UNIVERSITY STUDENT COUNCIL University of the Philippines-Diliman Council Session No. 1
Date: June 6, 2011 Attendance: Roll Call started at 7:10pm : Not called during the first and second roll call
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.
Name Garcia, Jemimah Grace Ramos, Dan Neil Alcantara, Marie Catherine Banzon, Melvin Diño, Gabriel Escandor, Soraya Elise Fuentes, Jianica Therese Ligsay, Ace Loon, Jose Martin Melad, Amancio III Pangalangan, Raphael Recto, Mara Kristina Venturina, Ana Motohara Viray, Fra Angelico Santiago, Maria Shaina
16. Duque, Duchess Aleksei
17. Avila, Christine Ann
18. Cortez, Wesley Paul
19. Miranda, Paulina 20. Gupalor, Paolo 21. Mateo, Timothy James
22. Ildesa, Christian Rayson
Position Chairperson Vice-chairperson Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Asian Institute Tourism Representative College of Architecture Representative College of Arts and Letters Representative College of Business Administration Representative College of Education Representative College of Fine Arts Representative College of Home Economics Representative College of Engineering
Attendance 7:49pm -
23. Santos, Paulo Martin
24. Tiu, Simon Stephenson
25. Tiu, Michael Jr. 26. Orduña, Gail
27. Bautista, Patricia Isabel 28. Tan, Bea Helene 29. Ramos, Dan Christian
30. San Gabriel, Markus
31. Ongkeko, Antonio Rafael Jr.
32. Tagnipez, Christian Kelvin 33. Putong, Orly Van Andre
Time Started: 7:19pm Agenda: 1. Urgent campaign matters a. Chairperson’s report (StRAW) b. Vice Chairperson report (LCC) c. COFS report (Draft of Student Code) 2. Committee deliberations a. Student’s Rights And Welfare (StRAW) b. People’s Struggle
Representative College of Engineering Representative College of Human Kinetics Representative College of Law College of Mass Communications Representative College of Music Representative College of Science Representative College of Social Sciences and Philosophy Representative College of Social Work & Community Development Representative National College of Public Administration and Governance Representative School of Economics Representative School of Library and Information Science Representative
7:15pm
7:38pm
3. Committee reports proper a. Chairperson b. Vice Chairperson c. Committeeon Organizations, Fraternities, Sororities (COFS) d. Basic Student Services (BSS) e. Community Rights And Welfare (CRAW) f. Gender Committee g. Freshmen Committee (FreCo) h. Sports, Fitness and Health (SpoFiH) i. Mass Media Committee (MMC) j. Secretary General (SecGen) k. Finance Committee (FinComm) l. Ways and Means Committee (W&M) m. Special Events Committee (SpEC) 4. Other matters a. UP Lifestyle Planner b. Internal matters Legend: : Attendance Remarks : Topic : Dates to Remember
Urgent Campaigns: Chairperson Garcia started by saying that she had a dialogue late that afternoon with UP President Alfredo Pascual, Kasama sa UP representative Montie Dominguez, and former Faculty Regent Judy Taguiwalo regarding the unannounced tuition fee increase of P1,500 per unit instead of the default Bracket B of P1,000 per unit. It was already implemented to 950 freshmen students. The Memorandum of Undertaking is that if the student does not declare s/he is of Bracket A, there will be corresponding grounds for expulsion. This is only true for freshmen students but it was not cleared during the meeting what can possibly happen with the upper classmen. Chairperson Garcia said that the body must make a stand on this matter before the new memorandum is issued. Eng’g representative Ildesa asked if there are levels for expulsion. Chairperson Garcia responded that the grounds for expulsion were not clear but there are still offenses applied. If a student asks for a certification other than Bracket A, automatically s/he is applying for scholarship. If the administration has proven this to be not true, there is a penalty of expulsion.
Vice Chairperson Ramos said that the concern is very immediate and that there will be a lot of risks involved if the USC will not make a stand. Furthermore, he said that the administration is asking the students to rely on the Socialized Tuition and Financial Assistance Program (STFAP). However the problem remains that STFAP is not serving its purpose on assisting the students. Thus, what the body should stand for is actually a rollback of the tuition fee. Councilor Diño clarifies that before 2006, STFAP was already present in the system. She questions if the rollback is actually possible. Chairperson Garcia said that she asserted it during their meeting. She asked how open the administration is for a rollback. However, the administration’s answer is a firm no. What can only make the administration change their minds is through collective action from the students. Councilor Ligsay said that he thinks it is difficult to make a stand on the matter given the possibility that not all council members are knowledgeable about STFAP. He adds that the USC cannot make a statement regarding an unconsulted matter since not all students see STFAP as a burden but otherwise. The STFAP has beneficiaries ever since, and the body must look at the question of where this issue is actually rooted. Councilor Venturina said that the very root of why the council should make a stand is because the STFAP issue is branching out many problems at present. She asks the body the reason why the students actually have STFAP. Does it help the students? The government must have the kind of thinking of giving equal rights to the students. The government must provide for its responsibilities to the youth; and the STFAP does not provide for these since it is a smoke screen. It is a clear manifestation of state abandonment. It was clearly stated by former UP President Roman that the university is actually profiting 96 Million to be exact from the STFAP. From this alone, it can be seen that the STFAP is intended as an Income Generating Project (IGP). They can actually give this to the students but they choose not to. Thus, she says she sees the need that the USC should make a stand on the matter since it has been contested for years already, and the administration plays deaf about it. Councilor Escandor responded to Councilor Ligsay’s question of where this issue is rooted. She said that it is important to contextualize and historicize back to 1989 when the university had its first tuition fee increase. The STFAP was implemented “to alleviate” the burden of the students in paying the tuition. It is made acceptable to the students because of the low budget given. More so, it can be noticed that every time the number of people accepted in the lower brackets increases, student loans increase as well. There is a certain number system in where the highest is made to be 9. That is the principle of it all: those who are having a hard time paying their tuition fees, still have a hard time availing it, thus they resort to student loans. The University of the Philippines is a state university which its sole purpose is to cater to deserving students without looking at their financial statuses. Eng’g Representative Ildesa says that the way he sees it, STFAP is due to increasing needs of the university in terms of budget. He adds that he is not actually against the tuition fee increase, and he sees the STFAP as something that alleviates the burden on the side of the students. If it is a smoke screen mechanism, maybe it is reflective of the financial needs of the university.
