No to Cha-Cha! No to GMA!

Amidst the current political crisis besieging the current regime, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, who has experienced the most number of impeachment complaints, is now attempting to escape charges of corruption, election cheating, economic plunder, and human rights violations by extending her term in office through Charter change. As if the people’s suffering under her administration is not enough, the Arroyo administration shall only exacerbate further the tragic conditions we have found ourselves through Charter proposals that will intensify policies that have only favored those in power.

Tireless Attempts
In 2006, GMA brazenly declared, with the approval from then-Speaker Jose de Venecia and former President Fidel V. Ramos, that it was “time for the great debate on charter change.” That year, we witnessed the staggering haste with which the House of Representatives, under the leadership of De Venecia sought to pursue amendments to the Constitution. Disregarding basic parliamentary and long-established house rules, majority of the House of Representatives, railroaded the passing of a resolution to amend the constitution by calling the Senate to convene into a constitutional assembly. That year, GMA and De Venecia proposed to change the form of government from Presidential to Parliamentary. As incentive to her supporters, she dangled the prospect of membership in the interim parliament. Despite their denials, it is apparent that it is Arroyo and her allies who were nearing their last term in office saw the opportunity to extend their stay in government.

Two years later (one year before GMA’s term will expire), the same moves are being displayed by GMA. This time, she has thrown her full support for Federalism, if only to create the Bangsamoro Juridical Entity which only recently was struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional. In all her attempts, had it not been for the strong public outcry, threats to conduct massive rallies and the very evident lack of support of the people from different sectors, GMA would not have pulled her dogs back.

We say no because every time the great debate is started, the terms of many-a-politicians, GMA especially included, are dubiously about to end. We say no because of the irreverence displayed by GMA and her allies in railroading amendments to the constitution, the highest law of the land, and by-product of our successful overthrow of the Marcos dictatorship. We say no because, as sessions in Congress are about to end, our Representatives and Senators have chosen to bicker over the process of amending our Constitution at the expense of much-needed legislation such as the Reproductive Health Bill and Agrarian Bill which lamentably have been debated on longer than they are willing to debate on the Constitution. Instead of addressing perennial social issues in light of the country’s worsening economic and social conditions, they have chosen instead to focus on the Charter change at the expense of the people’s genuine interests.

Tireless Protest
The Arroyo administration’s tireless attempt at violating our democratic rights and interests is and shall be confronted with the people’s tireless displays of rejection and protests. Akin to the people’s decisive rejection of Fidel Ramos’ attempt at Charter change (which sought to change the form of government from presidential to parliamentary which gave the President and many other politicians the space to extend their terms in office), and Joseph Estrada’s Constitutional Correction for Development (Con-Cord) (which sought to remove the ‘restrictive’ economic provisions in the 1987 Constitution), it is the people, through collective action, who will similarly put a definite end to Gloria Arroyo’s tireless effort to change the Constitution, which, following the trend of her previous attempts, must be rejected for the following reasons:

1. Charter Change is a ploy to perpetuate Mrs. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo in power by setting aside serious questions about her legitimacy and legalizing her term until 2010 and beyond.

2. Charter Change may be used to resurrect martial law.
a. The 60-day limit to martial law and suspension of writ is removed.
b. Congress may not revoke the proclamation of martial law or writ suspension.
c. The Supreme Court can no longer review the factual basis for the declaration of martial law.
d. There will be a new ground for declaring martial law, which is vague and open to abuse.
e. Under transitory provisions, Mrs. Arroyo will have the additional power to dissolve Parliament.

3. Charter Change will sell out national patrimony and economy.
a. Foreign entities will be granted the right to own residential, commercial and industrial land
b. Foreign entities will be allowed to exploit natural resources.
c. Foreign entities will be allowed to control and/or operate public utilities such as water, electricity and telecommunications.

4. Charter Change can further undermine our national identity and culture as it will also allow foreign ownership of mass media, educational institutions and advertising firms.

5. Charter Change will degrade national sovereignty and territorial integrity.
a. It will pave the way for the return of foreign military bases
b. There will be no limit to the entry of foreign troops and facilities.
c. Ratification of treaties and other international agreements favoring foreign interests will be made easier.

By their haste, and very patent personal interests alone, it is obvious why we, the people, are being systematically excluded in this “great debate.” It is not us who stubbornly say no. It is them who stubbornly pursue a change that the people has consistently refused.

No to Cha-Cha.
No to GMA.

Revising the Election Code

Standing as the highest student representative body, the University Student Council (USC) organizes and directs campaigns, activities and services for the welfare of its fellow students and the rest of the UP community. Central to its existence is the mandate entrusted to it by its electors, the iskolars ng bayan at para sa bayan. Truly, the institution has a rich and diverse history, a tradition of activism worth upholding until the next hundred years. However, it is equally essential to strengthen the foundation of this very institution for the benefit of the university. Not only is the current Election Code written for an election process that takes place every first semester, but several other provisions have become obsolete through time. Peculiar to the process of selecting our student body is the use of electronic voting as first observed from last March. It is in this regard that the need for the revision of the University Election Code emerged.

Before the start of the first semester, the USC created the Election Code Reform Committee (ECRC) as an ad hoc committee to perform the following tasks: organize the Students Electoral Reform Congress composed of USC members, the LCC (League of College Councils) and the party representatives, as well as coordinate with OSA (Office of Student Activities) and the OVCSA (Office of the Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs); gather and collate all submitted reforms; amalgamate and lobby for proposed reforms, and efficiently disseminate pertinent information on the progress of the Congress.

A series of consultations with representatives from the three parties: ALYANSA, KAISA and STAND-UP occurred last semester. A discussion of the articles of the current Election Code, revisions submitted by last year’s USC and proposals given by the University Student Electoral Board (USEB) and University Student Electoral Tribunal (USET) led to some unity proposals. Meanwhile, conflicting proposals were left to the deliberation and discretion of the Centennial University Student Council. In accordance to the introduction of the automated elections, the University of the Philippines Linux Users Group (UnPLUG) presented the software Halalan, which was used by some colleges like Engineering, Mass Communication and Business Administration last election period. The League of College Councils (LCC) composed of all college councils in UP Diliman was also consulted for proposed revisions and amendments.

Some of the major provisions for the Election Code are as follows:

• added to Article 1, Section 4 as one of the objectives of the Code is “To institute a manner of election that shall uphold the autonomous, democratic, and representational character of the University Student Council”;
• Section 1.a of Article 3 will be repealed and will therefore allow freshmen students to run for a position in the USC;
• USC candidates under the revised Section 1.b of Article 3 must also maintain good academic standing as defined by university rules;
• each graduate school under the new Election Code will elect a graduate representative who will select amongst themselves the Graduate School Representative to the USC; and
• unlike before, the Election Code will now state a set of procedures to be followed in cases of ties.

The USC will also submit a set of proposed guidelines for the pursuance of automated elections. The committee through the Law Student Government (LSG) is now in the process of drafting the new Election Code to be presented to the three parties and is scheduled to be passed to the OVCSA and the next Board of Regents (BOR) meeting for approval.

