What can you say about this year's University Student Council election results?

As a formation, ALYANSA and its local college counterparts participate in Student Council elections as a manifestation of its commitment to student empowerment. We have always believed that a Student Council is a very important venue to lead students towards a holistic brand of leadership --- a Student Council with campaigns on issues, activities that animate involvement, and services that are relevant to students' welfare.

ALYANSA's victories are not just its own, but these are victories that belong to the students. From the many colleges that make up the University, ALYANSA's call of "Kasama Ka" resonated loud and clear. Students elected a dozen ALYANSA leaders to the University Student Council. The College of Engineering followed by electing ARISE to a rousing victory, by clinching the positions of ESC Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson. The College of Architecture selected Blueprint to lead the next Architecture Student Council. Of course, the College of Social Sciences and Philosophy handed BUKLOD CSSP its eighteenth straight year of leadership. In other colleges, from Science, Business Administration, Law and Economics, among many others, ALYANSA stalwarts clinched numerous positions in their respective local councils.

Nonetheless, we believe that winning elections is only the first step towards change. ALYANSA is committed to show that its call "Kasama Ka", and the promise of inclusion, becomes a reality. We are committed to work hard, work across party lines, work amidst difficulties, in order to deserve the mandate UP students have given the formation.

What do you think about endorsements given by individuals and groups to parties during elections?

We consider elections as good opportunities to define our platforms, as well as demonstrate our brand of leadership. Consistent with our principles, we engage in the elections as a venue for greater student empowerment. Of course, given the nature of elections, we also recognize the reality that parties also compete in informing the general public, hoping to attract the broadest support from students.

Therefore, as part of this annual democratic exercise, ALYANSA welcomes like-minded individuals and groups who support the formation. Nonetheless, consistent with its pillars, as well as its progressive, multi-perspective character, ALYANSA conditionally recognizes endorsements as long as it does not compromise the integrity of the formation. We welcome endorsements from individuals and groups with established credibility, and who can account for their actions to the public. We also reserve our judgment to turn down some of these endorsements, in certain instances, when it compromises our formation's integrity.

This is ALYANSA's way of ensuring that this democratic exercise remains credible, as we strive to maintain our integrity to the public. We always lay down our credibility on the line every time we conduct ourselves to the public, and it is our commitment to maintain this credibility as we engage in the USC elections.

ALYANSA is said to be defending the CSSPSC in their issue regarding the Student Regent issue. Could you clear this up?

Straight up, stating that the CSSPSC is "our CSSPSC" does not mean ownership, or implying that the entire Council is affiliated with ALYANSA. We just wanted to say that the Council is OUR Council, everyone's Council, regardless of which affiliation its members belong to. If this has caused some confusion, we apologize. We all don't want to get caught in wordplay that muddles real debate. 

With that settled, we go back to the CSSPSC's issue. Once more, we reiterate our major points that we raised in our previous comment:

1. The entire CSSPSC is NOT affiliated with ALYANSA.
2. Members affiliated with Buklod CSSP (an ALYANSA affiliate), who are incumbents in the CSSPSC, did get elected into office carrying their principles. Among these principles are the commitment to reform the CRSRS. This commitment was translated into action by pushing for amendments in order to improve the current CRSRS;
3. These amendments were pushed by the Council officers concerned through informal consultations, considering the logistical difficulties at the moment the decision was made.

While the current Council members involved did admit shortcomings in launching full-blown consultations regarding this issue, it does not depart from the fact that they submitted themselves to the process of the protest, and the ensuing hearing, no matter how painful it is. It can be said that they acted in accordance to their principles; now, as these principles were called into question, they became accountable as student leaders.

We reflect at this point. These same student leaders, who acted in accordance to their principles, are now being criticized for their action. Nonetheless, the student leaders who chose not to attend the General Assembly, and would protest through their own partisan groups, are now being rewarded for their inaction.

Add to this the conduct in which the petition that circulated in the College was made. While we agree that it is totally condescending to allege that everyone who signed the petition was misinformed, the truth that a number of students were misled into signing it puts the entire effort in bad faith.

That is the rationale behind ALYANSA's clarification regarding the role of the CSSPSC officers concerned in the CRSRS issue. We are just defending the members of the CSSPSC who acted in accordance with their principles. Once more, we thank the concerned individuals and groups who wanted our clarification. 

Some are asking about ALYANSA's advocacy to include a Staff Regent in its UP Charter campaign. Could you clarify this?

Once more, ALYANSA thanks the individuals who want to clarify the issue of our participation in the UP Charter campaign. The interest generated by this matter proves our commitment to keep our elections at the level of issues. 

