Speaking in behalf of Fr. Edwin Lao, Letran rector and president, and five of his co-accused, Lawyer Julieto Marco, Letran counsel, said that complainant Emerson Chester Kim Go and 28 others who were found to be members of Tau Gamma Phi and SRB, local fraternities, were not dismissed as alleged by the complainant.
"The complainants’ claims that the boys were dismissed had no factual basis. They were not dropped from the rolls but were merely suspended," Marco told the court.
It was gathered that the alleged dismissal was first mentioned by the Prefect of Discipline Fr. Jose Rhommel Hernandez in a letter to the parents of the students concerned.
Highly placed sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the disputed dismissal was only recommendatory on Hernandez’s part. They said only Lao has the final authority to order or approve the dismissal. The STAR gathered that after several conferences held with the erring students and their parents, Lao, on the latter’s appeal, granted a commutation of the punishment.
The parents of the 28 other students had signed an agreement with the school authorities conforming that the suspension will end on Feb. 18, 2002, allowing them to go back to their classes and graduate in April, a month later than the regular end of classes. Only the Gos did not sign the agreement, the sources said.
They alleged that the students, who were minors, were made to sign the agreement in the absence of their parents and were made to sign against their will.
In open court on Friday, the Gos, through their counsel, questioned the acts of the Letran executives, insisting that Kim, and 28 others, were indeed dismissed from the rolls. The Gos further claimed that no investigation was made by Letran of the students’ alleged membership in the fraternities and that no solid or convincing proof was presented by Letran. Also, they said they were not given due process and the accused (Kim) was not confronted by his accusers. The allegations were either denied or dismissed by Letran authorities.
"If they were dismissed, how come the students were allowed to take the third quarterly exams on Jan. 28? The dismissal was in fact reduced to suspension and a new schedule of classes (was) presented to them from Feb. 18 to April 18 to make up for the absences due to the suspension," Marco countered for Letran. – Jerry Botial