UP Goes Eco-Active

The ECO-Active Day was about to start and set-up was being completed, as students started to gather around the Grandstand. The Mini Program, the first activity for the day, was underway. It was behind schedule but nonetheless, everything else about the program went well. The participants were welcomed by USC Chairperson Third Bagro’s opening remarks where he explained the ECO-Active Campaign and its four highlight projects: Adopt-a-Tree, Ban the Styro, Dagdag Padyak, and Readings on Recycled. The participants were not kept waiting as the program started right away with no less than the Executive Director of Greenpeace Southeast Asia Mr. Von Hernandez. He talked about environmentalism and shared his wisdom from his more than fifteen years of experience as an environmental activist. Afterwards, Mr. Enrique Gallardo of the Solar Electric Company brought excitement to the program with the high-tech eco-friendly gadgets he demonstrated and let students dabble with. The last speaker was the renowned environmentalist and one of Time Magazine’s 2003 Asian Heroes, Ms. Chin-Chin Gutierrez. She inspired the participants by asserting that before having advocacies, we first have to make the advocates, precisely the essence of ECO-Active. All speakers inspired students to continue the practice of being environmentally conscious. The performers from the UP Singing Ambassadors were also instrumental in achieving that. The Mini Program ended with the closing remarks from yours truly as the ECO-Active Project Head.
The perfect weather continued in the afternoon as students lined up to join the second ECO-Active Day activity, the March for the Environment. Participants rushed early in front of the Vinzons Hall to enlist in what would be the biggest march yet in UP dedicated to the environment. In front was the e-jeepney that was lent by the Green Renewable Independent Power Producer (GRIPP). UP Kontra Gapi led the participants to a lively march, chanting “Kalikasan alagaan para sa kinabukasan.” Worthy to note also were the padyak bikes ridden by students and some USC members, which displayed one of the highlight projects of ECO-Active, which is the Dagdag Padyak Project. The march transpired around the Academic Oval, passing through the University Avenue and going to a few stops including the AS Steps at Palma Hall, where participants got more energetic and animated in shouting out loud the chant. The march ended at the same spot where it started, Vinzons Hall. Participants were then invited to join the last of the activities for the ECO-Active Day, the Human Formation.

Immediately after the instructions had been given, the participants proceeded to the Sunken Garden. After several minutes, with approximately 15-20 students per letter, the human formation “BAN STYRO” was formed, the signal that UP will soon be styro-free and a call for other communities to do the same. The end of the ECO-Active day saw the students singing wholeheartedly UP Naming Mahal.

This, my fellow Iskolars para sa Bayan, is only the beginning. Let us collectively show that we truly are also Iskolars para sa Kalikasan by supporting our next projects and by leading an ECO-Active lifestyle.

The Ongoing Fight For Our Democratic Rights

The first semester of AY 2008-2009 marks the continuous struggle of students, student organizations and institutions against the economic crises, alongside the struggle against the continuing commercialization of UP education and fascism inside the campus.

BACKGROUND

The UP students have continued to coordinate with different organizations and institutions to reclaim the hard-won democratic rights. The UMAKSYON alliance conducted consultations among different student organizations. At the onset, it was the issues of lack of tambayans, stringent recognition process for organizations, and the unreasonable rental rates for university facilities that the campaign initially grounded itself. Thus, being a broad alliance that staunchly campaigned against the tuition increase, laboratory fee increases, and other commercialization schemes in our university, the UMAKSYON alliance saw the need to address these legitimate student concerns as they unnecessarily hamper the student formations from performing their different academic, social, and political tasks in the University and the society.

On July 30, 2008 during the Board of Regents (BOR) meeting at the UP Manila, UMAKSYON, through the Office of the Student Regent, submitted a petition paper signed by 111 student councils, publications, organizations, fraternities, and sororities in the UP Diliman, including the UPLB and UPM University Student Councils, that enumerated 18 student demands.

The overwhelming support of student formations won significant victories, as the 18 demands were discussed during the Presidential Advisory Council (PAC) Meeting, the assembly of Chancellors of different UP units last August 15, 2008. The Chancellors were compelled to set dialogues with the respective USCs of their units to discuss the demands. At the same time, our student leaders were granted a dialogue with Pres. Roman last September 23, 2008 which succeeded in asserting for the scrapping of Article 444 of the UP Code which provided that “organizations which are religious, provincial, and sectional in nature shall not be allowed in the university”.

As part of our ongoing campaign for the reclaim of students’ democratic rights, a series of dialogue between the UMAKSYON and the UP Diliman Office of the Chancellor and the Office of Vice-Chancellor for Student Affairs transpired last October 7 and 17, 2008. As a result of our insistent and tireless campaign, we have succeeded in asserting the following:

On the Free Use of University Facilities

Student organizations are faced with exorbitant rental rates for the use of university facilities and equipment for their different activities. Classrooms and conference halls are being rented out for general assemblies, classroom discussions, prayer meetings, leadership seminars, and other activities of organizations. Even at the supposed student center, Vinzons Hall, organizations are required to pay P100 per hour for the use of its conference rooms. As a result, student organizations encounter difficulties in holding their activities and are being precluded from fulfilling their organizational goals and objectives, all of which, we believe are in line with the university goals and principles.

Thus, for the whole semester, we asserted for the free use of university facilities and equipment, grounded on a proposed guidelines. As of the October 17 dialogue with Chancellor Sergio Cao, we have succeeded on negotiating for the following:

1. The University Student Council of UP Diliman shall have the possession and management of the Conference Rooms found in the Vinzons Hall (Alcantara Hall, Vinzons Rooftop, and Vinzons Activity Center). These rooms can be used by organizations for free subject to some rules and regulations on cleanliness, maintenance, and electricity use in the said rooms. The terms and parameters shall be agreed upon and negotiated by the Office of the Chancellor and the USC-UPD in the following weeks.
2. Rental fees, according to Chancellor Cao, shall be maintained to augment the low budget for Maintenance and Other Operating Expenditures (MOOE) of colleges, however, the UP Diliman Executive Committee agreed on giving discounts. Fees shall only be waived on special activities such as Alternative Classroom Learning Experience (ACLE), University Convocations, and the likes.

Given these significant victories, we shall continue to assert the approval of the proposed guidelines on the free use of university facilities despite the initial declaration of Chancellor Cao to maintain the rental fees. We shall also continue to assert for a more flexible policy of scheduling the use of facilities especially on activities involving urgent matters of university and national importance.

We shall continue to demand the construction of bulletin boards and publicity boards in conspicuous areas inside and outside the buildings as we see that the lack of such services and equipments hamper the publicity, campaign, and recruitment efforts of different student formations.

On Laboratory Fees

The collection of laboratory fees in some courses, generally, is being imposed to supposedly augment the meager budget that the university receives from the national government. However, throughout the years, data shows that these fees are being collected either for consumables, for maintenance of equipments, and even for the acquisition of equipment. This shows that there is no clear definition or distinction as to what laboratory fees actually augment. Maintainance of equipment is supposedly covered by the Maintenance and Other Operating Expenditures (MOOE) Budget, while acquisition of equipment is supposedly covered by Capital Outlay Budget (CO). This arbitrariness of imposition of lab fees exposes that lab fees are in fact mechanisms of the university to generate income by misleading students using supposed laboratory classes as smokescreen.

Aside from this deceiving character of laboratory fees, there are documented cases of laboratory fees being imposed to courses that do not have laboratory component. There are also lecture classes with lab fees which do not use consumables, materials, or equipment.

