You are on page 1of 5

September 14, 2015

Dr. Reynaldo B. Vea
Malayan High School of Science
8013 Paz Mendoza Guazon, Ermita, Manila, Metro Manila

Dear Dr. Vea,
I am writing this letter to formally appeal the decision handed down against my
daughter, Leslie Genevieve Ong, for an alleged cheating incident in Ms. Gin’s
Class that happened September 2, 2015 for the following reasons:
1.) Violation of the procedural due process of my daughter.
2.) Violation of the student handbook by the Mr. Earl Carlo Cruz.
I would like to first discuss the first ground that I have raised in this appeal.
The Supreme Court in De La Salle University Inc., et al. v. The Court of Appeals,
et al. (GR. No 127980) ruled that investigations of students found violating
school discipline falls under administrative cases.
Likewise, in the same case above, the Court stated that in administrative cases,
such as investigations of students found violating school discipline, there are
minimum standards which must be met before to satisfy the demands of
procedural due process and these are:
(1) the students must be informed in writing of the nature and cause of any
accusation against them;
(2) they shall have the right to answer the charges against them and with the
assistance if counsel, if desired;
(3) they shall be informed of the evidence against them;
(4) they shall have the right to adduce evidence in their own behalf; and

Gin then looked at the reviewer and returned it to my daughter. got the reviewer on the chair and put it in her lap in order to give the said reviewer to Mr. that is when Ms. she inadvertently.3. _____________________________________________________________________________ Since my daughter felt bad about Ms. she opted not to submit the test paper in order to show to Ms. __________________. was the one who induced and forced her to hand him the supposed reviewer. without any intent to cheat. Gin seeing the reviewer. In requisite no.5 of these minimum standards set forth by the Supreme Court were not followed by the school. X. and bugged my daughter to give him the reviewer because he does not know the answer in the said exam and that he needed the reviewer in order for him to pass the test. Sadly. According to my daughter. Gin saw it. Cruz. No.My daughter was only informed orally of the allegations of cheating she allegedly committed. X from constantly distracting her. Ms. Mr.X consistently annoyed. Gin that she did not intend to use that reviewer to gain advantage over the said exam. . Since my daughter was very busy analyzing the said English exam and to stop Mr.(5) the evidence must be duly considered by the investigating committee or official designated by the school authorities to hear and decide the case.My daughter was not allowed to adduce evidence to prove that she is not guilty on the charge against her. demanded. In requisite no. who was already 17 years old and has moral ascendancy over her because she was only 15 years old. When the reviewer was on her lap. a certain. The factual circumstances on the alleged cheating incident were not even appreciated by Mr.4. During the said exam. 1. 1. 3 – My daughter was not informed of any evidences against her that would prove that she indeed cheated on the said exam In requisite no. 4.

on the second ground of my appeal. In fact. Now. A copy of this admission is hereby attached as “ANNEX A”. X.5 was not complied with. Gin would have immediately sent my daughter to the discipline office for proper disciplinary sanctions. then what is higher between the first exam and retest will be recorded. Since my daughter’s was not allowed to adduce her evidence. To state for the record. More importantly. she innocently and inadvertently got the reviewer from the chair due to the constant bugging of Mr. Cruz was contrary to what the MHSS handbook states. Gin who had personal and firsthand knowledge on this incident has likewise impliedly agreed with my observation that my daughter did not cheat because otherwise Ms. The retest was meant as a chance for students to try to score a higher grade.That was possible because the said exam was a RETEST due to the fact that a lot of student had failed the earlier exam. Cruz is also contrary to the MHSS handbook being devoid of legal basis. my daughter does not need to cheat in the retest. If not. Since my daughter did not submit the retest. Ms. The personal observation of Ms. Only 4 students passed the first exam. I would like to state that the procedure done by Mr. if they succeed in getting a higher grade in the retest . Page 40-41. I would like to repeat again that my daughter has NO INTENTION TO CHEAT at that time. Mr. Gin should be respected. requisite no. she did not cheat but was only mistakenly blamed for cheating. of the handbook provides the PROPER PROCEDURE for settlement of all disciplinary cases it provides that the following steps must be taken in order to effect a valid disciplinary action. My daughter is innocent on this alleged cheating incident.X . The steps are: . Likewise the penalty on the question decision imposed by Mr. she was one of four persons who passed the first exam. and my daughter is one of those who passed it. has admitted that it was him who is guilty in this said case. her passing grade on the first exam was recorded. then the grade on the first exam will be deemed cancelled. This procedures are mandated by the handbook in order to provide students with procedural due process.

Cruz. the quoted penalty above is without legal nor factual basis at all. The following are the forms of sanctions: 1. I was not informed nor notified by the school regarding the proceedings taken against my daughter. this is against page 41 of the handbook. I would like to quote on of the penalties imposed by Mr. It is not provided in the handbook as one of the imposable penalties against major offenses.) suspension 4. The question that bothers me the most is what kind of proceeding happened? Is it a case conference? Is it an elevation of the case to the student welfare committee? The proceeding taken against my daughter was UNCLEAR and AMBIGUOUS. and there present was Mr.) exclusion 5.) oral reprimand 2.Y. and Ms. Likewise since this is a major offense. Cruz but sadly these were ignored. Ms. Clearly. According to my daughter on September 10. she will no longer be qualified to receive honors and awards for the entire school year (S. Alba.) school service 3. it states: “ Moreover. My daughter was asked questions regarding the said incident and immediately after that ___________________________. she was called to the ________________. the parents should have been INFORMED OR NOTIFIED. She was also not provided with a copy of an incident report. the next day a decision was already promulgated. no further proceedings were conducted. 2015-2016).) expulsion . But sadly. Gin. Cruz against my daughter. “ Assuming without admitting that my daughter is guilty thereof. Moreover.In major offenses: Incident report  Case Conference  Elevation to Student Welfare Committee  Student Welfare Committee Evaluation of the Case  Principal’s Action Since my daughter was alleged to have committed a major offense the above steps should have been taken by Mr. The handbook was made so that proper procedures should be followed in order to protect students from unjust and unfair decisions. After that. 2015. Pages 27-36 of the handbook provides the form of sanctions.

Sincerely. THEREFORE. ______________________ . hence I would like to reiterate that the same is without legal basis at all. since Mr. 2015 be REVERSED and SET ASIDE for violating the procedural due process of my daughter and for non-compliance with the proper procedures stated in the MHSS Student Handbook. Cruz failed to follow the proper steps in handling a discipline complaint.Nowhere in the handbook does the penalty for ineligibility for honors and awards are mentioned as a form of sanctions. I pray that the assailed decision promulgated on Septmeber 11.