GA Report: May 3, 2008
Thirty of the thirty-four members of the University Student Council (USC) were present in its third formal General Assembly (GA) last May 3 at the USC Office in Vinzons Hall. The agenda listed committee deliberations, the reports of the committee heads, college representatives, among others as the matters to be discussed for the GA. Much of the time, however, was eventually alloted for deliberations for the Committee on Culture and Arts (CCA).
The attendance during the GA is as follows:
| Chairperson Third Bagro Vice-Chairperson Airah Cadiogan Councilors * excused |
College Representatives Acee Abulencia Anna Achacoso Jay Bagcal Issa Baguisi Rashell Cabrera * Rinno Camilit Ace Castillo Chorva David Norby Geraldez Dyan Hatague Carmela Lagang Eshei Mesina Ruth Miguel Jeyson Ocay Raquel Perez Pierre Reyes * Hazel Rodelas Sophia San Luis Marc Virtucio Lester Yupingkun |
Right after the roll call, CL Rep. San Luis raised a point of order with regards to the conduct of some members of the USC especially during the last GA. She raised the issue of the tardiness of CFA Rep. Manuel Mesina that caused the postponement of the committee deliberations for the Committee on the Culture and Arts (CCA) and moved that he be disqualified from proposing.
Members of the USC debated whether to allow Rep. Mesina to present his committee proposal or not. According to Rep. Mesina, he was late because he was caught in traffic. Those who supported that motion of Rep. San Luis said that his excuse is not valid, and that he should be disqualified to avoid future instances where such tardiness resulting to postponement of committee deliberations would be allowed. Allowing Rep. Mesina to present his proposal, according to her, will set a dangerous precedent and will result to it happening “over and over again,” and that “it is okay to be late.” She claimed, “My constituents are law students. I’m not prepared to face them and tell we don’t have a CCA chairperson because one of the proponents was late — he was practically absent.” Rep. Mesina arrived at the April 26 GA more than an hour after it had started. Rep. San Luis added that Rep. Mesina’s tardiness can also be a manifestation of how much or how little his dedication and passion are to his work and to the committee he wishes to serve as head.
Those who wanted Rep. Mesina to continue his proposal said that the other proponent, CM Rep. Anna Achacoso, and other members of the USC, were guilty of similar tardiness. Such tardiness, according to them, must not be solely counted on Rep. Mesina, and if such, disciplinary action must be applied on everyone, and not just to prevent someone from presenting a committee proposal. It was also raised that such motions must have been raised immediately at the last GA or at least before the GA if it is of such importance, and not in a manner that is sudden where the accused wasn’t given prior notice of disqualification. As to why he left early ahead of everyone, Rep. Mesina explained that the situation of the College of Fine Arts (CFA) Student Council at present demands his presence especially last weekend because it was the college’s graduation that afternoon. Apparently, many positions in the CFA Student Council are still vacant after the student council elections. Some members of the USC claim that isn’t the issue, rather it is that “he did not formally communicate to the body that he will be exiting and the reason behind it.”
A motion was raised by Councilor Jaque Eroles to divide the house, because there is an absence of guidelines for disqualification. CL Rep. San Luis objected to the motion because, according to her, there is sufficient precedence in what Chairperson Herminio Bagro apparently said a few GA’s before that tardiness resulting to the postponement of deliberations must not happen again, as what happened to the Sports & Fitness Committee, when CHK Rep. Lester Yupingkun was absent but was allowed to present his proposal the next week.
Some members of the USC proposed that the proponents must be allowed to present, and the debate on the tardiness be moved to the deliberations before the vote for chairpersonship, because according to them, whatever issues some USC members have against Rep. Mesina may be used at the chairpersonship deliberations together with the merits of their proposals.
