USC GENERAL ASSEMBLY 10

November 15, 2010

USC Office

Time Started: 7:35PM

Time Ended: 12:45MN

Name Position Time-in Time- Attendance

Out Status1
Sindayen, Rainier Astin Chairperson 7:20PM 1:00AM Present
Agudo, Fermina Vice-Chairperson NO LOG Present
Borja, Kristine C. Councilor 7:15PM 1:00AM Present
David, Marck Bryan A. Councilor 7:00PM 1:00AM Present
Dela Resma, Marvee B. Councilor 7:45PM 1:00AM Present
Duran, Jeanine Jerusha C. Councilor 7:00PM 1:00AM Present
Elago, Sarah Jane I. Councilor 7:00PM 1:00AM Present
Estrella, Richard R. Councilor 7:00PM 1:00AM Present
Councilor 9:00PM 1:00AM Excused Late
Garcia, Jemimah Grace N. (Class)
Ibaviosa, Raphael Dominic U. Councilor 7:15PM 1:00AM Present
- - Absent

Kalingking, Kriska Kamille V. Councilor

Mariazeta, Jesica Councilor 7:00PM 1:00AM Present
Ramos, Dan Neil Q. Councilor 7:00PM 1:00AM Present
7:00PM 1:00AM Present

Salinas, Simoun Antonio M. Councilor

Asian Institute of 7:00PM 1:00AM Present
Juan Carlo B. Danganan Tourism
Representative
Alexander Dominic Mayoralgo College of Architecture 7:00PM 1:00AM Present
Representative
College of Arts and - - Excused
Maria Kriselda J. Sebastian Letters Representative Absent
(Sick)
College of Business 7:00PM 1:00AM Present
Englebert G. Chua Administration
Representative

1
ATTENDANCE STATUS: Late, as defined by the USC House Rules 2010-2011, is arriving 15 minutes after the Announced Time Start of the GA
which is 7:35. (7:55PM) Left Early (leaving anytime before the official Time End of the GA) is considered “Late”, as defined by the USC House Rules
2010-2011 Excused Tardiness/Absences are tardiness or absences within the purview of allowed or justifiable reasons as qualified in the House
Rules - given that these reasons were forwarded beforehand to the Secretary General and the Chairperson and its validity checked. Tardiness
accrued due to leaving early may be considered an excused tardiness if the member left before adjournment but after the set schedule for the
session to end. (i.e. for this GA, leaving before 12MN is considered an unexcused late)
 College of Education NO LOG Present
Montana Amir C. Dominguez Representative
College of Engineering 7:00PM 1:00AM Present
Cyrus Dickson A. Cruz Representative
College of Engineering 7:00PM 1:00AM Present
Michael Bryan M. Bien Representative
College of Fine Arts - - -
- Representative
College of Home 7:00PM 1:00AM Present
Karmela Victoria M. Abesamis Economics
Home Economics Representative
Angelo Jose C. Flores College of Human 7:15PM 1:00AM Present
Human Kinetics Kinetics Representative
Ma. Florence Therese DG Martirez College of Law 7:00PM 1:00AM Present
Representative
College of Mass 7:00PM 12:00AM Left Early
Nigel Patrick M. Coronel Communication
Representative
College of Music - - Excused
Representative Absent
Nicole Roxanne C. Aldiosa (Class
Requirement)
Jacqueline E. Canlas College of Science 7:00PM 1:00AM Present
Representative
College of Social 7:00PM 1:00AM Present
Sciences and
Juan Carlo P. Tejano Philosophy
Representative
College of Social Work NO LOG Present
Marie Gold M. Villar and Development
Representative
National College of 7:00PM 1:00AM Present
Desiree M. Ico Public Administration
Representative
School of Economics 7:00PM 1:00AM Present
Carlo Miguel Romeo Sison Go Representative
School of Library and - - Absent
John Ronald R. Almoña Information Science
Representative
Heverly Bermina R. Bravo School of Statistics 7:00PM 11:00AM Left Early
Representative
Graduate School - - -
- Representative

Meeting Proper:

