P O S I T I O N   P A P E R
In the Matter of the Draft 2009 Code of Student Conduct for the University of the Philippines in Diliman

At the onset, the Alpha Phi Beta Fraternity of the UP College of Law believes that there is a need to harmonize existing rules covering the welfare and conduct of the students.

We further believe that as UP students, we must be allowed to exercise rights and reasonable prerogatives that will allow us to grow and mature, in preparation for the world outside the University. The changing milieu of the national and global scenes demands that UP graduates should be innovative, creative, and free-minded; this end would not be subserved if they are subjected to limiting and constraining rules that do not serve a purpose germane and closely-tailored to the furtherance of their welfare and development.

In saying these, we believe that the lenses to be used in adopting rules and regulations governing student conduct in UP should be (1) rights-based, and (2) in the furtherance of student empowerment.

Following these basic principles, the Fraternity registers its strong objection against the draft 2009 Code of Student Conduct both on procedural and substantive grounds.

The primary import of the Review Committee is not so much its role in drafting the Draft Code, but its access to the data sets and raw information used in drafting it. According to the primer released by the Committee, it has conducted ten focused group discussions and 100 focused interviews with different stakeholders. The primer also claimed that there were different position papers submitted by members of the faculty and administrative personnel (but no student papers were mentioned).

Our student leaders should have access to these data sets and raw information in order to study and identify which issues should be part of the review. Students are in a better position to identify the necessary items that should be included in the draft Code.

The task of the Review Committee is to integrate and unify existing University rules on student discipline (Rules and Regulations on Student Conduct and Discipline) and on student organization (Revised Rules and Regulations Governing Fraternities, Sororities and Other Student Organizations). While we do not doubt that student discipline is within the province of University authority, nonetheless there is still a need for student representation in the Committee. This proposition is in consonance with the tenets of student empowerment, a principle which finds very deep resonance in the culture of UP. This University is the cradle of student leadership and activism in the country. UP students have consistently demonstrated the degree and quality of their political consciousness and skills in governance. They have consistently shown their ability to actively participate in affairs that directly affect them. In the interest of student empowerment, they should be given the opportunity to have their voices heard in the process of making rules that would have an impact on them and their peers.

From where we stand, the Draft Code should be broad enough to allow administrative offices falling under its purview to exercise discretion in implementing it. The Draft Code should set only general parameters which specific administrative issuances should conform to. A general rule should not constrict administrative agencies from implementing it, if in the interest of justice, flexibility is necessary. This proposition is unquestionably more rights-based, because it seeks to grant a wider latitude to administrative offices in passing judgment upon student conduct, always taking into account the peculiar circumstances of every case. It is in this context of fairness and justice that student rights are more conducive to promotion and protection.

The draft Code contains vague provisions and terminologies that, if not checked and clarified, will result in the curtailment of the freedom of speech and of expression that is expressly guaranteed as absolute rights under the Philippine Constitution. The draft states:

Section 1.3.1.a. Creating within the University premises disorder, tumult, breach of peace, or serious disturbance;

How does the University define “disorder, tumult, breach of peace, or serious disturbance”? Are public demonstrations, rallies, and student mobilizations considered such?

Section 1.4.e. Engaging in disgraceful conduct within University premises;

Again, how does the University define “disgraceful conduct”? Does it include public display of affection? How about the kind of nudity, vulgar speech, or unorthodox/ eccentric acts that have always been incorporated in activities that are already considered part of the traditions of UP and have come to define the intellectual and creative ferment that every UP student should be exposed to? Will these fall under the “disgraceful conduct?”

In the interest of the advancement and protection of student rights and welfare, particularly the liberties of speech and expression regarded as nothing less than sacrosanct in UP, these provisions would have to be reformulated or clarified from a rights-based perspective. These provisions would have to be crafted in a manner that would ensure that student rights in UP will not be vulnerable to curtailment or diminution.

The freedom to organize and form associations is an absolute right guaranteed by no less than the Philippine Constitution. The only limitation to this right is that it cannot be exercised to organize associations that are contrary to law.

The Draft Code contains provisions for recognition of student organizations that, to our mind, constitute curtailment of the freedom to organize. These are the following:

Section 3.1.a. A student organization seeking University recognition must have a membership of at least 0.5% of the eligible student population, including officers, who have completed at least one (1) year of residency in the University…

x        x        x

Section 3.1.d.3. Certification against the recruitment of students who have not earned a one-year residency;

x        x        x

Right now, Diliman has roughly 22,000 eligible students. That would mean that the minimum number of membership for every University-based student organization will be 110 students. Clearly, the Review Committee has not fully appreciated the changing paradigms experienced by student organizations. Setting such a high criterion will result in the death of most organizations in UP. While this requisite may seemingly partake of a mere regulatory measure, its impracticability would amount to an unwarranted curtailment of UP students’ right to organize and form associations.

Another one is a question in our mind: What is the rationale behind limiting student organizations, other than Greek-lettered ones, from recruiting first year students? Isn’t the provision a clear violation of the student’s freedom to organize and join organizations that will contribute to their growth and development as productive citizens?

Clearly, these provisions of the Draft Code amount to unreasonable and unjustifiable intrusions into the sphere of protected student rights. From a rights-based perspective, these proposed measures may herald the dilution and, possibly, the eventual decline of the rich and vibrant tradition of student associations in UP. This tradition is a hallmark of the UP experience. Not even the Administration can argue that the activities of student organizations do not contribute to the variety and quality of campus life that has come to define UP.

Section 3.1.d.2. Detailed accounting of finances prepared by the student organization’s immediate past finance officer;

x        x        x

Section 3.1.d.4. List and description of projects and activities undertaken during the immediate past year, with relevant documentation, such as posters, programmes, and photos. The list should include a least one academic project/activity;

Section 3.1.d.5. Proposed schedule, description, objectives, budget and source of funds of projects and activities to be undertaken, which should include a least one academic project/activity;

x        x        x

Section 3.1.d.7. Proof of payment of all required fees.

x        x        x

From a rights-based analysis, these preceding provisions constitute requirements that unduly constrict the student’s freedom to organize on the following grounds:

a.    It precludes student organizations from undertaking projects that are not within the purview of their planning seminars. Simply put, there are some unforeseeable activities and projects that come out in the middle of the semester. Do the provisions entail that any change in the submitted plans should first require the administration’s approval before they can be implemented? Is approval of these activities now mandatory for University recognition, or will they just be directory?

b.    The mandatory requirement of “at least one academic project or activity” clearly contravenes the student’s right to organize based on their beliefs. Student organizations are not only academic-based, but can also be classified as socio-civic, socio-political, political, special interest, etc. The underlying purpose of establishing student organizations is for their members to band together for their common interests or beliefs. These interests or beliefs are not necessarily related to their academic work. Requiring such an activity directly contravenes the students’ right to organize for whatever reason (as long as it is not in violation of existing laws), and also doubts their capacity to manage the affairs of their organizations according to their best judgment. On both counts, this measure is not rights-based and is not consistent with student empowerment.

c.    Student’s freedom to organize must not be in consideration of financial capacity. They should be unencumbered by any monetary consideration before they are given University recognition.

In view of the foregoing, the Fraternity respectfully suggests a counter proposal contained in the Magna Carta of UP Students as a substitute to the draft Code.

Finally, the Fraternity respectfully reserves the right to submit additional proposals, position papers, and the like as information arises out of our consultation with fellow students and organizations.

18 April 2009