Chairperson Garcia points an inquiry to the body if STFAP is okay as long as it is not of burden to the students, disregarding the fact that STFAP existed because of Tuition and Other Fee Increase (TOFI). Eng’g Representative asked if UP President Pascual suggested other alternatives for it. CMC Representative Orduña said that as long as STFAP is present in the system, the burden to the students continues. The university should take in consideration the students who are having a hard time processing the papers needed. Even those in the lower brackets are hard up in paying the tuition. There has been 380% increase of payment with the loaners. The difficulty of not having a rollback in the tuition fee is still present. She said that it is not impossible for a tuition fee rollback since if the body can remember, the university was able to achieve such kind during the budget cut strike. Even during the Martial Law, people were able to gain back their rights to organize through collective action. Vice Chairperson Ramos said that if the body can remember during Councilor Ligsay’s Basic Student Service (BSS) Committee deliberations grilling, he is for a transitory mechanism while pushing for greater state subsidy. It is de facto that the university has high tuition fee due to the technicalities of STFAP. If the body lets this continue for a longer time, there is a possibility that in the future, there will no longer be students of bracket D, E etc. Later on, it is not far to have a P1,000 per unit. Councilor Viray said that it is true that STFAP have beneficiaries. But let us look at the bigger picture that if STFAP is present in the system, automatically there is TOFI. It is a known fact that a lot of students are having a hard time availing of the education that should be given to them as their rights. Reviewing the STFAP alone, it is in itself flawed already; and as long as there is STFAP, TOFI will always be adhered to it. Thus, we should scrap this. Students should only worry on how they will study hard and not think about what work they should have to provide for their education. Therefore, we should assert the rights that we should be getting in the first place. Law Representative Tiu asked what was UP President Pascual’s response to the issue of bracketing. Chairperson Garcia responded that the administration said, they will issue a clarificatory letter. Nevertheless, getting away with P1,000 per unit is a lot of money. The process causes too much hassle in that before the students believe that they are not Bracket A, they will have to prove it first. If and only if a student submits all the documents required, then that is the only time the administration will consider him/her as of another bracket. Basically, the default now is bracket A. And if you do not abide by the rules, there are grounds for expulsion. During the meeting, Dean Concepcion said a lot of things on the matter. However, at the end, he already conceded in saying that the default bracket is A. Law Representative Tiu asked what will happen with the upper classmen. Chairperson Garcia responded that there are no clear-cut measures yet. Nevertheless, Dean Concepcion agrees that the upper classmen should be protected, and that what is clear is that it only applies to the freshmen students. Law Representative Tiu said that he is okay with scrutinizing the issue. However, he wants to have it on a two-level approach. He suggested rebooting whatever the body can do. Chairperson Garcia said that in the same way, she is also confused with what the body can do at present since the clarificatory letter from President Pascual has not been issued yet. What is sure is again with the freshmen students, and not with the upper classmen.
Councilor Ligsay said that whatever the content of the clarificatory memo is, it will apply to the OSSS of the new bracket scheme. Thus, it is safe to assume that the upper classmen are not affected by it. Chairperson Garcia added that if a student assumes that s/he is of Bracket B, it will not be given to you right away. The burden of proof still lies on the student, thus if s/he does not fix this, it is possible that s/he may not be able to enroll for the semester. Councilor Recto arrived at this point: 7:49pm Chairperson Garcia continues in saying that more than anything else, she clarifies and considers this as an urgent matter because STFAP is being raised to a certain level as a social question. She said that her take on the dialogue is that the memo was not able to reveal what STFAP really is. It just expressed what the students already know since 2006. Chairperson Garcia moved for the body to continue the discussion. Architecture Representative Duque clarified what the current issue or stand on STFAP is. Chairperson Garcia responded in saying that she is opening the floor for a broad discussion on STFAP because the body cannot look at the issues separatedly. UP President Pascual himself already acknowledged that the administration before him was just kind to not have this kind of certification. In short, this issue has been existing for a long time already. The council is just reinforcing it because the administration itself admitted that there is nothing new with the STFAP scheme; this is the same STFAP scheme during De Dios’ time in 2006. What lies in the body now is to make a comprehensive stand on the matter. Councilor Alcantara added on to what Law Representative Tiu said a while ago that most of the upper classmen did not know that a new system was implemented. She asked if maybe the body can make prevention schemes for the next day (June 7, 2011) until the week of registration ends. On the issue of STFAP, Councilor Alcantara says that she thinks the intention is really good. The way she sees it, STFAP is different from TOFI. Those who can pay should pay; those who cannot should not. Vice Chairperson Ramos said that from how STFAP works, whatever money is obtained from the STFAP is being subsidized in the brackets issued. The administration does not do anything to channel the solution. In brief, STFAP is intended to be an IGP. CMC Representative Orduùa said that not being subsidized by the state defeats the purpose of UP being a public character as a university of the people. Regardless of the socio-economic status; the university should not accept the existence of the concept of rich or poor. Councilor Venturina suggested that the issue of new STFP scheme be discussed in the ongoing review committees. Different councils are reviewing the Code because the ones written there are not fit for the needs of the students. The administration must feel the weight of this responsibility. The three concepts that the body keeps on reiterating: TOFI, STFAP and tuition fee increase are all linked to state abandonment. If the government chooses to not subsidize and support, how else can the university be called a state university. Given this, Councilor Venturina firmly said that the body must have a unified stand on this matter.
