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.

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. 

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.

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.