I received this message from a classmate through a class ygroup, and I replied to clear up some "myths" they apparently "busted". I just want to question some things they mentioned here and help explain things to you if you have received a similar email.
Here is the complete excerpt, and my reply follows each "myth".
Just to be clear, I am not doing this because I am favoring any political ticket. I think it should be made clear that the SR Referendum is a STUDENT ISSUE. It has nothing to do with what political party we are supporting. There shouldn't be a divide among us, not when student representation on the highest policy making body of the university is at stake. (I know the election's drawing near and everything, but you [and the authors of this mythbusters thingy] should realize that the SR referendum hasn't anything to do with that)
Myth # 1: The question in the upcoming referendum is "Do you still want student representation in the Board of Regents?".
Observation: The Student Regent herself, in a statement released last January 16, stated that the one and only question in the upcoming referendum will be: "Do you approve of the existing Codified Rules on Student Regent Selection (CRSRS) as rules and qualifications to govern the selection of our student regent to the UP Board of Regents?" [Yes] or [No]
Status: Busted.
On "Myth" # 1: I never knew that there were rumors circulating about what the question will be, but right now, I think the question is pretty much final. And there is a rationale why it is the question decided upon by the OSR.
Myth #2: The Office of the Student Regent will be abolished if the NO vote wins in the upcoming referendum.
Observation: The upcoming referendum may only have an effect on the rules that we use in selecting the Student Regent. In no way may a vote of NO by us in the referendum abolish the said office – a position created by law and which may only be abolished by a subsequent law.
Status: Busted.
On "Myth" # 2: Yes, the OSR will not be abolished. But the question is, will there be a regent to hold office? So, what will we do when the referendum fails? Do we ask Shan to stay until we can draft a new set of rules? She can only possibly hold office as SR as long as she's a student, but what happens when she's no longer a student and the rules are still not final?
Myth #3: The students will never have a CRSRS (Codified Rules on Student Regent Selection) if the NO vote wins.
Observation: The UP Charter (sec. 12 [1.g.]) specifically states that the Student Regent shall be chosen by the students in accordance with the rules and qualifications approved in a referendum by the students. Nothing in the law states that a vote of NO will bar any rules for selecting the SR from being set. A NO vote is a edict by the students that they reject the old CRSRS as the rules in selecting the SR, and therefore is a command that a new one must be proposed before them for their approval.
Status: Busted.
On "Myth" # 3: There was never a claim that there will be no CRSRS if "NO" wins. However, it certainly puts a lot of uncertainty to the selection process itself. For one, the proposal of certain parties for "NO with amendments" is practically impossible. Why? If students already reject the old set of rules by saying no, how can they move to amend it? What will probably happen if "NO" wins is that, we will draft a new CRSRS which will, again, be subject to a new referendum. There can be no new student regent until this new set of rules are approved. If "YES" wins, meanwhile, the student regent selection will take place this year and we will elect a new regent. Then, by October, the General Assembly of Student Councils (GASC) may propose the very amendments that they are requesting in their call for "NO with amendments." Isn't it more logical to say yes now and propose amendments afterward, instead of saying no with all the uncertainties of what may happen if no wins (e.g., new rules subject to referendum, admin intervention, no student regent)?
Myth #4: There will no longer be any Student Regent if the NO vote wins.
Observation: We again look at the law. The UP Charter (sec. 12 [1]) states that the Board of Regents shall be composed of, among others, one Student Regent. By law (Lecaroz v. Sandiganbayan) a public officer is entitled to stay in office until his (or her) successor is chosen and has qualified. In other words, the current Student Regent may temporarily hold over her position until her successor is selected through a legitimate set of rules.
Status: Busted.