All of these account to misinformation of students during supposedly ‘student consultations’ for proposed lab fees. Students are being bombarded with data and costing of proposed lab fees without engaging in the discussion regarding the definition and principle of these fees. It seems that for as long as there are budget shortages, lab fees and other fees are liberally imposed in order to pass on to the students the burden of augmenting these shortages. The administration has been firm in implementing the collection of such fees, often disregarding the position of students who oppose it

We have already exposed such deceiving character of lab fees as means to further commercialize our education. We have continued to challenge the principle and implementation of lab fee collection. We have called for the scrapping of unjust lab fees especially those being collected in lecture classes, while we continue to oppose proposals until properly rationalized and that we are ensured of fair and genuine consultation. Among the agreements that were discussed during the dialogue were:

1. Reaffirming our position which Pres. Roman adopted when she mentioned that: “The students have the right to know where their fees are going”, the students shall be granted the right to examine and investigate the accounting of their laboratory fees. Any student or student formation can request access to accounting records of their laboratory fees.
2. The UMAKSYON and the USC-UPD shall submit to the OC an inventory of courses with laboratory fees which do not have laboratory components. Such laboratory fees, after due investigation, shall be scrapped.
3. UPD Chancellor Cao agreed in principle that: “You cannot collect lab fees for courses that do not have a laboratory component”. Vice-Chancellor Enriquez admitted that the term lab fee is loosely used to pertain to all fees meant to augment the low budget, without clarification whether lab fees should be for MOOE or CO. The Office of the Chancellor shall act on our demand to rationalize laboratory fees. In the process, laboratory fees shall be defined (whether these are fees for consumables, or maintenance or acquisition of facilities). All lab fees currently being collected that do not adhere to such rationalization and definition shall be scrapped.

We shall continue to expose and oppose such desperate fund generating measures of the UP administration in the expense of students’ rights and welfare. In the process, we need to gather data on such laboratory fees, encouraging students to report cases of unjustified or unused lab fee, which scrapping we would collectively campaign for. In all cases, we shall call for refund of such fees which may be in forms of direct reimbursement or reallocation of budget for student welfare projects. Ultimately, we shall also call for the greater state subsidy for our university and for the education sector to genuinely address the issue of insufficient funds in providing accessible and quality education.

On Dormitories
Dormitory concerns range from lack of subsidized student housing, to the severely poor conditions of dormitory facilities, to the undue benefits for resident assistants and other staff, and to the inefficient admissions process. All of which are attributed to the depleted subsidy for student housing and the policy declaration of the administration that staying in dormitories is a privilege and not a right.

Currently, our dormitories provide for only about 11% of the UP Diliman population (it was 14-15% when Narra Residence Hall was still operating). We have consistently called for additional dormitories to service the more than 50% of UP Diliman students who live outside the National Capital Region (NCR). This is extremely low considering also that a lot of students in UPD are from provinces and/or are from low economic status. Understanding the conditions, we have consistently called upon the UP administration for the construction of additional dormitories. At the same time, we also asserted for the immediate renovation and improvement of dormitory facilities as dormers currently describe our dorms as unfavorable to decent living and studying.

The sudden change of admissions process also became an additional burden for dormers and aspiring dormers. The centralized application process that did not solicit recommendations and comments from students before implementation, thus, resulting to inconvenience that could have been foreseen if students were consulted. Thus, we have also called for the revision of this admissions process with the participation of student leaders from the USC and the Alliance of Concerned Dormers (ACD).

The following are among the updates and prospects in our pursuit to address these dormitory issues, including our agreements with the Office of the Chancellor and the OVCSA:

1. A P20 Million budget allocation for dorm renovation was approved by the Office of the Chancellor and the Dormitory Oversight Committee (DOC). The Alliance of Concerned Dormers (ACD) and the different House Councils, together with the USC-UPD shall serve as recommendatory body for the approval of priority dorms that shall be renovated.
2. UP College of Engineering Alumni shall be donating two additional dormitories with 144 capacity near the Kamagong Residence Hall.
3. Two additional dormitories shall be built near the Kalayaan Residence Hall.
4. The dormitory admissions process shall be subjected to review and revision with the participation and representation of the UPD-USC and the ACD.

On Student Representation

Much of the policies and decisions which are against the rights and welfare of students were approved and implemented without the prior knowledge or solicited recommendations from the student body. Our elected student council leaders who are supposed to represent the students on matters of institutional policies and decisions affecting our rights and welfare are often bypassed, if not completely neglected. Most policies only undergo consultation after being implemented, thus have already caused infraction of our rights, unnecessary inconvenience, and difficulties on the part of the students. Policies such as the Mondays as free day, the 2008 Rules and Regulations Governing Residence Halls in UP Diliman, rental rates, tambayan policies, organization recognition process, and other guidelines on student affairs are only some of these.

In other UP units such as in the College of Arts and Sciences in the UP Manila and in UP Baguio, student leaders are invited as resource persons and as voting members of committees that discuss matters concerning student affairs. This model of student representation and democratic governance is what we envision for our own campus. Thus, we have continued to assert a representative in the Office of the Culture and the Arts (OICA), Dormitory Oversight Committee (DOC), Dorm Admissions Committee (DAC), College Executive Committees, Office of the Chancellor Executive Staff, and other committees and assemblies, ad hoc or not, that decide on matters of student affairs. As of the dialogue with Chancellor Cao, we have arrived to a resolution that we shall submit a formal letter of request for student representation in different committees in the University. The Office of the Chancellor upon consultation with the proper bodies shall immediately act on the matter.

On Tambayans

A unit-wide consultation shall be conducted by the USC-UPD and the OVCSA regarding tambayan and student affairs policies.

On SLIS Building
The current Institute of Biology Building is already earmarked for the School of Library and Information Studies.

Notwithstanding the victories that we have attained as manifested in the UP administration’s yielding and its willingness to yield to several of our demands, the need and the urgency for students to continue and intensify the campaign against commercialization and repression continues. For as long as deplorable conditions in the University and among UP students exist as a result of the UP administration and the national government’s ineptitude, it shall remain imperative for all of us to forge a broader unity through collective action, realizing that it is only through such that our victories will be achieved.

Students Unite Against Commercialization & Fascism

Commercialization and fascism in the university have continued to become the biggest block for the iskolars ng bayan as they simultaneously face widespread economic and political crises in the country. The future of the youth is put at risk as the country succumbs to neoliberal policies, essentially consists of unfair economic policies skewed towards the interests of foreign and local private institutions and corporations. Widespread poverty, severe landlessness and job insecurity, skyrocketing prices, unjust wages, exploitative agrarian policies, and prevalent corruption are persisted by the Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo regime in the expense of the rights and welfare of the Filipino people. Inside the campuses, this oppression and exploitation is further aggravated, as the UP administration becomes an effective collaborator, by implementing university policies that strip students off of their fundamental rights to organize, to peaceful assembly, to proper representation, and to quality and accessible tertiary education.

The approval of the new UP Charter and the implementation of the tuition and other fee increase (TOFI) marked the full surrender of the University to the state policy of commercialization of education. Through the TOFI, UP Ayala Land Techno Hub, joint ventures with private corporations in student and food services, UP has shown its approval to the government’s framework of reducing spending in education and leaving the sector into the hands of private institutions. It favored the corporations’ pursuit to maximize its profits over the people’s right to education.

UP education is pulled farther away from the reach of the basic masses as more laboratory and rental fees are imposed and collected, along with the already high tuition rate. Student services such as dormitories are also in danger of being subjected to corporate interests as private entities eyed student housing as a profitable business. The UP administration willingly submits itself to these interests at the expense of the rights and welfare of students and the UP community.

As if putting salt into the wound, attempts to silence, suppress, and deceive the students and the youth movement is being done to render a submissive studentry that shall remain silent despite widespread exploitation and oppression. Through repressive organization recognition policies, suppressive regulations on mass campaign and demonstration, and other anti-student decisions on student affairs, students are denied of their hard-won democratic rights as means to pave the way towards intensifying commercialization.

Student institutions and publications also experience blows to trounce its autonomous, democratic, and representational character. The UP Charter, in fact, legitimized the brutal attack against the Office of the Student Regent (OSR), the sole student representative in the Board of Regents (BOR) and a historic student institution which has effectively and consistently been in the forefront of the struggle against anti-student and anti-people policies, by compulsorily subjecting it to the tedious and technical process of referendum. It is no different to the experience of the UP Los Banos Student Councils wherein the student institutions were put in a vulnerable position in an attempt to stop them from performing their tasks of leading the fight against the continuous commercialization of education. Students are being deceived that these processes are for the democratic participation. It is clear, however, that the intention is not to strengthen the student institutions and the student movement, but instead, to endanger its autonomy by making it vulnerable to administration intervention.

