This General Assembly was held on September 8, 2010 at the 1st Floor Lobby of the Palma Hall, University

of the
Philippines - Diliman.

Council Members Present:

Ranulfo J. Javelosa III - Chairperson

Mabel C. Ogoshi - Vice-Chairperson
Adrian Audrey L. Baccay - Councilor
Daisy Margaret V. Ducepec - Councilor
Jose Emmanuel Micael M. Eva VIII - Councilor
Anna Czarina Mikael P. Isaguirre - Councilor
Mary Martha D. Merilo - Councilor
Paulina Maria B. Parungao - Councilor
Dan Christian E. Ramos - Councilor
Ron Ranier R. Reyes - Councilor
Vince Ray S. Escarcha - Anthropology Department Representative
Esther Joy D.J. Pasagui - Geography Department Representative
Leslie Louise C. Dela Cruz - History Department Representative
Michael Wilson I. Rosero - Linguistics Department Representative
Virginia Mara M. Favis - Philosophy Department Representative
Ysabel Jean B. Padilla - Political Science Department Representative
Pia Caterina M. Vizcarra - Psychology Department Representative
Justine A. Peralta - Sociology Department Representative
Juan Carlo P. Tejano - CSSP Representative to the USC

Faye Aspi - Volcorps Coordinator, Representative

Council Members Absent:

Jay-Ar D. Alejandro - Psychology Department Representative

I. Call to Order
At 6:11 PM, Chairperson Javelosa officially called the meeting to order. Secretary-General Ramos gave the roll
call, then the Philippine National Anthem was sung immediately afterwards, led by Councilor Parungao.
Chairperson Javelosa then proceeded with discussing what the purpose of having the General Assembly in the
lobby was:

“So, we would like to thank everybody for participating in our public General Assembly. Thank you all
for coming. Bakit nga ba tayong may ganitong General Assembly sa lobby? This is by virtue of a resolution
passed by Councilor Paula Parungao asking the Student Council to start accepting proposals for
amendments for the Codified Rules for Student Regent Selection or the CRSRS. Dito sa Public General

1|Page
 Assembly na gagawin nation ngayon, we will be hearing proposals from council members as well as the
insights that were collected by virtue of the consultations that were made...”

“… this is in line with the Council's objective of being a transparent one. Here we shall discuss the
amendments publicly and help the Council gain more points which will be used for the Council
deliberations scheduled as a special general assembly this coming Friday.”

II. Presentation of Rules by the Students’ Rights & Welfare Committee

At 6:16 PM, Chairperson Javelosa gave the floor to Vice-Chairperson and Students‟ Rights & Welfare
Committee Head Ogoshi, who presented the rules that her committee was tasked to come up with for this
particular General Assembly. The rules were still to be subjected to the body‟s vote afterwards before it could be
applied.

She explained that a rundown of the proposals forwarded by the Council members were to be done first by
Secretary-General Ramos. Afterwards, the proponent of each proposal was to make a motion to the body that it
should take on his or her resolution. This is in line with the Council‟s agreement that Parliamentary Procedures
will be used for this General Assembly. A fellow council member must then second this motion for it to be put on
the floor for discussion and deliberation. Once the presiding officer has laid the motion on the floor, the body shall
was to start the deliberations and presentation.

The proponent of the motion will be given the floor for the presentation of his or her proposal. Afterwards, the
body will then be able to raise their points regarding the proposal on the floor. At this point, the Department
Representatives may forward their department's position on the proposal. The departments‟ positions were to be
based on the consultations with the organizations and department core groups held during the previous weeks, as
well as the position papers passed by them.

Vice-Chairperson Ogoshi continued, stating that in Parliamentary Procedure, only the members of the body
can speak. Should anyone from the audience wish to manifest anything, he or she must write his or her comment
or question on a piece of paper provided by the CSSPSC Volunteer Corps located around the lobby. The members
of the Volcorps must check the ID of the student in order to confirm that the student is from CSSP. Then the
Volcorps member was to ask for the student‟s department so that he or she can deliver the student‟s concern to his
or her respective department representatives, who will in turn manifest these questions or comments to the body.
At this point, Vice-Chairperson Ogoshi expressed gratitude to the Volcorps. She then continued to explain that the
proponent of the motion may then clarify or respond to the inquiry. Any member of the Council who supports the
proposal may give additional information to each point.

Each proposal shall be allotted 30 minutes for discussion. When the body has reached the 30 minutes, any
member may raise a motion to postpone the deliberations until the Special General Assembly on September 10,
2010, as mentioned by Chairperson Javelosa. Should anyone wish to extend the discussion, he or she may make a
motion to extend the time to discuss the proposal laid on the table. Then the body shall decide as to whether or
not this motion to extend will be adopted.

Should there be proposals from the college or departments that remain to be raised at the end of all the
proposal presentations from the Council members, then these were to presented to the body by the College
Representative or Department Representatives. The Council members shall then be given the chance to support or
sponsor these proposals. Should any member wish to do so, then they will effectively take on the responsibility of
presenting their sponsored proposal for deliberations during the September 10, 2010 Special GA. If no council
member manifests the intent to sponsor the proposal, the Department Representative who presented the proposal
should then sponsor this proposal and raise the points passed to him or her from his or her constituents from his
or her department.

Finally, Vice-Chairperson Ogoshi then shared that the Students‟ Rights & Welfare Committee proposed that

2|Page
 the Special GA be held at Shobe or at Chairperson Javelosa's house in Marcos Highway on Sept 10, 2010 at 9 am
in the morning.

Chairperson Javelosa then opened the floor for the discussion of the STRAW Committee‟s presentation of
rules. There being no points raised, Councilor Baccay moved that the house rules be adopted. Department
Representative Dela Cruz then seconded the motion. With the motion raised and seconded, the body then put it to
a vote, the results of which are as follows: nineteen (19) were in favor, none (0) opposed, and none (0) abstained.
With that, the set of rules presented by the STRAW Committee was adopted.

III. Privileged Speech by Councilor Ducepec

At 6:24, before proceeding with the presentation of proposals, Chairperson Javelosa informed the body that a
council member manifested her wish to present a privileged speech regarding the topic at hand. Chairperson
Javelosa then quoted from the CSSPSC General House rules that:

“Any member of the CSSPSC may deliver a privilege speech with the approval of the presiding officer
before the body, but he/she must be limited to only ten minutes, subject to an extension of ten (10)
minutes upon majority vote by the CSSPSC present in the GA. Any member desiring to make a privilege
speech shall inform the presiding officer at least before the GA. The privilege speech is not up for
deliberation.”

With that, he gave the floor to Councilor Ducepec to give her privileged speech, which was as follows:

“The CSSP Student Council has always been at the forefront of the struggle to reform the Student
Regent Selection process. For years, the CSSPSC sought to introduce reforms to democratize the entire
process and to achieve better representation.

This year, as we all know, the CSSP Student Council opted to open up the issue to the whole CSSP
student body by consulting our CSSP-based organizations and department core groups, primarily to ask
about their views and opinions regarding the whole process, most especially on the CRSRS.

By doing this, we have actually achieved two things. First, we have been able to inform the different
organizations and core groups on the nature of the Office of the Student Regent and on the whole process
of selection, including the evolution and history of the CRSRS. Second, the CSSPSC has been able to open
up the CRSRS for possible amendments forwarded by the CSSP student body themselves. Time and again,
the CSSPSC has always been here to uphold the interests of the students. This process as a whole serves as
the extension of our struggle to lay the issue about the CRSRS to the student body, and to further
democratize the passing of amendments.

