Iskolars For Truth

GASC 2011: On the Alleged Online Campaign to 'UNSEAT THE SR'

2011-12-22T10:16:00.002+08:00

December 21, 2011, 12:20PM: ALYANSA Chairperson Tin Borja received text messages from council members in the General Assembly of Student Councils (GASC) clarifying if ALYANSA is indeed moving for the "Unseating of the Student Regent". This is due to the announcement made by the Student Regent in the GASC where ALYANSA is alleged to have started an online campaign to UNSEAT THE SR.

As of 12:40PM, ALYANSA Chairperson, in a phone conversation with the Student Regent clarified that the no such move is being done by the formation. The SR has announced the same to the body.

As the formation is directly implicated, we strongly condemn these false accusations against the formation that we are for the unseating of the Student Regent. We are disgusted that any group can sink this low to spread such lowly rumors against the formation.

ALYANSA believes in safeguarding our democratic right to representation in the University's policy-making bodies and other avenues. Hand in hand with this is securing transparency and accountability in all levels of student government in pursuit of student empowerment. With this, we remain steadfast in our commitment to work towards strengthening student institutions through principled methods of engagement and never through counterproductive means.

We call upon all the students to remain vigilant and critical with the flood of false rumors being propagated. Albeit divides and differences in debates, ALYANSA will continue to engage the institution that is the OSR through legal, constitutional, and substantial means, as we have done so in the past.

Iskolar para sa Bayan, kasama ka sa malinis at marangal na laban para sa pagpapatibay ng demokrasya sa Opisina ng Rehente ng mga Mag-aaral.

UP ALYANSA's clarificatory statement regarding a news article by Manila Standard Today

2011-09-24T19:53:00.004+08:00

In light of the news article by Manila Standard Today entitled "UP students, faculty launch 3-day strike" where UP ALYANSA was reported to have led the budget mobilization which occurred last Wednesday (to quote: "The UP-Alyansa ng mga Mag-aaral Para sa Panlipunang Katwiran at Kaunlaran led the walk along the academic Oval area and marched on the 2.2-kilometer oval to demonstrate their unity against the cut in the school’s budget and the budgets of other state universities and colleges," italics added), we forward the following clarifications:

1. In our Press Release dated September 21, 2011, it was clearly stated that UP ALYANSA NEVER CLAIMED to have led the budget mobilization. We quote: “UP Alyansa ng mga Mag-aaral para sa Panlipunang Katwiran at Kaunlaran (ALYANSA), one of the participants in the university-wide strike, appeals to the government to increase the UP budget and invest more in education” (italics added). UP ALYANSA HOLDS NO CONTROL over the editing and writing of news articles in major print and TV media.

2. After being made aware of the said article, UP ALYANSA immediately contacted the writer of the said article requesting for an erratum for immediate publishing. We have attached a link of our Press Release distributed to all print and TV media, and another article published by Sun.Star Manila correctly reflecting what we forwarded.

3. UP ALYANSA believes that investing in our people via a higher education budget is a collective struggle that transcends our political colors or parochial concerns. It is a collective struggle that no single person, no single group, or no organization can merely lay claim to. It is a collective struggle that UP ALYANSA is in, together with the education sector, as we stake the claim for our future.

Iskolar para sa Bayan, kasama ka sa pagkamit ng quality, relevant, at accesible education.
INCREASE THE UP BUDGET, INVEST IN EDUCATION.

LINK TO UP ALYANSA'S PRESS RELEASE, “Government should adopt '6%-of-GNP to education' standard in PH - UP protesters”: http://www.facebook.com/notes/up-alyansa/press-release-21-september-2011-government-should-adopt-6-of-gnp-to-education-st/10150394599370775

LINK TO THE MANILA STANDARD TODAY NEWS ARTICLE, "UP students, faculty launch 3-day strike": http://www.manilastandardtoday.com/insideNews.htm?f=2011%2Fseptember%2F22%2Fnews5.isx&d=2011%2Fseptember%2F22

LINK TO THE SUN.STAR NEWS ARTICLE, “Government urged to allot 6% of GNP to education” - ALSO BASED FROM UP ALYANSA’S PRESS RELEASE: http://www.sunstar.com.ph/breaking-news/2011/09/21/government-urged-allot-6-gnp-education-180624

No Lies, No Contradiction: ALYANSA on Anakbayan UPD's statement regarding CARPER

2011-08-09T15:43:00.003+08:00

UP ALYANSA has always been with the marginalized, oppressed and powerless in pursuit of social justice and social progress. We therefore lament the latest statement of Anakbayan UP Diliman which attacks our article on agrarian reform in the July 2011 issue of the ALYANSA Newsletter. In their statement, Anakbayan UPD brands our position regarding the Hacienda Luisita farmers and the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program Extension with Reforms (CARPER) law as 'anti-farmer'.

