Towards A Better Selection Process:
The Engineering Student Council 2008-2009 Statement on the CRSRS Referendum

 

“(g) One Student Regent, to serve for a term of one (1) year, chosen by the students from their ranks in accordance with rules and qualifications approved in a referendum by the students;”

 

Based on the new UP Charter of 2008, Section 12g explicitly states that the Board of Regents must include a Student Regent, under the condition that the rules and qualifications for selection be approved by the students through a referendum. Clearly, RA 9500 gives due power to the students to assess the Codified Rules for Student Selection CRSRS), being that it is a step towards a more democratic and true student representation.

 

Direct democracy is one of the main rationales behind any referendum process. It seeks to see whether the proposal and/or amendment/s pass the standards of the public through a simple majority of votes.

 

Since its inception in 1997, the General Assembly of Student Councils (GASC) has battled over a myriad of amendments of varying natures. The past three (3) years have left the Codified Rules for Student Regent Selection untouched, thus possibly proving the primacy and validity of the Current Codified rules itself.

 

We, the Engineering Student Council, however, believes that the aforementioned Codified Rules have flaws that are not equivalent to the so-called primacy and validity of the Current Rules for selection. Over the past eleven (11) years, the amendments that have been proposed prove to be just, fair and representative of the very reason why the Office of the Student Regent was established: student representation.

 

On the Objective of Referendum

 

Before anything else, we have to know why this referendum is to be conducted. Republic Act 9500 states that the rules should be approved in a referendum. This simply means that the students are to choose whether they agree with the selection process or not. Students should primarily concern themselves if indeed, the selection process is valid or not. In essence, saying no to the referendum is not tantamount to the abolishment of the Office of the Student Regent.

 

On the Merit of Amendments

 

1.    Addition of Minimum Academic Requirement as per University Rule

 

To begin with, UP is an academic institution. Thus, most of our titles come with the word STUDENT. [I.e. Student Council, Student Leader, Student Regent]

 

We are students first. The addition of the minimum academic standing qualification in the selection would be more beneficial to the students, knowing that they have an assurance that the sole representation to the Board of Regents would serve as a role model not only of leadership, but also of to ensure that the Student Regent, by the time he/ she assumes office, is qualified to hold it.

The College Electoral Board has STRICTER rules to follow on academic requirement for Student Council candidates. In the local scene, you cannot run or even be nominated to file for candidacy in the Engineering Student Council if you were not able to pass 75% of your units during the previous semester. In the School of Economics Student Council, you have to have a GWA of 2.0. In the College of Social Sciences and Philosophy, you cannot have a 5.0 in the previous semester to be eligible for Student Council Elections.

The minimum standing academic requirement is very lenient on the part of the system. As long as one does not have any probationary status whatsoever prior to nomination, you fulfill the minimum academic standing. In numbers, at least 50% of your units passed during the previous semester. Thus, it is supposed to be relatively easy to achieve minimum academic standing, under the assumption that we are fulfilling our primary duty as students in this University.

 

2.    Removal of KASAMA sa UP

 

The Council recognizes that KASAMA sa UP has a historical role in the establishment of the Office of the Student Regent. We put this organization in high esteem as one of the organizations and/or alliances that fought for Student Democratic Rights and student representation. We, however, believe that with regards to the Office of the Student Regent, the very nature of the Office should not be affiliated with ANY political, academic, or any other, organization for that matter. Thus, KSUP should be removed in the provisions of the CRSRS. This will not only assure the students that the Student Regent will not lean towards any other ideologies, but to cast and remove any form of doubt on the OSR’s disposition.

 

3.    Electoral System of Voting for Student Regent Selection

 

The current system of voting is not proportional to the number of students per college. Thus, we believe that the Law Student Government’s proposal of electoral voting should be used; being that the population is the best measure of the votes to be cast per College. The population of the College is not tainted nor biased in any way.

 

4.    Three Year Effectivity of the CRSRS before ratification

 

The practicability of this amendment is at high level. Three years should be more than enough for the student body and the GASC to see if the selection process, upon amendments has been made, is reflective of the true essence of student representation or not. The annual amendment rule in the CRSRS proves not only to be taxing for the students, most especially if a referendum is to be made, but rather financially costly to College Councils whose location to the possible location of any GASC assembly is not as accessible as others.

 

The Engineering Student Council thus believes, after thorough review of RA 9500 as well as the current Codified Rules for Student Regent Selection, that the current Rules do not represent the very essence of student representation. The CRSRS is flawed, and it is imperative that this be manifested in this referendum. Our student regent should be our representation. We must then go back to what the University stands for.

 

The university’s culture has had a long history in the fight for Student Democratic Rights. However, we must also take into consideration the very reason why any University, let alone the University of the Philippines was established: education.

 

Our university is BOTH a center of educational excellence AND a forefront in student democratic rights. One cannot stand without the other.

 

This is the very essence by which the University stands for.

 

If the current CRSRS is used, will we be able to arrive at the Student Regent that best represents the students AND the University’s ideals? We beg to disagree.

 

Thus, we firmly believe that a vote of NO should be placed in the ballot.

 

Furthermore, the referendum should also involve two questions, being that the question “Do you approve of the current CRSRS? Y/N” is too simplistic and does not account the reason and plan of action should a no win the referendum. The addition of amendments as follow-up question should be implemented not only to guarantee the fairness of the process but also to ensure that a no will have a definite direction to follow.

 

The council steadfastly believes that the fight for student representation should forever be there. Democracy, as envisioned by its forefathers, should be the very inspiration by which we move forward with this referendum. Thorough scrutiny of the current working document should be made, and believe in the mandate of the students. We believe that in order to be able to reap the most honest and democratic results, we have to believe and make the students realize the truth amidst all this.

Not to shadow it with the fear of losing student representation, but stand for the very ideals that student representation, let alone the Office of the Student Regent was established to begin with:

 

Democracy. Integrity. Excellence.

I'm no longer a teen. Wee!