Often, we find ourselves asking „why is there a need to pass amendments in the first place?‟ The
answer is simple: no system is perfect, and no process is forever applicable to current times. Often, we
find loopholes in some rules, and often, we are faced with certain circumstances that tell us „hey, there is
still a lot of room for improvements.‟ In this case, change is inevitable. I have read just recently that
change has a considerable psychological impact on the human mind. To the fearful it is threatening
because it means that things may get worse. To the hopeful it is encouraging because things may get
better. To the confident it is inspiring because the challenge exists to make things better. Kung kayo ang
tatanungin, sino tayo dun? Of course, we should be the latter two: both hopeful and confident that we can
still make things better. Now the entire UP student body is faced with this challenge. We ask ourselves
„how can we actually make things better?‟ Hindi pwedeng parati nalang nating sasabihin na „pwede na
yan,‟ bagkus, dapat parati nating tanungin ang ating mga sarili kung „may magagawa pa ba?‟ At sa
pagkakataong ito, meron - marami pa. And the challenge to each and every one of us is to think of ways
on how we can improve the whole system and the whole process. October 1 draws on near, and until that
fateful day, we still have this opportunity to propose reforms or make suggestions on how we can improve
3|Page
 the system. Hindi basta basta lang ang pagiging isang Student Regent. The Student Regent is the lone
student representative to the highest policy-making body of the entire University system. Therefore, it is
only just that we take this issue seriously if we wish to get the best representation possible and if we wish
to select our Student Regent in the most democratic manner feasible. Thank you, Mr. Chair.”

IV. Proceedings on the CRSRS Amendment Proposals

At 6:27 PM, Chairperson Javelosa proceeded with the presentations of the proposals forwarded by the Council
members. For the information of all present, he informed the body that the STRAW Committee texted all the
members of the Council that if they had any amendments to be proposed, these should be submitted to Secretary-
General Ramos by 12:00 NN early that day. With that, he called on Secretary-General Ramos to give a rundown of
the proposals submitted to the Secretariat, the proponent for each proposal, and the amendment he or she
forwarded.

Secretary-General Ramos then stated that the following amendment proposals were submitted to him earlier
that day, in chronological order:

1. Addition of Minimum Academic Requirement, forwarded by Councilor Ron Ranier R. Reyes

2. Removal of KASAMA sa UP from the CRSRS, forwarded by Councilor Paulina Maria B. Parungao
3. Replacement of EO 204-A with Section 12G of RA 9500, forwarded by Councilor Mary Martha D. Merilo
4. Use of One Council, One Vote, forwarded by CSSP Representative to the USC Juan Carlo P. Tejano

A. Addition of Minimum Academic Requirement

At 6:28 PM, Chairperson Javelosa gave the floor to the the first proponent, Councilor Reyes, to present his
proposal. Councilor Reyes, in turn, expressed the following:

“Maganda gabi sa inyong lahat. Bilang Kinatawan ng mga mag-aaral ng Kolehiyo ng Agham
Panlipunan at Pilosopiya, isinusulong ko ang pagdagdag ng Minimum Academic Qualification para sa
mga nominado ng pagka-SR. Dalawang punto lamang. Unang-una: naniniwala ako na ang mga
sumusunod na Student Regent ng ating komunidad ay isang lider estudyante. Isang lider na handang
mamuno at magsulong ng mga kapakanan ng mga estudyante ng Unibersidad, at isang estudyante na
pinagpapahalagaan ang edukasyon na pinagkaloob sa atin ng mga mamayanan. Ikalawang punto:
nais ng proposal na ito na protektahan ang Opisina ng Student Regent sa mga problemang maaring
harapin ng Student Regent napatungkol sa kanyang mga academic requirements. Yun lamang po.”

Chairperson Javelosa then invited any member of the Council to second the motion that the proposal be set
on the table, to which Department Representative Padilla took on. With the motion seconded, Chairperson
Javelosa announced that the deliberations regarding the matter may now commence. He then reminded the
Department Representatives to raise any related concern coming from their respective department‟s constituents.

Political Science Department Representative Padilla manifested the stands from the four organizations,
namely: UP APSM, UP POLITICA, UP Political Society, and UP SAPUL, as well as a concerned student of the
Political Science Department. Regarding the passing of a “minimum academic requirement,” she reported that all
four organizations forwarded similar proposals. She started off by stating the main point of UP APSM: it is
imperative that the Student Regent has the capacity to balance academic requirements and the rigors of being the
Student Regent. UP POLITICA expects that the Student Regent can identify himself or herself first as a student
before becoming a representative of the students – a student not only based on his or her enrollment, but also on
his or her adherence to his or her academic duties. Department Representative Padilla then further emphasized
UP POLITICA‟s sentiments that they will only endorse the Minimum Academic Requirement if it is based on the
University‟s standards of not being classified as “on probation.” UP Political Society expressed their desire to
ammend Article III, Section II of the CRSRS. They believe that academic competence speaks volumes about
personality. They would like to elevate the position of the Student Regent to a higher pedestal. She then quoted
that their position that “if candidates of the student council are required to meet certain academic qualifications,
4|Page
 why should we not require the student regent - considered as the highest student representative of the University -
to meet at least the minimum academic requirement.” UP SAPUL recognizes that student‟s academic standing as
reflected by his or her grades should not be the only yardstick to determine the qualification of the nominee;
socio-civic participation should also be considered as complementary to that of academic qualification. Mr. Robert
Go, an MA Political Science major expressed that though academic standing does not reflect his leadership
abilities, an academic requirement should be imposed since UP imposes academic excellence as its core ideal. But
despite that, it was not demanded from the Student Regent that he be part of the honor roll. Overall, his stand is
that the Student Regent is first and foremost a student.

Sociology Department Representative Peralta then informed the body that only one of the Sociology-based
organizations submitted a position paper - UP PRAXIS. She then explained UP PRAXIS‟ sentiments that the
organization is against the idea of having an academic requirement, emphasizing their belief that there is no
relationship between leadership and academic performance.

History Department Representative Dela Cruz then explained that UP LIKAS was for the amendment, on the
bases that the academic requirement is minimal, the Student Regent should also serve as a role model to the
student body, and that problems that may arise from poor academic standing should be avoided.

Philosophy Department Representative Favis then explained that UP KaPiTas was for the amendment,
expressing that the Student Regent can represent by being a responsible student and that as a representative, he
or she must be a role model to his or her constituents.

Psychology Department Representative Vizcarra then explained that UP Buklod-ISIP and the concerned
Psychology majors who passed position papers agree with the forwarded amendment. The Student Regent has to
be aware of the experiences and interests of the students. Also, the student body must also have a guarantee that
the Student Regent will remain a student so as to continually serve as their voice.

CSSP Representative to the USC Tejano then explained that UP KAPPP agreed with the amendment. For
them, it serves as an insurance of the Student Regent‟s capacity to serve the students.

Anthropology Department Representative Escarcha then explained that UP Anthrosoc and the Anthropology
Core Group were unable to pass position papers, so he resorted to consulting any available Anthropology major he
encountered on their thoughts on the CRSRS Amendments. He reported that one student was against the
amendment, while a number of other students wanted the Student Regent to clear his or her status before
beginning to run for SR.