We condemn, for the nth time, the misinformation being disseminated by these people who pride themselves as 'true student leaders'. To quote from their statement:

"May we remind these pseudo-progressives, that the CARPER itself enabled the SC to decide in favor of a sham referendum. The fabled stock distribution option (SDO) in Chapter 1 Section 3.a of the former CARP Law was maintained in the CARPER version.

SECTION 3. Definitions. - For the purpose of this Act, unless the context indicates otherwise (a) Agrarian Reform means the redistribution of land… such as production or profit-sharing, labor administration, and the distribution of shares of stock…”

The Constitution explicitly stipulates and mandates that landless farmers and farmworkers should "OWN directly or collectively THE LANDS they till" (1987 Constitution: Article XII, Section 4; capitalization ours). In the belief that the stock distribution option (SDO) provision was a loophole inserted by the landlord bloc into the old CARP law (Republic Act 6657), CARPER authors and advocates made it a point to address the said provision in the new law (Republic Act 9700).

The stipulation of the implementation of the principle of “actual physical possession” when awarding land directly avoids non-distributives schemes like the Stock Distribution Option given that stocks are not considered actual physical possession. According to Section 9 of RA 9700 (effectively amending Section 24, ‘Award to Beneficiaries’ of RA 6657), “The rights and responsibilities of the beneficiaries shall commence from their receipt of a duly registered emancipation patent, or certificate of land ownership, and their actual physical possession of the awarded land." Section 10 of RA 9700 (effectively amending Section 25 of RA 6657) further provides that, “In general, the land awarded to a farmer beneficiary should be in the form of an individual title, covering one contiguous tract or several parcels of land cumulated up to a maximum of three (3) hectares.”

Furthermore, under the new law, only two modes of acquisition are recognized: Voluntary-Offer-to-Sell (VOS) and compulsory acquisition (Section 5) as affirmed by the recent SC decision (G.R. 171101) which states that, "It may be well to note at this juncture that Sec. 5 of RA 9700 amending Sec. 7 of RA 6657, has all but superseded Sec. 31 of RA 6657 vis-à-vis the stock distribution component of said Sec. 31. In its pertinent part, Sec. 5 of RA 9700 provides: '[T]hat after June 30, 2009, the modes of acquisition shall be limited to voluntary offer to sell and compulsory acquisition.' Thus, for all intents and purposes, the stock distribution scheme under Sec. 31 of RA 6657 is no longer an available option under existing law.”

Our position for CARPER implementation, therefore, is not contradictory but complementary with our call for the immediate distribution of lands in Hacienda Luisita. After twenty years of CARP marred with flaws, the CARPER law became in unison with our Constitution in saying that agrarian reform is essentially about giving away lands, not stocks.

In the end, UP ALYANSA agrees with their statement that land distribution has been painstakingly slow, and their pronouncement that politics of credit-seeking without concrete and effective action should be assailed. In light of this, we challenge Anakbayan UPD to join us in helping the farmers and the government in the efficient and effective implementation of the only existing law on agrarian reform, which is the CARPER law.

The Iskolars para sa Bayan have already thrown their support behind CARPER. Four years ago, we marched in UP Diliman with the Sumilao farmers who walked more than 1,000 kilometers from Bukidnon on foot to push for the recognition of their lands as agricultural lands and the enactment of CARPER. Three years ago, we marched to the House of Representatives with the Calatagan farmers of Batangas, also to forward the swift passage of CARPER. With only three years before CARPER reaches its expiration, it is high time for Anakbayan UPD and other student groups to be in solidarity with farmers, labor unions, non-government organizations and even the Church in fully realizing the potentials of CARPER, including the distribution of lands in Hacienda Luisita.

Iskolar para sa Bayan, kasama ka sa pagkamit ng hustisyang pang-agraryo sa pamamagitan ng CARPER.

STFAP Under Protest!

2011-06-14T01:31:00.003+08:00

We thought we were faced with a new endeavour, a new evil that spreads fear among our ranks. But, once again, we were wronged and were made fools as we believe the news that some groups claim to be true.

