UP Diliman University Student Councils

Position Paper on the change of term used in the Student Code from Acceptance to
Recruitment

In the last week, it has come to our attention that there were new developments in the matter of the
Code of Student Conduct (Student Code or Code). Referring to the contentious provision on the ban on
accepting freshmen into organizations during their first semester in the University, the summary of
decisions of the Board of Regents for the BOR Meeting last June 30, 2014 provided to wit:

On the proposed 2012 Code of Student Conduct of UP Diliman - The Board of Regents APPROVED
the 2012 Code of Student Conduct recommended by the UP Diliman University Council that includes the
revised appeal process, as well as the required residency of one (1) semester prior to being recruited to non-
fraternities and non-sororities (sic) organizations. The Board, however, retains the existing rule of one (1)
year residency requirement for membership to fraternities and sororities. (Emphasis supplied).

Two things must be noted. First, the Board of Regents made use of the word "recruited" in its summary
of decisions. Second, in the actual text of the 2012 Code of Student Conduct, which the BOR approved,
the pertinent provision states: Article IV Section 2.2.1.b Accepting a student who has not completed a one-
semester residency in UP Diliman for membership in a registered student organization.

Clearly, there is a mismatch of terminology as used by the Board of Regents ("recruited) and as used in
the actual provision of the Code ("accepting"). This is a matter of great consequence for student
organizations and we respectfully elaborate our concerns below.

First, the University Student Council (USC) is both alarmed and concerned with the sudden change in the
terms used. Having had a student representative during the Board of Regents meeting last June 30, 2014,
we were informed of the following developments:

1. That the Board of Regents adopted, upon motion by UP President Pascual, the version of the
Student Code approved and recommended by the University Council while the proposal to
retain the 1-year residency requirement before joining fraternities and sororities would be tabled at
the next University Council meeting. (This would eventually be approved, as well).
2. That it was clarified to the members of the Board during said BOR meeting that what the Code
prohibits is the swearing in of members into the organization and not the act of recruitment by
organizations.

Operating under the knowledge that the word "acceptance" as used in the 2012 Draft Code of Student
Conduct which was the version approved by the University Council, was still the applicable term, we
formulated our position in accordance with our mandate and our conscience. We submitted both a
position paper and a letter of recommendation to the Office of the Vice-Chancellor for Student Affairs
reiterating among other, a liberal construction of the Code in favor of the students, a strict construction
against penalization, and the following interpretation with respect to the student organizations:

We recommend that in applying this provision, what should be considered within the scope
of the prohibition is the vesting upon a student who has not completed his or her first
semester residency in the University the status of a regular member of the organization,
regardless of the application process. When we say regular member, this refers to a student
who is accorded all the rights and obligated to perform all the duties vested on a member by
the organization's constitution or by-laws. Rights and obligations may include but are not
limited to the right to vote, right to run for a position, duty to pay membership dues, or duty
to attend general assemblies, etc.

Following this definition, applicants or probationary members should not be considered
within the scope of the prohibition as their association to the organization is only either
conditional, limited, or unofficial.

The sudden change in the terms of the Code caught us off guard and has had the effect of
nullifying the efforts of University Student Council to disseminate proper and accurate
information to its constituents.

Second, we manifest that the change in terminology is not merely clerical but is actually substantial in
nature. For student organizations in UP Diliman, the use of the term "recruitment" instead of
"acceptance" widens the scope of the prohibition significantly. If in fact, recruitment of freshmen in
their first semester will be considered an act of misconduct, the import is that student organizations are
not merely prohibited from vesting regular membership upon said students, but are also prohibited
from inviting them to apply in the organizations. It is our firm position that such reading of the
provision of the Code is a manifestly undue regulation of students' right to organize. Recruitment and
acceptance are not synonymous and in practice, involve different activities . The former can include
activities to advertise their events, projects, and advocacies, to entice students to avail of their services
and buy their merchandise in the hopes of convincing said students to eventually join their organization.
To prohibit them from engaging in such activities because they would appear to be "recruiting" freshmen
in the process, would be like disallowing organizations to engage in activities which form a regular part of
their roster or calendar of events. This would be both unnecessary and oppressive.