Department Representative Padilla then disclosed to the body that a question coming from one of her
constituents was forwarded. The question read: “how do you operationalize minimum academic requirements?”
She then responded using the position papers she had on hand with her. According to UP APSM, minimum
academic requirement is qualified by having passing grades in at least 60% of the units taken during the semester.
UP POLITICA, on the other hand, based the University‟s standard of not becoming a probe. UP SAPUL stated that
so long as he or she completes the units in the semester prior to the nomination.

Councilor Reyes then initially responded that the minimum academic requirements would be based on the UP
Charter. Later on, he corrected himself, stating that it was actually to be based on the University Code. Vice-
Chairperson Ogoshi then added that all of us entered the University as students; thus we should first fulfill our
duties as a student before we take on whatever endeavor we would like to take within the University. Councilor
Eva also manifested his support by stating “We do not have just rights, we also have responsibilities like passing
subjects so Student Regent must pass 60% to represent thousands of students who work hard on their
responsibilities.” Department Representative Rosero added that though he did not believe that there was any
relation between leadership skills and academics, the minimum grade requirement must still be imposed. Finally,
Department Representative Padilla expressed her personal support for the said amendment.

5|Page
 Department Representative Vizcarra then moved that the discussion on the proposal on the table be
postponed for deliberations on the Special GA. Secretary-General Ramos then seconded this motion. With that,
Chairperson Javlosa declared that the amendment proposal on the Addition of Minimum Academic Requirement
was postponed until the Special GA.

B. Removal of Kasamasa UP from the CRSRS

At 6:50 PM, Chairperson Javelosa gave the floor to the the second proponent, Councilor Parungao, for her to
present his proposal. Councilor Parungao, in turn, expressed the following:

“Although we do recognize the historical importance of KASAMA sa UP in the revival of the Office of
the Student Regent, it is unnecessary to keep its role in the CRSRS. If we check Article 2 Section C and
Section D, except for two other subsections, one can see that the roles stated for the GASC and KASAMA
sa UP are exactly the same. This redundancy is unnecessary and thus should be removed. Also, unlike
KASAMA sa UP, the GASC includes all student councils and is, thus, sufficient to fulfill the requirements
of information dissemination.”

With the introduction of the proposal complete, the discussion followed suit. First to speak was CSSP
Representative Tejano, who delivered the sentiments of UP KAPPP. According to the said organization, they
agree with the proposal on the basis that KASAMA sa UP carries its own ideological exclusivity and is redundant
with the responsibilities of the GASC; therefore they must be removed from the CRSRS.

Political Science Department Representative Padilla then delivered UP POLITICA‟s sentiments that the
removal is a non-issue, though they do recognize the redundancy and are for the removal of either KASAMA sa UP
or the GASC. However, they were not particular with which body was to be removed. UP Political Society
expresses its wish to strip KASAMA sa UP of the duties and responsibilities stated in the CRSRS and calls for the
further empowerment of the GASC.

History Department Representative Dela Cruz then expressed the stand of UP LIKAS, which is affirmative to
the proposal. They no longer see the relevance of KASAMA sa UP in the selection process.

Sociology Department Representative Peralta delivered the position of UP PRAXIS. The organization
defended the retention of KASAMA sa UP by giving out examples of tasks that it could perform that the student
councils cannot, such as dorm-to-dorm information dissemination. Furthermore, the CRSRS does not state
KASAMA sa UP‟s political and ideological stand, and is openly inviting the Council to take part in their formation.

Psychology Department Representative Vizcarra then delivered UP Buklod-ISIP‟s piece on the proposal at
hand. The organization expressed that though it recognizes the historical contributions of KASAMA sa UP; an
alternative group is already taking on the role that the CRSRS provides KASAMA sa UP, namely: the GASC. They
underlined that the GASC is a non-partisan grouping of the student councils of every college of the whole UP
system. In other words, the GASC is a much more representative body of the whole student population of UP.

Anthropology Department Representative Escarcha then forwarded the sentiment of the Anthropology majors
that he was able to consult with. Some students expressed their support for the amendment, though one reconizes
the role of KASAMA sa UP and suggests that a section be added which will provide how one may join the said
formation.

Department Representative Padilla then raised a question forwarded by a student from the Political Science
Department. It was addressed to everyone, regarding the topic of KASAMA sa UP. It stated: "is it explicitly stated
in the CRSRS that KASAMA sa UP is the Secretariat of the OSR? Please look it up in the CRSRS." To this,
Councilor Parungao replied that it was not provided in the CRSRS, though information dissemination was
mentioned. Secretary-General Ramos then read from the CRSRS that KASAMA sa UP was not given the
responsibility of becoming the Secretariat. Instead, it is the Office of the Student Regent who has the
responsibility to be the General Assembly Secretariat during the system wide selection process for the SR.
6|Page
 College Representative Tejano then moved that the deliberations be postponed to the Special GA. But before it
was considered, a question from the audience was raised by Department Representative Rosero. It was
questioning the actions of the Council as to why it chose to focus on this campaign when the university currently
faces the issue of the budget cut. Chairperson Javelosa then pointed out that the question was out of order due to
the fact that there is motion on the floor and that the question was completely unrelated to it. Only questions,
comments, or concerns regarding the matter at hand may be entertained. There being none, Chairperson Javelosa
requested College Representative Tejano to restate his motion. After doing so, Councilor Ducepec seconded it.

C. Replacement of Executive Order 204-A with Section 12G of Republic Act 9500
At 7:03 PM, Chairperson Javelosa gave the floor to Councilor Merilo, who made the motion to discuss her
prosposed amendment of replacing EO 204-A with Section 12G of RA 9500. Councilor Baccay then seconded this
motion. With the motion seconded, Chairperson Javelosa restated Councilor Merilo‟s proposal that EO 204-A be
replaced with Section 12G of RA 9500. He then gave the floor to Councilor Merilo to explain, who expressed that:

“Kasi kung babasahin natin sa CRSRS, yung nakalagay doon, „the Student Councils of the
University of the Phlippines System hereby promulgate the rules hereby under governing the
democratic selection process for the member representing the student body in the Board of Regents,
hereinafter referred to the Student Regent, as mandated under EO 204-A.‟ More of a technicality lang
naman siya. papalitan lang natin siya ng Section 12-G, under RA 9500 or the UP Charter.”

Before proceeding, Chairperson Javelosa recognized the presence of USC Chairperson Rainier Astin Sindayen,
KASAMA sa UP Deputy Secretary-General Peter Paul Sengson, USC Councilor Simoun Salinas, and USC
Secretary-General Kristine Borja.

He then continued by asking the body if there were any comments regarding the proposal being discussed.
Ms. Pasagui then raised a concern that there was a student from her department but the topic was not directly
related to the matter at hand. Chairperson Javelosa requested that Department Representative Pasagui first state
the comment. She then shared the sentiment from the student claimed that Department Representative Pasagui
was unable to express JPGS-UPD‟s stand on the CRSRS Amendments – that they were opposed to the Council‟s
actions to amend the CRSRS. She requested that she may explain her side, but Chairperson Javelosa suggested
that this be moved after the discussion of the matter currently on the table for discussion.

There being no comment from the body, Councilor Baccay moved that the discussion on Councilor Merilo‟s
proposal be postponed to the Special GA. Councilor Isaguirre then seconded this motion. With that, the motion of
Councilor Merilo was postponed to the Special GA.