Councilor Loon said that for the body to understand, it should adhere to the principles as the university student council. Education is a right, and not a business. Therefore it is non-negotiable. If the body falls in the trap be it amenable to the fact that education will be put in a condition wherein it would depend on the economic status of the student; it defeats the very essence of education that it should not cater to a particular group, rather to everyone. Councilor Loon said that from the way he sees it, the discussion of the body seems to be centered on the implementation; however, the problem at hand has to be addressed at its core. The main issue is the fundamental nature of the matter on the table. Councilor Loon continues in saying his second point which concerns the newly-raised policy. He said that this raises unfair assumptions on the part of the students. It is the state’s obligation to give education to the students. If the body recognizes measures such as that of STFAP, sooner or later, education will no longer be a right; it will already be a commodity. Therefore, the body really has to be careful in making its arguments. More so, it cannot allow such types of arguments. Councilor Diño affirms that the students always call for a higher budget for education. She then gives the situation of what if there was a rollback that happened? According to Student Regent Krissy Conti, the burden of proof must not reside with the students but rather the administration. It is a very urgent proof that the student body always calls for higher budget for education, however, this is not given right away. Councilor Diño thinks that for an urgent problem, there must also be an urgent solution. Chairperson Garcia clarifies that high tuition fees are okay to be implemented in private schools since they are privately owned. However, the case is different with public schools. The very main fact that there is STFAP as a proof to how poor one is, shows that this is already a band aid solution given by the government. The point remains why it cannot be the case that the wound is treated and cured. More than this, what is more sad to say is that freshmen students are asking and waiting for an answer as to why there has been a tuition fee increase, and that why they have to prove that they are not millionaires. As point of reconciliation, Chairperson Garcia says that the way she sees it, al council members are against the TOFI. Looking back on 2006, the administration itself said that the reason why they made the students agree with the TOFI is because they presented the student body with the idea of STFAP; in where all those who cannot afford the high tuition can avail of it as an assistance and financial program. Nonetheless, looking at the figures, only 11 students are 100% scholars of the university; to think that before one can get this, a thick pile of documents must be first submitted to the administration. In this way, the goal of STFAP can already be seen. It is not for the purpose of breaking even, rather, according to UP former President Roman, STFAP is there for IGP purposes. As the temporary StRAW head, Chairperson Garcia suggests that the body first listen to the students who consulted the USC for help. Councilor Diño asked may be it would be possible to have two solutions: one for the urgent solution, and the other a long term solution. Why? Because what if there was a rollback but then there are still students who cannot afford. And then, we take out STFAP, what will happen to those students who cannot afford? In brief, Councilor Diño is suggesting having an urgent solution to an urgent matter.
Vice Chairperson Ramos acknowledged the beauty in having a short-term and long-term solution, however he thinks that the short-term solution must contribute to the long-term solution, which is a call for a rollback of tuition. If the body permits solely STFAP alone, it justifies the presence of commercialization. Thus, STFAP must be scrap and let’s not fall in the trap. Coucilor Ligsay said that he witnessed the occurrences last year 2006 and the point of conclusion was to scrap TOFI and STFAP. However, he suggested that the best way to resolve this is by making STFAP pro-student by making its proposal better in terms of its implementation. He adds what’s best to be done for the night is to have a proper background on STFAP first before scrapping it. He requested for the body to not close its sight to the wonders of STFAP. Chairperson Garcia added on to Councilor Ligsay’s statement since in year 2007, President Aquino clearly stated that STFAP is being used as an income generating scheme. Therefore, former UP President Roman’s STFAP and TOFI just followed from it. Chairperson Garcia said that she does not, in any way, believe that these call for greater state subsidy since STFAP is just a means for richer students to subsidize the poorer ones. The UP students are called to be iskolar ng bayan, and not iskolar ng iskolar ng bayan. It is not the students’ obligation to do this. As tax payers, education is already paid for. Councilor Ligsay said that he is for the scrapping of TOFI and STFAP under the assumption that renovations will be made. He said that it’s best the council makes a stand if all are informed about STFAP and TOFI. Councilor Ligsay also suggested for the body to read certain articles on the issue of STFAP and TOFI before finally making a stand. Eng’g Representative Santos said that the way he sees it, almost all of the council members agree that the message of STFAP is unfair. He personally does not want STFAP, especially for the freshmen students. The way to get things done is to send a message to the administration regarding its unfairness since he thinks the students are the ones studying and experiencing such, therefore, the students are in the right place to give out comments especially they are the ones affected. Councilor Loon appealed to refrain from demanding to read certain provisions on the said matter. He said that everyone in the council is assuming that all have read and studied the matter upon making opinions. He adds that this is insult to the council members since it would not be fair if he asks anybody if s/he has read the law cases he had. Nevertheless, he just wanted to point out that the argument on STFAP should be based on principled-arguments. The case should be, uncompromising education since it is the right of the students. Councilor Ligsay apologized for those who were offended with what he requested for the body to do. His point mainly is to not rush in making a statement regarding scrapping STFAP. Chairperson Garcia once again asked that the main point of all the discussion boils down to what the stand of the council is. She makes it clear to the body too, that as long as STFAP is not recognized as something that branched out from TOFI, the body would not understand the matter fully. She reminded everyone that all were voted in the council to voice out the concerns of the students in times the
