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.

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.

Iskolars For Truth

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.

-----