The group Choose to Know Alliance has stated in their statement:

The student regent rejected on Friday proposals from several student groups to include alternative questions for the January 26-31 referendum.

In a statement released last January 16, Student Regent Shan Abdulwahid reiterated her earlier decision to submit only one question to the students during the referendum:

“Do you approve of the existing Codified Rules for Student Regent Selection (CRSRS) as rules and qualifications to govern the selection of our student representative to the UP Board of Regents?”

SR Abdulwahid denied the protest-appeal submitted by 13* student councils and several student leaders to include specific questions regarding proposed amendments to the Codified Rules for Student Regent Selection (CRSRS). According to the proponent councils, such amendments would provide voting students with options, unlike the present question which “only pushes students to the wall” for a “yes” vote.

In a 6-page decision, SR Abdulwahid said that RA 9500 provides only for a referendum rather than an initiative. While the former gives constituents the power to approve or reject legislation, the latter allows them to propose and enact legislation.

SR Abdulwahid also cited Republic Act 9500 of the UP Charter of 2008, stating that under the current CRSRS, “proposed changes thereto should be submitted to the Office Of The Student Regent not later than the first day of October” (i.e. October 1, 2008 ) and that such rules “may be changed through the majority vote of all the student councils of the UP system.” If these two conditions are met, then such changes become “valid and proposed amendments” to the CRSRS, and can thus be put to a vote of yes or no among the students.

The student councils and student leaders who appealed, collectively known as the Choose to Know Alliance, criticized the SR’s decision as a manifestation of her unwillingness to yield to the substantial merits of the proposal by resorting to and insisting on mere technicalities.

–
The answer of DEFEND THE OSR System-wide Alliance:

The Office of the Student Regent’s decision never resorted to and insisted on mere technicalities in denying the Appeal filed by a certain group known as the Choose to Know Alliance.

The denial was premised on the fact that the OSR has no authority to include the said group’s alternative questions in the forthcoming referendum because such questions precisely have the purpose of amending the Codified Rules for Student Regent Selection (CRSRS).

To reiterate, as explicitly provided under the CRSRS, only all the student councils of the University of the Philippines System, through their majority vote, after compliance with the requirement of the submission to the OSR of the proposed changes to the CRSRS not later than October 1 (October 1, 2008 for the school year 2008-2009), have the power and authority to adopt and make valid any proposed changes to the CRSRS.

These are not mere technicalities. These are substantive matters.

The OSR cannot simply ignore or disregard the existing CRSRS, as all the student councils of the UP System, through their majority vote, have previously validly and legitimately passed and adopted the same.

In the same breath, the OSR cannot simply ignore or disregard the majority vote of all the student councils of the UP System in their collective and democratic decision to pass and adopt the existing CRSRS. Otherwise, the OSR would be guilty of resorting to dictatorial schemes by a deliberate and conscious decision to solely and unilaterally entertain the proposals of the group Choose to Know Alliance in changing the CRSRS.

The OSR, as a lone office, does not possess any power or authority to overrule or supersede any valid and legitimate act of the majority vote of all the student councils of the UP System. The OSR alone does not possess any power or authority to overrule or supersede the General Assembly of Student Councils (GASC), which is the body constituted by all the student councils of the UP System.

If the OSR were to consider the alternative questions, and include the same in the forthcoming referendum, the OSR would be deliberately and consciously ignoring and disregarding the democratic manner by which the GASC has previously passed and adopted the CRSRS. In that case, the OSR would exercise powers beyond its jurisdiction, and encroach upon the powers of all the student councils of the UP System.

That is dictatorship, as what the group Choose to Know Alliance wants the OSR to do. That is dictatorship, as what the group Choose to Know Alliance wants to happen.

But the glaring truth is that the group Choose to Know Alliance sat and slept on their right to submit to the OSR any proposed changes to the CRSRS within the prescribed period. The said group chose to do the same, and only such group is to blame for their own inaction, no one else.

