17 November 2009.
Feb. 18, 2010
Chan. Velasco replied to Ms. Banez’ letter dated Jan. 20, 2010 informing her “that inasmuch as you did not give concrete reasons why you did not file your application on time, I likewise do not have any basis to favorably act on your request”.
Feb. 23, 2010
Ms. Banez requested Dean Raymundo to allow her to file for late residency for the second semester AY 2009-2010
Feb. 24, 2010
Ms. Banez responded to Chan. Velasco’s letter dated Feb. 18, 2010 requesting to reconsider her request to file late residency for the Second Semester AY 2009-2010 based on several grounds that she presented. Among which is the approval of the late registration for residence of two students of the College of Forestry and Natural Resources.
Feb. 24, 2010
Dean Asuncion Raymundo responded to Ms. Banez’ letter dated Feb. 23, 2010 affirming the decision of the Chancellor disapproving the request for residency. The Dean pointed out “the efforts of the former College Secretary, Prof. Mabini DG. Dizon and her staff to remind and advise you on the need to file for residency for the 2nd semester 2009-2010.”
March 1, 2010
The Office of the Chancellor forwarded the Feb. 24 letter of Ms. Bañez to Dean Raymundo for her comment and recommendation.
March 3, 2010
Dean Raymundo submitted her comments on the letter of Ms. Bañez together with the report of Prof. Mabini Dizon, former College Secretary, regarding the effort of the OCS to notify Ms. Bañez of the need to register before the deadline for filing of residency.
March 4, 2010
Chancellor Velasco responded to the Feb. 24 letter of Ms. Bañez. A copy of the letter was sent to Ms. Bañez through the Office of the Dean, CAS.
Written by Office of the Chancellor
Friday, 05 March 2010 17:10
CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS
SDT CASE 08-01
(UPLB and CEB versus Charisse Bernadine Bañez)
SDT CASE 09-14
(UPLB versus Charisse Bernadine Bañez)
Feb. 8, 2008
Five College Secretaries who were members of the Central Electoral Board (CEB) for the University Student Council elections, filed a formal complaint with the UPLB SDT against Ms. Charisse Bernadine I. Bañez, Vice Chair of the UPLB USC, for “behaving with gross misconduct and deliberate discourtesy” against College Secretaries during a meeting of the CEB on February 6, 2008.
Note: While the case was being heard, Ms. Bañez was elected as Chair of the UPLB Student Council for SY 2008-2009.
April 3, 2008
Ms. Banez wrote to Atty. Florinida Blanca, SDT Chair, providing clarification on the complaint filed by some college Secretaries against her, explaining her manner of debating from the perspective of parliamentary procedures, etc.
Sept. 10, 2008
OSA Director Severino E. Cuevas issued a Formal Charge for SDT Case 08-01, UP Los Baños and CEB versus Charisse Bernadine I. Bañez
Feb. 18, 2009
Another complaint letter was submitted by some bona fide UPLB students against all officers of University Student Councils of UPLB since the administration of Mr. Leo XL Fuentes (AY 2007-2008) to the present (AY 2008-2009) led by Ms. Charisse Bernadine Banez, for violations of the UPLB USC Constitution.
April 7, 2009
OSA Director Dr. Vivian A. Gonzales issued Formal Charge for SDT Case 09-14a, UP Los Baños versus Acuña, Arbeen et al which included Charisse Bernadine I. Bañez, for violation of the 1984 Constitution
April 13, 2009
The Student Disciplinary Tribunal rendered a decision on SDT Case 08-01 against Charisse Bernadine I. Banez, finding her “guilty of misconduct” and imposing the “penalty of EXPRESSION OF APOLOGY, both written and oral, and submission of certification that she executed both, with a warning that in case of a second offense, she shall be penalized severely.”
Note: On 14 April 2009, the General Assembly of U.P. Student Councils (GASC) unanimously selected Ms. Bañez as the new 2009 Student Regent.
Note: Ms. Bañez completed all academic requirements for the 2009 graduation but was not recommended for graduation by the University council because of her pending cases.