administration is pressing the students on issues. So it would be better for the council to arrive at points of unity. Architecture Representative Duque said that the discussion should be leading to set what the body should achieve for the day. Vice Chairperson Ramos suggested first, for the body to complete the stand in calling for the scrapping of TOFI and STFAP. Second, he asked that the body make a mechanism on how this will reach the students. Chairperson Garcia said that first: it should be clear how the matter should be explained to the students. Second, what does the body thing about the memo written by the OVCSA? It cannot be the case that the body will only look at the memo alone; rather it must also look at the different aspects why such memo was written. Third, the body should limit the discussion on STFAP as a system; if the body has already resolved this, then that’s the time the body zooms in to the memo. Councilor Viray asked for the Chairperson’s permission to ask Councilor Ligsay about certain matters. He then asked Councilor Ligsay if he thinks that STFAP is not connected to TOFI. Councilor Ligsay said that it does not follow for him. He said that his mind is closed to the idea that STFAP is just a band aid solution; he thinks that there is wisdom in STFAP and the body has to assess it. Councilor Viray disagrees, and asserted that the main reason why STFAP was created is because of the implementation of TOFI. Law Representative Tiu asked for the Chairperson’s permission to ask Councilor Viray about the matter. He said that it is important to compartmentalize and to asses. For example, tuition fee was rolled back, what will happen to the students who still cannot afford to pay P40.00? Councilor Viray said that whatever the case is, STFAP is not the answer. Law Representative Tiu clarified that it is the concept that is being given emphasis, and not the name STFAP itself. Therefore, it would still be the same. Councilor Viray asked if STFAP is still worth reviewing if the student already knows it is not a good mechanism. Chairperson Garcia clarified that socialization exists because the administration cannot eradicate the fact that there is, and there will always be a tuition fee, which should not be the case because education must be subsidized by the government for the good of the youth. Law Representative Tiu said that the current model of STFAP is inherited from former UP President Roman. If the body goes for rolling back the tuition, the base tuition fee is P300.00, and it still needs to be socialized because some students still cannot pay for the base tuition. Vice Chairperson Ramos asked what is now the call of the body. Councilor Ligsay responded that the body must call for scrapping the current STFAP system. Chairperson Garcia said that it if that’s the case, then it would be better to call for a scrap of tuition fee. Councilor Ligsay continued in saying that the call should have a qualifier, and that is to scrap the STFAP scheme.
Chairperson Garcia said that STFAP symbolizes what the administration used to pacify the students on the matter of tuition fee increase since year 2006. She then asked the body if it thinks STFAP is used as a mechanism to justify TOFI. Point is, the administration used STFAP as a way to ensure that there is hope in having TOFI, and that is through STFAP. And as long as this exists, the administration has the reason, and all the means to increase the tuition fee. Eng’g Representative Ildesa said that he sees the wisdom in what Councilor Ligsay is saying. The students may possibly use STFAP in such a way it can be helpful for them. The way he sees it, the body only sees it as something bad since it was at first implemented at first. For example, the Nazis, whatever they do even if it is for the good, it will always be seen as something bad, since they are the Nazis. He continues in saying that he is okay with the idea of reversing but then he believes as well that TOFI is attached to STFAP. Therefore, if there is no TOFI, there is a possibility there won’t be STFAP as well, since there will be no increase. Chairperson Garcia acknowledged Eng’g Representative Ildesa’s point. To address the dilemma, how far is the roll back that the student body wants? In the present case, P300.00 acts as the base tuition, but what if a student is qualified for P100.00? Given this case, we can already see that scrapping the tuition fee is not an illusion. There should not be any clash of ideas if there is a roll back. More so, there won’t be STFAP if the base tuition is P300.00. From this alone, we can already see the how hard it will be for those who cannot pay. Therefore, the body together with the students should really call for a roll back of tuition. This be done to ensure that all students can go to school. Chairperson Garcia added that she thinks this should be the main concern of the body; if it agrees for the call of rolling back the tuition. Eng’g Representative Ildesa said that if there are no other alternatives, the body should continue in lobbying for a roll back. Chairperson Garcia continues in saying that this is not an isolated case. The STFAP patronizes socialization because it assumes that you can pay for it before it gives you the chance to say that you cannot afford it. What this body needs to do is to gear the discussion to the problem. That is also the exact reason why the concept itself should be scrapped. There are other schemes that can be used, but the reason why the students are not for STFAP is because it has already revealed its character to the students for the longest time. However, this university is missing on the alternatives and chooses to settle with STFAP, which if we start the discussion with, will only be cycle. Law Representative Tiu said that the problem he sees with this kind of assumption is that there are students who can pay for the tuition, and there are students who cannot. And that is the reason why some cannot let go of it totally. CHK Representative Tiu said that the question to be asked is if there is really assurance that the students are financially aided by STFAP. CSSP Representative Ramos said that STFAP whether a weapon of the students, is a mechanism in itself, which can soften the effect of tuition. The only time it can be totally scrapped off is the time when there will be no tuition at all. It is hard to demand to scrap it all together since it is constitutionally stated. Tertiary, it is accessible. Scrapping STFAP altogether does not
mitigate the effects of tuition fee. Representative Ildesa’s point.
