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.

UP Pres. Roman: No Rollback, Hands off UPD & UPLB Student Demands

UP President Emerlinda Roman was forced to respond to the students’ demands after student leaders submitted petitions through mass lobbying and demonstration last July 31 during the Board of Regents (BOR) meeting. The meeting held at UP Manila was greeted by student protesters from UP Diliman, UP Manila, and UP Los Banos, carrying their demands for tuition rollback, immediate UPLB student elections, and the reclaim of student institutions and organizations’ democratic rights.

Determined that these demands need to be answered directly by the UP Administration, the students insisted that the BOR face the students and hold a dialogue outside the halls. After minutes of negotiations, President Roman agreed to meet the protesters and gave her responses on the different issues raised by the students. Her initial responses were: there will definitely be no rollback of tuition; the UP Administration refuses to intervene in the UPLB student-elections issue; and that the student organizations’ demands will be studied and be left to the discretion of the Chancellors of different UP units.

Student leaders believe that it was a collective victory that students were able to urge President Roman to give immediate responses to student demands. However, it was also clear to them that she was merely washing her hands off the issue, a clear refusal to take responsibility over the dismal state of students’ democratic rights in the university, according to Jaqueline Eroles, Chairperson of Students Rights and Welfare (STRAW) Committee of the UP Diliman - University Student Council (USC). Student institutions and organizations who led the action pledged that all BOR meetings will be greeted with mobilizations until the demands were properly addressed.

No Rollbacks

Early this month, the USC released a statement calling for the rollback of tuition and the junking of the UP’s newest tuition policy. In the statement, the USC declared that in light of worsening economic crises plaguing the Filipino people, the UP Administration must provide economic relief to iskolars ng bayan and their families through a rollback in tuition. It also demanded for “the junking of the UP’s most recent tuition policy… without prejudice to further investigation of the STFAP and the increase of state subsidy for education.”

President Roman, acknowledging the present economic condition, was however firm that there will be no rollback of tuition for this academic year since UP has not increased tuition for the past two years in spite of inflation. She added that the issue of tuition increase is already over, thus she encourages students to “move on” and leave calls for rollback and support the review and revision of the Socialized Tuition and Financial Assistance Program (STFAP).

Some students claim, however, that the issue of tuition increase is far from being over. They said that the increasing no-show rates, the increasing number of student loans, the decreasing number of enrollees in non-marketable courses, and the continuous commercialization of education, among others, are proof that the tuition increase has not addressed the problem of quality of education. Rather, such has only apparently caused other issues that are inconsistent and contradictory to the aims of a state institution such as UP.

They also believe that UP’s recent tuition policy proves to be anti-student and anti-people, having provisions that allow automatic increase of tuition based on inflation. The danger of uncontrolled, escalating tuition in the future continues to confront iskolars ng bayan.

Hands-off the UPLB student elections

Admitting knowledge of the four-month delay of student council elections in UPLB, Pres. Roman said that the UP Administration will not act on the said issue, on the fear that it may be interpreted as a form of administration intervention on student institutions. However, the protesters were able to assert for a dialogue on August 4 between the incumbent UPLB University Student Council, UPLB Chancellor Luis Rey Velasco, and Vice-President for Legal Affairs Atty. Theodore Te which shall be mediated by the President herself.

On the August 4 dialogue, student leaders from UPLB challenged President Roman, having the highest administrative position, to take responsibility and uphold her statements that the administration should not intervene with the autonomy of student institutions such as student councils and publications. They challenged her to direct Chancellor Velasco to cease its intrusion on the UPLB SC constitution and should hold elections within the month.

The dialogue ended with the students successfully urging the UPLB Administration to concede into allowing for an immediate conduct of student council elections in Los Banos.

Calls for reclaim of democratic rights, to be acted upon by Chancellors

President Roman will not act on the demands of more than 111 student formations in UPD since she believes that these are within the jurisdiction and discretion of Chancellors. However, student leaders insisted that the dismal conditions of student organizations’ democratic rights are alarming, since they are evident in almost all UP units, thus, the need and the demand for a system-wide policy that will safeguard the rights of all organizations in all UP units. Pres. Roman later assured the protesters that she will direct Chancellors to study the said demands.

