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.

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.

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

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 UP. Among the rights won in the aftermath of the students’ successful campaign included the beneficial use and possession of fully-functional tambayans and offices, the free use of university facilities and equipment, and the relaxation of the procedural restraints in org recognition. The university, then, encouraged all types of student organizations to re-eastablish their presence and engaging all the others to form their organizations based on their own interests and advocacies. This is in the presumption that student activities play a vital role in the learning process and training of UP students as future leaders of our nation.

However, the centennial year of UP is marked by the dismal state of student formations, despite the token pronouncements by the UP Administration of its the importance. In UPLB, there had been no student council elections due to the forcible insistence of UPLB Chancellor Velasco to impose a UPLB USC constitution which betrays the principle of autonomy of student institutions. Publications also experienced administrative interventions in the past, from handling of funds to the appointment of its editor-in-chief. Equally disadvantaged are student organizations in the university. In UP Diliman, only about sixty tambayans are currently occupied by university-based organizations, leaving a larger number of organization without tambayans. Those fortunate enough to acquire tambayans do not have lighting, have leaking roofs, poor ventilation, and continues to face threats of eviction. Aside from these, they also face the issue of exorbitant rental fees in the use of university facilities and equipment that hampers their different activities. Another is the issue of rigorous and taxing recognition process of student organizations due to requirement of member quota per department of college, stringent application process, and the unreasonable banning on the basis of their political nature.

We assert 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 therefore imperative for the UP administration provide all student organizations fully-functional tambayans.

We believe that 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. 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. While we concede that these definitely constitute a cost to the university, this must be viewed as beneficial costs in pursuit of the holistic academic development of its students. We therefore demand that the University administration remove rental rates for the use of all its facilities and equipment not only to student councils and publications, but to student organizations as well.

Recent happenings show 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. We assert for the right to self-organization, where anyone cannot dictate the classes of student organizations that may be recognized by the University, in the presumption that organizations all engage in lawful and noble activities with lofty goals and objectives for the university and the country as well.

As with the systemwide campaign for the rollback of tuition, the fight to reclaim the rights of student organization shall also have a systemwide character, as the problems confronted by the organizations are practically the same in all UP units. It is clear that amongst the most tacit yet insidious effects of these student orgs policies would be the pacification of critical and collective dissent of students in the University, not only on UP issues such as the tuition and laboratory fee increases, but also in national affairs such as the present economic crisis felt by Filipinos today. By precluding student organizations from using facilities that shall strengthen their existence and from being recognized, their existence as trailblazers of change and reforms are ultimately stunted by an interventionist administration.

In the ultimate analysis, the only way for students to decisively win this struggle is by uniting with each other in principle and in action. We refer back to the story of UP students in the late 70s and early 80s, when the darkest days of the dictatorship, they stood up and struggled united in re-establishing the student councils, publications, and organizations and afforded all these institutions indispensible rights and privileges that are now being systematically reversed by the UP administration.

It is time to stand up today. In the UP’s centennial year, there is no better time to act that today.

Students Rights & Welfare Committee
University Student Council

UMAKSYON
Ugnayan ng Mag-aaral Laban sa Komersyalisasyon

The demands herein declared were supported through a manifesto signed by the heads and representatives of 111 student organizations, fraternities and sororities, and was given to the Board of Regents (BOR) on their July 31, 2008 meeting in UP Manila. UP President Emerlinda Roman, in immediate response to the demands, remanded the petition’s fate to the Chancellors’ jurisdiction and discretion.

What to do with chronically absent & late instructors

As the academic year begins, it is important that students are aware of their rights inside and outside the classroom. As such, it is imperative that students know the remedies available at their disposal whenever they encounter some difficulties with their instructors or professors. Hereunder are the guidelines released by the Office of the Chancellor that will allow students to report absenteeism and tardiness among the faculty:

1. Students are encouraged to call the attention of the dean concerned about faulty members who are frequently absent or tardy.
2. The dean is enjoined to act on the report of the student(s) within five (5) days and, whenever possible, to give the student(s) feedback on the action he/she has taken.
3. If after five (5) days the dean fails to act on the report, the student is advised to call the Chancellor’s hotline for this purpose.
4. Students are requested to limit their reports or complaints to the following issues:
   • faculty members who do not meet their classes regularly;
   • faculty members whor eschedule their classes permanently wihtout authorization from the Dean’s office;
   • faculty members who come to class late for more than three times, and with ‘late’ being defined as coming in later than ten minutes after the start of the official class time;
   • faculty members who are not available during the scheduled consultation hours for more than two times; and
   • faculty members who dismiss their classes too early, i.e. earlier than 15 minutes before the scheduled end, or too late, i.e., later than 15 minutes after the scheduled end.