After an hour of heated deliberations, a motion to terminate the debate was raised. The result of the voting was 18 – 11 in favor of terminating the debate, but such wasn’t equivalent to 2/3’s of the body required to terminate the deliberations. Because the debate had been going on for hours, CL Rep. San Luis was asked how she wanted the issue resolved. She insisted that the GA keep debating until it reaches a consensus.
After half an hour of deliberations and a five-minute recess, the body eventually agreed to a secret-ballot type of deciding on the motion of disqualifying Rep. Mesina from presenting his proposal. In a vote of 16 – 12, Rep. Mesina was disqualified from presenting his proposal for the Committee on Culture & Arts.
Rep. San Luis also pointed out that Councilor Bikoy Villanueva, the one who was taking the minutes of the assembly last April 26, left early without endorsing the task of minute-taking to anyone. She also raised the point that SLIS Rep. Hazel Rodelas did not present her proposal for the Graduate & International Students Committee because she left her flashdrive somewhere and was not prepared to present.
At 12 PM, CM Rep. Anna Achacoso presented her proposal based on a L.I.F.E. program (Lead the students into appreciating the diversity of our culture and history; Incorporate creativity in various USC campaigns and activities; Foster development of Filipino arts and culture as a means for social awareness and participation; and Engage the UP students in activities that will develop their skills and talents).
After Rep. Achacoso’s presentation, the USC unanimously voted to establish the CCA. The body eventually began grilling Rep. Achacoso before deciding to elect her as the committee chairperson.
Some members of the USC pointed out that the proposal of Rep. Achacoso on CCA seemed grounded on the framework of high art and art for arts’ sake, and suggested that she more projects that reach out more to and engage the students and the basic masses. According to one member of the USC, the presence of an art program that apparently aims to raise political consciousness is inconsistent with the other projects that focus on promoting abstract art. One member of the USC also raised the issue of the definition of Filipino culture. Councilor Bang Dizon also suggested that the CCA create a project that would promote the arts-related courses in light of declining enrollment, and relentless increases in laboratory fees in such departments.
Councilor Fudge Tajar poised the question, “Lahat naman ng bagay, art. Ang tanong what kind of art are we aiming to foster? Para saan ang art na ifofoster natin? Traditional art lang ba that exists for its own sake? Malabo ang pagpu-push ng art na wala namang perspective.”
Councilor Joseph Gutierrez, claims that he liked the projects because they are “high-impact” and would actually reach out to CBA students like him and other students in non-arts courses.
Soon after, SS Rep. Jeyson Ocay motioned for a consensus to elect Rep. Achacoso as chairperson of the CCA. Vice-Chairperson Airah Cadiogan disagreed, and expressed her disappointment that Rep. Achacoso was unaware of the issue that the UP Administration disallowed a performing arts organization from performing at UP’s freshmen assembly because of their political inclination. She said, she also found it utterly disappointing that some members of the USC seemed to have subscribed to the mechanism of prior restraint and seemed to be “duplicating the kind of mechanism [that the UP Administraion] is employing by silencing one proponent [Rep. Mesina] and not deliberating on his proposal’s merit.”
The body eventually moved to vote by viva voce. With 15 votes, Rep. Achacoso was elected chairperson of the CCA, against 13 abstain votes.
Those who voted abstain cited various reasons, most of which were with regards to the proposal’s absence of programs for cultural and social struggles. Aside from that, Councilor Bikoy Villanueva added, “Being from Mass Comm, I feel strongly about prior restraint, and I refuse to vote in support of Rep. Achacoso without having heard the proposal of Rep. Mesina because we refused to allow him to present.” This line of thought was echoed by USC members like CAL Rep. Issa Baguisi. SLIS Rep. Hazel Rodelas also said that, “Hindi ito ang panahon na ang CCA ay magiging art for art’s sake lang, dahil sa dami ng issues na kinakaharap natin ngayon.” CSWCD Rep. Carmela Lagang added, “Ang kultura at sining ay gumuguhit dapat ng paninindigan sa konsteksto ng malawak na tunggalian sa lipunan.” Rep. Mesina further added, “Hindi p’wedeng neutral ang art, and Achasoso’s proposal will not lead to a mass-oriented culture.”