On "Myth" # 4: As I've already said, yes, the current SR may indeed hold over the position. But what if she's no longer legible for the position [i.e. she's no longer a student]? Who will take over while the rules are still being drafted? And that's where the danger comes in, since the whole process of drafting a new set of rules will invariably be time-consuming (it will, again, be subject to a referendum), that we are not sure if Shan will still be around by the time a new set of rules are established. And without the CRSRS (new or not), we have no official mechanism to select a new regent.
Myth #5: Assuming that the NO vote wins, if the current Student Regent graduates or resigns from her post, it will be the administration who will select her successor. Our independent representation in the BOR is in danger from attacks through admin-intervention.
Observation: Let us quote Section 12 (1 [g]) of the UP Charter: "One Student Regent, to serve for a term of one (1) year, chosen by the students from their ranks in accordance with rules and qualifications approved in a referendum by the students;" There is no question that the law mandates that only the students may choose the Student Regent. Any act by the administration to appoint the SR will surely be annulled by the court due to it being contrary to law.
Status: Busted.
On "Myth" # 5: "One Student Regent, to serve for a term of one (1) year, chosen by the students from their ranks in accordance with rules and qualifications approved in a referendum by the students;" the charter says. But since the rules will be discarded if "NO" wins, who could say what would happen? We might say that the chances of the administration appointing a regent is pretty slim, but there is still a possibility that there will be no regent until the new rules are finalized if the "NO" vote wins.
Myth #6: We will have no Student Regent to represent us if the NO vote wins and the current Student Regent eventually graduates or resigns because the process to select the SR has been rejected by the students. No rules = no process = no Student Regent shall be selected.
Observation: The UP Charter has also given us a remedy for this situation. Section 12, paragraph 2 of the said Charter states that in case of vacancy, such shall be filled in the same manner as provided for her predecessor. In as much as the current Student Regent may temporarily hold-over her post until her successor has been selected through a valid set of rules, the current CRSRS may also be temporarily retained as the rules to select a temporary Student Regent until an official one has been selected through a legal set of rules.
Status: Busted.
On "Myth" # 6: Sure, you can do that. But isn't that hypocritical—using a set of rules which have already been rejected by the students (if, again, NO wins)? So what's the point of rejecting a set of rules you are willing to use in case of emergency? Why not just say yes and move for amendments later?
Myth #7: The councils failed to recommend their amendments on time. The deadline for filing amendments is set by the CRSRS on the first day of October. No proposals were given to the OSR before such date.
Observation: It may be true that the first day of October is indeed the deadline for submitting proposed amendments under the old CRSRS. However, we must also take the following into consideration:
a. The practice for the past ten years is for the GASC to convene twice annually: once in October to approve the CRSRS (and any amendments proposed thereto) and again in December to select the SR by implementing the rules approved during the October session. The wisdom behind setting the October 1 deadline, therefore, must have been to ensure that all proposals are submitted before the October GASC session. For everyone's information, the October 2008 GASC was unilaterally cancelled by the SR due to the upcoming referendum.
b. The Student Regent circulated letters to the local student councils indicating her intention to visit each one of them from October until December, to consult on what must be done in the referendum. It is not difficult to imagine that any rational student council at that point believed that the SR's agenda at that time, among others, must have been to seek suggestions on the probable referendum question. Considering that the at the SR's scheduled consultations with the said councils the October 1 deadline would have already lapsed, one may logical infer that the October 1 deadline must have been also suspended together with the October GASC session.
c. Article V, section 1 of the CRSRS mandates the SR to inform all student councils, through official memo, of all pertinent information vital to the process of selecting the Regent. A new law was passed commanding that the rules for selecting the SR must be passed in a referendum. A rational SR must have concluded then that the councils are in a state of limbo on how to go about selecting the said rules. The presumption of regularity has been shattered. Yet, despite this state, the SR still failed to inform the student councils that the October 1 deadline still stands.
Status: Plausible.
Here is the complete excerpt, and my reply follows each "myth".