Since the matter has been settled for the moment, Geography Department Representative Pasagui was then
given the floor to respond to the concern raised by a member of JPGS-UPD. She apologized to the organization
and then continued with expressing their stand on the matter. Though JPGS-UPD recognizes the Council‟s effort
to consult, it disagreed with its take on the matter since they believe that the issue has already been resolved
during the previous year, the outcome of which was the retention of the status quo. It believes that the Council
should focus more on the issue of the budget cut the University is currently facing. To this, College Representative
Tejano replied that we have to realize that the deadline for the proposal amendments to be passed is on October 1,
2010. We are in the process of a very serious consultation process; thus, we cannot delay this any further or else
we have to compromise the consultations made with the student body in the process. He underlined importance of
sticking to the schedule, but expressed the importance of discussing the issue on the budget cut. However, we are
currently on a schedule to discuss the matter at hand and the issue can be raised later on to either the STRAW or
EDUC Committee. Councilor Baccay then added that the Council is already working on a plan to address the issue
of the budget cut. Sociology Department Representative Peralta then added that UP PRAXIS shares the same
sentiment with JPGS-UPD that it is imprudent that the other issues are not being discussed. It believes that the
matter has already been settled during the referendum held 2 years ago. To this, Councilor Ducepec then rebuted
that just because the Council is not currently discussing the issue of the budget cut that it won‟t do so at all later
7|Page
 on. It must also be clarified that the Council is not prioritizing the CRSRS. Furthermore, the issue regarding the
CRSRS, OSR, and the Student Regent should not be belittled since the Student Regent is the sole student
representative to the highest policy-making body of the entire UP System. Also, regarding the referendum held
two years ago, we can see that in the consultations the Council held two weeks ago, the student body found various
loopholes and forwarded their own position papers regarding the amendments for the CRSRS. That‟s why we
cannot say that because the yes votes won two years ago, the same view holds true for the current student
population. To this, Secretary-General Ramos expressed his support and similar sentiments with Councilor
Ducepec. He then moved that the body proceed with the purpose of the General Assembly, which was to discuss
the findings of the consultation. Department Representative Dela Cruz seconded this motion. With that, the
General Assembly proceeded with its objective and moved on to the next proposal at hand.

D. Use of One Council, One Vote System

At 7:13 PM, Chairperson Javelosa then gave the floor to College Representative Tejano, who stated:

“I quote the following provision to be amended in its current form, which is in Article VII, Section 10:

„Section 10. The votes during the System-wide selection shall be allotted as follows:
UP Baguio 2 votes
UP Diliman 2 votes
UP Los Baños 2 votes
UP Manila 2 votes
UP in the Visayas 2 votes
UP in Mindanao 2 votes
UP Extension Program in San Fernando, Pampanga 1 vote
UPV College Cebu 1 vote
UPV Tacloban College 1 vote
UP School of Health Science in Palo, Leyte 1 vote‟

I propose that we amend the provision into:

„Each USC present from the different UP Autonomous Units, specifically UP Baguio, UP
Diliman, UP Los Banos, UP Manila, UP Mindanao, and UP in the Visayas shall be entitled to one
(1) vote while each college council present from the different UP Autonomous and Regional Units
shall be entitled to one (1) base vote, regardless of student population. In summary this proposed
amendment is the use of a One Council, One Vote System of voting allocation in the General
Assembly of Student Council.‟ ”

With that, Councilor Reyes seconded the motion for the body to discuss this proposed amendment. College
Representative Tejano then discussed his proposal, stating that currently, votes are allocated in such a way that
some units have two (2) votes, while others have one (1) vote. But if you think about it, there are more than
50,000 students in the entire UP system with roughly 20,000 students in UP Diliman alone. Meaning, 50-40% of
students are in UPD and yet we only get 12.5% of votes in CRSRS. To further democratize CRSRS, each student
council must have one (1) vote regardless of student population.

History Department Representative Dela Cruz then expressed the affirmative sentiment of UP LIKAS to the
proposal forwarded by College Representative Tejano.

Sociology Department Representative Peralta then expressed the stand of UP PRAXIS that it is for the status
quo voting system. They argue that any other system would be unrepresentative and biased to UP Diliman.

Political Science Representative Padilla then expressed UP POLITICA‟s agreement to the status quo voting
system. The believed that the one college, one vote scheme is prone to UP Diliman bias and partisanship. They
argue that the current system removes the notion of an imperial UP Diliman. For UP Political Society, they believe
8|Page
 that the votes for Student Regent should be allocated in an even more proportional manner, weighted voting
system. Campuses should have one (1) vote with an additional one (1) vote per specified number of students in
each campus. UP SAPUL believes that all units should have equal footing in selection process and that the one
council, one vote does not denote equality. Mr. Go‟s stand is that the current distribution of votes is not
proportional, which means that certain campuses will have more power. He believes that the fear has no basis
since it is not the fault of campuses if they are larger. On the one college, one vote system, he acknowledges the
possibility that a domination of the highest populated campus may occur, but everyone must be given the equal
opportunity to be heard. Regarding the proposal, he did not specifically state his position.

CSSP Representative Tejano then expressed UP KAPPP‟s stand that the status quo voting system is
undemocratic and that a system such as the one proposed is the next most democratic option. UP SIKAT agrees
with the proposal, stating that it is the most representative way of selecting the SR. Also, more accurate and more
votes gives the Student Regent more mandate. Besides, the individual votes of the students from larger units are
disenfranchised and devalued with the status quo system. College Representative Tejano also expressed his
personal sentiments in response to the issue regarding the bias of votes, he said that his proposed system will be
biased to the greater number of students, but then argued that that was what democracy was about.

Vice-Chairperson Ogoshi then reminded the body to not undermine the UP Diliman students‟ ability to think
critically. She then cited the occurance of the selection done in 2005, wherein the one council, one vote system
was passed and made effective. Despite that fact, the Student Regent-elect that year did not come from UP
Diliman. Therefore, it doesn‟t mean that if the amendment would be passed, the Student Regent-elect would
automatically be from UP Diliman. Department Representative Dela Cruz then manifested her support of Vice-
Chairperson Ogoshi‟s sentiments, and expressed her belief that UP students are critical enough to choose the
Student Regent that would best represent them.

Psychology Department Representative Vizcarra expressed the sentiments of UP Buklod-ISIP, which was in
agreement with the proposed amendement. With the current system, the voices of each student are given less
volume.

Philosophy Department Representative Favis then expressed the sentiments of UP KaPiTas, which was for the
one college, one vote system. They manifested their wish for the body to not underestimate the ability of UP
students to think critically and analytically.

Anthropology Department Representative Escarcha shared the sentiments of some Anthropology majors.
There were those who suggested that every unit be given the voting power depending on their respective
population, for example, for every one-thousand (1000) students, the unit will be given one (1) voting power. On
the other hand, there were also those who affirm with the status quo in fears of a Diliman-centric selection
process.

Department Representative Rosero then shared an open question: if democracy was the only point, then
shouldn‟t the consultations of the Councils be enough? Councilor Merilo then replied that if consultations were
enough, then voting power should be equalized.

Councilor Eva then manifested his stand that the GASC should ensure maximum participation of all students
for them to be aware of all candidates, and not just those from Diliman. He expressed that we cannot
underestimate the critical mind of students and that he believed that the Diliman-centric scenario will not
happen.

