MYTHBUSTERS: The rational and logical effects of our vote (Defend the OSR)

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.


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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.