Continued support and collective action

For the contingents from UPD, UPM, and UPLB, the July 31 BOR protest action and mass lobbying proved that gains can be achieved through collective action. The signature campaign, the petition, and the mobilization were not simply disregarded by the UP administration because it showed the broad support and the commitment of students for the address of their demands. Thus, they were resolved to go back to their campuses to gather more support from students, faculty, and likewise, administrators, to gather them in a collective force to push the BOR to concur and act upon these demands.

Text of the Policy Paper on Student Organizations’ Demands

Reclaiming the Rights of Student Organizations in the University of the Philippines

Background

At the height of the Marcos dictatorship, the Iskolars ng Bayan were able to force, through collective yet militant struggle, the re-establishment of student councils, publications and organizations in the University of the Philippines. Among the rights won in the aftermath of the students’ successful campaign included the beneficial use and possession of tambayans for various student organizations and student offices for the University Student Council, the Philippine Collegian and college student councils and publication. The tambayans and the student offices were used for free and provided basic amenities such as electricity and typewriters, in the presumption that student activities play a very important role in the learning process and training of UP students as future leaders and managers of different fields and professions of the country. On the other hand, student councils, publications and organizations were afforded the free use of different university and college facilities and equipment such as auditoriums, theaters, conference halls, overhead projectors, in pursuit fostering greater student involvement in university and national affairs. The procedural restraints of student organization recognition were also relaxed, with the university and its student leaders encouraging all types of student organizations to re-establish their university presence and engaging many others to found their own organizations based on their own interests and activities.

The Situation of Student Institutions Today

Almost three decades hence, the situation of student councils, publications and organizations are in a dismal state, despite token pronouncements by successive UP Administrations of its affirmation of the importance for these student institutions. In AY 2006-2007, the already constricted funding of the Philippine Collegian was subjected to administration intervention, causing the Collegian to default in publishing important news and analysis on the status of the newly implemented tuition increase. At present, no student elections have been held in UPLB, due to the forcible insistence of UPLB Chancellor Rey Velasco to impose his own anti-student version of the UPLB USC Constitution that betrays the principle of student autonomy, as the standing UPLB USC Constitution has long been followed by the students in more than a decade of student council elections.

The Worsening Conditions of Student Organizations

The Need for Tambayans

Nonetheless, equally disadvantaged are student organizations in the university. In UP Diliman, only about sixty tambayans are currently occupied by university-based student organizations, leaving more than half without tambayans in which to hold general assemblies, consolidation activities, and prayer meetings, among many other organizational tasks. However, those fortunate enough to receive tambayan assignments after a rigorous yet unreasonable process are not afforded a fully-functional tambayan. As most of these tambayans are not provided with electricity for low-wattage lighting, affected student organizations are forced to cease their tambayan activities upon nightfall. On the other hand, those tambayans provided with electricity are found to suffer from leaking roofs, flooding corridors, poor ventilation and the threat of demolition and displacement, precisely because of the unsound structural integrity of their tambayans as a result of years of university neglect in repairs.

While there are remarkable instances of fully-functional tambayans such as in the School of Economics, the College of Law, the College of Business Administration and the National College of Public Administration and Governance, these are very few in a sea of neglected yet important student facilities, notwithstanding the fact that very supportive college administrations were key indicators in ensuring such a fortunate predicament for their college student organizations.

We submit that tambayans are integral in the operations of student organizations, in the same manner that student councils and publications need their offices for their various activities. It is in tambayans, dilapidated or not, that student organizations plan their different activities, consolidate their members, engage in study sessions, and secure important organizational documents, among many other organizational tasks.

It is therefore imperative that the University Administration provide all student organizations fully-functional tambayans in the soonest possible time, with electricity for low-wattage lighting the first order of the day. We also demand that colleges extend tambayan hours until 8pm.