CSSP Representative Ramos adds that he agrees with Eng’g
Chairperson Garcia asked the body what burden STFAP carries. Is it the education of one’s schoolmate, or the student/s that cannot pay for that education? If it is the former argument, this becomes the reason for the government to actually not give subsidy for the students. Law Representative Tiu thinks that STFAP is not an end in itself. It is not intended for students to pay a certain amount of money. That is not the point exactly; rather it is to support one’s education. Chairperson Garcia asked, does the student need to pay P300.00 per unit to justify that one is indigent since s/he does not pay anything? Do the students need socialization for those who cannot pay even a single peso? And lastly, should it be relative to the capacity of others instead of making it relative to the student alone? Architecture Representative Duque asked if Chairperson Garcia is pushing for zero tuition since we all are. But then, if that cannot be the case, and if the body totally scraps STFAP, the mere fact of paying for the STFAP compensates for not being able to get the zero tuition. Chairperson Garcia said that STFAP is a compensatory mechanism. First and foremost, where should the government really be getting the zero tuition that a student can avail of? The main discussion in the room is to point out to those in power what their real responsibilities are. Law Representative Tiu that we assert and assert, but what if the government won’t move for us? What is the body’s alternative for it? In the ideal world, we can have the full budget for education, but in the present context, this is not what is happening. That is the reason why the means of ‘junking of STFAP’ is not contextualized. There will be no STFAP, if there is no tuition fee increase. Chairperson Garcia clarified that all believe that STFAP gives importance to students who cannot afford to pay for their tuition. However, if the studentry pushes for this, it becomes a way to compensate what the government should really be providing for the youth. Law Representative Tiu said that with that kind, even more should the body be encouraged and not let STFAP do it on its own since the idea of giving the students full budget for education is very Utopian. It is not mutually exclusive, rather it is continuous. Chairperson Garcia said that STFAP teaches the students to think in that kind of way. The university started off with P300.00 tuition, if a student cannot pay for it, let us not say it came from one of your classmates; the point remains that this kind of thinking is wrong. The framework of UP in general is awry. Councilor Alcantara asked, would it not mean that you also paid for your tuition? It is not like a student is paying nothing; rather, one is still paying P40.00. There are still students who will not pay, there are still who will.
Vice Chairperson Ramos said the idea itself that your classmate will pay for your tuition since you cannot afford, that is the kind of thinking that it tells us; that students can help each other when it comes to paying for their tuition fees. That is exactly what happened in the budget cut. The government forced in the minds of the people that it is okay to reduce the budget, and not have state subsidy. Councilor Alcantara asked so is Vice Chairperson Ramos expecting, given that the Philippines is a third world country, that the government can actually do that? Councilor Alcantara implied that she thinks it cannot; and the only way to at least have the same level is to not be passive when it comes to action. Thus, do something about it when the government won’t provide for. Vice Chairperson Ramos said that in actual, education should be for free. If one is going to look at the budget, a lot are spent on other matters that should not be given priority such as the military and debt servicing. Councilor Alcantara continued by asking, you also know that the Philippines is an archipelago, thus the country needs safeguards from other countries. Chairperson Garcia said that in actual, there are no safeguards in places where there are threats. All the safeguards are placed in Mindanao, but from other countries, there are none. The main point is, education is being seen as a social question. As an immediate response to Councilor Alcantara, Chairperson Garcia said that the arguments are not for the idea of merely clashing with the government; we push limits because that is what is right. In the ideal world, the students are the youth; therefore, we push for what is to be ideal. This can be achieved through collective action. Free education in Europe did not become free because it was easily given to them that way, they did something about it. CSSP Representative Ramos said that this is not STFAP related, but in Switzerland, there are a lot of good benefits despite the high taxes the government imposes on them. However, the thing with this country is that, it is still a third world country. The point of unity still has a problem. He said that he is not going to budge on junking STFAP without giving a counter proposal since it won’t solve anything. Eng’g Representative Ildesa said that is also his point. Music Representative Bautista said that her point is not related to the current discussion, but as a response to what Chairperson Garcia and Vice Chairperson Ramos said. She thinks that the body should look at STFAP from a new perspective since it addresses the need for socialized tuition. Even from one of its merits, it socializes tuition fee. As long as it not zero, there is still a possibility that people cannot pay. Chairperson Garcia said that the point is how to ensure that students can still pay if the rollback does not suffice. If want the body wants is only a way for the students to be able to pay, we can find a way to resolve it but not through STFAP, since it has a wrong premise from the very start. The Roman model of STFAP ranged from P40.00 to P300.00. She asked the body to study the history, and root, even its name itself, how it is anchored on tuition fee increase. What is the mechanism that students have safeguards? Think about it as if it has a counter proposal. The body should not agree on something
especially if it knows that the government is only using it as an IGP because what is being compromised here are rights. Councilor Alcantara said that what is contentious is the name itself. The name “socialized tuition fee assistance program” in itself does not give the meaning of the words used. She said she thinks that this is like a brand manufactured by TOFI. To eradicate the tension, the body can possibly stick to “No to STFAP”, however, it has to qualify why, and that is when the body presents its alternative to it in its common form. Councilor Ligsay suggested that to qualify, the body may state to scrap Roman’s STFAP. SLIS Representative Putong said that in the sector of education, there will always be those who cannot pay, and that is a given. Why? Because the wages that are given are not enough for the needs of say, one family. If the body will make a statement, SLIS Representative Putong suggested that the council tap the highest and biggest issue from where all the problems are rooted. Councilor Diño said that the body has been reiterating the point of calling for a rollback. However, at the same time, it should not scrap STFAP altogether. She suggested changing the definition of STFAP instead. She said that she also recognizes the point of having a rollback, but what needs to be changed is the mechanism. Music representative Bautista said that the words of STFAP in essence say that there is a need to socialize tuition fee how low it gets. That is why the heading to what the body agreed is fine already. Thus, there is a need for socialization. Vice Chairperson Ramos said that the body should not be trapped to reformism in that when it has a nice name, it could be agreed upon. That