To answer the question, let us go back to ALYANSA's commitment to revise the UP Charter. Back in 2003, ALYANSA was the only formation to have taken a definite stand to revise the UP Charter proposals. While we did not see eye to eye with the UP Administration (who wanted to pass the pending bills at the Senate then), and some student groups (who wanted to junk it entirely), ALYANSA took the approach of pushing for progressive provisions by revising the proposed bills.

One such provision is the inclusion of a Staff Regent, consistent with our principle of genuine sectoral representation in our highest policy-making body. With other progressive provisions, ALYANSA pushed for their passage by supporting a counterproposal pushed by its USC leadership back in 2004. The formation, as well as the USC, participated in Technical Working Groups organized for the purpose of passing a new UP Charter bill. Until its signing to law in 2008, ALYANSA was the only formation who participated in the painstaking process of passing the UP Charter, by issuing a definite stand on the matter, as well as initiating efforts to lobby for the passage of its progressive provisions.

In the end, we could say that this is progressive multi-perspective activism at work. Even as we don't necessarily agree with our counterparts, we engage them in substantive debate. Even as we encounter the imperfections of our institutions, we do not just complain --- instead, we forward progressive and reasonable alternatives. 

ALYANSA claims to have advocated revisions for the UP Charter. What are those revisions?

The UP Charter is an important document, being a guide to the University as its most basic set of rules and regulations. As an institution celebrating more than a hundred years of existence, it has recently revised its Charter as a response to changing times. As a case in point, the original UP Charter mentioned the "Governor-General" of the Philippines --- a throwback to American rule, which highlighted its outdated nature.

Way back in 2003, when efforts to change the UP Charter were met by some student groups with knee-jerk condemnation, ALYANSA led the University to a more rational debate even as it differed with the UP Administration on fundamental issues. Instead of immediately calling for the junking of the UP Charter, ALYANSA called for key revisions that would make the Charter pro-student and pro-University. Some of these key revisions are the following:

1. Affirming UP's nature as a National University, which enshrined the government's moral responsibility to maintain UP as an institution;
2. Reducing Malacañang appointees to the Board of Regents (from five, it is down to three), and including a Staff Regent, in order to maximize sectoral participation in the University's decision-making;
3. Allowing the University to productively use its idle assets, subject to conditions that would preserve its integrity as an institution;
4. Enshrining student rights by explicitly stating the requirement for student councils, a General Assembly of student councils system-wide, and the selection of a Student Regent.

These revisions found its way into the 2008 UP Charter, which ALYANSA first championed back in 2003, carried by its ALYANSA-led USC in 2004, and followed up by the formation until its passage in 2008, with ALYANSA leading the USC's helm.

This present UP Charter forms one of ALYANSA's enduring legacies to building UP's institutions, through a painstaking commitment for reform and progressive change. Even as we recognize the imperfections of our institutions, and the fact that we don't see eye to eye with our counterparts, we are committed to upholding substantive debate, realizing the gains that we could achieve in the process.

What is ALYANSA's take on the use of University assets, and the accusation of its main opponent that it is "pro-commercialization"?

ALYANSA has believed in the PRIMACY of state subsidy in funding the needs of UP as an institution. On the other hand, given the many assets of the University, which have been derived from the sweat of the people, it is our responsibility to become able stewards of these resources. Hence, the productive use of UP's idle assets should be viewed as a duty to maximize the University's resources. Instead of an inflexible position of branding the productive use of idle assets as a "pro-commercialization" stance, ALYANSA has put forward conditions that would not compromise the University as an academic institution, and yet maximize the use of its assets. 

1. The "core academic zone", consisting of existing academic buildings and their vicinities, should be maintained by limiting productive use efforts in these areas;
2. Income from the productive use efforts should go directly to the University;
3. The rights of the surrounding UP community, as well as the rules and regulations of the University, should be taken into consideration AT ALL TIMES.
4. The UP Administration, most importantly, should attempt these efforts in a spirit of democratic consultation and transparency. Falling short of these should merit opposition from the UP community as it implies bad faith.

In ALYANSA's point of view, these conditions present a more practical approach to dealing with utilizing the University's idle assets rather than sticking to an inflexible position that clearly ignores the realities faced by UP.

There are issues raised by a few students about the CSSPSC's stand on the CRSRS. What do you say about this?

For a decade, ALYANSA and its member-organizations have rallied for reforms in the Codified Rules for Student Regent Selection (CRSRS). Our position stems from the fact that we need a more democratic process in selecting the Student Regent, who is our ONLY representative to the University's highest governing body. 

In a nutshell, here are our core demands: (1) a MINIMUM academic requirement for SR nominees consistent with University rules, (2) a one-college, one-vote system for selection that would uphold the representative nature of the SR, and (3) opening up the SR selection process by delegating the Secretariat to the General Assembly of Student Councils, instead of a political alliance. Through the years, we have also demanded for including the duties of the Student Regent in our CRSRS, among other points. Nonetheless, these reforms point out to our big idea: to make the SR selection process truly democratic. In fact, the present controversy concerning our Student Regent points out the need to reform the system, which is admittedly imperfect.