FACT: Last April 8, the UP Administration issued a memorandum declaring that they will use a "revised Socialized Tuition Fee Bracket B Certification for distribution to incoming freshmen students during the Registration Period for the First Semester AY 2011-2012". The additional requirements are: (1) Income Tax Return (ITR) for the last year or, a copy of the employment contract if parent(s) is/are Overseas Filipino Worker(s); and (2) Vicinity map of the family residence. The certification is also required to be notarized.

LIE: The default bracket for incoming freshman students during the Registration Period AY 2011-2012 is Bracket A (or P1,500/unit).

FACT: According to the Office of the Vice President for Academic Affairs (OVPAA, UP System) and the Office of Scholarships and Student Services (OSSS, UP Diliman), the default bracket for STFAP remains at Bracket B (or P1,000/unit).

We condemn the groups within the University who are spreading fear among the students, in general, and the freshmen, in particular. We encourage our fellow and incoming Iskolars Para Sa Bayan to keep themselves informed and to not let themselves be a victim of misinformation.

But this does not keep us from pushing for a just, progressive, and socialized tuition policy. We condemn the already flawed Socialized Tuition and Financial Assistance Program, and the manner by which this memorandum was issued. Again, the primary stakeholders of the University weren't consulted given the additional requirements to avail the base tuition, a clear violation of Students' Rights and Welfare.

As we have said since 2008, we have waited long enough for the UP Administration to rectify its severe errors. This period has long expired. Let us not stand idly as another year goes by when more and more deserving students are deprived of access to UP education.

Let us show everyone, especially the UP Administration, that our payment of tuition is not an expression of our conformity to their erroneous policies. Let us show that we have PAID UNDER PROTEST against policies that prejudice us and our fellow Iskolars Para Sa Bayan.

PUSH FOR A JUST, PROGRESSIVE, AND SOCIALIZED TUITION POLICY!

June 14, 2011

In Good Faith

2011-05-21T23:59:00.000+08:00

The USC WATCH is a project initiated by UP ALYANSA. Simply, it provides a blow-by-blow account of the ongoing USC Committee Deliberations plus announcements and updates on projects of the USC. The WATCH aimed to be non-partisan in providing updates on what the USC is doing inside and outside of the GA. It aimed to bring the USC closer to the students, and aimed to make the USC the transparent and accountable institution that it's supposed to be.

Sadly, not everyone can work in the spirit of good faith albeit this is what their words profess. During the Committee Deliberations of the USC dated May 18, 2011, Wednesday, members of the University Student Council manifested their strong opinions against the WATCH. Their points ranged on the implications of the WATCH are as follows:

1. The updates were partisan and biased.

2. Several Council members who are not members of ALYANSA were made to look bad by misquoting them and/or taking what they were saying out of context.

3. The Watch is stepping on the rights of the USC to provide updates to the students, specifically, it was stepping on the rights of the Secretary General and the Mass Media Committee to do their duties effectively.

4. The Watch provided a venue for the students to bash other USC members. It was promoting a culture of disrespect given the insults thrown at the USC members.

5. Members of ALYANSA were cited as doing criminal acts of libel, given the claimed misquotes in the WATCH, and stealing of intellectual property, given the uploaded committee proposals of various USC members without their permission.

6. Members of ALYANSA who were doing the WATCH were threatened that cases of libel and intellectual property rights violation would be filed against them should they continue with the WATCH.

We in ALYANSA manifest our strong disappointment and dissent to the USC's reaction with regard to the WATCH, and the USC's action to curtail an independent and autonomous formation, no matter how politically-oriented it is. The words hurled at the formation, plus the threats that we received make us shudder at the curtailment of our rights as an organization to forward a project that was initiated in good faith to bring the USC closer to the students and live through our continuing vision— "Kasama Ka sa USC, Kasama ka sa ALYANSA."

With regard to the forwarded implications of members of the USC, here is what we have to say:

We aimed for the updates to be non-partisan. The posts simply reflected what members of the USC articulated during the Deliberations. However, we do not claim perfection that is why we have always been open to corrections. There were multiple ways to correct the updates— i.e. via commenting, or communicating with any of the members of ALYANSA. We never aimed for any members of other political formations to look bad, nor did we aim to make members of ALYANSA in the USC look good. We only posted and reported what we witnessed. Again, as stipulated many times in our disclaimer, the posts in the USC WATCH are unofficial. We encouraged the students to check the official minutes of the USC meetings prepared by the Secretary General to be able to countercheck our posts. Despite our nature as a political formation, and despite the fact that given our nature whatever we post will always be seen as biased no matter how unbiased we try to be, we can only hope that our acts be seen and recognized in good faith.

