Principled disagreement and anonymous black propaganda: A challenge

Over the past few days, I have been receiving reports of anonymous efforts to bring down Alex Castro in the race for USC Chair. As a fellow candidate and in behalf of UP ALYANSA, I wish to voice my strongest condemnation against these malicious attempts.

The campaign is a time not just to show off each candidate's and each political party's strengths and victories, but also a time to educate and to engage in a healthy, passionate, and principled discourse.

In the earlier part of this week, members of ALYANSA made a principled disagreement with Alex Castro's citation of wrong information on the sin tax law. Rooted in our advocacy to make this campaign more about platforms and less about personalities, we demanded an apology from Alex Castro and a retraction of the misinformation that the 15% allocation for tobacco farmers has been stricken off the sin tax law. To this day, we have not received any apology or retraction; so, our principled disagreement and demand continue.

But when a supposed screenshot of an alleged chat conversation between Alex and a "friend" cropped up, I was personally disappointed. Today, a perverted statement entitled "Sex Will Fix" was released in different areas in campus.

These are exactly what ALYANSA has been campaigning against. While we make sure to maintain our principled disagreement with Alex Castro and KAISA on the level of issues and platforms, efforts like these serve as roadblocks to our dream of an informed student body.

The anonymity of these efforts reveals exactly their purpose: Nothing more than to regress to personality politics and blur this campaign into becoming a pageant of reputations rather than clear platforms. I personally challenge the people behind these efforts to come into the open and make a principled choice to inform, rather than to maliciously attack. I challenge the people behind these to reveal their identities and the USC Chair candidate they support, if any, so the students may decide for themselves what to make of the propaganda.

As student leaders, it is our duty to inform and shape the debates in campus to become a discourse of principles, integrity, ideology, and platforms. This campaign is not about me; it is not about Alex Castro's alleged chat messages or motives. This campaign is about the students and their right to make an informed choice on their next University Student Council.

Carlo Brolagda
ALYANSA USC Chairperson candidate
February 20, 2013

Abusing the Right to Free Speech: A Response to the Death Threats Directed to USC Chair Heart Diño

UP ALYANSA strongly condemns the death threats directed to USC Chairperson Heart Diño.

Heart Diño, being the Chairperson of the University Student Council, is a public figure to the student body. She has the right to act and voice her opinions in her personal capacity, yet her actions will always be subjected to public scrutiny. Recently, her actions and opinions have received such criticisms and contentions. We respect this circumstance but for several cases it has gone too far: certain people have threatened to hurt or even kill her. These cases exceed what is warranted as free speech or opinionated criticism. These threats of violence must not be tolerated.

The first few death threats came immediately after Heart’s election as USC Chair. Although these threats were made online, they must not be taken lightly. For one, a certain Rey Refran is calling for others to participate in her assassination. The violent tone is evident as he threatened to “plant a bullet in her” and even offered to personally “be the hitman”. Aside from these, several comments also attack Heart on the aspect of her gender, referring to her derogatorily. Such violent and despicable statements cannot be accepted. Although we exercise the right to free speech, this right must be exercised responsibly; criticism can be reasonably presented without violence or prejudice towards any person's gender, race, beliefs, etc.

As Iskolars para sa Bayan, we cannot condone such threats of violence. We must be careful to ensure that the criticisms we present are sensible and sensitive, not promoting violence or hate.

On the "zero fraternities in UP" news report: A clarificatory statement from UP ALYANSA

In the nightly newscast "State of the Nation with Jessica Soho," a GMA News reporter said that one of the platforms of ALYANSA in the upcoming University Student Council is, to quote, "zero fraternities in the University of the Philippines." ALYANSA did not make any such statement, and would like to reiterate that while it is for "zero tolerance on fraternity-related violence," the formation is not pushing for the elimination of fraternities inside the university.

For the information of everyone.

In Good Faith

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

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.

---

---

---

---

---