May 29, 2009
BOR acknowledged the election of Ms. Banez. However, her Oath as Student Regent shall be administered once she has complied with the requirements of the Board during the BOR 1243th meeting held on May 29, 2009 at UP Visayas, to wit:
“1) As required of her by the Student Disciplinary Tribunal, she is to apologize to those she has been found discourteous to, and such apology should be both oral and in writing, publicly made; and
2)As demanded by the UPLB student complainants and as provided for in the rules set by the UPLB students themselves, she is to submit financial reports and other documents to account for proceeds from the February Fairs for her term and that of her predecessor’s.
June 18, 2009
Ms. Bañez wrote a letter of apology to the UPLB CEB and specifically to Prof. Lolita Vega, Prof. Mutya Manalo, Dr. Benjamin Reuel Marte, Prof. Agnes Banzon and Prof. Myrna Borines. Attached to the letter was a certification of the expression of apology. It showed that both written and oral apology was not rendered to Prof. Lolita Vega and an oral apology was not rendered to Prof. Borines. An apology to the CEB as a body was not also rendered.
July 27, 2009
Atty. Peralta, SDT Chair, wrote Dean Asuncion Raymundo informing her that based on the certification submitted by Ms. Bañez, it appears that Ms. Bañez have partially complied with the penalty prescribed by the SDT for SDT Case No. 08-01.
Dec. 7, 2009
The SDT rendered a decision on SDT Case No. 09-14, finding Ms. Bañez guilty and seven other respondents to have “violated the provisions of the 1984 USC Constitution”…and were “ordered suspended for a period not exceeding six months pursuant to Sec 24 (m) of the Rules and Regulations of Student Conduct and Discipline approved by the BOR on June 1992.”
Dec. 10, 2009
Dean Asuncion Raymundo, Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, wrote to Chancellor Luis Rey I. Velasco informing him that Ms. Banez has not enrolled yet for the second semester of AY 2009-2010 and that her status is AWOL. The college also noted the receipt of the suspension order for Ms. Bañez thus she needs to file for Residence this Second Semester AY 2009-2010 to serve the suspension ordered by SDT
Dec. 15, 2009
Chancellor Luis Rey I. Velasco wrote to Pres. Emerlinda R. Roman informing her that UPLB SDT ordered the suspension of some members of the UPLB Student Council 2008-2009, including Ms. Bañez. He also informed the President of the need for Ms. Bañez to file for residence to serve her suspension but as of this time, she has not enrolled yet, rendering her as a non-bonafide student of UPLB.
Dec. 16, 2009
Ms. Banez wrote to Chancellor Velasco requesting that she be permitted to register or file for residency for the second semester AY 2009-2010. The letter, which was received by the Office of the Chancellor on January 11, 2010, included an authorization for a certain Ma. Elena Carlos to process the request to register or file for residency on her behalf.
Dec. 16, 2009
Ms. Banez submitted Motion for Reconsideration for SDT Case No. 09-14 through her counsel, Atty. Julius G. Matibag.
Jan. 11, 2010
Chancellor Velasco wrote Ms. Banez in response to her letter dated Dec. 16, 2009. He requested Ms. Bañez to submit a written explanation of why she failed to register during the regular registration period. The letter was sent to the Office of the Student Regent and a copy was sent through Ms. Elena Carlos on January 12, 2010.
Jan. 12, 2010
Atty. Julius Garcia Matibag, as Legal Counsel of Ms. Banez, wrote to Dean Asuncion Raymundo, requesting for a leave of absence for the Second Semester AY 2009-2010.
Jan. 12, 2010
The original letter of Ms. Banez addressed to Chancellor Velasco dated Dec. 16, 2009 was withdrawn by Ms. Carlos, accordingly, upon the instruction of Ms Bañez.
Jan. 15, 2010
Ms. Banez called the Office of the Chancellor and confirmed that she asked Ms. Carlos to withdraw her letter request. When asked if she will no longer pursue her request for registration, she said that she is putting it on hold pending the advice of her legal counsel. She also confirmed that she received the reply of the Chancellor dated Jan 11, 2010 to her letter dated Dec. 16, 2009. Further, she inquired if an explanation is the only requirement for the Chancellor to approve her late registration for residence.