Those who voted in favor of Rep. Achacoso’s proposal said that they believed in her programs. They added that the programs of Rep. Achacoso are open enough to accommodate suggestions amidst its apparent shortcomings. According to CBA Rep. Norby Geraldez, “As Rep. Achacoso said, she is not very well-versed about politics in the university and the nation. Help her, and not sour-grape!” “Give her a chance,” added CEng’g Rep. Ace Castillo. “Kung gusto niyo naman, you’re more than welcome to join CCA and help her.”
Rep. San Luis also said that she doesn’t think that what happened in the disqualification of Rep. Mesina should have had a bearing in the decisions of the members of the USC who abstained. She added that the word “censorship” was used loosely, which shouldn’t, because it has “a lot of legal implications ramifications.”
After the CCA deliberation was done, Chairperson Bagro moved that the committee reports expedite their presentations.
The USC held a pictorial right after the GA. #
POST-SCRIPT: The report has been revised several times as requested by some USC members
I’m not part of the USC, but since this is an open forum (and USC GAs are supposed to be open GAs to all UP students anyway), I just want to raise a Point of clarification.
As a matter of procedure, was this report (or earlier GA reports) of the USC approved by the body? From how I understand parliamentary procedure, minutes must first be reported out and approved by the body before being adopted as the official minutes of the meeting. Procedurally, this takes place after the Roll Call and before the Order of Business, and this is done to make sure that minutes will be as neutral and value-free as possible in order to protect the integrity and sanctity of the debates and deliberations.
To a lesser extent, the approval of the body is needed to ensure that no simple issues like grammar or structure is violated because the document becomes public after its approval. For one, is the word ‘abstinence’ here used in the proper context, or should it be ‘abstention’?
Mga ganung isyu lang naman. Thank you for your indulgence.
hi sj,
the narrative reports of the meetings are separate from the official minutes. these aren’t the official minutes. they are simply, well, narrations of the meetings, as published by the mass media committee. thanks for the clarification, nonetheless.
the minutes are here http://www.upd-usc.net/minutes/
Hi Bikoy,
I have some comments and clarifications regarding your narration of events last GA.
“Rep. Mesina arrived at the April 26 GA more than an hour after it had started.”
> During the May 3 deliberations, it was mentioned many times that Rep. Mesina came in at 12 noon during the April 26 GA. The call time for the April 26 GA was at 10 am and it was scheduled to finish at 12 noon. Rep. Mesina specifically mentioned that he considered himself absent.
> I believe that Rep. San Luis and the rest of those who supported the motion mentioned more reasons and grounds for the disqualification of Rep. Mesina. I remember that Rep. San Luis mentioned it point by point several times. I think those points should be included.
“As to why he left early, Rep. Mesina explained that the situation of the College of Fine Arts (CFA) Student Council at….”
> For the sake of the readers, I think the word “early” should be qualified. According to the arguments last GA, it was said that he [Rep. Mesina] left at 12:15 pm. That’s 15 minutes after he arrived.
> Also, I didn’t see Rep. Mesina’s excuse on why he came in 2 hours late for the April 26 GA. He said that he was caught in traffic that morning.
>Just for more clarifications regarding the incident with the scheduled Sports and Fitness Committee deliberations, I believe that it was mentioned that Rep. Yupinkun announced his absence from the GA at 5 am that morning. On the other hand, Rep. Mesina sent a notice of his tardiness in the middle of the GA, that’s around 11 am.
Thank you for considering these points, Bikoy.
Congratulations to Anna! Go CCA!!! I’ll hand you all my files within this week. Soft and hard copies. MABUHAY ANG MAKABULUHANG SINING AT KULTURA SA UNIBERSIDAD!