Political Science Department Representative then raised to the body a question forwarded to her, which
stated: “Why is the current voting system like this? What is the history behind it?” College Representative Tejano
replied that he had no precise information that could exactly satisfy the question. But as the GASC is convened for
the CRSRS, it votes according to one council, one vote. It is confusing as to why a different voting scheme is
adopted fot the actual selection of the Student Regent.
9|Page
 Department Representative Peralta then expressed her own stand. The argument that Diliman swing-vote
does not imply that Diliman councils will vote for Diliman candidate; the issue for her was that Diliman will have
the power to select the Student Regent simply through the number of votes.

Vice-Chairperson Ogoshi then shared that during the 2001 referendum asking students on how Student
Regent should be selected, it was found that the CSSP students wanted direct voting. But it would be very difficult
and logistically demanding if this system was to take effect, keeping in mind that there were numerous UP units
throughout the country. The one council, one vote system is a good compromise between resources and what the
students really want.

At this point, Political Science Department Representative Padilla raised a question forwarded to her from her
department that “the CRSRS does not preclude discussion budget cut by PNOY.” To this, Chairperson Javelosa
replied that the comment has been noted. At this point, Councilor Parungao raised a point of order that since the
Council is working under a Parliamentary Procedures, instead of responding, the Council members must first
raise their hand and be recognized by the presiding officer before we may reply. Chairpeerson Javelosa thanked
Councilor Parungao and affirmed her comment and then added that there is still a pending motion that the
Council must first settle. All unrelated comments may be raised until after the pending motion has been settled.

History Department Representative Dela Cruz then raised a concern forwarded to her from the History
Department. This statement was addressed to Department Representative Rosero: “nagiging malabnaw ang stand
in the process of consensus building.” In turn, Department Representative Rosero responded: “Base sa
consultation, dinadala ang comments ng mga estudyante at inaangat sa GASC. Hindi ako naniniwala na
lumalabnaw dahil matibay pa din ang stand ng UP. Mas malakas pa din ang sinasabi ng majority na dadalhin mo
sa GASC.” Another comment raised was that: “The current voting system ensures the unity of the student body
since it encourages the GASC to be unanimous in the choosing of the SR.”

Anthropology Department Representative Escarcha then raised a question from his department addressed to
him: “are you representing these amendments from Anthropos and Anthrosoc only? Please clarify.” He then
responded that since UP Anthrosoc and the Anthropos Core Group were unable to pass position papers, thus he
resolved to holding informal dialogues with the available members of both groups. Chairperson Javelosa then
raised his observation to Department Representative Escarcha, stating that the question is out of order due to
there being a pending matter on the table. He then suggested that this be taken up after the current matter has
been settled.

College Representative Tejano then responded to the comment raised from the History Department. He said
that consensus building will not be removed, since Article VII, Section VII, which stated that consensus will take
priority over the division of the house will be retained. Only if it was deemed impossible to build consensus will
the division of the house take place.

Secretary-General Ramos then raised that the thirty-minute time cap has already been reached, and thus he
moved to postpone the deliberations on the one college, one vote system proposal to the Special GA. Department
Representative Dela Cruz then raised her observation that Department Representative Peralta was yet to be given
the chance to respond to a comment addressed to her. Chairperson Javelosa inquired if this comment was related
to the matter at hand, to which Department Representative Peralta responded that it was concerning the comment
raised from the Political Science Department regarding “the CRSRS does not preclude discussion budget cut by
PNOY.” Chairperson Javelosa deemed this as not part of the agenda regarding the current matter at hand, and
resolved to take this up after the current matter has been settled. Vice-Chairperson Ogoshi then seconded the
motion to postpone the deliberations; thus, the deliberations on College Representative Tejano‟s proposal were
postponed to the Special GA.

E. Other Comments from the Audience

At 7:45 PM, the floor was given again to Department Representative Peralta , who defended that she was
10 | P a g e
 expressing the sentiments of one of her constituent organizations. But since the comment was addressed to her,
she expressed her personal sentiments that she believed in the relevance of discussing the issue of the budget cut,
however, she also believed in the importance of discussing the CRSRS. Thus, she did not see how this comment
can be applied to her.

The floor was then given to Department Representative Escarcha, who restated the comment addressed to
him, which was discussed earlier. He replied that due to the fact that both groups were not able to make stands for
themselves due to the time constraint, he resolved to hold informal dialogues with any available Anthropology
major that he came across. The input he received from these dialogues were treated as stands from individual
students.

CSSP Representative Tejano then raised a comment from SALiGAN sa CSSP, which accused the Council of
sacrificing the consultation process, process was compressed in a short span of time, the Council did not come up
with effective mechanism of consultation, no mechanism for consulting non-affiliated student, SALiGAN sa CSSP
was not scheduled for consultation, the current student turnout shows how poor student body was informed, and
that adequate and representative consultation is not the Council‟s priority. Sociology Department Representative
Peralta then added the sentiments from UP PRAXIS, which stated that they appreciate the consultation efforts
and acknowledge time constraints but notice that there are flaws. The Council failed to have proper information
dissemination, such as a lack of pubmats; the Council failed in consultation with non-affiliated students; UP
PRAXIS was not given a hard or soft copy of CRSRS; the Council failed to give UP PRAXIS all the necessary
significant issues regarding previous stands of CSSPSC, and that issues were tackled selectively; better
dissemination of reliable references; the Council should refrain from personal subjective opinion; amendments
may be pushed if majority of position papers pushed for them but there was no operationalization of majority; it
would have been better to have a student assembly and not a GA where students are merely audience; the
communicative rationality and communicative action was lacking; the consultations were biased in information
presentation; and the students were not given enough leeway to participate in efforts of CSSPSC.

Department Representative Dela Cruz then argued on the accusation that there was no mechanism for the
non-affiliated students to voice their concerns: actually, there was a mechanism in the form of the Department
Core Group consultations, wherein any student from the respective department was welcome to join in on the
consultations. Regarding the general complaints raised by both SALiGAN sa CSSP and UP PRAXIS, she argued
that such concerns could and should have been forwarded anytime during the two or three week period of
consultations. Any input from the organizations would have been greatly appreciated by the Council, and such
feedback could have been discussed within the Council. But it was only now that these concerns were raised. Thus,
she strongly believed that the Council was not lacking with regards to the consultation process since all
organizations and core groups were allowed to raise concerns throughout the procedure and no such feedback was
raised.

Councilor Parungao then shared that she was part of the group which consulted UP PRAXIS and added that at
no point in time did they request for a copy of the CRSRS. Should they have, the Council would have gladly
furnished a copy. Furthermore, the purpose of the General Assembly was to discuss the findings of the
consultation process, not to criticize it.

College Representative Tejano then argued that the very fact that the General Assembly is receiving such
varied input from different sides is in itself a testament which proves the success of the entire consultation process
and the efforts of the Council to reach out. Therefore, he believed that the consultations conducted by the Council
were sufficiently, if not perfectly, consultative in its manner.

Vice-Chairperson then expressed that the Council should have been given these type of feedback as soon as
possible, during the consultation process and not any moment later, because we believe that feedback is
constructive. All of the procedures for the consultation process were discussed and approved by the General
Assembly. Should there have been any comments such as these, they could have been raised during then.