Jan. 20, 2010
Ms. Banez responded to Chancellor Velasco’s letter dated January 11, 2010. In her letter, which was received by the Office of the Chancellor on Jan. 28, 2010, Ms. Bañez explained that “… it is most respectfully submitted that the filing of the application for residency of the undersigned for the second semester, 2009-2010, a few days after the regular registration period is not unreasonable.”
Jan. 21, 2010
Dean Asuncion Raymundo wrote to Atty. Julius Matibag disapproving the request for leave of absence (LOA) of Ms. Bañez for the following reasons:
1. The UPLB calendar provides that the last day for filing a leave of absence for those who are not enrolled was on 17 November 2009;
2. Application for leave should be accompanied by the approval of her adviser and her parents, which documents were not submitted;
3. Her application for leave was not accompanied by a clearance required by the College of Arts and Sciences;
4. The reason why she is filing a leave of absence is not clear and not adequately explained;
5. The above requirements should have been filed on or before 17 November 2009.
Feb. 18, 2010
Chan. Velasco replied to Ms. Banez’ letter dated Jan. 20, 2010 informing her “that inasmuch as you did not give concrete reasons why you did not file your application on time, I likewise do not have any basis to favorably act on your request”.
Feb. 23, 2010
Ms. Banez requested Dean Raymundo to allow her to file for late residency for the second semester AY 2009-2010
Feb. 24, 2010
Ms. Banez responded to Chan. Velasco’s letter dated Feb. 18, 2010 requesting to reconsider her request to file late residency for the Second Semester AY 2009-2010 based on several grounds that she presented. Among which is the approval of the late registration for residence of two students of the College of Forestry and Natural Resources.
Feb. 24, 2010
Dean Asuncion Raymundo responded to Ms. Banez’ letter dated Feb. 23, 2010 affirming the decision of the Chancellor disapproving the request for residency. The Dean pointed out “the efforts of the former College Secretary, Prof. Mabini DG. Dizon and her staff to remind and advise you on the need to file for residency for the 2nd semester 2009-2010.”
March 1, 2010
The Office of the Chancellor forwarded the Feb. 24 letter of Ms. Bañez to Dean Raymundo for her comment and recommendation.
March 3, 2010
Dean Raymundo submitted her comments on the letter of Ms. Bañez together with the report of Prof. Mabini Dizon, former College Secretary, regarding the effort of the OCS to notify Ms. Bañez of the need to register before the deadline for filing of residency.
March 4, 2010
Chancellor Velasco responded to the Feb. 24 letter of Ms. Bañez. A copy of the letter was sent to Ms. Bañez through the Office of the Dean, CAS.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Disorder in the Court.
Dear All,
I don't know if you've read this already but for those who haven't, here it is. It's for everyone and anyone with a funny bone...especially lawyers :)
These are from a book called Disorder in the American Courts, and are things people actually said in court, word for word, taken down and now published by court reporters that had the torment of staying calm while these exchanges were actually taking place.
ATTORNEY: What was the first thing your husband said to you that morning?
WITNESS: He said, 'Where am I, Cathy?'
ATTORNEY: And why did that upset you?
WITNESS: My name is Susan!
ATTORNEY: Are you sexually active?
WITNESS: No, I just lie there.
____________________________________________
ATTORNEY: Now doctor, isn't it true that when a person dies in his sleep, he doesn't know about it until the next morning?
WITNESS: Did you actually pass the bar exam?
ATTORNEY: The youngest son, the twenty-year-old, how old is he?
WITNESS: He's twenty, much like your IQ.
____________________________ ______ _________
ATTORNEY: Were you present when your picture was taken?
WITNESS: Are you sh***ing me?
_________________________________________
ATTORNEY: So the date of conception (of the baby) was August 8th?
WITNESS: Yes.
ATTORNEY: And what were you doing at that time?
WITNESS: Getting laid
____________________________________________
ATTORNEY: She had three children, right?
WITNESS: Yes.
ATTORNEY: How many were boys?
WITNESS: None.
ATTORNEY: Were there any girls?
WITNESS: Your Honour, I think I need a different attorney. Can I get a new attorney?
___________________________________ ______ ___
ATTORNEY: How was your first marriage terminated?
WITNESS: By death.
ATTORNEY: And by whose death was it terminated?
WITNESS: Take a guess.