-Jeff Crisostomo
outgoing USC Councilor and CCA Head
“Some members of the USC pointed out that the proposal of Rep. Achacoso on CCA seemed grounded on the framework of high art and art for arts’ sake, and suggested that she more projects that reach out more to and engage the students and the basic masses. According to one member of the USC, the presence of an art program that apparently aims to raise political consciousness is inconsistent with the other projects that focus on promoting abstract art.”
I have read Ms. Achacoso’s proposal and find it very holistic. How can her programs be inconsistent when she already established clear objectives that are met by the programs she lined up? I think the two inconsistent projects mentioned are integral. I think whoever said this should explain his/her statement.
“Councilor Fudge Tajar poised the question, “Lahat naman ng bagay, art. Ang tanong what kind of art are we aiming to foster? Para saan ang art na ifofoster natin? Traditional art lang ba that exists for its own sake? Malabo ang pagpu-push ng art na wala namang perspective.””
The head of CCA, as a mandated student leader, must not prescribe or impose any perspective. There is no room for such in a committee that supposedly caters to various interests that are as diverse as all forms of art performed or practiced by an equally diverse student body.
“Soon after, SS Rep. Jeyson Ocay motioned for a consensus to elect Rep. Achacoso as chairperson of the CCA. Vice-Chairperson Airah Cadiogan disagreed, and expressed her disappointment that Rep. Achacoso was unaware of the issue that the UP Administration disallowed a performing arts organization from performing at UP’s freshmen assembly because of their political inclination.”
I believe Ms. Cadiogan’s point is absurd. You would disagree to elect a head of a relevant committee just because she is not privy to one parcel of information? Each council member knows information that the rest might not be aware of. And you take it against Ms. Achacoso if she does not know what you know? One word comes to my mind: arrogance.
Thanks for the clarification, Bikoy.
Hi Sherry,
Noted. I made some revisions. For the record, though, according to the minutes, our GA started at 10:29, Eshei arrived at 11:46, and Eshei left at 12:36
Hi Sj.
Thank you very much for pointing that out.
And thank you, Bikoy, for your colored narrative.
A colorful narrative indeed. Expect more comments from credible and open-minded members of the council to come.
I ask for a retraction from the Stat representative. Your comment implies that some members of the council are not credible and less open-minded.
All members of the USC are duly-elected students. This is an insult not only to the institution but to the voting population.
Putting the qualifier “MORE” before the words open-minded and credible could have implied that some members of the council are less open-minded and credible. However, it was not used and the statement did not imply anything. Thus, no retraction of statement is needed.
Having said the statement above, NO insult to the institution and the voting population has been done.
hi.. well, Ms. Airah Cadiogan, the comment of the Stat Representative was just a COMMENT, nonetheless… everyone’s entitled to his/her own opinion…
With all due respect, your comment is the one that has assumptions… But, I wont question it since you have the right to speculate any implication of the Stat rep’s message..
But of course, i agree with you on one thing… INDEED, All members of the USC are duly-elected students…
Hi Bikoy! Thanks, for your narration of the GA came May 3 2008…
To everyone: Also, please be guided with the official Minutes of the Meeting..
To outgoing USC Councilor Mr. Crisostomo: kindly refer to the minutes to properly contextualize my statement. Or quote what I said in full.
My decision to abstain was not based on the College of Music’s Representative’s lack of awareness of this issue, which I believe is very relevant to USC CCA. Later on, upon the CM Rep’s election, I did raise as part of the body’s demands to the elected Committee Chair, that the CCA should concern itself with the issues of censorship hounding many performing groups and artists in UP Diliman and even outside because the recent case involving the UP Repertory Company is only one among many. As a former CCA Chair, I am sure you are aware of this.