–
The group Choose to Know Alliance has stated in their statement:

The SR could not invoke the October 1 deadline for submission of amendments since it was set without consultation, contrary to Article IX of the CRSRS. Said provision states that, “The dates and periods pertinent to the selection process in the college, and system levels shall be fixed by the OSR with the consent of all the USCs and regional units.”

–
The answer of DEFEND THE OSR System-wide Alliance:

The above-quoted statement of the group Choose to Know Alliance is misplaced, false and erroneous.

The pertinent provisions of the CRSRS as regards the matter are the following:

“ARTICLE IX
General Provisions

xxx

Section 3. The dates and periods pertinent to the selection process in the college, AU and system levels shall be fixed by the OSR with the consent of all the USCs and regional units.

Section 4. These rules shall be amended or repealed through the majority vote of all the student councils in the UP System. Proposals to amend should be submitted to the OSR not later than the first (1st) day of October.

Section 5. These rules shall take effect immediately upon approval by at least a majority of all student councils present and voting.”

The above-mentioned Section 3, which was quoted by the group Choose to Know Alliance in their statement, is separate and distinct from the subsequent Section 4 of the CRSRS.

Section 3 refers to the “dates and periods pertinent to the selection process” of the Student Regent “in the college, AU and system level”, and such dates and periods “shall be fixed by the OSR with the consent of all the USCs and regional units.”

That is all there is to it. Section 3 has no relation whatsoever to the October 1 deadline for the submission to the OSR of any proposed changes to the CRSRS since such deadline is provided for under a different provision, which is Section 4, and not Section 3.

This is precisely because the October 1 deadline under Section 4 is a date for the purpose of submission to the OSR of any proposed changes to the CRSRS; it is not a date for the purpose of the selection process of the Student Regent.

The submission to the OSR of any proposed changes to the CRSRS is a matter entirely separate and distinct from the selection process of the Student Regent. Thus, there is no relation between the “dates and periods” in Section 3 and the October 1 deadline in Section 4, as each matter stands on its own.

Therefore, the OSR has validly invoked the said deadline for the submission thereto of any proposed changes to the CRSRS, not only because the same is provided for under the CRSRS but also because the CRSRS have been validly and legitimately passed and adopted by all the student councils of the UP System, through their majority vote, in a democratic and just manner.

Hence, the above-quoted statement of the group Choose to Know Alliance on the matter is utterly misplaced, false and erroneous, and intended only to confuse and divide the Iskolar ng Bayan as to the matters involving the forthcoming referendum.

–
The group Choose to Know Alliance has stated in their statement:

The Alliance also questioned the SR’s interpretation of a referendum as involving only a single question and her reliance on the ruling in Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority v. COMELEC (G.R. No. 125416, September 26, 1996).

Sophia San Luis, the College of Law Representative to the University Student Council (USC), said “There is nothing in the laws and jurisprudence cited that says there should only be one question in a referendum. In fact, in Sanidad v. Comelec, the Supreme Court upheld a referendum where there was more than one question in the ballot.”

–
The answer of DEFEND THE OSR System-wide Alliance:

At this moment, we advise the group Choose to Know Alliance to review its premises with regard to their arguments.

With respect to the case of Sanidad v. Commission on Elections (G.R. No. L-35929, January 22, 1973) cited by the group Choose to Know Alliance in their statement, it is true that any number of questions may be generally asked in a referendum. An instance that may be cited is that of the January 10-15, 1973 referendum among Citizens Assemblies during the dark days of Martial law, whereby the referendum posed eleven (11) questions to the Filipino people for their approval or rejection, as discussed in the said case of Sanidad v. Commission on Elections, as follows:

“[1] Do you like the New Society?
[2] Do you like the reforms under martial law?
[3] Do you like Congress again to hold sessions?
[4] Do you like the plebiscite to be held later?
[5] Do you like the way President Marcos is running the affairs of the government?
[6] Do you approve of the citizens assemblies as the base of popular government to decide issues of national interests?
[7] Do you approve of the new Constitution?
[8] Do you want a plebiscite to be called to ratify the new Constitution?
[9] Do you want the elections to be held in November, 1973 in accordance with the provisions of the 1935 Constitution?
[10] If the elections would not be held, when do you want the next elections to be called?
[11] Do you want martial law to continue?” (Emphasis supplied)

However, based on the formulation of the referendum questions in the said Citizens Assemblies, it can be clearly seen that with respect to the issue of the approval or rejection of the new Constitution, there is only one question posed for such purpose; and that is question number 7 as highlighted above.