Just to be clear, I am not doing this because I am favoring any political ticket. I think it should be made clear that the SR Referendum is a STUDENT ISSUE. It has nothing to do with what political party we are supporting. There shouldn't be a divide among us, not when student representation on the highest policy making body of the university is at stake. (I know the election's drawing near and everything, but you [and the authors of this mythbusters thingy] should realize that the SR referendum hasn't anything to do with that)
MYTHBUSTERS
Myth # 1: The question in the upcoming referendum is "Do you still want student representation in the Board of Regents?".
Observation: The Student Regent herself, in a statement released last January 16, stated that the one and only question in the upcoming referendum will be: "Do you approve of the existing Codified Rules on Student Regent Selection (CRSRS) as rules and qualifications to govern the selection of our student regent to the UP Board of Regents?" [Yes] or [No]
Status: Busted.
On "Myth" # 1: I never knew that there were rumors circulating about what the question will be, but right now, I think the question is pretty much final. And there is a rationale why it is the question decided upon by the OSR.
Myth #2: The Office of the Student Regent will be abolished if the NO vote wins in the upcoming referendum.
Observation: The upcoming referendum may only have an effect on the rules that we use in selecting the Student Regent. In no way may a vote of NO by us in the referendum abolish the said office – a position created by law and which may only be abolished by a subsequent law.
Status: Busted.
On "Myth" # 2: Yes, the OSR will not be abolished. But the question is, will there be a regent to hold office? So, what will we do when the referendum fails? Do we ask Shan to stay until we can draft a new set of rules? She can only possibly hold office as SR as long as she's a student, but what happens when she's no longer a student and the rules are still not final?
Myth #3: The students will never have a CRSRS (Codified Rules on Student Regent Selection) if the NO vote wins.
Observation: The UP Charter (sec. 12 [1.g.]) specifically states that the Student Regent shall be chosen by the students in accordance with the rules and qualifications approved in a referendum by the students. Nothing in the law states that a vote of NO will bar any rules for selecting the SR from being set. A NO vote is a edict by the students that they reject the old CRSRS as the rules in selecting the SR, and therefore is a command that a new one must be proposed before them for their approval.
Status: Busted.
On "Myth" # 3: There was never a claim that there will be no CRSRS if "NO" wins. However, it certainly puts a lot of uncertainty to the selection process itself. For one, the proposal of certain parties for "NO with amendments" is practically impossible. Why? If students already reject the old set of rules by saying no, how can they move to amend it? What will probably happen if "NO" wins is that, we will draft a new CRSRS which will, again, be subject to a new referendum. There can be no new student regent until this new set of rules are approved. If "YES" wins, meanwhile, the student regent selection will take place this year and we will elect a new regent. Then, by October, the General Assembly of Student Councils (GASC) may propose the very amendments that they are requesting in their call for "NO with amendments." Isn't it more logical to say yes now and propose amendments afterward, instead of saying no with all the uncertainties of what may happen if no wins (e.g., new rules subject to referendum, admin intervention, no student regent)?
Myth #4: There will no longer be any Student Regent if the NO vote wins.
Observation: We again look at the law. The UP Charter (sec. 12 [1]) states that the Board of Regents shall be composed of, among others, one Student Regent. By law (Lecaroz v. Sandiganbayan) a public officer is entitled to stay in office until his (or her) successor is chosen and has qualified. In other words, the current Student Regent may temporarily hold over her position until her successor is selected through a legitimate set of rules.
Status: Busted.
On "Myth" # 4: As I've already said, yes, the current SR may indeed hold over the position. But what if she's no longer legible for the position [i.e. she's no longer a student]? Who will take over while the rules are still being drafted? And that's where the danger comes in, since the whole process of drafting a new set of rules will invariably be time-consuming (it will, again, be subject to a referendum), that we are not sure if Shan will still be around by the time a new set of rules are established. And without the CRSRS (new or not), we have no official mechanism to select a new regent.
Myth #5: Assuming that the NO vote wins, if the current Student Regent graduates or resigns from her post, it will be the administration who will select her successor. Our independent representation in the BOR is in danger from attacks through admin-intervention.