My decision to abstain, as should be documented in the minutes, was based on the fact that the CFA Rep was not allowed to present his proposal at all based on grounds raised during the debate and the deliberations - grounds that a considerable number of the council members, including myself, did not find sufficient enough to warrant immediate disqualification of a proponent who met all the requirements (in terms of submitting his proposal on time) prior to this GA. I was in favor of allowing the CFA Rep. to present his proposal and for the body to deliberate based on the visions and capabilities of both proponents and merits of both proposals, as is the usual procedure, and whatever comments against the CFA Rep. be raised during his time to be grilled by the body or during the deliberations that subsequently follow.
My decision to abstain was not a statement against the CMusic Rep, who I believe is qualified to head the CCA. It was a statement against the majority’s decision to what I believe was maliciously disqualify a proponent from presenting his proposal (which he nevertheless distributed after his disqualification) and permit a more balanced CCA deliberations to ensue. At the very least, it was an exercise of a council member’s right to abstain from voting.
I would like to make it clear, Ms. Cadiogan, that I stand by my interpretation of your minutes posted here. I was not questioning your vote in any way. I was merely making a point against your statement that I find uncalled for.
Again, the minutes say:
“Soon after, SS Rep. Jeyson Ocay motioned for a consensus to elect Rep. Achacoso as chairperson of the CCA. Vice-Chairperson Airah Cadiogan disagreed, and expressed her disappointment that Rep. Achacoso was unaware of the issue that the UP Administration disallowed a performing arts organization from performing at UP’s freshmen assembly because of their political inclination.”
This, based on my interpretation, shows that you disagreed with the election of Ms. Achacoso by consensus, apparently due to her unawareness of the information she was not particularly privy to. This can be clearly inferred based on the statement above.
And it would appear that we will only argue based on personal interpretations, which would only lead to nowhere. May I suggest that, in the future, your minutes be written with complete and objective information in order to avoid the onslaught of a myriad of interpretations from your constituents or, worse, your own co-council members.
Thank you and good night.
PS: I don’t really need to quote your statements on my post. That was just for the purpose of convenience for readers. Furthermore, I know that they are intelligent enough not to just read my citations but also to view the entire minutes on this same page.
Jeff, FYI, these are not minutes. As state above, this is but a narration of what transpired in the GA.
hi everyone,
http://www.upd-usc.net/minutesga/USCMinutes050308.doc Here’s the crude/raw minutes of the May 3 GA
I’m already a graduate, but I find one argument missing in this entire hulabaloo as to why CFA Rep Manuel Mesina was not able to present his plans for the CCA; however, do pardon my incomplete information (as my internet connection can’t seem to open your Minutes Link) which I will be using to base my stand:
I am not pro CFA Rep Mesina nor CM Rep Achacoso, but isn’t the ‘blockage’ of Mesina founded on the logic of your ‘rules and regulation,’ as well as exemplary actions, twisted? Please remember that, even the Supreme Court, the highest in the judiciary, permits flexibility in the law/rules especially if it undermines the MERITS of the case - say for instance, parties losing just because of technicalities (i.e. delays in submitting legal requirements).
In the same way, the inability of CFA Rep Mesina to present his plans is also a loss of the CCA and the USC’s constituents, ergo the students. They are deprived of the information that may have been substantial enough to create long-term projects/successes for the CCA.
It would have been a lot better if the USC has decided to resolve this matter holistically - allowing CFA Rep Mesina to present his plans, and then deal with his performance issues after.
One might argue that his being late is also a factor to be considered, such that this can reflect his future performance as a CCA Chair; however, again, this is too conclusive (due process? judging before committance of crime?), and that for the interest of your public, MERITS SHOULD COME FIRST BEFORE TECHNICALITIES, DETERRENCE, and/or EXEMPLARY PUNISHMENTS.