This is the big idea on which our local candidates in the CSSPSC campaigned for and won. Being elected carrying this position on the CRSRS enabled our CSSPSC to conduct informal consultations and submit our basic commitments for reforming the process. We do recognize the need to do more in extending ourselves for formal consultations, but the existing constraints then (such as the week-long suspension of classes due to typhoon Ondoy near the end of the filing deadline) rendered this option impractical at that moment. Nonetheless, the CSSPSC's moves have been done in a transparent manner, in accordance to principle and procedure. This is in direct contrast to the protest filed by groups pushing for the removal of the CSSPSC officers on their commitment to this issue, which has been proven to have gathered many signatures in a fraudulent manner that misinforms the students who signed the petition.

Indeed, ALYANSA's stand on the CRSRS has been marked with a fundamental difference --- a commitment to reform, as well as a transparent, accountable manner of pushing for it.

Criticisms on ALYANSA's stand on the STFAP continue to circulate in UP. Can you say something about this?

We in ALYANSA welcome a discourse on University matters, which certainly proves our maturity as an electorate who values issues over personalities. In the interest of aiding this discourse, we have two points:

1. The big idea behind our STFAP stand is social justice. We are guided by the principle that those who can afford should share the burden of paying tuition in order to extend subsidies to students who need it most. This is the foundation of our position advocating a genuine socialized tuition policy, which truly benefits students from the lower brackets.
2. It is not true that ALYANSA supported the STFAP bracketing system proposed by the UP Administration. Contrary to what others claim, ALYANSA lobbied hard in order to reform the STFAP system in favor of the students. Our STFAP Under Protest (click on this LINK for more information) campaign reflected this stand which was IN OPPOSITION to the UP Administration's, and our past positions prove this. In fact, even the UP Administration led by UP President Roman found our position harsh, but we believed that only through a genuine socialized tuition policy could make UP's education more accessible for all.

Indeed, this stand makes ALYANSA the only formation to ground its position on principled, logical and contextual standpoints. 

Someone told us about your founding faculty adviser’s issue as regards your choice of standard-bearers this year. What do you say about this?

The essence of inviting the UP community to a partnership of principle, embodied by our call “Kasama Ka”, is to demonstrate our ability to build bridges amidst differences.

The real test of any invitation comes when it is met by a different response than what you originally hope for. Differences in position have always existed WITHIN, and AMONG parties in campus. We believe that it is an opportunity, not a setback. In this light, and consistent with being open to each other, we remain hopeful that any differences we have will be settled in the near future.

For the meantime, we remain committed to the task at hand -- that is, to communicate that ALYANSA’s brand of leadership remains the most relevant to students and the UP community.

-----

Stories have been floating about a different account of the party’s selection process for this year’s standard-bearers. There are even other stories about the party in general. What is your take on it?

In a mature democracy, parties are vehicles for spirited yet civil debate, in the hope of ensuring lively participation in the political process. While parties certainly have differences AMONG its members, they come together as one in the pursuit of their principles. Parties, while valuing openness, also operate on the basic trust that their members would be promoting the party’s ideals.

Hence, “very reliable sources” claiming to “represent” a party, while issuing statements that are clearly detrimental to its well-being, must be first subjected to skepticism. It is easy to issue statements under the cloak of anonymity, but it is even harder to substantiate these without consulting the parties themselves.

We dare these “independent” sources to substantiate their claims, and come out in the open in order for these issues to be threshed out. True, we may not agree with the other parties in campus most of the time, but we believe that ALL THREE OF US be treated fairly and with respect.

What is ALYANSA’s position regarding the current issue of the Student Regent?

We have been informed that Ms. Bañez is currently unable to discharge her functions as our representative in the Board of Regents, as she has not enrolled in UP for this second semester. Consequently, this inability to enroll removes her status as a UP student, which is a fundamental requirement to become a UP Student Regent.

On this student issue, we have three demands:

1. The UP Administration must uphold student autonomy, and allow us to resolve this issue among our ranks;

2. Ms. Bañez should personally explain her side to us, the students, her constituents in the Board of Regents; and

3. The University Student Councils of each UP unit should immediately call on their local college counterparts and convene AT ONCE a special General Assembly of Student Councils (GASC) in order to select her replacement.

This is a call for action. We are one with the student body, regardless of political color, to resolve this matter immediately. We recognize that we are the stakeholders for the Office of the Student Regent (OSR) – Kasama tayo sa OSR – and it is our responsibility to act now.