The school administrations of State Colleges and Universities (SCUs) and, as well as, of Private Higher Education Institutions (PHEIs), proved to be merciless collaborators of the tyrannical GMA regime, as it denied the iskolars ng bayan of the immediate economic relief in times of great economic and political crises that seems to suck the lifeblood from the Filipino people. Instead of rolling back the tuition rate and imposing a moratorium on all fee increases, further commercialization efforts are being planned and implemented. The schools have also opened its floodgates for the penetration of state fascism and political repression into the classrooms and corridors of universities. Instead of condemning and protecting its students and the people from continued terrorism of the GMA regime which launched political killings, legal suits, and harassment against progressive and militant organizations, schools have become garrisons that mimicked the repression of the state inside the campuses. Student leaders face legal suits, were forced to transfer, and were exposed to military intelligence and surveillance, while some student organizations were either banned or were not accredited by school administrators and, in some cases, are tagged as terrorist organizations.

Such commercialization and fascism are experienced by students worldwide. Neoliberal policies, perpetuated by the world capitalists attacked the students of different nations’ right to education. Recently, students in Bangladesh launched anti-commercialization actions inspite of their country being under the state of emergency. The streets of Heidelberg, Germany echoed the call of “Gegen den Ausverkauf der Bildung” ( “Against the sell out of education”). In Colombia, a National Strike in solidarity with the Colombian people against the state fascism, economic plunder, commercialization of education and poverty was staged. Meanwhile, around 12, 000 people rallied in Dublin against budget cuts in education. Protest actions against commercialization of education were done in Liberia, Croatia, Canada, Austria, and England. These student movements are manifestations of how severe the crisis of educational system worldwide has become. However, in light of the US imperialist crisis, the youth worldwide shall experience further commercialization as world capitalist educators eye the education sector as profitable businesses to where it can extract more profits. Commercialization shall intensify as states and school administrators nod to these neoliberal policies.

In such a crisis-ridden world and country, the students must collectively campaign for their specific and general demands, entirely integrated with the people’s struggle against tyranny and neoliberal policies. It must determine the narrowest target and march with the people for genuine social change. Clearly, the youth must direct out all its efforts to shake and dismantle the foundations of such exploitation.

Represent & Struggle: The OSR and KASAMA sa UP

[This article was written by JPaul Manzanilla, former USC Chairperson and former Student Regent]

The creation of the student regent position is profoundly related to the student and the people’s struggle to decide on their own conditions.

From 1908 to 1968 university policies are determined without the student population’s full knowledge. Student councils in the campuses provide services, launch campaigns and voice out their concerns on many matters but the Board of Regents (BOR) had no provision for student representation. Only on 29 September 1969, its 787th meeting, did the board resolve to have a “student observer,” following the recommendation of UP President Salvador P. Lopez. Student council chairman Mr. Fernando T. Barican was then allowed to observe the board proceedings. On January 25, 1970, a day before the state of the nation address, Mr. Barican was appointed by President Ferdinand Marcos as a regular member of the board. The BOR Chair and the UP President announces that this appointment of the student council chair as regular board member “will therefore set an important precedent and give due recognition to the role of students in the life of the university.”¹ According the colonial university charter, the Philippine President has the power to appoint the non-ex-officio members of the Board of Regents and the Student Regent is one of the seven additional members to be appointed by the President of the Philippines, with the consent of the Commission on Appointments of the Congress of the Philippines.² In 1970, 1971 and 1972 the incumbent student council chairmen Ericson Baculinao, Manuel Ortega and Jaime Tan³, respectively, were appointed regular members of the board concurrent with their student council tenure.

The Committee on Academic Reform of the Law Student Government, in a position paper in the early eighties, positively noted a progressive development in Presidential Decree No. 58. Promulgated on 20 November 1972 as an amendment to the University Charter, the decree provided “one regent representing the student body” in its composition of the BOR. According to the paper,

“the progressive development of student representation in the Board of Regents is, in itself, a tradition. Thus, we have seen the movement of student representation from informal consultation to implicit recognition and finally, under P.D. 58, to express recognition. Also, under the arrangement prior to P.D. 58, the U.S.C. Chairman was not the representative of ALL students although he was the representative of the overwhelming majority of them (students in U.P. at Los Baños and the regional units did not participate in the election of U.S.C. officials); however, P.D. 59 mandates that the student regent must represent the ‘Student Body’ which is nothing less than the studentry of the entire University System. P.D. 58 therefore requires greater representativeness.” (present author’s emphasis)

It must be strongly ascertained, however, that the tradition this student formation describes is one of the consequences of the militant student movement of the time. Radicalized students then were fighting with the people for a reorientation of our economy along national interests and for a democratic right to decide on sovereign matters. It was to prove perilous for the students to recognize legal formal pronouncements as privileges granted to them instead of a product of their resolute campaign. P.D. 58, after all, is trounced by the more powerful P.D. 1081 or Martial Law.

Martial Rule and Marshalling for Reforms

Marcos’ dictatorial means were to operate for self-serving ends; publicly and politically it was to crush the growing rebellion while intensifying imperialist and feudal oppression. In schools and colleges’ student councils, publications, fraternities, all student assemblies were abolished. The student regent (SR) post was to remain vacant for a decade since the dissolution of student organizations.

Students painstakingly engaged with authorities for the restoration of democratic rights. The movement for democratic reforms in the late seventies through early eighties decisively fought for the reestablishment of student publications and councils, along with organizations of various interests. They had learned from the campaigns of urban poor communities and labor union fights. Now was the time to reclaim what were due them inside the universities. They had succeeded in reestablishing student formations steadily.

P.D. 58 also created autonomous units of the university and accordingly, the UP student council in Diliman ceased to represent the entire university student body. A national convention of all university and college student councils was held on October 17 to 22, 1981 and the Katipunan ng mga Sangguniang Mag-aaral sa UP (KASAMA sa UP) was established to campaign for the reinstatement of the student regent position in the BOR. The national alliance of UP student councils sought a dialogue with the board on January 7, 1983 and asserted the students’ right to be involved in the decision-making processes of the university by possessing direct representation in its highest policy-making body. They too demanded that the SR must, unlike in the previous practices when he was selected by the university president and appointed by the country’s head, be selected by the students themselves.

On February 5 and 6, 1983 KASAMA sa UP held a system-wide conference to discuss the mechanism for the selection of the student regent. Their position: an Office of the Student Regent should be created to position an ex-officio membership of the SR in the BOR and the institutionalization of this board membership. They agreed further to form a U.P. System-wide Student Council (UPSSC) with its chair automatically serving as the student regent. This council will “define the lines of accountability of the student regent to his constituencies.” On February 24, 1983 they had a second dialogue with the BOR and the board agreed in principle to their demands. A ratification of a system-wide student council charter must be made before such a council can be created. The alliance agreed to the BOR’s proposed interim student regent appointed by the President from a list of three nominees they submitted. UPSSC failed to materialize and the student body still had to contend with the less official status of their regent.

KASAMA sa UP convened the National Assembly of Student Leaders on November 26 and 27, 1983 and resolved to have a student representative in the BOR pending the ratification of the UPSSC Constitution. They defined the rights and responsibilities of this student representative and elected Leandro Alejandro, UP student council chairman of Diliman, to the position. Another dialogue with UP President Edgardo Angara on December 22 of the same year maintained the appointment by selecting from a list of three students submitted by KASAMA sa UP. The national assembly rejected Marcos’ hand in the appointment.