should not be the case since it happened already with CARP. It has a nice name, how come farmers still don’t have land until the present? What the body should be critical about is the cycle in which STFAP is moving about. It cannot be said that the body will agree to it because of a nicer name calling. What should happen is that, the body will agree to a mechanism that in itself has a good essence. Looking back on different government policies can possibly help the body to understand this further. CSSP Representative Ramos said that is not what is brought up. He himself is not satisfied with the current state of STFAP. As to how it is being implemented, it still lacks on something. That is the exact reason why what the council should call for is to be critical and assert amendments. He said that he finds the idea of the administration using STFAP as a weapon because the student body can use this weapon against them. Chairperson Garcia clarified the matter again since the points of unity that was to be achieved have been forgotten. STFAP is not good, not because it is not transparent; rather, it is not good because it justifies the tuition fee increase. The concept of being socialized is okay since it addresses the need for socialized tuition. However, it is the other way around. The body cannot say that this exists in a vacuum that is why it is justified to socialize it since the tuition is high. We cannot have a rollback if not the university does not have STFAP. Why will the body call for a rollback if in the first place, it can ask to
not pay anything at all. Chairperson Garcia said that she thinks the unity cannot be achieved because both sides have different views on STFAP. This becomes a means for TOFI to get in the picture easily, therefore, the best the body can do is to reform and review. Law Representative Tiu said that to be fair to the discussion, there is unity. Why the body reached the point of calling for a rollback, is because in a scenario-setting what is wise to do if you have the rollback already is to try an alternative push by members of the council. The body will retain the concept of socialized tuition. If the government does not and will not pay attention to it, the student council must do the work as service to the people. Chairperson Garcia said that the way she sees it, there is no point of unity on how the body analyzes STFAP. She requested to get back to the points of unity. So then, she asked if the body is firm in junking Roman’s TOFI and STFAP. CBA Representative Cortez agreed to junk Roman’s STFAP and TOFI since the body is now delving in that point of unity. He cited an incident where an undergraduate student asked if the basis for the new STFAP framework was Roman’s framework. In STFAP, what is being looked at is that gross household salary; there were suggestions, if the body can make it net household salary since net pay is different from gross salary. What if you have a big wage, however, you have a lot to mind since you have 10 kids. This leads to higher food consumption and higher consumption in general. Point of unity is to junk Roman’s STFAP and TOFI. He suggested examining the framework of STFAP being gross house salary. Chairperson Garcia said that she thinks the discussion is getting deeper already. The main point remains is if the body still does not agree on the call for rollback of tuition. Councilor Viray followed up that STFAP in itself is really wrong. Yes it is true that it provides for assistance to the students, and STFAP does this for those who cannot pay. In the same way, STFAP retains the fact that some student is still paying for the tuition of another student and not for him/herself alone. It is true that it would be nice to get financial assistance, but the question is, to whom will this ‘financial assistance’ be obtained from? This is very wrong since the body should always go back to the principle of the USC that education must be accessible for all. In this way, the students will not be going to make a way for it, but the government. This is not being idealistic or Utopian. Once the students’ agree on the STFAP, there is no chance the government cannot get away with it. More so, the government cannot afford the funds since it gives an incorrect way in budget allocation. This is idealistic because this is what is right and this is what is just. Chairperson Garcia said that the body should scrap using the word socialized because some are okay with it, however, others are not. The main reason why it is wrong is because it aids the students through the help of their co-student. The case should be the state giving the right kind of education to the students. In this way, the body can sharpen and make things clear about the responsibilities the state has. And that is to ensure that during the time STFAP began, it was a program made to ensure the students to enter UP. Is this is what the body wants to preserve, there is no point of contention. As
with the assistance program, there will be students who will pay higher to compensate for those who cannot pay. Architecture Representative asked what if STFAP was junked and still the government does not subsidize the tuition, what will the body do? Chairperson Garcia said that we are faced with a ghost when we are fighting with a person. STFAP is a concrete thing that existed long time ago that is why the body wants to scrap it. The students have to fight against it since it has already revealed its character to us of not being able to help. Law Representative Tiu said that the case is real for him but not apparent. There is no problem with continuous assertion; however, he said that he cannot take it that simple without presenting any alternative. He is not for junking which will not go anywhere. Eng’g Representative Ildesa said that what is being talked about as ‘calling for rollback of tuition’ means that STFAP be eradicated. And if this happens, it will itself find a way to help in paying for a student’s tuition not through STFAP. Would anyone want to pay for one’s tuition? Of course, nobody does. The studentry might be left hanging if STFAP is junked. What we want is to help the students in case a roll back happens. In that scenario, the council may revise it to a newer version. Councilor Ligsay said that there is no point of unity when the body attaches STFAP with TOFI. The point of unity arises when the topic is scrapping or rolling back of tuition fee, calling for higher education. However, Councilor Ligsay said that he cannot get the point if there is no comprehensive or detailed proposal in times the government is not providing aid. The P300.00 base tuition, in case of rollback would still be contested but the body should provide for an urgent solution; the call for greater state subsidy is continuous. Chairperson Garcia said that she cannot get the point why the body cannot fully accept that STFAP was caused by TOFI, thus it acts as a smoke screen. As an immediate response to Councilor Ligsay’s statement, Councilor Fuentes pointed out that if the studentry continues using and availing of the STFAP, will the government be forced to roll back the tuition given that the students are somewhat showing that they are somehow benefiting from the STFAP? Chairperson Garcia agreed with the point and said that the discussion is not channeled for the sake of unity alone. She said she thought the body is already in unity about one, junking Roman’s STFAP and TOFI; and two, call for greater state subsidy. Chairperson Garcia said that the body must hit the major points for it to move forward to the issue. So in general, the main points are: Junk Roman’s TOFI and STFAP, call for greater state subsidy and roll back the tuition. Councilor Venturina said that everyone would want to have a lower bracket to pay for lower tuition; all have the same application forms, but the assets of the person are the ones being evaluated for this matter.