The Need for the Free Access to University Facilities and Equipment

Aside from the dismal tambayan problem, student organizations are faced with the issue of exorbitant rental rates in the use of university facilities and equipment for their different activities. For example, in the College of Mass Communication, the per-hour rate of the dilapidated CMC Auditorium is pegged at PhP3000/hour, while the average UP Diliman-wide per-hour rate of the use of LCD projectors amount to about PhP300/hour. Even the supposed UP student center, Vinzons Hall, require student organizations to pay about PhP100/hour for the use of any of its severely dilapidated student conference rooms, whether for general assemblies or activities. While student councils are granted the right of requesting Administration to waive the use of facilities and equipment, the same is not given to student organizations, with Administration asserting that extra-curricular student activities must pay market rates for the use of university facilities and equipment. As a result, student organizations encounter difficulties in holding many of their activities due to the high rental rates of facilities and equipment, especially when most of these activities do not need corporate sponsorships but simple activities such as acquaintance parties, general assemblies, academic forums, prayer meetings, leadership seminars and the like. It is therefore common to witness student organizations gathering in college lobbies and forming circles for their different meetings, precisely because of high rental rates of facilities and the corresponding lack of tambayans.

We submit that the university policy on the extra-curricular student use of facilities and equipment is misplaced, as it unnecessarily precludes student organizations from fulfilling their organizational goals and objectives, all of which are presumably in line with university goals and principles as well. We assert that while student organizations essentially engage in extra-curricular activities, these activities are fully subsumed in the holistic learning process that the university seeks to impart on its students, especially its student leaders. It is in these student activities that student organizations are able to validate in practice much of the theories learned in the classroom, particularly in the fields of accounting, management and leadership, economics and politics, among many other fields that are expressly or impliedly employed when students engage in student organizations. While we concede that these definitely constitute a cost to the university, the University Administration must view these as beneficial costs in pursuit of the holistic academic development of its students.

Therefore, we demand that the University Administration remove rentals rates for the use of all its facilities and equipment not only to student councils and publications, but to student organizations as well. In the immediate, we demand that the possession and the free beneficial use of student conference rooms of the Vinzons Hall be transferred to the control of the UP Diliman University Student Council. We also demand the immediate construction of the College of Education Student Center without the conditions set by the UP Diliman Chancellor that the College of Education Student Council provide the University a Centennial Professorial Chair worth PhP1.5M.

Corollary to this the students’ demand for the immediate construction of more bulletin and publicity boards in conspicuous places in the University, whether inside academic buildings or along its sprawling grounds, notwithstanding a need to relax regulation requirements in the proliferation of publicity materials for student activities. This problem is most apparent in larger UP campuses such as Diliman, Los Banos, Mindanao and Visayas, where there is no close proximity of academic buildings, thus, hampering publicity, campaign and recruitment efforts of different student organizations.

Moreover, we demand that concerned offices in control of university facilities and equipment exhibit flexibility in scheduling the use of its facilities and equipment, especially on student activities involving urgent matters of university or national importance, as endorsed by the Office of the Student Regent or the respective University Student Councils of each UP unit.

The Problem with UP Administration Regulation on Student Activities: On the Organization Recognition Process and the Right to Assembly

The tambayan and rental rates problems notwithstanding, another problem articulated by the student organizations is the rigorous yet taxing recognition process of student organizations. Emerging student organizations such as CMC’s PRAD encounter serious difficulty in getting their organizations recognized because of the fifteen-member quota imposed by the recognition process. Long-standing organizations such as the UP Education Society are under threat of failing to be recognized this year because of mere procedural limitations, such as failing to schedule interview dates on time. These are only among the many issues raised by student organizations on the procedure of organization recognition.

