In its resolution dated 26 April 2025, the tribunal ordered House Speaker Christian Mar Arganda, Secretary-General Raizel Riz Rasay, Student Central Board (SCB) Treasurer Vincent Reis, and SCB Public Information Officer Mary Catherine Marco to disclose documents such as liquidation reports and concept plans as required by the full disclosure act.
The Student Tribunal said the remedies imposed were adjured given the โmutual compromiseโ reached in the dialogue between the parties on 23 April 2025.
Meanwhile, in response to the failure to establish an oversight committee required under Section 12 of the same act, the Student Congress (SC), headed by House Speaker Arganda, was directed to create an Oversight Committee on Transparency and Accountability to monitor adherence to the actโs provisions.
Under SCB Treasurer Reisโ supervision, the Office of the Treasurer was also directed to โestablish constructive communicationโ with the Commission on Audit to improve operations while preserving administrative independence to prevent potential erosion of the check and balance system.
It can be recalled that first-year BS Accountancy student Rodzerach Patriarca filed a petition for violation of the disclosure act against the student government officials for violating the transparency law, specifically Sections 5, 7(a) and (b), and 8(a) and (b).
Under the petitionโs prayer for relief, the respondents should be suspended from student government service for at most 30 days per violation, per program and document, as required under Section 11(b)(i) of the act, and be fined a total of 15,200.00 pesos (200.00 pesos per missing document per officer) as mandated under Section 11(b)(ii).
The AdNU Student Tribunal determined that the lapses of the respondents were not committed out of malice or bad faith, noting the intervening force majeure circumstances such as the onslaught of Typhoon Kristine last October 2024 and other structural factors, including logistical hurdles, delayed administrative transitions, and the absence of the internal rules and procedures governing the enforcement of the Lideratos Full Disclosure Act of 2024, which they have found to reasonably contribute to the delays in divulging the documents.
In addition, the tribunal found no instances of fund misappropriation by the respondents.
However, the court also opined that despite the absence of an oversight committee, the binding force of the full disclosure act remains valid and does not deprive the student body of its right to demand enforcement of the law.
The tribunal maintained that even though the unprecedented circumstances and obstacles mitigated the officialsโ liability, they are not entirely excused from the consequences of procedural lapses affecting the interest of the student body; hence the strict and urgent enforcement of the remedial actions agreed upon during the dialogue.