We agree, however, that the WATCH became a venue for different groups to attack the USC members, which we tried to prevent by posting constant reminders in the page to only make relevant and responsible comments; and deleting negative comments. In the end though, everyone still has the right to forward whatever they have to say with regard to our public leaders. The fact that the Council members are elected publicly and popularly already subjects them to a wider scope of scrutiny and they should be open-minded enough to hear criticism at its worst and praises at its best. We can only do so much in controlling these comments.

With regard to the criminal accusations—we abhor these threats and unthought-of words. To accuse an organization that you are supposed to represent in the USC with multiple criminal threats without even trying to consult first or talk to it privately to address the issue is a strong contradiction to the ideals and principles that the USC is supposed to uphold. To mindlessly accuse us of libel when there was no malicious intent, to indict us with theft of intellectual property by posting the proponents’ General Plans of Action when, owing to the fact that these proposals are the USC's plans for the students, they should be open to the public is disappointing for an institution that is supposed to be transparent and accountable.

In the end, the comments of our USC is very much noted and still respected in spite of the fact that the same respect cannot be shown to us. This statement is to formally inform the USC in an open response that we will continue with the WATCH not for our own partisan interest—which is a very low assumption of why we're doing this – but because and only because we believe that the highest representative body of UPD which is our USC should continue to uphold transparency, accountability, responsibility, and accessibility.

To address the concerns raised though, the following actions will be taken:

1. Should there be any comments or corrections with regard to the WATCH, the members of the Executive Committee posted in the page may be contacted for corrections.

2. The students are still highly encouraged to check and countercheck the updates from the USC WATCH with the USC Updates and to check the official minutes of the meetings of the USC.

3. The moderators will delete negative and senseless comments to prevent attacks on our USC members.

ALYANSA remains to be an independent, autonomous and principled political formation, and we ask for the USC to recognize this. The USC WATCH will resume tomorrow beginning with posts from the Committee Deliberations on the Basic Student Services Committee dated last May 18, 2011.

A Call for Principled Politics

2011-02-16T10:00:00.005+08:00

BLUE, YELLOW AND RED STANDARDS unfurl once more as the campaign for the University Student Council (USC) election heats up. Ideally of course, the USC election campaign should be an opportunity to raise the level of democratic discourse by focusing on platforms and principles.

Nonetheless, the past two weeks have seen new lows in electoral campaigning, whether inside or outside campus, including online and social networking venues. While other parties have been quick to profess their integrity, mudslinging has become the norm of electoral campaigns. Many supporters, who in many ways reflect the party they come from, have been so heartless in tearing others down.

ALYANSA is deeply concerned, hurt and disappointed that it has to come to this. We have long realized that students are sick and tired of this endless bickering among their student leaders. This lack of integrity and dignity in conducting campaigns does not help students in any way. Indeed, if we are to open our institutions to greater participation from students, parties must first bring back civility in student politics.

As ALYANSA has always called on its counterparts to practice principled politics, it also appeals to the best in UP students. We call on students to reject the politics of poison and affirm decency. We pray that students choose their candidates, not on their fears and apprehensions, but on the basis of their hopes and aspirations. The USC is a historic institution that has represented the best of the University. The least we can do is to offer the best of ourselves in an election campaign, for students who look up to us deserve nothing less.

What is your stand regarding the leadership crisis in the University Student Council?

2010-12-13T11:28:00.003+08:00

ALYANSA believes that being a student leader is commendable, as one who chooses a life of service to his fellow students often sacrifice for their good. In seeking student empowerment, which is one of our core principles, student leaders sacrifice their time, effort and even money in order to pursue causes that are bigger than themselves. For those reasons, we thank our student leaders, regardless of their political affiliation or color, because they heeded the call to serve.

Nonetheless, being a student leader also means having to set a higher bar for oneself, in order to cope up with the demands of being a STUDENT, and being a LEADER. None has to be sacrificed, if one is to be up to the task of being a student leader. Hence, if a student leader manages to sacrifice his academics, to the point of academic delinquency, he does a disservice, to the students that he serves, and the nation that provides for his education.

Let us be clear that this issue regarding the leadership crisis in the University Student Council is NOT PERSONAL. It is an issue of principles, of holding oneself accountable. If the University Student Council is still bent on upholding the USC Chairperson's tenure, in spite of clear rules mandating that he relinquish his post, they are squandering their integrity and moral ascendancy. True enough, some colleges have already expressed their position for the USC Chairperson to resign, else they will not recognize the Council as a truly representative body.