However, one of the bigger issues raised by student organizations is the full and continuing control of the Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs and the Office of Student Affairs on the recognition process, where no student representatives are included in the organization recognition committee, notwithstanding the propensity of the OSA to determine the classes of student organizations being recognized in the University. In CMC, political organizations are banned from recognition on the mere basis of the orgs’ political nature. On the other hand, the League of Filipino Students in CSSP was recently denied recognition by the College Student Affairs Coordinator on the mere basis of duplication of recognition between the university-wide LFS chapter and its CSSP-based chapter. Clearly, this non-duplication requirement is not among the requirements for organization recognition as per the Student Handbook, notwithstanding the arbitrary demand by the CSSP College Student Affairs Coordinator for the submission of an essay to “justify the existence” of the LFS-CSSP.

The worst case of this would be the situation of student organizations in UPLB, where there is absolute administration intervention, not only in the organization recognition process, but also in the determination of what classes of student organizations are permissible in UPLB. As a result, religious organizations including Muslim and Christian organizations are under threat of non- recognition on the puny excuse that the University is a non-sectarian public institution, as per the Separation of Church and State. Varsitarian (Provincial) organizations are under threat of non-recognition in the premise that provincial organizations breed regionalism and preclude the establishment of national unity and identity. Moreover, fraternities and sororities are under threat of non-recognition in the premise that fraternities and sororities amplify the existing gender biases and prejudices among sexes.

It is clear in all of these that the organization recognition process by the University Administration in its different UP units are being used to curtail the students’ constitutional right to self-organization by fully controlling the process itself and even determining unilaterally which organizations deserve recognition by the University.

Nonetheless, we demand that the UP Administration follow the recognition process in UP Manila, where the Office of Student Affairs convenes and coordinates the student committee for org recognition which is composed of representatives of the University Student Council, College Student Councils and different student organizations. It is this process that upholds student autonomy in student affairs and it is one of the continuing hallmarks of the struggle of the students decades prior in claiming the rights of student organizations in the University.

In line with this, we demand, as a policy, that organization recognition be liberally construed in favor of student organizations and not on the strict implementation of recognition guidelines and procedures to enable a greater number of student organizations to enjoy the rights and privileges of recognized student groups.

Most importantly, we demand that the right to self-organization of students be preserved in the University of the Philippines, where the University Administration shall not dictate the classes of student organizations that may be recognized by the University, in the presumption that student organizations all engage in lawful and noble activities in pursuit not only of specific organization objectives, but for the development of the UP community and the country as well.

Another important consideration with regard to UP administration regulations involves the constriction of the right to assembly of student organizations particularly on university issues such as the tuition increase, and national issues such as the economic crisis. Student councils and organizations are prevented by faculty and college administrations from entering classrooms to discuss pressing issues while college-wide protest assemblies are disallowed in some colleges.

On this matter, we demand that the right to assembly of student organizations and councils be respected at all times in all UP units, subject only to coordination between college or university administration and the student councils or organizations concerned. Coordination shall be construed as mere notice to university or college administration, and shall not be the basis to prevent the students from the exercise of their right to assemble.

The Need for Democratic Representation of Students in Different Levels of University Affairs to Further Protect Student Rights

The more than twenty year experience of the Office of the Student Regent in representing the students in the Board of Regents is the paramount testament of the need for democratic representation in different levels of university affairs. It is this grant of right to the Student Regent that has enabled the highest student institution to steadfastly defend the different concerns of the UP students in the Board, from the expression of militant dissent on tuition increases and the submission of independent and critical policy papers for the better management of the university bureaucracy. On the other hand, the Colleges of Arts and Sciences in UP Manila and Social Work and Development in UP Diliman also recognize the right to representation of students in crafting their respective college policies by allowing a representative of their college student council to sit as a member of their college executive committees. Through the years, both college administrations and their students had achieved mutual benefit and cordial relations as a result of this, as each party’s differences in policies and perspectives are discussed at the onset, precluding unnecessary tensions and fostering an amicable yet principled atmosphere in these colleges.

It is this same principle and policy that the students seek to implement in different levels of university administration. As such, we demand that a member of the college student council be given a seat in the executive committees of their respective colleges in the UP System, following the CAS UP Manila or the CSWCD UP Diliman model of student representation. The student representation demanded shall also extend at the UP autonomous unit level, where a member of the University Student Council shall be given a seat to the autonomous units’ executive committee.