After EDSA: Rights, Controversies and Campaigns

The People Power Uprising that ousted the dictator was deemed the continuation of the fight for democratic rights in the larger world outside and within the state university’s bureaucracy.

President Corazon Aquino’s Executive Order No. 204 amended the composition of the Board of Regents. The memberships of the undersecretary of agriculture and the chancellors of the autonomous units were removed. Appointee regents were reduced from six to give, at least three of whom are alumni of the university. A faculty regent is to be appointed by the president. Most importantly, the largest constituency of any educational institution – the students – would now have their representative with the right to vote. The Office of the Student Regent (OSR) was formally established and Francisco Pangilinan, UP Diliman student council chair, became the first SR who can vote on decisions.

From Pangilinan in 1987 to Henry Grageda in 1990 the selection of the student regent went smoothly. But in 1991, UP President Jose Abueva defied the KASAMA sa UP selection process by appointing Angelo Jimenez over KASAMA’s choice: Jose Ilagan. The practice was to appoint only the top nominee and should the post be offered to the other nominees, they must refuse. Jimenez accepted the nomination and KASAMA sa UP contested this intervention on the students’ right to choose their regent. Jimenez’s term was a regent-less year in the history of the alliance.

The first refusal to recognize the selection process was committed by the university president, succeeding controversies on who and what the SR should be and how s/he is to be elected were set off more spitefully by student leaders. University officials ruled over the divided student body imposing anti-democratic and anti-poor policies on the UP community.

In 1995 and 1996 some student councils bolted out of the KASAMA sa UP over differences on the nature and character of the university, analyses on Philippine society and on what the student movement should do in our country. KASAMA sa UP believes that the Philippines country is backward, agricultural, pre-industrial and foreign-dominated. Its opponents thought that we are an industrializing country and/or any analysis on society must be discarded by an alliance of student councils, including the necessary actions on how to change the nation for the better. KASAMA sa UP finds after a thorough study of government education programs that the Philippine educational system is colonial, commercialized and repressive. Other student councils rejected such a “negative” view within the premier state university. KASAMA sa UP joins the non-academic segment of the university community and the basic sectors outside the campuses in the fight for our common rights and welfare. Ivory-tower student leaders called for a focus on the campaigns inside the university, removed from significant events happening all over the country. Some simply dismissed the activist orientation of the student council and a progressive orientation of student leaders.

The university student councils of Diliman and Manila did not participate in the student regent selection process in 1996 and communicated to the BOR their rejection of the appointment of Leo Malagar from UP Visayas. Considering that not all of the student councils are members of the KASAMA sa UP, the Office of the Student Regent formed the General Assembly of Student Councils (GASC) in the same year to provide an all-inclusive SR selection. With student councils both from the KASAMA and non-members the Codified Rules for Student Regent was crafted. In 1998 the Diliman university student council disregarded the selection process they took part in and nominated their own choice, John Pineda, to UP President Emil Javier, over GASC-selected Dennis Longid.

The most controversial component of the codified rules is the non-discrimination provision on academic standing. Students who stand up for their rights find their student leaders persecuted, with subjective rulings on their academic standing. Some student councils are fighting for good academic standing while KASAMA sa UP cites the common experiences of repressive measures applied on leaders and student council members who firmly oppose unjust policies and schemes. In 1999 several student councils led by the USC of Diliman contravened the selection of Ferdinand Zafranco of UP Manila. They wrote to various administrators and the offices of the university president and even President Joseph Estrada contesting Zafranco’s academic qualifications. Zafranco was later kicked out of the university, his appointment revoked and incumbent regent Longid’s term extended. To students who campaign for the technical requirement of good academic standing, it is singularly important that one strives to be a good student, never mind the conditions and the punitive reactions of the administration on the many who fight for accessible top-quality education. Many times the fight becomes divisive, with accusations of academic irresponsibility being hurled on those who fail to reach the good academic mark (bad academic standing = bad student leadership) when the proper response should be to unite in calling for an end to tuition increase and commercializing schemes.

This serves the conservative administration opinion that student leaders should be just focused on their studies, and not studying the conditions of their academic education. Why do many leave the university? Academic standing and proportional allocation of votes are central questions for the ongoing discussion on the student regent’s (s)election that is to be incorporated in the university charter. More than the technical matters of eligibility and elections mechanism, the coming referendum on the Office of the Student Regent must make legible—and thus historically institutionalize—the position’s emergence from the struggle for democratic rights and the concomitant duty of the regent to campaign for the welfare of the students.

In 2001 the KASAMA sa UP and SR Kristine Clare Bugayong exposed previous year’s SR Hannah Serana’s graft and corruption cases. On the tide of EDSA 2 that toppled a corrupt and brute president, the alliance and the SR seriously set to cleanse the student institution, even if it meant prosecuting one from your own ranks and inviting the vilification of your political opponents. Those opposed to the KASAMA sa UP charged that Serana is criminal and so is the alliance that she represents (Serana was vice chair of the KASAMA sa UP in 1998-1999). Cynics self-righteously pointed how student leaders of today betray the public interest and become the trapos of tomorrow. Bugayong and company looked for documents and gathered evidence in the nationwide scandal that rocked the university. They had successfully filed the legal complaint, withstood disparagement and are vigilant in ensuring that justice be served. To this day those who maligned KASAMA sa UP had not done a helpful thing in ferreting out the truth and taking the defendants responsible for their acts. They just raise the issue habitually in the bid for student political power.

The Office of the Student Regent and the KASAMA sa UP were formed from the students’ decisive campaign to have their voices heard and their ideas translated into action. The UP administration, and any administration all over the country, must now confront the strength of collective action being practiced inside the highest decision-making body.

From the renewed students’ confrontation with the state on the Education Act of 1982 the KASAMA sa UP outlined a comprehensive study of the Philippine educational system. The last years of Marcos was the beginning of a more colonial type of education, serving the needs of big foreign corporations here in our country and the demands of the free market the world over. Tuition and other fees were deregulated and the number of private schools increased. The government has to contend with public schools bursting at the seams and a growing army of out-of-school youth who are embittered and toughened to fight the unjust system.

The SR and the alliance were engaged in issues such as the recommendations of the 1983 Committee to Review Academic Programs (CRAP) under UP President Edgardo Angara, Magna Carta of Students, commemoration of the First Quarter Storm and the campaigns against human rights violations.

KASAMA sa UP opposed the implementation of the Socialized Tuition and Financial Assistance Program (STFAP). This design was a particular ramification of the Aquino administration’s structural adjustment programs obedient to the International Monetary Fund and World Bank’s deal of deregulation, liberalization and privatization. The government’s promise of reducing expenses and increasing income from government-owned and controlled corporations included the university as a pilot area in public higher education. Students had to pay tuition according to their financial capacity, contrary to the public good of providing low-cost (if not free) education to those who qualified admission in the university. As state subsidy on education decreases, school officials then had to be resourceful in making money out of UP’s large tracts of lands, academic-intellectual-scientific output and vast resources. The Higher Education Modernization Act of 1997 and the recommendations of the Presidential Commission on Educational Reforms under the Ramos and Estrada administrations executed rationalization and gradual privatization of state universities and colleges closely related to the deregulation, liberalization and privatization economic programs. Briefly stating, the said programs classified educational institutions based on their relevance to overall economic needs. Smaller colleges and institutes may be dissolved or appended to larger existing ones and college degrees may be dissolved when these are redundant (other campuses have the same programs) and if the courses do not entice a significant enrollment. PCER and HEMA sought to speed up the lease of university services (such as food and maintenance) to private entities and land for profitable ventures.