11 | P a g e
 Councilor Ducepec then clarified that the CRSRS consultation discussion points were sent to all organization
heads. She personally did this during the weekend, so she was confused as to how come UP PRAXIS claims to
have not received it. Furthermore, should you have had any concerns regarding the entire process, these should
have been raised. As far as she knew, Department Representative Peralta is a member of UP PRAXIS, so any
complaint should have been raised to her. If the organization wished to acquire a copy of the CRSRS, it could have
requested the department representative or approach the Student Council office as we have extra copies of the
document stored in our pigeon holes in case any constituent desired to acquire a copy.

Secretary-General Ramos then informed the whole body that he was part of the consultation group to GSUP.
After the consultation process, they raised their concerns through Geography Department Representative Pasagui
that a certain section of the consultation was given too much time and focus. Thereafter, we modified the
consultation process in order to address the concern. Other organizations could have expressed their concerns
similarly, and we would have acted accordingly. Now if any individual wished to raise a concern, feedback forms
can be acquired from the Volcorps members located throughout the lobby.

Department Representative Dela Cruz expressed similar sentiments with Vice-Chairperson Ogoshi and added
that the deadline of Student Council was September 6, 2010 but the Council accommodated position papers even
after then, even to the last minute. Therefore, she believed that the Council did its best to make consultation
effective and efficient.

Councilor Parungao then moved that the body move on to the next agenda, seeing as though all arguments
have been exhausted. Sociology Department Representative Peralta then stated that she still had two comments
from the Sociology Department, and therefore, manifested her objection. As such, the house was divided as to
whether a time extension be given or that the body move on to the next portion, the results of which are as
follows: eight (8) members were in favor of moving on with the next item on the agenda, eleven (11) were opposed
none (0) abstained. Department Representative Dela Cruz then moved that a time extension of 10 minutes be
given to discuss the remaining comments. Department Representative Padilla then seconded the motion. There
being no objections, the motion was carried out.

Sociology Department Representative Peralta then addressed the first comment to the STRAW Committee
Head, Vice-Chairperson Ogoshi: “what is the STRAW Committee‟s mechanism for ensuring that the majority of
students were consulted regarding the CRSRS?” Vice-Chairperson Ogoshi then replied that the STRAW
Committee initially suggested that Department Assemblies be made, but this was met with opposition from the
Department Representatives. Instead, it was agreed that the consultations would be done on an organization-to-
organization basis, including the Department Core Groups for the interested non-affiliated students.

Sociology Department Representative Peralta then addressed the second concern to Chairperson Javelosa,
Vice-Chairperson Ogoshi, and Department Representative Dela Cruz: “we were disappointed with the
operationalization of „majority.‟ Our concerns regarding this were raised during the consultation to our
organization.” Due to its nature of being a comment and not a question, it did not beg for a reply, thus,
Chairperson Javelosa remarked that the comment has been noted.

Psychology Department Representative Vizcarra then raised a comment from the Psychology Department to
the whole body, which stated: “I would like to commend the Student Council for the public General Assembly
being held, as it was able to present various stands.”

Sociology Department Representative Peralta then raised another concern from the Sociology Department:
“disappointment on operationalization was already expressed during consultation, is that no feedback?” College
Representative Tejano then affirmed that this comment was raised during the UP PRAXIS consultation. Then he
replied that he does not recall the STRAW Committee utilizing the term “majority” at any point of the consultation
process. Vice-Chairperson Ogoshi herself claimed that she did not recall the utilization of the term “majority.”

Volcorps Representative Aspi then reminded the entire assembly that all comments must be coursed through
12 | P a g e
 the Volcorps members, who will in turn deliver it to the appropriate council member.

Secretary-General Ramos then moved that the body proceed with the next item on the agenda, since the time
extension has already been exhausted. Councilor Parungao then seconded this motion, while Department
Representative Peralta objected due to there still being unattended concerns from the Sociology Department.
Because of this, the house was again divided, the result of which is as follows: ten (10) were in favor of moving on,
while nine (9) were in favor of re-extending the time cap. To this, Department Representative Peralta raised a
point of inquiry that discarding the remaining concern would be in conflict to the nature of the consultation
process. All points of inquiry were to be addressed by the presiding officer, thus Chairperson Javelosa explained
that there were still a significant number of items to discuss, majority of the body voted to move on with the next
item, and that the concerns being raised were not even part of the actual agenda for the General Assembly. He
clarified that the concerns were not being discarded and they may be delivered directly to the people addressed by
it after the General Assembly.

F. Other Proposals from the Departments

At 8:16 PM, Chairperson Javelosa gave the floor to the Department Representatives for them to raise any
proposals from their respective departments that have not yet been tackled thus far.

Anthropology Department Representative Escarcha informed the body that some Anthropology majors
requested that the sentence found in Article VI, Section II be restated for the sake of clarity. Also, some majors
requested that the duties and responsibilities of the Student Regent after his or her selection be clearly stated.

The Department of Geography had no additional proposals to express.

History Department Representative Dela Cruz then delivered the proposals from UP LIKAS. The organization
suggested that a Student Regent Charter be made and should contain the following:

1. CRSRS be placed under the Student Regent Charter

2. Duties and Responsibilities of the SR
3. Check and Balance mechanism for the SR
4. Official duties of the OSR Volunteers
5. A more active GASC; greater responsibilities be given to it since the Student Councils are more in tune
with the needs of their respective constituent groups
6. Effectivity Clause which will serve as a “litmus test” for the Charter‟s effectivity
7. Referendum for the agreement of the student body with the Charter

The Department of Lingguistics had no additional proposals to express.

Philosophy Department Representative Favis expressed the concern of UP KaPiTas that it does not feel the
Office of the Student Regent, and is thus questioning its representativeness. The organization also suggests year-
long information dissemination for the student body so that it will be more familiar with the SR.

Political Science Department Representative Padilla expressed the suggestions of the Political Science
organizations. For UP APSM, they saw the need for four-year permanence with regards to the amendments. In
addition, they felt that re-election for the Student Regent be made possible as one term may not be enough to
complete his or her plans for the University. UP Political Society suggested a three-year moratorium since they see
that one year is not long enough. Also, they wish for greater duties and responsibilities which delineate the
Student Regent from other student representatives, as well as measures for checks and balances. Finally, they also
see the merits of the addition of a recommendation letter from a UP Professor to be added as a requirement for
nominees.

Psychology Department Representative Vizcarra then raised the proposal by some concerned students of the
Psychology Department: the addition of a provision which states the duties and responsibilities for the Student
13 | P a g e
 Regent which may serve as a checklist in screening nominees. In addition, they also wish to revise the succession
clause which provides for the measures to activate in case an incumbent Student Regent is rendered incapacitated
in fulfilling his or her duties.

Sociology Department Representative Peralta restated UP PRAXIS‟ stand to retain the status quo CRSRS.

CSSP Representative Tejano delivered the suggestions of UP SIKAT to bring the GASC to the highest level by
adding functions beyond the election of the Student Regent. UP KAPPP expressed the point they see in revising
the Succession Clause, for the same reason as stated by the concerned students of Psychology.