The body was called into order by Chairperson Sindayen. At this point, Councilor Salinas requested that Vice-Chairperson
Agudo preside the meeting given that Chairperson Sindayen has a pending case. College Representative Canlas agreed
noting that it is only wise to do so to be able to maximize the USC as a collegial body with its eligibility not being
questioned because the capacity of the chair is in question. To address the case on hand, she moved that the internal
matters be discussed first.
Vice-Chairperson Agudo disagreed by saying that the issue on Rain’s tenure is not yet final thus, we cannot remove his
capacity to preside over the General Assembly. Besides this, Vice-Chairperson Agudo objected to the motion of College
Representative Canlas weighing the campaigns to be more pertinent than the internal matters.

Councilor Borja noted that it is only logical to discuss the issue of Chairperson’s Sindayen case first to end the internal
matters before discussing other matters at hand. Chairperson Sindayen noted that it is only pertinent that the Council
first discuss the unities achieved by the Council and issues that the university is facing. College Representative Martirez
disagreed stating that no real unity can be achieved because some members of the body are questioning the
Chairperson’s status. Since Chairpersons Sindayen’s status is pending, his capacity to vote on certain matters is also
pending and since one of our members has a pending capacity to vote on certain matters, again, she mentioned, no
unity can be achieved. College Representative Tejano seconded this by saying that since the Chair’s status is being
questioned, even the legitimacy of the GA is being questioned.

Councilor Salinas clarified, as the original proponent of the motion, that the motion is not a question at all of
Chairpersons Sindayen’s capacity as a student leader, rather a question of propriety. College Representative Cornel
clarified also that if propriety should be the basis of the motion, then it is only right that out of propriety, Vice-Chair
Agudo preside the GA given that the Chair’s status is pending directly implying that his rights to preside is also pending.

Chairperson Sindayen disagreed again asking the members of the body what their motive is in pushing that internal
matters be discussed first instead of the external unities. He also questioned why the body is so insistent on stripping
him of his right. Councilor Mariazetta also manifested that given that the case is pending the body cannot strip
Chairperson off his rights ro preside. Councilor Mariazetta also moved that the budget cut issue be discussed first as the
more pressing matter that the university faces.

Vice-Chairperson Agudo noted that Chairperson Sindayen should also be entitled to due process. As such, until no
deliberations have occurred, according to her, Chairperson Sindayen should be allowed to preside. She seconded
Councilor Mariazetta’s motion that unities on budget cut be prioritized first and not our personal interests.

College Representative Go noted that no true unities will be achieved until the body is truly united within. As such he
once again moved that Chairperson Sindayen relinquish the presiding officership since his case is still pending. Vice-
Chairperson Agudo disagreed noting that the unities of the USC are not dependent on the Chairperson alone but on the
call of the body. College Representative Tejano noted that the case is simple- Chairperson Sindayen cannot preside over
anything if he has a pending case that also needs to be discussed. As such, he seconded College Representative Go’s
motion.

At this point, Councilor David said that the body should just follow the text message on the agenda forwarded by the
Secretary General. Councilor Borja clarified that the agenda forwarded to the body and posted on online networks were
in no particular order given that it is the body who can decide on the order of such matters. Afterwhich, Councilor David
also moved that, given the situation, he deems it wise that pending matters be discussed first before the unities on
issues. College Representative Dominguez objected again noting that the unities have no relation to the issue of the
pending cases. She urged everyone to removed their colors and discuss the issue of the unities and more pertinent
issues as the budget cut instead of anything else.

Councilor Borja said that at the very basic, she would go for a compromise- she agreed to the urgency of the budget cut
and conceded that if the body wants to discuss it first, then let the body discuss the budget cut, however, she moved
that whichever will be discussed first, she would stand by what she’s said earlier that until Chairperson Sindayen’s case
is resolved, Vice-Chairperson Agudo should preside. Thus, she moved that Vice-Chairperson Agudo preside and that the
budget cut be discussed first. College Representative Mayoralgo seconded the motion. Vice-Chairperson Agudo objected
to the motion. According to her, Rain remains to be Chairperson. There is no finality and validity in the letters received
by the council removing Chairperson Sindayen from office. Councilor Salinas manifested his continuing objection if
Chairperson Sindayen will preside. According to him, as he has repeatedly said, propriety would dictate that Vice-
Chairperson Agudo should preside.