The Necessity of Collective Action by the Student Organizations and Students

In the history of the University, the Iskolars ng Bayan have always sought to let our voices be heard by the UP Administration and the Board of Regents whenever we present reasonable demands, especially as we celebrate our Centennial year and the existence of UP Charter provisions affirming the role and rights of students in the University. In this regard, we submit this policy paper in the hope that the UP Administration and the Board of Regents favorably consider the demands presented above.

We wish to state unmistakably the general sentiment of our student organizations on the entire matter –

At the center of this entire democratic rights campaign and policy paper is our deep concern on the tacit yet insidious effects of these student org policies, particularly the pacification of critical dissent of students in the University, not only on university issues such as the tuition and lab fee increases, but also on national affairs such as the present economic crisis felt by the Filipino people today.

By precluding student organizations from meeting with fellow students in large assembly areas such as theaters and auditoriums due to high rental rates, the flow of collective unities and criticisms of policies are not as efficient as it had been in decades past. By precluding student organizations from gathering in their tambayans and offices, the requisite consolidation, planning and empowerment of org members are not substantially met. By precluding student orgs from being recognized, its existence as trailblazers of change and reform are ultimately stunted by a seemingly interventionist administration.

In the ultimate analysis, the only way for the students to decisively win this struggle is by uniting with each other in principle and action, and assert its rights to the UP Administration and the Board of Regents.

We refer back to the story of the UP students in the late 70s and early 80s, when in the darkest days of the dictatorship, they stood up and struggled united in reestablishing the student councils, publications, and organizations and affording all these institutions indispensable rights and privileges that are now being systematically reversed by the UP Administration.

Today we shall stand up again. As we celebrate UP’s Centennial year, there is no better time to act than now.

UP Diliman Summit

[This is an invitation from the Office of the Student Regent, with regards to the Diliman Summit on July 3, 2008, Thursday at the Bulwagang Tandang Sora at the College of Social Work & Community Development (CSWCD).]

Sa kasalukuyan, ang bansa ay lugmok sa sami’t saring krisis sa pinakamataas na antas. Ang bawat sektor sa lipunan kahit hindi na banggitin pa, ay tahasang nadarama ang paniniil ng mga ito: magmula sa bigas para sa kaning ihahain sa hapag magpahanggang sa kuryenteng babayarin kada buwan. Walang mabanaag na anumang ginhawa at ang pamahalaang dapat na siyang nangangalaga sa kapakanan ng mamamayan ay nakatuon lamang sa sarili nitong mga interes.

Sa panahong ito, matindi ang pangangailangan na magsama-sama sa paninindigan ang kalakhan ng mamamayang pinagsasamantalahan upang matuldukan na ang pang-aabuso.

At saan pa nga ba magsusumula ito kundi sa pagsasabi, pagtatalaban at paghuhugpungan ng mga isip ng masang inaapi?

Sa kabatirang ito, nais kayong anyayahan ng Opisina ng Rehenteng Mag-aaral sa UP Diliman Summit, isang pagtitipong magsisilbing tagpuan ng iba’t ibang sektor ng Unibersidad ng Pilipinas, kasama ang mga Iskolar ng Bayan, sa pagsasawika at pagtalakay ng kani-kaniyang mga usapin at suliranin.

Ang nabanggit ay dudulo sa pagsasa-akda ng mga resolusyong kolektibong tatanganin sa patuloy na pagbaka sa sistema. Ito po ay gaganapin sa ika-3 ng Hulyo, 2008 magsimula ala-1 hanggang alas-4 ng hapon sa Bulwagang Tandang Sora sa College of Social Work & Community Development (CSWCD) sa Unibersidad ng Pilipinas - Diliman.

Inaasahan po ang inyong pagpapaunlak sa napapanahong pagtitipong ito. Inaasahan din po ang inyong pakikilahok sa July 10 National Youth Boycott. Mangyaring may iba pang alalahanin o katanungan, maari ninyo po akong maabot sa 981-8500 loc. 4511 to 12 o sa sabdulwahid@gmail.com.