Nonetheless, so as to end this post with a positive note, I would like to comment this year’s USC for coming up with a website such as this (apologies if this site’s credit should be given to previous USC batches), where people like us (alumni especially), are still able to partake in University issues. Please do update this regularly.
hi everyone,
i guess it’s fine and okay that we keep debating and talking about this issue of disqualification. hm, but well, tapos na kasi. the disqualification has already been executed and the committee establishment and leadership already eventually, well, resolved. for me, the issue is moot. but we can continue the discussion i guess, so that we can resolve any future situations of this type more easily.
Notary Public
“Please remember that, even the Supreme Court, the highest in the judiciary, permits flexibility in the law/rules especially if it undermines the MERITS of the case - say for instance, parties losing just because of technicalities (i.e. delays in submitting legal requirements).”
This is correct. However, in addition to this, please also remember that the Supreme Court has qualified this position. In some instances (and these instances have become rare given the stricter adherence of the Supreme Court to procedural technicalities) the Supreme Court allows subsequent submission of a late pleading if there is clear showing that the failure to submit
the pleading was not the fault of the person. An example would be when the failure to file was due to the death of the counsel. In no case has the Supreme Court allowed a late pleading to be filed because there was traffic, and the basis of this is because the person had been given sufficient opportunity to file his pleading (15 days to be exact).
I believe the standard used is FAME (Rules of Court, Rule 47 (ata))–Fraud, Accident, Mistake and Excusable Negligence.
For your guidance, perhaps it is important to note that the reason of the Rep from CFA was that he got caught in traffic.
Also, Rep. Mesina distributed copies of his proposal and I believe he will be helping the Rep. from CM.
Bikoy,
Sorry. I agree with you. (I sent the message I think simultaneously with yours, though).
Notary Public, thank you for your comment and for your vigilance.
To Ms San Luis,
Regardless of the reason, judgments are better made when both proposals are seen; however, as per your comment, herein quoted as “…Also, Rep. Mesina distributed copies of his proposal and I believe he will be helping the Rep. from CM…” I believe this settles the issue, given that CFA Rep Mesina was also able to ‘publish’ his work.
One point though, such fact was not stated in your GA Report. If it’s any hassle, will the USC also post, even at least in gist, Rep Mesina’s plans –similar to Rep Achacosa’s LIFE program being mentioned above. Just for our guidance.
Hello,
I would just like to clarify another point for the guidance of the readers.
“As to why he left early ahead of everyone, Rep. Mesina explained that the situation of the College of Fine Arts (CFA) Student Council at present demands his presence especially last weekend because it was the college’s graduation that afternoon. Apparently, many positions in the CFA Student Council are still vacant after the student council elections.”
>According to the arguments raised during the May 3 GA, it was explicitly stated that the call for Rep Mesina to attend to the needs of his local council is NOT at all being questioned. It was the manner of his exit that was questioned. During the April 26 GA, given the information (according to the crude/raw minutes) that Rep. Mesina came in an hour and 17 minutes late for a scheduled 2 hour assembly, he did not formally communicate to the body that he will be exiting and the reason behind it. His exit meant that the CCA deliberations would be postponed and the body should have been informed of that.
Hi Bikoy, maybe you can inject this piece of clarification in your narration. Thank you
Mmmm… My point exactly.
The USC now has a scenario that even its own members openly question these posted reports. This is what we call “washing one’s dirty linen in public.”
Maybe a better way of presenting a meeting highlight/report is using the plain “he-said, she-said” approach without unduly editorializing, or putting contentious adjectives and adverbs. That way, different interpretations will be minimized.
And hopefully, incumbent USC members can discuss their issues within the confines of the USC office or in their yahoogroups. Bikoy made a very innovative way in making UP students understand the nitty-gritty of USC deliberations by using the Internet. But seeing that even some USC members themselves are questioning these reports in public gives the readers the impression that issues were never really resolved during that particular deliberation.
Just my two cents. Thanks!
sj san juan
USC-Diliman Councilor 2001
To sjsanjuan,
True, exactly the reason why undersigned deemed it necessary to post here.