Any proposed amendments to the said new Constitution are not separately asked to the Filipino people in the said referendum. This is precisely because all proposed amendments to the Constitution have already been validly adopted and passed by the 1971 Constitutional Convention prior to the said referendum, and such act of the 1971 Constitutional Convention resulted to the proposed new Constitution subject to the approval of the people.

Hence, the said proposed new Constitution, which was subjected to the Filipino people through Citizens Assemblies for their approval or rejection, already contained all the validly adopted proposed amendments thereto – thus the wisdom behind the single question with respect to the approval or rejection of the new Constitution.

This is the same wisdom behind the single question posed to the UP students in the forthcoming referendum. And since the group Choose to Know Alliance has cited the case of Sanidad v. Commission on Elections in their statement as a basis for their arguments, albeit in a misplaced and erroneous manner, the DEFEND OSR likewise invokes the said case as regards the wisdom, merits, propriety and legitimacy of a single question in the forthcoming referendum as to the approval of the CRSRS.

–
The group Choose to Know Alliance has stated in their statement:

The Law Representative argued that the case (Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority v. Commission of Elections [G.R. No. 125416, September 26, 1996] cited by the SR is inapplicable. “The laws cited in the abovementioned case were created for a specific purpose. RA 6735 Section 3 says, ‘For purposes of this Act, the following terms shall mean…’”

“What this tells us is that the purpose of the definition that followed was limited specifically to initiative and referendum in order to amend the constitution, statutes or local legislation. As stated in the case of Defensor v. Roco (G.R. No. 127325), “R.A. No. 6735 was, as its history reveals, intended to cover initiative to propose amendments to the Constitution, ” and the CRSRS does not, by any means, fall under this,” she said.

–
The answer of DEFEND THE OSR System-wide Alliance:

The group Choose to Know Alliance is downright confused, in the same way that the said group’s arguments are confusing and contradictory.

First, the said group argued this:

“Sophia San Luis, the College of Law Representative to the University Student Council (USC), said “There is nothing in the laws and jurisprudence cited that says there should only be one question in a referendum. In fact, in Sanidad v. Comelec, the Supreme Court upheld a referendum where there was more than one question in the ballot.”

By making this argument, the group Choose to Know Alliance has used as basis in their concept of a referendum – in the formulation of referendum questions, albeit misplaced and erroneous – that which refers to the approval or rejection of the new Constitution (1973 Constitution), as discussed in the said case of Sanidad v. Commission on Elections. That decision of the Supreme Court in that case involves, among others, the issue of the approval of the 1973 Constitution through the referendum among Citizens Assemblies.

The group Choose to Know Alliance has used as basis the concept of a referendum involving the 1973 Constitution.

Then, the said group suddenly posited this view:

“The Law Representative argued that the case (Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority v. Commission of Elections [G.R. No. 125416, September 26, 1996] cited by the SR is inapplicable. “The laws cited in the abovementioned case were created for a specific purpose. RA 6735 Section 3 says, ‘For purposes of this Act, the following terms shall mean…’”

What this tells us is that the purpose of the definition that followed was limited specifically to initiative and referendum in order to amend the constitution, statutes or local legislation. As stated in the case of Defensor v. Roco (G.R. No. 127325), “R.A. No. 6735 was, as its history reveals, intended to cover initiative to propose amendments to the Constitution, ” and the CRSRS does not, by any means, fall under this,” she said.”