Councilor Viray said that what is okay with STFAP is the fact that someone is providing for assistance, however the body should not put away this concept since there will still be someone assisting but it is now the government. This remains the call for greater state subsidy. Law representative Tiu said that the body should go back to its point of unity since the problem occurs with the wording. The only STFAP that exists is the STFAP of Roman. There is no problem if the body scrap such only that, it can possibly add about fighting for a more comprehensive assistance, while in the same way, fighting for greater state subsidy. Chairperson Garcia said that this statement does not call for scrapping STFAP alone; rather, junk STFAP and roll back the tuition. Once cannot exist without the other. The body should retain the concept of what it is fighting for. There has to be a mechanism to be able to study to UP. As a final say, the body reached to a conclusion: Roll back the tuition; Scrap Roman’s STFAP; and fight for greater state subsidy and an explanation that while the USC is fighting for roll back of tuition, it should assert that there should also be a clarified assistance provided. Vice Chairperson Ramos reiterated the last point and said that in the event of rolling back of tuition, it should assert for assistance program for students who cannot make it. Law Representative clarified that while fighting for greater state subsidy, there is assistance program. Vice Chairperson Ramos said that the mode should be a bracketing but it should not get the subsidy from the students. Law Representative Tiu said that this should be obtained from the government. Councilor Viray said that the subsidy cannot be obtained if the students do not assert it. Eng’g Representative Ildesa and CSWCD Representative San Gabriel left at this point: 9:47pm. Chairperson Garcia said that she is not for the assistance program since it will be the same with how STFAP is at present. Vice Chairperson Ramos reiterated STFAP as again a smoke screen in the increase of tuition. Law Representative Tiu hypothesized what if in times the government cannot give anything, not having a back-up is absurd. Councilor Viray responded that the body should not start with that kind of thinking. Councilor Ligsay suggested that while asserting for the student’s right, the council will develop a comprehensive assistance program. Vice Chairperson Ramos asked if that is again STFAP and who will pay for the assistance program. Chairperson Garcia said that what the council should do is to not craft a policy, rather hit a unity at this point. There’s got to be a mechanism to ensure students can pay whether or not, there is STFAP. The question is if the state should be the one finding a way to respond to this need. While fighting for this aspect of fighting for greater state subsidy, President Aquino continues in reducing the budget since he can see that the students are making a way to get to school.
Law Representative Tiu said that this case should not be qualified. Chairperson Garcia said that the point of unity should reside in that rich or poor, the government must subsidize for one’s tuition. More so, she adds, what then is the stand of the body to the memo issued by the OVCSA? Vice Chairperson Ramos reads the whole memo. Chairperson Garcia then asked what the feel of the body is with the memo. CBA Representative Cortez said that according to the feedbacks, it was a rushed memo and the students were not informed, even the college secretaries; that is why they were all shocked during the enlistment and assessment. Second, there is confusion during enrollment of whether it will already apply this coming semester or next semester, or next year. Third, most students who came from their provinces did not have time to fix and manage their bracketing. Councilor Ligsay adds that even if it was rushed, STFAP beneficiaries were not consulted as well. Law Representative Tiu said to sum it up, it should have undergone a due process; no matter how twisted the scheme is, it should have not been implemented at this point. CMC Representative Orduña said that the idea of suspension in cases that the student has not proven s/he belongs to a certain bracket is very harsh. Chairperson Garcia agreed with Law Representative Tiu’s point of having a due process. Law representative Tiu asked where the suspension or expulsion is located? He said that the body can argue that it is an exposed facto before it was tolerated by the administration. Thus, estoppel. Chairperson Garcia said that even if it is called tuition fee increase, what does default mean? This means that if you are not going to do something about it, then that is it already. Thus, you belong to bracket A. As of the current statistics, 950 freshmen stuents have already been subjected under it. With the least of worries, Chairperson Garcia makes sure that the memo be scrapped. Discussion on the matter ended by wrapping up the points. Chairperson Garcia said that the draft statement will be uploaded in the USC’s yahoo groups. Session moved for a 3-minute break: 10:00pm Councilor Alcantara left at this point. Session resumed at 10:05pm. Updates on the Local College Council (LCC) Congress: Vice Chairperson Ramos updated the body that elections have been made. Positions are taken by College of Mass Communication (PIO), College of Arts and Letters (Secretariat), College of Engineering (Finance). Resolutions of the LCC: 1. Call for LCC to strengthen campaign against education crisis.