We reiterate our call for our USC Chairperson to uphold honor and excellence. We call on him to muster his courage, do the right thing, and resign from his post. To do nothing less is not a shame, but a badge of integrity.

What has ALYANSA done regarding the UP budget cuts?

2010-12-06T11:06:00.004+08:00

Caption: This reply by Rep. Maricar Zamora is one of the letters we have received supporting our call to oppose the budget cuts to UP and other State Colleges and Universities.

ALYANSA has always stood for accessible, quality and relevant education. As such, with the current state of our tertiary education sector, budget cuts to UP and other State Universities and Colleges (SUCs) do serious harm to the effort of providing such education. We recognize that opposing budget cuts, in solidarity with other groups and sectors of the UP community, as well as the whole tertiary education sector, is the way to ensure accessible, quality and relevant education.

As a formation, ALYANSA has encouraged its members to attend the student strike last month, as a way of recognizing that this issue transcends political affiliations and party lines. More importantly, as a concrete way of addressing this issue, ALYANSA, led by its Vice-Chairperson for Student Rights and Welfare (VC STRAW) Will Del Rosario, has trooped to the House of Representatives and the Senate to lobby and present its position against the budget cuts. With its actions, ALYANSA demonstrated its principle of progressive multi-perspective activism, one that is willing to work beyond political affiliations and party lines, and recognize other forms of participating in issues.

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

2010-02-25T11:01:00.005+08:00

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?

2010-02-22T16:59:00.006+08:00

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?

2010-02-22T09:37:00.011+08:00

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:

The entire CSSPSC is NOT affiliated with ALYANSA.
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;
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?

2010-02-22T08:56:00.005+08:00

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?

2010-02-21T12:39:00.006+08:00

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:

Affirming UP's nature as a National University, which enshrined the government's moral responsibility to maintain UP as an institution;
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;
Allowing the University to productively use its idle assets, subject to conditions that would preserve its integrity as an institution;
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"?

2010-02-21T12:15:00.006+08:00

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.

The "core academic zone", consisting of existing academic buildings and their vicinities, should be maintained by limiting productive use efforts in these areas;
Income from the productive use efforts should go directly to the University;
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.
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?

2010-02-21T11:09:00.006+08:00

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?

2010-02-21T10:40:00.006+08:00

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:

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.
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?

2010-02-08T21:38:00.001+08:00

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?

2010-02-02T21:40:00.000+08:00

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.

Iskolars For Truth

2010-01-29T00:27:00.000+08:00

As we approach the University Student Council elections, it is important that we talk about our issues in a candid manner, without resorting to mudslinging towards our opponents.

This site is our formation’s honest effort to answer misinformation, and elevate our electoral discourse to issues, rather than lies and defamation. Here are some of our candid answers to pressing issues.

Dito sa ALYANSA, kasama ka sa pagiging kritikal.

-----

Someone from ALYANSA once said, “napapanahon na ang tuition increase…” Is that true?

Related to the proposal to reform the STFAP or the tuition bracketing scheme, ALYANSA has always stood by its principle of SOCIAL JUSTICE. Applying social justice to the tuition bracketing means that those who could afford more in life should be able to share with the burden of studying in UP, in order to extend the University's limited means to poorer, more deserving scholars.

If SOCIAL JUSTICE meant raising the tuition of those who could afford more, and indeed can SHARE THE BURDEN more, so that the deserving could continue to enjoy their subsidies, then it’s a principled and practical solution. However, it doesn’t stop there. Ultimately, efforts must be undertaken in order to ensure that the University’s bracketing system maximizes the subsidies given to deserving scholars.

-----

ALYANSA did not field a College of Arts and Letters Representative to the USC. Someone even said that ALYANSA saw no “electoral opportunity” in CAL, hence the result of not fielding a candidate. What do you say about that?

Fielding candidates to the University Student Council are both questions of principles and logistics. We field candidates who share ALYANSA’s passion for leadership with values. Our members, on the other hand, do their best to nominate students who can be tapped to lead the next USC.

We fully realize that there is no shortage of students who share ALYANSA’s passion. However, we would be candid in saying that we are not a perfect party, and we have our own shortcomings. Nonetheless, we try our best to represent students in every college through our principles -- embodied by our volunteers and members who are in EVERY college, sharing our passion and values.

“Electoral opportunity” or otherwise, our principles remain our motivation. It is the reason why ALYANSA remains to be the best alternative to the USC, for majority or not, we remain the most hardworking party offering the broadest range of services to our fellow students.

-----