Interview with the Philippine Collegian (on GASC)

The Philippine Collegian wrote:

Albert, we would like to get your comment:

SR Ken Ramos has said he does not recognize the amendments made during the GASC meeting at Teachers' Village. In fact, Ramos is going ahead with the selection timetable under the framework of the Old CRSRS.

1. What is your reaction?

I am frustrated at the double standards by which the Student Regent is handling things. On the one hand, he is a staunch advocate of a campaign to oust the Philippine President for alleged transgressions of election law and other impeachable acts; the Hon. Ken Ramos himself, however, has violated several rules in an arena as close to home as the General Assembly of Student Councils.

Regent Ramos has complete disregard for rules and correct procedure. On that fateful day of November 13, 2005 - he had already violated several universal rules of parliamentary procedure but none was more blatant than his support for a tyranny of the minority. He interpreted the rules to his convenience and clearly to those who were politically aligned with him, in utter disrespect to the GASC principle of broad and open participation without consideration for political ideologies. He forcefully made an illegal adjournment of session by wielding his supposed prerogative which is in direct violation of the ratified House Rules: Section I, Rule 9 - "The sessions of the meeting shall not be suspended or adjourned except through majority vote of the student councils present" (emphasis supplied). No matter what his reason was, he clearly had no authority to adjourn by himself and he had to consult the assembly, wherein a clear majority of 24/44 student councils did not agree with him. That, he did not do.

Althroughout the chaos that broke loose right under his nose, Student Regent Ken Ramos did not do anything to placate the angry crowd. He was even seen and witnessed by several delegates and observers to be raising his fist and chanting in unison with the unruly mob that he allowed on the session floor. This was again in direct violation of the ratified House Rules: Section I, Rule 12 - "All sessions shall be open to bonafide UP students who are not part of the GASC as observers, therefore having no power to participate in the proceedings of the assembly, provided that they can present a valid UP identification card and they will observe proper behavior. The presiding officer can limit the number of observers present" (emphasis supplied). Regent Ramos allowed the observers to enter into the session hall and proceed with their bullhorn-led chants and invectives full of insults against the GASC, even to the point of joining the rally himself together with the KASAMA sa UP and OSR Secretariat that was supposed to be politically neutral.

When the GASC saw these blatant violations being committed by the Student Regent, the majority of the body regardless of political party (these student councils were from different campuses and have not even met each other before the GASC) decided to see if there was still a quorum to proceed. Twenty four responded to the roll call at around 6:00 to 6:30 pm. The House Rules say that "A simple majority of fifty percent plus one (50% + 1) of all student councils present shall constitute a quorum for any session to do business. Only when a quorum is in existence can a formal session proceed" (Section I, Rule 2). Originally on Saturday morning, 44 councils registered, making a simple majority for quorum to be 23. Thus, with twenty four physically present and responding to the roll call, a quorum was existent. That did not even count more councils who, by virtue of an authorization letter wanted to participate in the amendment of the CRSRS. The majority urged the Student Regent to continue presiding as it was his job to do so, but he refused to and instead insisted on his illegal adjournment.

Because of the above gross violations committed by the Student Regent (in addition to his refusal to divide the house which was the cause of the pandemonium), the body decided to have a Vote of No Confidence in Regent Ramos as the GASC Presiding Officer and have him replaced, in accordance with the House Rules - Section I, Rule 7: "The Student Regent shall preside in all the sessions, unless the chair is relinquished to another person in accordance with the House Rules." That was when I was given the heavy burden of being the temporary Presiding Officer (and NOT the Student Regent).

There was basis for then transferring the venue: the House Rules provide for it as the majority determined - Section I, Rule 4 which states that "No session of the meeting shall be convened in any place other than that specified in the Program of Activities without the consent of the majority of the student councils present." In consideration of the security threats presented by Regent Ramos and his angry, unruly mob of supporters, session was suspended and transferred to Teacher's Village. The venue was announced to those who were interested in pursuing the session - the majority - as was listed in the roll call made at 6:30 pm. It was never hidden; Regent Ramos and the minority deliberately chose not to participate.

Part of the Order of Business for session that Regent Ramos himself presented is the determination of a timetable for the SR selection process. Towards the end of session on the morning of November 14, 2005, that was discussed by the GASC and the date and venue were set for December 17-18, 2005 at the UPLB Campus in Laguna. That determination being made by the majority in observance of the House Rules makes it the legitimate selection timetable. Furthermore, the old CRSRS is no longer in force because a GASC majority in session amended it and ratified a new one for 2005. The CRSRS of 2004 has no ratification and hence is no longer valid.

2. Should any legal or administrative measure be taken against Ramos?

Surely legal or administrative remedies are in order. We cannot afford to be harsh critics of the Malacañang administration's alleged lapses of judgment if we ourselves do not know how to follow basic rules of procedure. It would be a shame for UP's reputation of being a catalyst for social change to do so with dirty hands. For us to gain the trust and respect of our people, we must be examples of good governance in our own backyard, and we must not tolerate blatant violations of the law.

3. Who do you think has to ultimately rule on which CRSRS should govern?

It is for the students to decide on which CRSRS to govern. On that premise, judgement has already been made because a majority of the student councils who attended the GASC chose to ratify the new CRSRS for 2005. However, the very decision of Regent Ramos to illegally uphold the old and unratified CRSRS is by itself courting administrative intervention, because in the long run the basis for the existence of the Office of the Student Regent is an Executive Order by Malacañang way back in the late nineties. Thus, due to the insistence of Regent Ramos on his own dictated rules in complete disregard of the majority of UP student councils, somewhere down the line someone has to study the issues at hand and thus make a determination on who is following the rules and who is twisting them.

As to who that body shall be - legal minds would be in the best position to answer. Whether it be the Board of Regents (of which Regent Ramos is a member) or a Philippine Court, or some other body tasked by law to correct this injustice - it shall come to adjudication.

Thanks!