Now that the proposals of the various department and college-based groups have been run down, Chairperson
Javelosa reminded the body that any member who wish to sponsor any of the stated proposals may do so and will
be tasked with presenting this for deliberations during the Special General Assembly

V. Venue for the Special General Assembly on September 10, 2010

Before proceeding to the regular agenda of the General Assembly, at 8:30 PM the body went into a discussion
regarding the venue of the then upcoming Special General Assembly on September 10, 2010. Vice-Chairperson
Ogoshi presented the two possible locations: SHOBE restaurant care of Vice-Chairperson Ogoshi, and
Chairperson Javelosa‟s house situated along Marcos Highway.

The floor was then opened for suggestions. Councilor Isaguirre proposed another location, that is one of the
boardrooms in the Celebrity Sports Plaza courtesy of her father. Chairperson Javelosa asked how much it would
cost her father, but Councilor Isaguirre did not know.

A rundown of all the proposed venues and their respective locations was given by Vice-Chairperson Ogoshi in
response to Sociology Departmeent Representative‟s request to know the said information.

Vice-Chairperson Ogoshi carried a motion that the Special General Assembly be held at the Celebrity Sports
Plaza. Secretary-General Ramos seconded the motion.

Chairperson Javelosa asked for a contingency plan in case the said location would be unavailable. Given this,
Vice-Chairperson Ogoshi moved to divide the house. The motion was seconded by Councilor Baccay. With no
opposition from the body, it was decided that given the unavailability of the Celebrity Sports Plaza, the special
General Assembly would be held in Shobe, with a majority vote of sixteen (16) to three (3).

VI. Committee Reports

A. Students’ Rights & Welfare Committee

At 8:35 PM, the floor was given to Vice-Chairperson Ogoshi for her to report the STRAW Committee updates.
She started the committee report with updates on the Grad Core, saying that there were positive feedback for the
Council‟s efforts to reach out to the graduate students. However, it was also raised that many graduate classes had
no people occupying the room assigned to them. She then reminded the Councilors and Standard Bearers to
complete their room-to-room assignments by the succeeding week.

Note that at 8:37 PM, College Representative Tejano excused himself for a washroom break.

She then updated the body that the Blood drive was held September 7, 2010 and that it was relatively
successful. At that point, she congratulated project head, Councilor Isaguirre, who in turn, thanked the Council for
its assistance.

Vice-Chairperson Ogoshi then updated the body on the Safer AS campaign, stating that a letter for a meeting
14 | P a g e
 with Associate Dean Santillan was already given.

She then updated the body on KAPPalakasan, informing the body that the mechanics have been posted and
comments on it are very welcome.

There being no further questions or concerns from the body, the STRAW Committee was given a round of
applause as its report closed.

B. Secretariat & Logistics Committee

At 8:41 PM, Chairperson Javelosa gave the floor to Secretary-General Ramos. First on the committee‟s agenda
was the announcement that the 7th GA Minutes were finally done. He then proceeded to remind the PUB
Committee and all other council members who had pending minutes to submit them at the soonest possible time.

For the Kagalingang KAPP, the mechanics of the project have already been uploaded to the Yahoo! Group for
the Council to comment on until September 19, 2010.

There being no further questions or concerns from the body, the SEC Committee was given a round of
applause as its report closed.

C. Finance & Special Projects Committee

At 8:43 PM, the floor was given to Councilor Parungao for the FIN Committee report. She first updated that
the BPI booth would be held on September 14-16, 2010. The job of the Council members there is to give away
fliers. Also, for students who are interested to open an account, the minimum deposit is Php 250.00.

Then she announced that the Fun Run tie up with Alaska will be on 4:30 AM start. Upon a slight uproar
regarding the starting time of the activity, Councilor Parungao reassured the body with what the contact from
Alaska said: the tardiness of the participants have already been taken into account, so the actual run will
commence at around 5:00 AM. Councilor Ducepec and Volcorps Representative Aspi added to the reassurance for
the body that based on their previous experiences with fun runs, 4:30 AM was the usual starting time. Despite
this, the audience turn out wasn‟t disappointing since there are people who really run marathons as a hobby.

Note that at 8:45 PM, College Representative Tejano returned from the washroom.

Regarding the fun run project, Department Representative Dela Cruz informed the FIN Committe that the
EDUC Committee‟s Greener AS campaign also plans to hold a fun run on November. In light of that, she
requested that they talk about it further so that the campaign may be incorporated in the proposal.

Councilor Parungao then informed the body that the Council will be required to secure twenty (20)
participants for the Fun Run. Also, the Council is requested to suggest where the run should commence and if
there should be a band. Everything else was to be taken care of by Alaska.

Chairperson Javelosa then informed the body that the fun run had no registration fee, thus, the Council would
not be gaining any funds if it decides to agree to the tie-up.

There being no further questions or concerns from the body, the FIN Committee was given a round of
applause as its report closed.

D. Education, Training, & Popular Struggles Committee

At 8:51, Councilor Baccay was given the floor to report on the EDUC Committee‟s updates. He gave an update
first on thee Greener AS campaign. A new set of posters have been laid out by the Pub Committee and these will be
posted not later than tomorrow.

Councilor Baccay then informed the body that the committee has decided to postpone its TARA SPEAKAPP

15 | P a g e
 campaign on the first 100 days of PNOY. The Committee decided to do so because more preparation was needed
and the scheduled activity may fall on the students‟ academic hell week. In conclusion, the campaign has been
postponed to November 2010.

Note that at 8:51, Department Representative Vizcarra went out of the premises for a washroom break.

Councilor Baccay updated the body on the project proposal forwarded by the School of Statistics SC for the
Stat Week partnership with their SPSS seminar. The decision that the ECC came to is that the Council will be a
part of the tie up as a co-presentor. As such, it avails of the following benefits: publication materials posting, title
as co-presenters, and we have the option to present tokens, certificates, as well as the closing remarks. As such,
the Council is also expected to secure twenty (20) participants for each of the two (2) sessions, food for all
participants, as well as lunch and tokens for the speakers. With no one manifesting their opposition, it was taken
that the GA consents to this agreement.

Vice-Chairperson Ogoshi then requested for a joint meeting between the EDUC and STRAW Committees in
order for them to discuss the issue on the budget cut. To this, Councilor Baccay Agreed.

There being no further questions or concerns from the body, the EDUC Committee was given a round of
applause as its report closed.

E. Publications Committee
At 8:58 PM, the floor was given to Councilor Merilo for updates from the PUB Committee. She gave the floor
to Councilor Eva for the updates regarding the Council Website. He stated that the website creator has finally
replied and that the website is finally ready for launch. He then suggested that the Council give her a token of
appreciation. To this, Chairperson Javelosa told Councilor Eva to submit a budget proposal.

Councilor Merilo then informed the body that some students suggested that the Council Bulletin Board be
redesigned. In light of that, the PUB Committee will have to meet in the coming days.

There being no further questions or concerns from the body, the PUB Committee was given a round of
applause as its report closed.

F. Student Pavilions Team

At 8:59 PM, College Representative Tejano was given the floor to report on the updates of the SPT. The said
committee is currently in the process of formulating posters and letters for Tambprint.

With regards to the Tambtalks, former Dean Cynthia Bautista turned down SPT‟s offer for her to become its
faculty adviser. For the Tambtalk with Dean Tan, he and College Representative Tejano undrwent an ocular
inspection around Palma Hall. This resulted with the old admissions office being seen as a prospective location of
student pavilions in the future. It can house at least 10 organizations. CASAA was also seen as prospect for new
pavilions, and could possibly hold 5-7 organizations. All of these are still temporary suggestions which are subject
to change due to negotiations.