In 1999 to 2001 the office and the alliance provided system-wide leadership to campaigns against the then largest budget cut UP history, which it tied to the general immorality and anti-people policies of the Estrada regime. The Kilusan Laban sa Budget Cut mobilized thousands of students, teachers, employees and community residents, regularly trooping the Batasang Pambansa, the Senate, culminating in Mendiola on February 14, 2000.

In 2001 and 2002, the OSR and KASAMA sa UP launched a system-wide campaign on the Revised General Education Program that devalues crucial general education subjects such as history and literature in the guise of freedom to choose courses. The General Education Movement (GEM), a network of students and faculty members, was established in response to this academic revision.

From 2003 to early 2008 the multisectoral community, of which the office and the alliance are part of, unswervingly pushed to have a UP charter that advances the national interest along with the welfare of its students, teachers and employees enacted. Now the Office of the Student Regent and the KASAMA sa UP face the business leadership of Emerlinda Roman in the university’s centennial year, realizing the oblation call to serve the people. With numerous formations and individuals, it participates in the relentless questioning of what we must struggle to do: UP, ang galing mo ialay sa bayan!

¹From the Law Student Government’s Committee on Academic Reform position paper on student representation in the Board of Regents, page 2, no date. The quote comes from the letter of the Honorable Onofre D. Corpuz, Secretary of Education and Chairman of the Board of Regents, and University President Salvador P. Lopez to the President of the Philippines dated 15 January 1970.
²From the same paper by the Law Student Government, quoting from Act No. 1870 (1908), section 4.
³Mr. Jaime Galvez Tan and his council started their term on September 8, 1972 but were only able to legally represent the students for two weeks or until the proclamation of Martial Law on September 23.

RE: STFAP Review & Revision

Last semester, the University Student Council arrived at a consensus to push for the review and revision of the Socialized Tuition and Finacial Assistance Program (STFAP) while maintaining its strong stand against the undemocratic process by which tuition increase was implemented in 2006.

Since that year, there has been various campaigns to revisit and improve the STFAP, recognizing that the same policy has solid social justice underpinnings.

An STFAP revision is necessary only if the UP Administration will be consistent with the lofty ideals of socialized tertiary education. As UP’s Centennial draws to a close, what more fitting tribute can UP implement (as an institution of accessible higher learning) than to fast track the long-overdue revision of the STFAP.

The time to change STFAP is now. Any further delay, even for a day, means stripping off the worthy youth of their chance at quality UP education, merely because of financial restrictions.

4 November 2008
Dr. Emerlinda R. Roman
President
University of the Philippines System

RE: Urgent Review and Revision of the Socialized Tuition and Financial Assistance Program (STFAP)

Dear President Roman:

Warm greetings from Vinzons Hall!

I am writing this letter to formalize the recommendations that I proposed in the University Committee on Scholarships and Financial Assistance (UCSFA ) last week, 28 October 2008 at the Board of Regents Room, Quezon Hall, as well as for your swift, appropriate action.

Whatever debate there may be as to the soundness of the STFAP as a university policy, it is beyond cavil that the same is an affirmative measure towards social justice. The STFAP also is a conceptual recognition of the constitutional and internationally-recognized right of the youth to accessible and quality tertiary education.

However, since its establishment in 1989, and even after it has been revised in 2006, the STFAP still suffers from infirmities that in effect make the whole policy run counter to its noble objectives. Two major issues are briefly discussed here, to wit:

1. Patently erroneous income brackets (or B2 as we call it in the UCSFA). When tuition rates were adjusted in 2006, the primary reason given to justify it was inflation. Because of this, tuition and other fees were increased to catch up with real economic conditions. Then, the income range which enjoy full tuition subsidy is from zero to PhP130,000 (corresponding to numeric brackets 1 to 5).

   The adjustment of tuition rates also necessarily resulted to a revision of the old STFAP brackets to a new alphabetic 5-bracket scheme. However, as various student groups and some faculty strongly manifested to the Board of Regents (BOR) on the wake of the BOR meeting approving the said tuition increase and STFAP revision, the new bracketing system seem to deviate from the normal effects of inflation.

   Under the new STFAP brackets, the income range which enjoys full tuition subsidy is markedly compressed to only up to PhP80,000—a substantial reduction of nearly 40% of the original PhP130,000. This means that 40% of those who under the old STFAP system were not paying tuition would now be paying PhP300 per unit.

   This result is plainly unacceptable because the reason for adjusting tuition rates and the brackets is precisely, inflation. It is unthinkable that when it comes to adjusting tuition rates, a 300% increase was approved, but in the granting of full tuition privileges to financially-deserving students, a regressive 40% decrease was authorized, wittingly or unwittingly, by the UP administration.

2. Questionable predictive income brackets (or B3 as the UCSFA calls it). The UCSFA has been reminded by Prof. Edgardo Atanacio not to discount altogether B3 even when it is the only one which flags a student to a higher income bracket, as it “gives an idea on how the family performs in terms of income against the rest of the families in the Philippines” as regressed against the Family Income and Expenditure Survey (FIES) and the Labor Force Survey (LFS) of the National Statistics Office (NSO).

   This caveat however would only hold true if instances where B3 is the only bracket assignment which differs from the rest are limited to exceptions. The reverse unfortunately is true. Based on our experience in the Diliman Committee on Scholarships and Financial Assistance (DCSFA) which was confirmed by parallel experiences in the different constituent UP units during UCSFA, roughly more than 90% of students who appealed their assignment have been so assigned solely because they have been flagged to a higher bracket by B3.

   Thus, there is sound reason to question the propensity of the predictive income bracket to adequately and accurately reflect the economic realities experienced by UP students. The net effect of B3 is to trump the already deflated family income assignment. Barring an appeal from the student, B3 would be automatically assigned as a students’ final bracket.

   While it may be argued that the appeals process is a good way of correcting mistakes in the system, whether on simple computations or otherwise, simply relying on it on a case-to-case basis is, at best, administratively unsound. In the first place, the goal of assigning brackets to students is to be able to come up with a more or less truthful reflection of the financial and spending capacity of their families, which in turn, allows UP to apportion subsidy on the basis of need.

   As a result, affording B3 a trumping effect gravely hampers an accurate conferment of privileges to those who are supposedly benefited by the STFAP.

On account of these concerns, I have forwarded these recommendations to the UCSFA:

1. Push for the correction of bracketing based on family income. Bracket E should be expanded, consistent with the same level of inflation used in adjusting tuition rates. Thus, Bracket E should extend at least to PhP130,000 annual family incomes.
   • The possibility of creating two subgroups within Bracket E may also be explored. For example, a two-core Bracket E may be composed of E1 (corresponding to income brackets from PhP80,000 to PhP150,000) and E2 (PhP0 to PhP80,000). While E1 would be entitled to free tuition only, E2 would additionally be given the PhP12,000 stipend.
2. Review the effectiveness of LFS and FIES in accurately measuring the real financial capability of students. As stated above, there is serious doubt as to the accuracy of the predictive income as a mirror of the actual economic profile of a student which comes as a hurdle to the appropriate apportionment of tuition subsidy and stipends.
   • On this note, it is also recommended that the policy of automatically assigning the highest bracket from among the four criteria be abandoned. B3 should not be mechanically decisive, but be given only persuasive weight in determining the final bracket assignment.
   • The DCSFA and the UCSFA should also be sufficiently educated as to the process of coming up with B3. The complexity of these processes should only be reason for developing a simplified manner of explaining to the members of the appeals bodies how B3 is computed and what specific factors are encoded.
3. Open up formal consultation avenues with the students with a view of improving the STFAP. Since the students are the ones directly affected by this policy, they have direct experience with the STFAP and its processes. The administration cannot afford not to actively seek assistance of students if it truly seeks to develop an agreeable system. This can be done through the following:
   • Having student representatives in the STFAP committees as well as in any review committee that may be formed; and
   • Gathering feedback and recommendations straight from students through unit-wide consultation sessions by the pertinent scholarship office (i.e. Office for Scholarships and Student Services) to be submitted to the DCSFA and ultimately to the UCSFA.