To Bikoy,
Sorry but I don’t know where to put this comment. I suggest you create an icon-link of sorts so that other UP students might put it in their own webpages, thus propagating this site’s use
Hope that helps.
Grabe! Gusto nyong magsiraan dito sa website? Kung may gusto kayong i-point out, sa GA n’yo sabihin. Sino ngayon ang mapanghati?
“Don’t worry, be happy”
-Bob Marley
“All you need is love”
-The Beatles
I agree with Fudge. Let internal matters be discussed internally. Reconcile the past for the sake of the future.
Mabuhay ang Iskolar ng Bayan.
Let’s all just refer to the APPROVED OFFICIAL MINUTES for a comprehensive account on the events that transpired during the May 3, 2008 GA
Honestly, I know nothing about “proceedings,” how you go about your GA and all that hullabaloo but being an ignorant that I am, it seems that the issue is simply a question on why didn’t you let the CFA Rep present and discuss his plans? (I know, specially those adept with this kind of situation would raise their eyebrows …) Because he was late. He was technically absent according to others. Yes, he was. Moving on, give him a chance. Forgive and (forget? no!) deal with his performance issues after just like what Notary Public said. It seems it’s the same thing for the CM Rep “she’s not very well-versed about politics in the university and the nation,” which is just okay give her a chance to grow and know more about it!…good thing for her, that’s what you actually did.
Both candidates have their own weaknesses, unfortunately because of your technicalities and by the book (if you do have any written/legal standards for disqualifying candidates) attitude towards the issue you’ve deprived the CFA Rep of his chance… those who voted for disqualifying him did you feel threatened or something similar to that? I mean let’s face it, even just reading your posts here, we can clearly see who’s on this or on that side. Obviously you would want your party members to win and would do anything (clearly!) to make that happen. Hay… ang pulitika nga naman… it will eat you alive.
And by the way, you’ve debated about this issue, may nanalo na nga at na-disqualify, this I think is primarily for transparency purposes, to keep us (the students) updated. Cool lang.
Hope your next GA, will be less dramatic. Goodluck!
Remember, you are all elected officials by the UP studentry. You came from different parties (an obvious fact), but nevertheless, remember that during the campaign period; the clamor was for the stripping of political color.
I honestly believe that former USC members must guide the incoming neutrally. Your duty is for the the UP students and not to anyone else. Work as a team, and learn to respect each others’ perspectives.
I am saddened by the fact that I can still see a divided USC, since in my freshman year. I really hope your batch will be different. One more thing, make a stand for the betterment of UP students, and not for anything else.
Mabuhay ang mga tunay na nagtratrabaho sa USC!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Having presided over and sat as member of several bodies that stringently implement parliamentary procedures, I am rather surprised that the point of order of the representative who moved for the disqualification of one member aspiring to be committee chair (in form, that motion, by the way, is also out of order as it is a compound motion, that is, it contains two operative clauses) was even entertained.
In the taxonomy of motions, a point of order is considered incidental. Meaning, it rises out of an incident. By incident, we are referring to an immediately pending question, not a pending question. A point of order, being incidental, must be raised at the first opportunity so as to correct a violation in procedures. If not raised in the first opportunity, then it could only be raised again when the offender commits the mistake a second time or the effect of its commission lingers.
One example of an incorrect way of raising a point of order happened in the GASC under former SR Ramos. Through a point of order, a delegate from UP Los Baños calls the attention of the body to the fact that a delegate from UP Diliman was not seated in her proper place some 22 minutes ago. The delegate had already returned to her seat when the incidental motion was raised. That point of order was out of order because the act which it intended to correct was no longer taking place.