____________________________________________
ATTORNEY: Can you describe the individual?
WITNESS: He was about medium height and had a beard.
ATTORNEY: Was this a male or a female?
WITNESS: Unless the circus was in town, I'm going with male.
_____ ________________________________
ATTORNEY: Is your appearance here this morning pursuant to a deposition notice which I sent to your attorney?
WITNESS: No, this is how I dress when I go to work.
______________________________________
ATTORNEY: Doctor, how many of your autopsies have you performed on dead people?
WITNESS: All of them. The live ones put up too much of a fight.
________________________________________
ATTORNEY: ALL your responses MUST be oral, OK? What school did you go to?
WITNESS: Oral.
_________________________________________
ATTORNEY: Do you recall the time that you examined the body?
WIT NESS: The autopsy started around 8:30 p.m.
ATTORNEY: And Mr. Denton was dead at the time?
WITNESS: If not, he was by the time I finished.
____________________________________________
And the best for last:
ATTORNEY: Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a pulse?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: Did you check for blood pressure?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: Did you check for breathing?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you began the autopsy?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: How can you be so sure, Doctor?
WITNESS: Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar.
ATTORNEY: I see, but could the patient have still been alive, nevertheless?
WITNESS: Yes, it is possible that he could have been alive and practicing law.
I don't know if you've read this already but for those who haven't, here it is. It's for everyone and anyone with a funny bone...especially lawyers :)
These are from a book called Disorder in the American Courts, and are things people actually said in court, word for word, taken down and now published by court reporters that had the torment of staying calm while these exchanges were actually taking place.
ATTORNEY: What was the first thing your husband said to you that morning?
WITNESS: He said, 'Where am I, Cathy?'
ATTORNEY: And why did that upset you?
WITNESS: My name is Susan!
ATTORNEY: Are you sexually active?
WITNESS: No, I just lie there.
____________________________________________
ATTORNEY: Now doctor, isn't it true that when a person dies in his sleep, he doesn't know about it until the next morning?
WITNESS: Did you actually pass the bar exam?
ATTORNEY: The youngest son, the twenty-year-old, how old is he?
WITNESS: He's twenty, much like your IQ.
____________________________ ______ _________
ATTORNEY: Were you present when your picture was taken?
WITNESS: Are you sh***ing me?
_________________________________________
ATTORNEY: So the date of conception (of the baby) was August 8th?
WITNESS: Yes.
ATTORNEY: And what were you doing at that time?
WITNESS: Getting laid
____________________________________________
ATTORNEY: She had three children, right?
WITNESS: Yes.
ATTORNEY: How many were boys?
WITNESS: None.
ATTORNEY: Were there any girls?
WITNESS: Your Honour, I think I need a different attorney. Can I get a new attorney?
___________________________________ ______ ___
ATTORNEY: How was your first marriage terminated?
WITNESS: By death.
ATTORNEY: And by whose death was it terminated?
WITNESS: Take a guess.
____________________________________________
ATTORNEY: Can you describe the individual?
WITNESS: He was about medium height and had a beard.
ATTORNEY: Was this a male or a female?
WITNESS: Unless the circus was in town, I'm going with male.
_____ ________________________________
ATTORNEY: Is your appearance here this morning pursuant to a deposition notice which I sent to your attorney?
WITNESS: No, this is how I dress when I go to work.
______________________________________
ATTORNEY: Doctor, how many of your autopsies have you performed on dead people?
WITNESS: All of them. The live ones put up too much of a fight.
________________________________________
ATTORNEY: ALL your responses MUST be oral, OK? What school did you go to?
WITNESS: Oral.
_________________________________________
ATTORNEY: Do you recall the time that you examined the body?
WIT NESS: The autopsy started around 8:30 p.m.
ATTORNEY: And Mr. Denton was dead at the time?
WITNESS: If not, he was by the time I finished.
____________________________________________
And the best for last:
ATTORNEY: Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a pulse?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: Did you check for blood pressure?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: Did you check for breathing?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you began the autopsy?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: How can you be so sure, Doctor?
WITNESS: Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar.
ATTORNEY: I see, but could the patient have still been alive, nevertheless?
WITNESS: Yes, it is possible that he could have been alive and practicing law.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