Another year of implementing the STFAP under the status quo, fully knowing the glaring conceptual and actual infirmities of the policy would only mean a tacit acceptance by this administration of the same injustices that specifically impelled UP in implementing its own system of socialized education almost 20 years ago.

We hope that through your resolve to improve the STFAP, these necessary policy revisions would find fruition in the soonest time possible. Thank you very much.

For the University,

Herminio C. Bagro III
Chairperson, UP Diliman Student Council
Member, UCSFA

When The Tyrant is Afraid: Taktika ng Papatinding Pampulitikang Panunupil ng Rehimeng Arroy

Sa likod ng kamay na bakal ng rehimen ay ang isang tirano na nanginginig sa desperasyong panatilihin ang sarili sa kapangyarihan.

Sa kasagsagan ng matinding protesta laban sa kahirapan at pang-ekonomiyang krisis na idinudulot ng rehimeng Arroyo, iba’t ibang porma ng panunupil ang ipinupukol nito sa mamamayang lumalaban. Noong mga nakaraang buwan, dalawang serye ng maramihang kaso at pag-aresto ang ipinataw ng korte laban sa mga lider-aktibista ng Timog Katagalugan (Southern Tagalog).

Nauna nang kinasuhan ang 27 lider-aktibista ng Globe Telecom kaugnay umano sa naganap na panununog at pambobomba sa isang Globe Cell Site sa Lemery, Batangas noong Agosto 2. Kinasuhan ang mga ito ng arson, destruction of private property, at conspiracy to commit rebellion sa Batangas Prosecutor’s Office.

Nitong Oktubre, nagbaba naman ang Calapan Regional Trial Court ng Warrant of Arrest sa tinatayang 72 aktibista mula rin sa Timog Katagalugan sa kaso ng multiple murder at multiple frustrated murder kaugnay sa naganap na raid ng New People’s Army (NPA) sa Puerto Galera, Mindoro Oriental noong Marso 3, 2008.

Nauna nang dinakip si Atty. Remigio Saladero, ang tagapayong legal ng Kilusang Mayo Uno (KMU) noong Oktubre 23. Dinala siya sa Camp Vicente Lim sa Calamba, Laguna at kinabukasan ay inilipat sa Calapan City District Jail. Noong Oktubre 27, inamin ni Provincial Prosecutor Josephine Caranzo-Olivar na walang naganap na preliminaryong imbestigasyon bago ibaba ang warrant.
Noong Oktubre 24, dinakip din si Nestor San Jose sa bayan ng Teresa sa Rizal. Oktubre 27, si Crispin Zapanta ang Tagapangulo ng Bayan Muna-Antipolo Chapter ay dinakip rin. Ang lahat ng mga ito ay kasalukuyang nakakulong sa Calapan District Jail.

Samantala, noong Nobyembre 3, dinakip rin si Rogelio Galit, tagapagsalita ng Katipunan ng mga Magbubukid sa Kabite (KAMAGSASAKA-Ka). Ayon sa KARAPATAN (Alliance for the Advancement of Human Rights) - Southern Tagalog, 15 armadong kalalakihan na naka-sibilyan, alas-syete y medya ng gabi sa Brgy. Kaong, Silang Cavite. Dinala si Galit sa kampo Vicente Lim sa Calamba City.

MAS MARAHAS NA PANUNUPIL

Ang pasismo ng rehimeng Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo sa mamamayan nito ay matining na rin sa buong mundo. Kilala ang Pilipinas bilang isa sa pinaka-peligrosong bansa para sa mga mamamahayag dahil sa mataas na bilang ng extra-judicial killings sa mga progresibong mamamahayag, mga lider-aktibista at mga kritiko ng administrasyon. Maging ang United Nations Special Rapporteur Philip Alston ay tinutukoy ang mataas na bilang ng paglabag sa karapatang pantao sa bansa sa counter-insurgency operations ng gobyerno. Kaya naman, upang tabingan ito, ang taktika ng paggamit ng mga korte upang patahimikin ang mga protesta ay isinasagawa ng rehimen ni Arroyo.

Nauna nang isinagawa ang taktikang ito upang dakipin ang TAGAYTAY 5 kung saan kabilang ang makatang si Axel Pinpin na inaresto at kinasuhan. Matapos ang dalawang taon ng pagkakakulong, idineklarang ilegal ng korte ang ginawang pandarakip. Bunga ng malawakang suporta ng mamamayan, umusad ang kaso hanggang sila’y napalaya.

Lalong pinatutunayan ng mga naganap na pandarakip ngayon sa Timog Katagalugan ang marahas na panunupil ng kasalukuyang administrasyon upang takutin ang mamamayang Pilipino. Sinusubukan ding pinsalain ng taktikang ito ang kilusang protesta ng mamamayan imbes na tugunan ang tunay na interes at panawagan ng mamamayang naghihirap.

TAGOS HANGGANG ESKWELA

Maraming kabataang lider-aktibista sa eskwelahan ang nakararanas ng kaparehong pasismo. Patunay nito ang pagsuspindi at pagpapatalsik sa 19 estudyante mula sa Jose Rizal University sa Metro Manila, dahil lamang sa pamimigay ng mga polyetong nanawagan ng suporta para sa P125 pagtataas ng sahod ng mga manggagawa.

Ang mga lider-estudyante at miyembro ng League of Filipino Students (LFS) at ANAKBAYAN ang mga target ng harrassment ng mga myembro ng ISAFP (Intelligence service of the AFP) at ng ROTC-led (Reserve Officers Training Corps) Student Intelligence Networks sa iba’t ibang pamantasan. Patunay rito ang isang grupo ng ahente na naniniktik lulan ng isang van na may plakang UDU 234 na umiikot sa loob ng ating unibersidad.

Sa Polytechnic University of the Philippines- Main Campus naman, 4 na ahente ng ISAFP ang nahuling nagmamatyag sa isang pagkilos sa loob ng unibersidad. Ang mga estudyante na gumawa ng isang “citizen’s arrest” sa mga nasabing ahente at nagdala sa mga ito sa PUP Security Office ay kinasuhan ngayon ng frustrated murder, pagnanakaw at marami pang gawa-gawang kaso.

Samantala, ang Chairperson naman ng PUP- Quezon chapter kasama ang iba pang lider-estudyante ay kinasuhan rin ng rebelyon sa kadahilanan lamang ng paghiling ng detachment ng militar sa loob ng pamantasan na isa namang malinaw na pagtapak sa katangian ng isang akademikong institusyon.

Gayundin, ang kasalukuyang Chairperson ng UP Los Banos University Student Council ay kinasuhan sa Student Disciplinary Tribunal ng gross misconduct and deliberate discourtesy to persons of authority dahil sa naganap na debate sa Central Electoral Board (CEB) hinggil sa kawalan ng Student Council elections. Siya ay kinasuhan habang gumagampan ng kaniyang tungkulin bilang representasyon ng mga estudyante sa CEB dahil sa paggigiit na kilalanin ang konstitusyon ng UPLB Student Councils at ilunsad sa kagyat ng eleksyon.