If the group Choose to Know Alliance has used as basis the concept of a referendum involving the 1973 Constitution, as the group cited the case of Sanidad v. Commission on Elections in support of their arguments, why then the said group suddenly and surprisingly contradicted their own view by stating in their immediately preceding quoted statements that the case of Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority v. Commission of Elections [G.R. No. 125416, September 26, 1996], which cited Republic Act No. 6735 (The Initiative and Referendum Act) and invoked by the OSR, is allegedly not applicable as regards the forthcoming referendum for the CRSRS, when such statute (R.A. No. 6735) likewise refers to the Constitution or legislation, as the case may be.

If the said group has relied in a Supreme Court decision (Sanidad) involving the 1973 Constitution, why then did such group choose to disregard another Supreme Court decision (Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority) discussing a statute (R.A. No. 6735) involving the same thing – Constitution – or legislation in certain cases.

Truly, the said group’s arguments are confusing and contradictory. The group Choose to Know Alliance merely copies and selects arguments that suit their personal interests. And no wonder why their arguments immediately fall to pieces upon scrutiny and analysis.

In the letter of the OSR denying the appeal of the group Choose to Know Alliance, the OSR, in invoking the case of Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority, has categorically stated that such case is quoted only “by analogy as regards the conceptual differences between the two (2) processes” of initiative and referendum, thus:

“The decision of the Supreme Court en banc in Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority v. Commission of Elections (G.R. No. 125416, September 26, 1996) is instructive as to the statutory and conceptual demarcations between a referendum and an initiative, which is quoted here by analogy as regards the conceptual differences between the two (2) processes:”

This is because no other relevant statutes, except R.A. 6735 and the related statutes cited in the case of Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority, define the concepts of the processes of initiative and referendum within the Philippine jurisdiction. Therefore, it is only proper and correct for the OSR to invoke such R.A. 6735 and the related statutes cited and discussed in the case of Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority as regards the conceptual differences between the two (2) process of initiative and referendum.

–

The group Choose to Know Alliance has stated in their statement:

Following the SR’s “final statement” on the matter, the student councils and student leaders strongly condemned the decision of the SR to make the process “undemocratic by taking away choices from the students, while hiding behind unsound technicalities of her own inaction”.

Meanwhile, students from different UP units have continued to rally behind the proposal. Student council members, organization officers, alumni, and non-partisan students, have signed and expressed their support to the Manifesto of Protest and Appeal to the Student Regent posted at http://choose2know. multiply. com.

The Manifesto denounced the earlier decision of the OSR to limit the referendum question to a mere “yes or no” saying that “such a decision is an affront to elementary concepts of democratic consultation and maximum student participation.” It called on the SR to include amendments to the upcoming referendum. The Student Regent has stuck to her decision notwithstanding mounting protests from various sectors for her to do otherwise.

The Choose to Know Alliance is a group comprised of student councils, student leaders and organizations, with support from ALYANSA and KAISA, formed in order to ensure that the referendum will not be a wasteful exercise of sovereignty.

–
The answer of DEFEND THE OSR System-wide Alliance:

While motherhood statements about elementary concepts of democratic consultation and maximum student participation are ideal, the same should not be resorted to by the group Choose to Know Alliance in confusing and misleading the Iskolar ng Bayan as regards the matters involving the forthcoming referendum.

Instead of dividing the Iskolar ng Bayan about the issues involving the forthcoming referendum, the group Choose to Know Alliance should engage itself and exhaust their efforts in ensuring the success of the referendum. At this point when unity is essential, division and confusion caused by others should not be countenanced.

We appeal to the group Choose to Know Alliance to put the interests and welfare of the students above their own personal interest. We appeal to the group Choose to Know Alliance to bring to an end their continued efforts to undermine the validity and legitimacy of the CRSRS. We appeal to the group Choose to Know Alliance to help us in the success of the forthcoming CRSRS referendum by lending its hand in ensuring that the “Yes” vote shall win in the said referendum.

DEFEND THE OSR System-wide Alliance
Umaksyon-Baguio.Defend OSR-Diliman.Defend OSR-UPEPP.Defend OSR Movement-Manila.Defend OSR-Los Banos.OSR Panalipdan-Visayas.SR Watch-Mindanao.

source: www.eightysea.multiply.com