Furthermore, we have earlier expressed our concern about considering this particular provision under
Harm to Persons in Article IV of the Code. We do not see how the mere act of accepting freshmen, let alone,
inviting freshmen to join organizations during their first semester, falls within this general definition of
"harm." Unless it is made clear to us how the act on its face can be deemed to be harmful to persons,
then such classification is unjustifiable. The verdict on whether the recruitment of a freshman is an act
harmful to his or her wellbeing should be decided as the rule is applied or on a case-to-case basis, not
through the actual provision, and definitely not as a premise to warrant a blanket prohibition in the
Student Code that violates students' basic freedoms.

We also manifest our concern about the lack of proper and formal publication of the purported final
version of the Student Code. We have received only the following pertinent documents from the Board
of Regents:

1. The copy of the summary of decisions of the 1298th BOR Meeting (June 30, 2014) dated July 4,
2014 which is quoted above.
2. The 2012 Draft Code of Student Conduct approved by the University Council.

Despite the lack of information dissemination, the administration would let us believe that the Student
Code has already taken effect. The fact that there are suddenly changes in the terms used in the Student
Code and in light of the confusion as to the provision governing student organizations, it is all the more
important that the Code undergo formal publication. Until the actual text of the final version of the
Student Code approved by the BOR is released, it cannot be said that the students were given prior
notice of the rules governing their conduct. We believe that a Code that seeks to govern the conduct of
students but which students have not read and understood in its entirety cannot be binding and
enforceable without violating their rights to due process.

We cannot emphasize the urgency of resolving the matter at hand. We have experienced firsthand the
chilling effect that the pending Student Code has had on student organizations. They are at a standstill,
unsure and reluctant to continue with their activities for fear of being sanctioned by the University. The
recruitment season, which most students in the University look forward to in the months of August and
September, has begun but there are no sign-up booths, no org fairs, no games at the college lobbies,
because organizations do not know if the same will render them liable under the Code.

At the same time, freshmen are being sent mixed signals by these new rules. Organizations are now
carrying with them a stigma that they are harmful to freshmen because the rules say that it is an act of
misconduct, moreover, a harm to persons, to recruit freshmen during their first semester, regardless if these
are academic or religious organizations.

We know that this is not true. We can attest to how our organizations have helped us adjust to UP life in
our first few months as college students and how they eventually helped us grow holistically, enabling us
to carry on the UP brand of leadership. Even in the first semester, we gained new friends who guided us
with unfamiliar school procedures, we had organization libraries to borrow readings and textbooks from,
and we had tambayans where we could hang out during our free time. All in all, this reduced the instances
of being lost or clueless during our first semester.

The Student Code states that the University encourages students to engage in activities that help them flourish as
individuals and as groups. Such spirit of the Code cannot now be realized if the burden of proving that
organizations are in fact, beneficial to students, is now being placed upon the student organizations
themselves.

In line with these manifestations, the University Student Council would like to request the following:

First, that the Board of Regents honor its decision during the 1298th BOR meeting to adopt in toto the
version of the Student Code which was approved and recommended by the University Council.
Specifically, this is 2012 Draft Code of Student Conduct. We believe that it is in line with the principles
of fair play that the Board of Regents be consistent with what was understood by all parties involved to
have been the decision during the 1298th BOR Meeting.

Second, and following from the first point, that the term "acceptance" in the Student Code be retained
and be clearly defined to mean the vesting upon a student who has not completed his or her first
semester residency in the University the status of a regular member of the organization,

Finally, that the provisions of the code concerning the acceptance of freshmen into organizations be
suspended until the actual document of the Student Code is released in an official school publication
and is duly disseminated to the students. It is a rule of law that before a person may be bound by law, he
must first be officially and specifically informed of its contents (Tanada v. Tuvera, 1985). In the same light,
we believe that students cannot be justifiably sanctioned for violations of the Student Code if such
students had no prior notice of the official rules and regulations governing their conduct.



This document serves as an official recommendation by the University Student Council but should not
be considered a waiver of its right to participate or recommend in future policy-making deliberations in
connection with Student Code.




Pola Lamarca
Councilor and Students Rights and Welfare Committee Head
University Student Council
University of the Philippines, Diliman

Noted By:



Arjay R. Mercado
Chairperson
University Student Council
University of the Philippines, Diliman

Date: August 18, 2014