PRESS STATEMENT
MANILA, Philippines — Four University of Santo Tomas students today filed a Joint Memorandum of Appeal challenging the disciplinary sanctions imposed on them following their questioning of Philippine Air Force personnel during a military exhibit on campus.
Raven Kristine Racelis, Ralph Christian Manuel, Mecaella Sean Carl Capalar, and Dex Anderson Frogoso, represented by the National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers (NUPL) and the Public Interest Law Center (PILC), asked the Office of the Rector to reverse and set aside the separate resolutions issued by the UST Office for Student Affairs on October 2. They also sought an urgent stay of their suspensions and all related sanctions while the appeal is pending.
The case arose from a PAF exhibit held at UST on April 21. The University’s invitation encouraged members of the Thomasian community to ask questions about the PAF and the military equipment on display.
The students asked whether drones and other military assets had been used in reported operations involving civilian casualties in Oriental Mindoro and Negros. According to the appeal, the discussion shifted to their identities, political beliefs, and organizational affiliations. They were called “brainwashed,” associated with communist organizations, and red-tagged in front of other members of the University community.
When security personnel directed them to leave, the students complied. While leaving, they chanted slogans against militarization and in defense of academic freedom. No violence occurred, no property was damaged, no class was interrupted, and no University activity was shown to have been materially disrupted.
“UST opened its campus to a military exhibit and invited students to ask questions. It cannot punish them because their questions were about civilian deaths and military accountability,” said Atty. Clarisse Betina V. Fortes of the NUPL, one of the students’ counsel.
“Academic freedom means very little if it protects only questions that do not offend those in power,” Fortes said.
The appeal argues that the OSA’s findings were not supported by substantial evidence. The formal complainant, UST alumnus David Nadora Jr., did not claim to have personally witnessed the incident. The copy of the PAF incident report furnished to the students was undated, unsigned, unsworn, and unauthenticated. None of its purported authors appeared during the case conferences or submitted an affidavit affirming its contents.
The OSA also relied on video recordings that were never shown or furnished to the students. Their source, authenticity, completeness, and context were not established during the proceedings.
“The OSA resolutions are long on moralizing and short on proof,” said Atty. Mark Vincent D. Lim of PILC. “The complainant did not witness the incident. The PAF report was not authenticated. The videos relied upon were withheld from the students. These are not minor technical defects because they directly affect the fairness and reliability of the proceedings.”
The appeal further details how members of the investigating panel defended the PAF’s conduct, dismissed sources because they were obtained online, misrepresented the consistency of the students’ accounts, and suggested that they should have ignored the red-tagging. No complainant, PAF officer, or adverse witness appeared during the students’ case conferences.
The students also argue that the OSA failed to identify which specific offenses under the 2018 UST Student Handbook they committed. Although they were directed to answer possible charges involving disrespect, serious disturbance, instigating illegal activities, and unruly behavior, the resolutions broadly found them liable under the Code of Conduct without determining which offenses had been established.
The appeal separately challenges Capalar’s removal as the elected public relations officer of the UST Central Student Council. It argues that removal from elected office is not an authorized disciplinary penalty and that continued eligibility for a Certificate of Good Moral Character is not a requirement for her to remain in office.
The students asked the Rector to exonerate them, lift their suspensions, expunge their disciplinary records, restore their eligibility to obtain CGMCs, and reinstate Capalar. They also requested an immediate stay to prevent the sanctions from taking effect before the appeal is decided. ###