Observation: Let us quote Section 12 (1 [g]) of the UP Charter: "One Student Regent, to serve for a term of one (1) year, chosen by the students from their ranks in accordance with rules and qualifications approved in a referendum by the students;" There is no question that the law mandates that only the students may choose the Student Regent. Any act by the administration to appoint the SR will surely be annulled by the court due to it being contrary to law.
Status: Busted.
On "Myth" # 5: "One Student Regent, to serve for a term of one (1) year, chosen by the students from their ranks in accordance with rules and qualifications approved in a referendum by the students;" the charter says. But since the rules will be discarded if "NO" wins, who could say what would happen? We might say that the chances of the administration appointing a regent is pretty slim, but there is still a possibility that there will be no regent until the new rules are finalized if the "NO" vote wins.
Myth #6: We will have no Student Regent to represent us if the NO vote wins and the current Student Regent eventually graduates or resigns because the process to select the SR has been rejected by the students. No rules = no process = no Student Regent shall be selected.
Observation: The UP Charter has also given us a remedy for this situation. Section 12, paragraph 2 of the said Charter states that in case of vacancy, such shall be filled in the same manner as provided for her predecessor. In as much as the current Student Regent may temporarily hold-over her post until her successor has been selected through a valid set of rules, the current CRSRS may also be temporarily retained as the rules to select a temporary Student Regent until an official one has been selected through a legal set of rules.
Status: Busted.
On "Myth" # 6: Sure, you can do that. But isn't that hypocritical—using a set of rules which have already been rejected by the students (if, again, NO wins)? So what's the point of rejecting a set of rules you are willing to use in case of emergency? Why not just say yes and move for amendments later?
Myth #7: The councils failed to recommend their amendments on time. The deadline for filing amendments is set by the CRSRS on the first day of October. No proposals were given to the OSR before such date.
Observation: It may be true that the first day of October is indeed the deadline for submitting proposed amendments under the old CRSRS. However, we must also take the following into consideration:
a. The practice for the past ten years is for the GASC to convene twice annually: once in October to approve the CRSRS (and any amendments proposed thereto) and again in December to select the SR by implementing the rules approved during the October session. The wisdom behind setting the October 1 deadline, therefore, must have been to ensure that all proposals are submitted before the October GASC session. For everyone's information, the October 2008 GASC was unilaterally cancelled by the SR due to the upcoming referendum.
b. The Student Regent circulated letters to the local student councils indicating her intention to visit each one of them from October until December, to consult on what must be done in the referendum. It is not difficult to imagine that any rational student council at that point believed that the SR's agenda at that time, among others, must have been to seek suggestions on the probable referendum question. Considering that the at the SR's scheduled consultations with the said councils the October 1 deadline would have already lapsed, one may logical infer that the October 1 deadline must have been also suspended together with the October GASC session.
c. Article V, section 1 of the CRSRS mandates the SR to inform all student councils, through official memo, of all pertinent information vital to the process of selecting the Regent. A new law was passed commanding that the rules for selecting the SR must be passed in a referendum. A rational SR must have concluded then that the councils are in a state of limbo on how to go about selecting the said rules. The presumption of regularity has been shattered. Yet, despite this state, the SR still failed to inform the student councils that the October 1 deadline still stands.
Status: Plausible.
On "Myth" # 7: I don't think the SR alone should be blamed for the fact that the GASC meet in October failed to materialize. The new Charter has indeed thrown student institutions in limbo. But had the meeting/deadline for amendments happened, would it have made any difference? (As far as I know, the amendments being proposed by several groups now has been presented over and over again in the GASC in the past, but they never were approved.) Does this justify your decision to vote no and try to railroad the amendments you have failed to enact in the past (I won't even dwell on the ludicrity of the amendments being proposed)?
No comments:
Post a Comment
Got something to say? Say it now.