TUMUNGGALI SA PANDARAHAS

Sa maagang yugto pa lamang ng panunungkulan ni GMA, ay samu’t saring pamamaraan ng panunupil ang inilunsad nito sa pamamagitan ng OPLAN BANTAY LAYA 1, 2, at 3. Bilang resulta, mahigit isang libo na ang biktima ng mga pulitikal na pandarahas at patuloy itong nadaragdagan habang lalong pinaiigting ang represibong panunupil ng pamahalaan. Nagdulot din ito ng mga pagdukot sa mga aktibista tulad nina Karen Empeno, Sherlyn Cadapan, at Jonas Burgos. Malinaw na ang nagaganap na pandarakip nagyon ay bahagi pa rin ng counter insurgency program ng kasalukuyang administrasyon upang pilayin ang lumalawak na kilusang-protesta ng mamamayan laban kay GMA.

Ang mga paglabag na ito sa karapatang pantao ay manipestasyon ng likas na pasismong katangian ng isang gobyernong nagsisilbi sa dayuhan at sa iilang naghaharing-uri. Lalong pinatutunayan nito ang desperasyon at takot ng rehimeng Arroyo sa lumalawak na pagkilos ng sambayanan para sa kaniyang pagpapatalsik at para pagsusulong ng tunay na pagbabagong panlipunan. Patuloy ang marahas na panunupil sa lumalabang mamamayan at nararapat lamang na magpatuloy sa pakikilahok sa pagtatanggol sa interes ng sambayanan. Kondenahin, biguin at lansagin ang rehimeng Arroyo na nangunguna ng mga paglabag sa mga karapatang pantao. Binubuhay tayo sa kawalang katarungan, nilulunod tayo sa karahasan. Ngayon kinakailangang gumuhit ng paninindigan. Ano ang mas pipiliin mo, magpaagos o tumunggali sa gitna ng mga pandarahas?

UP, Are You ECO-Active?

Environmentalism: the advocacy of preservation, restoration, and improvement of the natural environment1. Though the practice has been there for some time, only now do people realize the need to be seriously concerned about the environment. Sadly, it took the melting of glaciers, the rise in sea levels, the heat waves, droughts, severe storms, floods, land slides, food shortage, epidemics and pandemics and other diseases, fast extinction of endangered species, among many others, for environmentalism to prove its point. The good thing is that people have learned, or are starting to learn, as more and more people are swapping their old gas-hustling, mindless wasting and polluting habits for new clean and sustainable practices.

Truly, the world is moving towards an environmental revolution, and UP will not be left behind. The University Student Council, together with AdCore, UP Mountaineers, AISEC, UP Green League and Club Ecotour, is leading the campus to an environmental movement, the ECO-ACTIVE Campaign. The year long campaign is set to prove that everyone can be an environmentalist or environmental activist in their own little but significant way. The line-up of activities that the team has set this year will be the perfect venues to become just that; to release everyone’s inner activist and to join in the efforts of saving our one earth.

The Campaign will start with the Eco-tambayan on November 24 – 28, a one-week exhibit at the AS lobby to introduce the campaigns of the ECO-ACTIVE Program to the UP community. This will also be in preparation for the grand launch of the ECO-ACTIVE Program on December 2, the ECO-ACTIVE Day. Several organizations from all around the country, famous personalities, and other environmentalists are expected to participate in what will be UP’s version of the globally-celebrated Earth Day.

The ECO-ACTIVE Day will start in the morning with a mini program at the Grandstand at the Sunken Garden. It will feature prominent environmentalists as speakers who will share their wisdom to guide UP in this environmental endeavor. Performers are also expected to show up to support the campaign.

In the afternoon, the Academic Oval will be cleared to make way for the March for the Environment. Students, organizations, and other ECO-ACTIVE Day participants will march around, parading their call to promote the use of environment-friendly vehicles and renewable energy. The march will be accompanied by the E-Jeepney, CNG (Compresses Natural Gas) buses, and by UP’s very own padyak, (UP Mountaineers’ bikes for rent). The world’s leading environmental organization, Greenpeace will also be there to make the march even more colorful.

The day will end with the “BAN THE STYRO” Human Formation at the Sunken Garden. The USC, in cooperation with the Office of the Vice Chancellor for Community Affairs, is finalizing the comprehensive plan to ban the use of polystyrene (or Styrofoam) in all food establishments in UP. The human formation will signal the start of the implementation of that ban.

The Campaign will not yet end on the ECO-ACTIVE Day as a handful of other ECO-ACTIVE activities are expected afterwards. One project will be the “Dagdag Padyak”, where the USC plans to supplement the bikes by the UP Mountaineers to address the exceedingly growing demand for these bikes.

Another project is the “Adopt a Tree”, where organizations in UP will be given chance to plant trees around the campus. The project will start with the replacement of trees brought down by the destructive typhoon Milenyo. It will also include the installation of identification plates on the different varieties of trees on campus.

Other campaigns include the use of recycled papers in photocopying machines, which is expected to be launched at the Vinzons Hall by the end of November. There will also be AISEC’s Recycled and Organic Bazaar on December and the University-wide Clean-Up early next year.

These activities though, however big and well planned, will not be complete without the one thing ECO-ACTIVE needs: YOU. The University Student Council is encouraging you to join the move towards giving back to our mother earth. Let us all together be ECO-ACTIVE.

A Look Into the Reproductive Health Bill

Senator Francisco Tatad, in an opinion column, described the Reproductive Health Bill, which has been subject to assiduous and often heated debates in congress, as totally unnecessary, patently unconstitutional, destructive of public morals and family values, and particularly unjust to catholic taxpayers. Unfortunately, this uncompromising position is shared by the Catholic Church, particularly by the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) and Couples for Christ, which have released their own statements condemning the bill. Unfortunately, they completely disregard the salient features of the proposed bill, shared by hundreds of other countries all over the world and agreed upon in the International United Nations Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) in Cairo, Egypt in 1994.

In the ICPD, 179 countries agreed that population and development are inextricably linked. In brief, the two may be considered indirectly proportional—i.e., a high population rate results in slower development and vice versa. It was likewise agreed that women empowerment and health education including reproductive health are necessary for individual advancement and a balanced life. Thus, the declaration of policies of the law provides that it is “anchored on the rationale that sustainable human development is better assured with a manageable population of healthy, educated, and productive citizens.

One need not resort to statistics to understand the effect of population on individual development. In 2002, the United Nations stated that “family planning and reproductive health are essential to reducing poverty.” It also stated that “family planning could bring more benefits to people at less cost than any other single technology now available to the human race.”

The proposed bill adopts the international definition of reproductive health, that is, state of physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity, in all matters relating to the reproductive system and to its functions and processes. To achieve this, the bill guarantees universal access to medically-safe, legal, affordable and quality reproductive health care services, methods, devices, supplies and relevant information thereon even as it prioritizes the needs of women and children, among other underprivileged sectors.

It recognizes the right to informed choice, which means that the bill guarantees full access to relevant reproductive health information. First, it provides “mandatory, age-appropriate reproductive health education” which emphasizes among others, responsible parenting, proscriptions and hazards of abortion and management of post-abortion complications, and abstinence before marriage. Second, it provides a penalty for health care service providers who fail to provide this information, not being religious conscientious objectors and having failed to immediately refer that person to another health care facility.

It does not, as critics claim, set a prelude to a two-child policy. What it does is to give access to family-planning programs which would enable couples and individuals to decide freely and responsibly the number and spacing of children. The bill requires the “State to assist couples, families and individuals to achieve their desired family size within the context of responsible parenthood for sustainable development and encourage them to have two children as the ideal family size.” This however is neither mandatory nor compulsory. It merely suggests a global standard.

The bill, at best, embodies fundamental principles recognized in our Constitution—the right to a dignified and healthy life, full access to information, and equal protection before the law. At worst, it only requires fine tuning that can only be addressed by discourse and sobriety.

Next Page »