Also, according to Dean Tan, the CSSPSC may be temporarily relocated to the Bioethics section of Benton
Hall, which has wifi, computers, printers, and other equipment which can be utilized so long as the SSPRF was not
occupying area. To this, Chairperson Javelosa suggested that the body not bring its hopes up as nothing is final
yet.

College Representative Tejano then reported that Dean Tan said that a Committee from the administration
will be formed to coordinate efforts with both SPT and Kanlungan. This will serve one of the projects of SPT,
which was to coordinate with Kanlungan. College Representative Tejano then mentioned that this may serve as a
link between the two.

16 | P a g e
 There being no further questions or concerns from the body, the SPT was given a round of applause as its
report closed.

VII. Department Representative Reports

A. Anthropology Department
At 9:04 PM, Chairperson Javelosa gave the floor to Anthropology Department Representative Escarcha, who
had no updates for his department.

There being no further questions or concerns from the body, the Anthropology Department Representative
report ended with the body giving it a round of applause.

B. Geography Department
At 9:04 PM, Chairperson Javelosa gave the floor to Geography Department Representative Pasagui, who
had given her agenda with an update for “AllGeogeder Now,” which is a bonding event of the whole department of
Geography scheduled on the 22nd of September. Geography Department Representative Pasagui asked the
opinion of the body concerning the venue. She mentioned that the core group suggested to hold the event in the
open field near the College of Fine Arts. When she inquired concerning as to how the place could be reserved, she
was told that she should ask for permission first from the Dean of the said college. Others mentioned otherwise
and suggested that reservations be made to the Office of the Vice Chancellor for Community Affairs. She then
asked the body if they had any suggestions as to whom their core group should approach so as to be able to reserve
the open field near the College of Fine Arts. The body suggested that they approach both offices.

Department Representative Pasagui mentioned that the proposed event continues to gain positive response
from the department, despite the lack of a final venue.

Chairperson Javelosa then asked the body if they still had any concern concerning the report of the Geography
Department Representative. There being no further questions or concerns from the body, the Geography
Department Representative report ended with the body giving it a round of applause.

C. History Department
At 9:05 PM, Chairperson Javelosa gave the floor to History Department Representative Dela Cruz, who had
no updates concerning her department.

There being no further questions or concerns from the body, the History Department Representative report
ended with the body giving it a round of applause.

D. Linguistics Department
At 9:05 PM, Chairperson Javelosa gave the floor to Department Representative Rosero, who had no updates
concerning his department.

There being no further questions or concerns from the body, the Linguistics Department Representative
report ended with the body giving it a round of applause.

E. Philosophy Department
At 9:05 PM, Chairperson Javelosa then gave the floor to Department Representative Favis, who had given her
agenda with updates concerning upcoming activities within their department. One of these activities was the
Kapihan, wherein she reported that the event was a success among the Philosophy Majors.

Another activity was the Philo-on-the-go wherein volunteers from the Philosophy Department would
introduce their course to different High Schools. Department Representative Favis mentioned that the
coordinator for UPIS has accepted their proposal. The coordinator proposed that they hold the event to all of the
17 | P a g e
 third year students of the school, which composed of ninety-five students. Department Representative Favis
stated her concern that she may not be able to feed all ninety-five students. The body encouraged her that the
Philosophy department will definitely find a way.

Chairperson Javelosa then asked the body if they had any further concerns regarding the report of the
Philosophy Department Representative. There being none, the Philosophy Department Representative report
ended with the body giving it a round of applause.

F. Political Science Department

At 9:07 PM, Chairperson Javelosa then gave the floor to Department Representative Padilla who had no
updates concerning her department.

There being no further questions or concerns from the body, the Political Science Department Representative
report ended with the body giving it a round of applause.

G. Psychology Department
At 9:08 PM, Chairperson Javelosa then gave the floor to Department Representative Vizcarra, who had an
update concerning the Psychology Law Discussion.Supposedly, it was set to be held the previous Monday ever
since the month of July. But then the event was moved by the Psychology Department Chairperson to the month
of September. Unfortunately, most of the speakers will not be available until the 20th of September. Regardless, it
was set that the Discussion will be held on September 20. The speaker will be Dr. Tarroja and the event will be
held in PHAn 309.

Chairperson Javelosa then asked the body if they have any matter to raise concerning the report of the
Psychology Department Representative. There being none, the Psych0logy Department Representative report
ended with the body giving it a round of applause.

H. Sociology Department
At 9:09 PM, Chairperson Javelosa then gave the floor to Department Representative Peralta, who had no
updates concerning her department.

There being no further questions or concerns from the body, the Sociology Department Representative report
ended with the body giving it a round of applause.

VIII. CSSP Representative to the USC's Report

At 9:09 PM, the floor was given to CSSP Representative Tejano for his report. He reminded the body that the
League of College Councils will be holding a Rock And Rage Party. The said alliance will also be selling ballers for
Php 50 each. He told the body that he would be leaving the ballers in his pigeon hole.

Other announcements concerned the USC who will be making a statement concerning the budget cut declared
by President Aquino. They will also be selecting faculty members and students who are qualified to become
members of the University Student Electoral Board. Rules for selection include the individual not being part of
any political party. He then asked the body if they knew if Ms.Pelgar of the Geography Department was politically
biased. Department Representative Pasagui replied that she may be politically affiliated although she stated that
she wasn‟t sure. College Representative Tejano then mentioned that she will then be removed from the list of
suggestions even if there‟s doubt that Ms. Pelgar is affiliated. He assured the body that the nominees were
randomly selected.

As for the CALLREP updates, College Representative Tejano expressed his thanks concerning a successful
blood drive, KAPPwa which was an event tie-up with the STRAW Committee. The alliance will also be selling
shirts during the second semester. Ordering for the shirts will start as soon as possible.

18 | P a g e
 There being no further questions or concerns from the body, the CSSP Representative to the USC report
ended with the body giving it a round of applause.

IX. Chairperson's Report

At 9:13 PM, The Chairperson‟s Report updated the body on its tie-up with the College of Mass
Communication. The exhibit concerning the milestones of Filipino media will take place after the deadlines and
other student activities of the Council. Ma‟am Billedo, the coordinator for the Office for Student Affairs, has
agreed to the tie-up, seeing that students will benefit from it. The exhibit will be from the 27 th of September to the
1st of October.

Chairperson Javelosa then asked the body if they still had any concern concerning the report of the
Psychology Department Representative. There being no further questions or concerns from the body, the
Chairperson then asked the body to rise for the UP Naming Mahal.

X. Adjournment
The UP Naming Mahal was sung at 9:15 PM and was led by Councilor Parungao. Immediately afterwards, the
meeting was officially adjourned at 9:17 PM.

19 | P a g e
Prepared by:

Dan Christian E. Ramos

Secretary-General

Paulina Maria B. Parungao

Head, Finance and Special Projects Committee

Leslie Louise C. Dela Cruz

History Department Representative

Ma. Pacita Chelsea T. Cruz

CSSPSC Volunteer Corps Member

Viktor Andre A. Fumar

CSSPSC Volunteer Corps Member

Bianca K. de la Vega
CSSPSC Volunteer Corps Member

Noted by:

Ranulfo J. Javelosa III

CSSP Chairperson

20 | P a g e