   In making these reports, students must cite specific facts, such as the name of the faculty member, dates when he/she was absent or late, number of times that he/she was absent or late, class schedule and classroom number. This will facilitate the verification of the complaint.

5. to ensure the success of this project, the students are strongly advised not to misuse this privilege and to follow the guidelines above.

The USC’s Students’ Rights & Welfare Committee and the Students’ Legal Aid & Action Committee are also willing to extend their help to students who wish to air their complaints and grievances.

The local numbers below are accessed through UP Diliman’s trunkline at (63)-(02)-9818500.

POST-SCRIPT: Some of the contact details, taken from http://www.upd.edu.ph/tardy.htm are apparently outdated

UNIT	HOTLINE	EMAIL	CONTACT PERSON
Architecture	5161, 5135	uparchi@arki.upd.edu.ph	Minda Maraan, Grace Razon
Arts & Letters	6736	jwcapili@cal.upd.edu.ph mitaka@mailexcite.com	Jose Wendell Capili Aurora Carandang
Asian Center	9261821/5243 9203535/5143	armando_jr.malay@up.edu.ph normita.recto@up.edu.ph	Armando Malay Normita Recto
AIT	9269477	upait@compass.com.ph	Asuncion Laraya
Business Ad	9297991	elvira.zamora@up.edu.ph	Elvira Zamora Ida Patimo
Education	6432	rcsoria@ced.upd.edu.ph	Robinson Soria
Engineering	4343641 9283144 5620	ega@engg.upd.edu.ph jonat@engg.upd.edu.ph	Edgardo Atanacio Jonathan Salvacion
Economics	9205461	rdanao@econ.upd.edu.ph	Rolando Danao
Fine Arts	4348218, 7024	esilarde@cfa.upd.edu.ph	Elvie Silarde
Home Economics	9202091, 6063 6942, 6972, 9261552, 9202089, 6925, 6973	chedean@che.upd.edu.ph ocs@che.upd.edu.ph heed@che.upd.edu.ph hrim@che.upd.edu.ph flcd@che.upd.edu.ph fsn@che.upd.edu.h ctra@che.upd.edu.ph	Cristina Flor Galvez Carolyn ronquillo Elsa Orlina Lourdes Catral Liza Redoble Mialgros Querubin
Human Kinetics	4381, 4276, 4554, 4837, 4555, 4937	gluy@chk.upd.edu.ph mdraguilar@netscape.net binkyqd@chk.upd.edu.ph	Gilda L. Uy Mynett Aguilar Marie Eloisa Ulanday Artemio Isidro
Islamic Studies	5556	jwadi@islamic.upd.edu.ph neng@islamic.upd.edu.ph	Julkipli Wadi Cristina Carden
Law	5545		Patricia Daway
Library Science	6751	jcc@ils.upd.edu.ph	Josefina Cervas
SOLAIR	4213, 9286396	didi.agustin@upd.edu.ph nicolas.barriatos@solair.upd.edu.ph	Lourdes Agustin Nicolas Barriatos
Mass Comm	4150, 4459	ejp@upd.edu.ph violeta.umali@up.edu.ph	Ellen J. Paglinauan Violeta Umali
Music	4053, 9296963	mauricia.borromeo@up.edu.ph gemma.malicden@up.edu.ph	Mauricia Borromeo Gemma Malicden
Science	7174, 7400	csdean@csrc.cs.upd.edu.ph cssec@csrc.cs.upd.edu.ph	Rhodora Azanza Maritina Castillo
NCPAG	9261432, 9279085	ncpag@broline.com ednaco@cpa.upd.edu.ph	Edna Co
CSSP	6810	dekano@kssp.upd.edu.ph	Elizabeth R. Ventura
CSWCD	9298438, 5278	natividad.caparros@up.edu.ph	Natividad T. Caparros
Statistics	9280881	emma@stat.upd.edu.ph	Emma Dublin
SURP	9206854	luzviminda.rivera@up.edu.ph mary_ann.esporas@up.edu.ph	Luzviminda C. Rivera Mary Ann. P. Esporas
UPEPSF	9292009 (Diliman) 045-5992794 (San Fernando)		Rolando Garcia
ASP	9241836, 5270308	eusebio@skyinet.net	Eusebio Dizon
TMC	4262765	hsv@cba.upd.edu.ph hsv@upd.edu.ph tmcjep@info.com.ph	Helen S. Valderrama Ellen C. Cruz
Office of the Chancellor	9266942, 4003, 4902	daki@upd.edu.ph lulay@upd.edu.ph	Dakila A. Fernando Stella A. Francisco