In the case at hand, what the point of order purports to correct is the failure of the representative to arrive on time thereby preventing the body from deliberating. It lost its value as an incidental motion because it was raised when the representative is already present and the body could already proceed. The appropriate parliamentary remedy would have been to raise at the moment when the supposed violation was committed a manifestation, which could be treated as another incidental motion, seeking for either or all of the following: a) the laying off the table of that item in the agenda to proceed to other items, if there are others (If none, you could form a committee of the whole to plan another important concern. I am sure you do not run out of such concerns these days), b) the setting of appropriate time for that particular deliberation or, if another member really wants to punish the latecomer, c) request that the motion for disciplinary action leading to a disqualification be calendared in the next meeting. C has to done not only because the supposed erring member must be heard which is crucial, but also because that kind of item falls under the category of a new business altogether i.e. a main motion. Other set of rules may also govern disciplinary action.
It would have saved the assembly time if the motion was immediately called to order by the presiding officer. There was really no need for a debate on that.
A basic principle in parliamentary law is the equal rights of members. As a rule of thumb, whenever adherence to any of the principles is relaxed (In the case of not allowing a member who has equal rights as others to present, we can say that adherence to the principles has been relaxed. There are motions that allow this for the benefit of the body. For example, the effect of the approval of the motion called an objection to the consideration of the question is, in fact, a relaxing of the body’s adherence to the principle of equal rights of members insofar as presenting matters before the body), the vote required is 2/3 of the members present and voting. I wonder if this was done in this case.
As a student leader, I have seriously studied parliamentary procedures in the hope that my knowledge will facilitate the management of student body. But more than the mind-boggling technicalities, I have learned that the essence of procedures is always found in the principles behind them. These principles, in turn, are couched on the objective that gives life to a genuine student institution: service to the students and the people. And this objective will only see attainment in the hands of elected students who forge collective leadership rather than divisive ways. I am sure this Council is working on the former.
More power Centennial UP-USC!
Regards,
Raffy Sanchez
Student Regent (2006)
P.s. Very nice site. Two thumbs up to the what committee is that again?
“The head of CCA, as a mandated student leader, must not prescribe or impose any perspective. There is no room for such in a committee that supposedly caters to various interests that are as diverse as all forms of art performed or practiced by an equally diverse student body.”
While post-modernism in art is tolerated if it has no large-scale adverse implications, the art and culture that you espouse as student leaders is far from being minute. As such, I appeal to our leaders in the USC to reconsider this interpretation of art.
Subscription to a post-modernist concept of art that attempts to encompass and please all ideas is an illusion. By keeping all diversities neutered in an ultra-democracy is merely subscribing to the continued existence of the status quo, which is in no way catering to all art theories as it empowers the hegemonic concept of “art for art’s sake”. As a mandated student leader, your role is to consult the situation of your constituents, as it is from their plight from which you will draw what kind of art form and culture is needed to be propagated that will not only accurately represent and reflect them, but more importantly, to address their problems and sentiments.
It is basic to any legitimate artist that their brand of art isn’t merely a depiction of life and society – art, as a part of our culture, is politicized, and as such depiction is subject to interpretation.
Pablo Picasso said that “Art is the lie that enables us to realize the truth.” It is the role of the artista ng bayan then to espouse art that promotes the truths of society, a progressive scheme that promotes social change that is for the broad masses. By pledging allegiance to high-brow, elitist art, you are undermining the people whose rights and welfare you are supposed to be protecting from the censures of the status quo’s fabrications. You are puttng yourself in allegiance with the state’s repressive hegemony, as Gramsci would put it.
I end this post with another quote from Picasso that I’ve used here before, for emphasis:
“What do you think is an artist? An imbecile who has only eyes, if he is a painter, or ears if he is a musician, or a lyre in every chamber of his heart if he is a poet, just his muscles if he is a boxer?
Far from it: at the same time, he is also political being, constantly aware of the heartbreaking, passionate, or delightful things that happen in the world, shaping himself completely in their image.
How could it be possible to feel no interest in other people, and with a cool indifference to detach yourself from the very life which they bring to you so abundantly?
No, painting is not done to decorate apartments. It is an instrument of war.”