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UP Charter mentioned the "Governor-General" of the Philippines --- a throwback to American rule, which highlighted its outdated nature.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.