On the eviction of Yakal-based tambayans

On June 4, 2008, Wednesday, the University Student Council (USC) held a meeting with the representatives of the student organizations with Yakal-based tambayans. According to the representatives, they were informed by the Vice-Chancellor for Student Affairs Elizabeth Enriquez through Office of Student Housing Director Ruby Alcantara that the organizations have no right to have their tambayans at the Yakal complex. According to them, Enriquez also said that the complex is no place for College of Engineering student organizations.

In a meeting with Dr. Alcantara last summer, some of the representatives who attended were told that they should leave the complex on or before May 31. The reps contended, however, that there had been verbal agreements between their org alumni and the Yakal administration that they can stay at the complex (though at the present meeting, the time frame was not specified). Still, as Dr. Alcantara added, no document can support their claim because the MOA (Memoradum of Agreement) is missing. Understanding their situation, the representatives now fear that their organizations might be forced to vacate the area anytime.

The USC and the Yakal-based organization now plan to conduct further investigations regarding the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). Furthermore, a statement of unity will be drafted, asserting to the OVCSA (Office of the Vice-Chancellor for Student Affairs) and the OSH (Office of Student Housing) that these organizations be retained and that a new MOA be drafted to ensure the security of their tambayans. A dialogue with Dr. Alcantara and Dr. Enriquez has been planned in the coming weeks. The Students Rights and Welfare Committee (STRAW) and the Committee on Dorms, Organizations, Fraternities and Sororities (DOFS) will also conduct a comprehensive study on the status of more than 200 student organizations and their tambayans.

Affected organizations are as follows: UP KAISA, PSME-UPSU, UP MSS, UP ALCHEMES, UP CVSF, UP SME, UP Subol, UP Navigators, UP Kapianan.

USC & Dorm Councils to Push for Collective Campaigns

The Students Rights and Welfare Committee (STRAW), under Councilor Jaqueline Eroles, held a preliminary consultation with the Dormitory and House councils last April 23, 2008 at the USC office. The activity aims to discuss with the councils and unite in a plan of action regarding the New Dormitory Admissions Policy implemented in UP Diliman last year. It also became a venue for dorm councils to voice out other concerns such as deteriorating facilities, poor services, proposed dormitory fees, and the new proposed rules binding to all residence halls in UP Diliman.

Common concerns raised regarding the new admission policy was the inefficiency of the whole process. Since applications are already made centralized through the Office of Student Housing (OSH), it resulted to certain inconveniences on the part of the students and staff. There were cases where some applicants were accepted in 3 dorms in which they did not apply for. Some male applicants were also approved for all-female dormitories. Another obvious inconvenience, according to the residents, was the excessively delayed release of application results resulting from the small number of staff in the OSH who had to review thousands of applications every semester. These problems were not encountered during the time when applications were decentralized.

Several recommendations and resolutions were agreed upon during the meeting. The USC and the house councils shall collectively campaign for:

1. The reinstatement of the powers of the dorm managers in admissions. A regulatory body can be established to fight corruption, irregularities and abuse, instead of centralized power vested in the OSH.

2. The review of pointing system in admissions and the transparency of results.

3. Dorm managers to have the power in approving activities. It would be more efficient and it offers a more sound decision than when the OSH does the approval.

4. The recognition that the House Councils are legitimate representatives of residents which are eligible in forwarding the concerns and campaigns of dorm residents.

5. The revival and strengthening of the Alliance of Concerned Dormitories

6. The transparency in processes–consultations should be done when new policies, fee increases and impositions are to be implemented.

7. OSH should be concerned in improving facilities and alleviating the resources of dormitories. It does not necessarily have to burden itself with applications every semester

These recommendations will be presented and lobbied at the Office of Student Housing this summer. Meanwhile, the USC STRAW Committee will further its study and investigation on the New Dorm Admissions Policy, including the Proposed Rules Governing Residence Halls in UP. There will be constant coordination with House Councils and Dorm residents, through dorm tours and consultations, to further ground these recommendations on concrete bases.