2. Intensify campaign regarding the issue of Maricon Montaje 3. Junk the Draft Code 4. Participate lead of peace talks who created the student’s agenda. Reminder: LCC meeting on June 9, 2011 (Thursday). Agenda: Urgent details on STFAP and Code of Student Conduct Campaign. Reminder for College Representatives for their councils to be present. On the issue of Maricon Montaje, the USC should initiate a campaign to help the whole league in launching these campaigns. Suggestion: make a statement. Councilor Loon suggested that it would be nice if the council would utilize SLAAC to handle cases as such since from what he know, Councilor Banzon is already eligible for OLA. Therefore, Councilor Banzon and his committee can be tapped to help and get lawyers and work in partnership together with National Union of Public Lawyers (NUPL) Chairperson Garcia asked for a volunteer to upload in the USC’s yahoo groups the joint resolution of USC and LCC. Should there be no contentions, then the USC will push through a joint resolution with the LCC. LCC yahoo groups: UPDLCC1112 On peace talks, the USC may also have joint resolution. LCC’s resolution: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Collate students’ agenda In line with the campaign for student’s rights View on economic reforms Rights of students Economic issues of the country
The same process shall be applied: upload and then comment. No comment means no contentions. Committee on Organizations, Fraternities and Sororities (COFS) Campaign Matters: On the 2010 Draft Code of Student Conduct, COFS Head, CMC Representative Orduña invited Kasama sa UP to sit down on review committee meetings, which was made by Chancellor Saloma. Main point is that The Code must be consulted to the students. Vice Chairperson Ramos suggested that the consultation be done with the council’s constituents; also, with the Local Council. Vice Chairperson Ramos and College Representatives will meet on June 7, 2011 (Tuesday), 2pm at the USC office regarding the dynamics of LCC.
COFS Head, CMC Representative Orduña, mentioned some issues in the code: No student consultation, no philosophy in highlighting the rights and welfare of the students. CMC Representatiev Orduña reads some consolidated points from organizations: 1. Article V, Section 6: Harm to Persons - No exact definition of harm - Grounds for suspension or expulsion - Undergo counseling - Petty matter, but harsh consequences - Hazing in fraternities 2. Organization Recognition - At least 20, instead of 15. - Haggard requirements: financial statements for the whole year, documentation of events - Optional faculty adviser 3. Tambayan Committee - Did not mention anything about student representation - Strict implementation - Organization who bought their own tambyan is already considered to be a donation to the university. 4. Vinzon’s Pailaw: broken bulb when replaced is already considered as a donation to the university. Number of organizations present during the All Leaders’ Conference is quite disappointing. Nevertheless, it is okay since it is still summer. CMC Representative Orduña sent a letter to the OVCSA regarding the dialogue with Sir Oscar. College hops: CHK, CS, CSSP CAL. Agenda: 1. Content of the Code 2. Primer of the Review Committee 3. Organizations’ database: pending Standing Motion: adopt joint resolution of the USC and LCC Call: Junk and uphold students’ rights and welfare, Councilor Recto left at this point: 10:33pm Chairperson Garcia said that it would be better if the body will make another statement on this.
Suggestion: for the USC to convene again. Suggested call: Junk the Code, and uphold students’ demands, rights and welfare. Those who volunteered to make the statement: 1. Chairperson Garcia 2. Vice Chairperson Ramos 3. Councilor Escandor 4. Law Rerpresentative Tiu 5. CMC Representative Orduña 6. CSSP Representative Ramos 7. Councilor Pangalangan 8. NCPAG Representative Ongkeko 9. Eng’g Representative Santos 10. CAL Representative Avila Freshmen Committee urgent updates: Important announcements: Video shoot for the freshmen assembly tomorrow, (2nd) General Assembly time. 2nd General Assembly is on June 8, 2011 (Tuesday), 6pm to 10pm at the USC Office.
OTHER CONCERNS: 1. USC: Blacklisted in CSSP Issue: Venue reservation last year. (Regarding propaganda action during the Budget Cut Strike), issue of vandalism. Key persons to talk with CSSP: Councilor Ligsay, Councilor Pangalangan, and CSSP Representative Ramos. 2. UP Lifestyle Planner will be released on Wednesday Tasking/Updates: a. Contract c/o Councilor Banzon. (Law Representative Tiu and Councilor Melad will take care of it for the mean time.) b. Memorandum Of Agreement (MOA) has already been signed by Chairperson Garcia 3. BSS on the consultation with dorms: dialogue with the new OIC director. 4. Effective June 1, 2011, there is already a new head for the OSA 5. USC Shirts: Payment tomorrow (c/o Councilor Pangalangan) No payment, no shirt.
6. CRAW Updates: a. Traffic policies within the university b. Memo by tomorrow (June 7) released by OCCSA regarding the terminal with a toilet. (with the consent of the council)
SUMMARY OF POINTS: 1. The USC will make a statement on the memo issued by the Office of the Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs (OVCSA) containing the following calls: a. Roll back the tuition fee b. Scrap former UP President Roman’s STFAP c. Fight for greater state subsidy d. Comprehensive assistance program 2. The USC and LCC will have a joint statement on the issue of Maricon Montaje 3. The USC will make a statement on the Code of Student Conduct 4. CRAW Update on the new route of Katipunan Jeepneys
1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
DATES TO REMEMBER: June 7, 2011 (Tuesday): Video shoot for the Freshmen Assembly during 2nd General Assembly time June 7, 2011 (Tuesday): Last day of payments for the USC shirts. June 7, 2011 (Tuesday): Meeting of Vice Chairperson Ramos with the College Representatives, 2:00pm at the USC Office regarding LCC dynamics. June 8, 2011 (Wednesday): Releasing date of the UP Lifestyle Planner June 9, 2011 (Thursday): LCC meeting, 5pm at the USC Office
Time Ended: 11:09pm