Maraming salamat po!

SHAHANA E. ABDULWAHID
Rehenteng Mag-aaral, Unibersidad ng Pilipinas

A Most Memorable LCC Meeting

Last Friday, May 2, The League of College Councils (LCC) of UP Diliman was officially convened by USC Vice Chairperson Airah Cadiogan. The meeting, which aimed to introduce the LCC and its functions to the newly-elected college student councils in UP Diliman, was the first for the Academic Year 2008-2009 and was hosted by the College of Education Student Council.

However, the unwelcome news of a blackout in the UP area resulted in a slew of logistical adjustments that saw the council members in attendance ushered from one bigger and brighter classroom to another. But when finally settled in the most conducive (given the conditions) room to hold the meeting, the more or less 50 council members coming from 17 different colleges went straight to business.

The USC Vice Chairperson delivered her brief welcome remarks to officially open the meeting, after which personal introductions of each council member in attendance were given. Copies of the LCC constitution were then distributed to the different councils and the principles, powers and duties, composition, and other functions of the LCC were subsequently opened for discussion.

The next item on the agenda was the UP Student Regent’s (SR) report to be delivered by SR Shahana Abdulwahid. However, as SR Abdulwahid had fallen ill after weeks of travel, Airah read the SR report to the councils.

SR Abdulwahid stressed three concerns that UP councils should be vigilant about: the recent signing and implementation of the new UP Charter; the ongoing and pending demolition of communities in the UP Diliman campus, and the related UP-endorsed MMDA road widening project that is putting such demolitions into effect; and the newly approved laboratory fees in different courses and colleges. The SR called for college councils to be at the frontline of defending students’ rights. They should be the body that will inform, guide and involve all students in issues and activities that will invariably affect the UP Community.

Also, SR Abdulwahid invited all councils to attend the National Council (NC) Meeting organized by the Office of the Student Regent thru KASAMA sa UP, the UP system-wide alliance of student councils. The NC Meet will take place in UP Cebu on May 22-23 with a registration fee pegged at P600 per delegate. SLIS Representative Hazel Rodelas, who is the chairperson of KASAMA sa UP, spoke on the primary objectives of the NC Meet and asked councils to schedule an orientation for further details.

The meeting then proceeded to the USC Committee reports beginning with Councilor Jaque Eroles for the Student Rights and Welfare (STRAW) Committee, Councilor Beverly Lumbera for the Ad-hoc Committee on the revision of the UPD Student Council Election Code, Councilor Bang Dizon reporting for CSWCD Representative Carmela Lagang for the Community Rights and Welfare (CRAW) Committee, and Councilor Joseph Gutierrez for the Ad-hoc Committee on the rehabilitation of Vinzons Hall. Finally, Councilor Eroles stood in for Ms. Ipay Bolibol of Youth Act Now, the national broad alliance of youth organizations standing for truth and accountability in the government and demanding the resignation of Pres. Arroyo, to share their upcoming events and campaigns.

For about half an hour from the committee reports, the meeting carried on in the dark, punctured with cellphone flashlights and other improvised means of casting some brightness on written notes and others’ faces. Eventually, however, it became too tedious to carry on with the meeting. Thus, the first LCC meeting was prematurely adjourned in light (pun intended) of the unfortunate conditions.

Consequently, College Councils’ Reports are now slated to be discussed in the next meeting, which was tentatively scheduled on the second week of May. Confirmation of the exact time and date shall be disseminated through the official LCC mailing list (to be created by Vice-Chairperson Cadiogan).

In closing, all college councils were reminded to 1) set venues for the USC projects and campaigns to most effectively reach out to and involve their respective constituents, 2) ensure that all given documents will be distributed to students in their colleges, 3) submit their council directory as soon as possible to Airah at airah.cadiogan@yahoo.com, 4) finalize their summer-June calendar of activities, and 5) properly report back to their councils all that had been discussed in the 1st LCC meeting.