College Representative Dominguez objected again to the motion- according to her- since we are not yet discussing the
internal matters first, Chairperson Sindayen should preside because until the body decides that he should not be
expelled or removed from office, he should preside.

At this point, College Representative Martirez requested that the agenda first be written on the board. As written and
forwarded to the body, the agenda of the GA are:

Agenda:

1) Framework Setting
2) Committee Presentation- Calendaring, Assessment, Recommendation, Resolutions
3) Internal Matters

College Representative Tejano noted that in the interest of ensuring the legitimacy of the council, he moved that the
internal matters be discussed first followed by Framework setting and committee presentations. Vice-Chairperson
Agudo disagreed and noted that the body should stick to the original agenda. College Representative Dominguez
seconded this.

At this point, College Representative Tejano said that he believes that the body has exhausted its arguments already
thus there is no point continuing the discussion. He moved that the house be divided on whether to adopt his motion or
not. College Representative Canlas seconded this motion. College Representative Martirez, as the Law Representative,
said that everything is dependent on the capacity of the person to act thus, she noted that it would be better to discuss
internal matters first so as to give Rain and the whole USC the legitiamate capacity to act without sacrificing the capacity
of the whole body. She also noted that this is the practical set of agenda to follow.

Councilor Elago expressed her disappointment and fear with the USC stating that she sees it as disappointing given that
the USC is crumbling and questioning itself from within. She also noted that Chairperson Sindayen’s capacity should not
be questioned until after the process of deliberations has been done. College Representative Tejano clarified that he is
only removing Chairperson Sindayen’s capacity to preside over internal matters given that he is the one involved.

Councilor Duran said that the Framework Setting should be discussed first on the simple argument that the USC is
created to defend the rights of the students and that the students are waiting for the USC’s action as a body. If there
should be a priority in the agenda, it should be this because it directly affects the student population. College
Representative Dominguez agreed to this and also questioned how the body could see Chairperson Sindayen as
illegitimate already and why the body is urgently pushing for his illegitimacy as Chairperson and why the body keeps on
pushing to vote- she asked if it is because majority of the body would like to use their numbers again to forward their
partisan interests?

College Representative Go clarified that there is no decision with regard to Chairperson Sindayen yet which only shows
that his is still a pending case, thus, a pending legitimacy. The other members of the body are merely proposing on the
order of agenda. He again moved that the house be divided on College Representataive Tejano’s motion.

Vice-Chairperson Agudo noted that the body is being inconsistent with regard to the discussion of internal matters using
the case of the Fine Arts Representative as an example. According to Vice-Chair Agudo, the body is already questionable
with their continuous push to discuss internal matters first when throughout the whole year, there is no Fine Arts
Representative- it is an internal matter- and no one even bothered to raise it as an internal matter issue in the USC.
College Representative Chua said that the only reason he would like to discuss internal matters first is also because of
the constituents that he represents. In the same way that there are students asking for updates from the USC with
regard to the budget cut, there are also students who are continuously asking on the status of the Chair. College
Representative Chua also requested that the issue of colors and parties be separated from this given that this is not a
partisan issue but an issue of the USC and ultimately, the students.

College Representative Mayoralgo clarified that there is no council member who is moving for Chairperson Sindayen’s
removal from office. The body is merely discussing the order of the agenda.

College Representative Villar said that the Framework setting is more urgent given that the budget cut is in the Senate
already. She asked the body on why other members are forwarding their personal interests first before the interests of
the people.

College Representative Tejano clarified that the issue of the budget cut is not as urgent as we make it appear. He agreed
that yes, the budget proposal is already in the senate however he also asked if the proposal is minutes away from the
decision of the senate. Furthermore, he added, the argument is not on the basis of the urgency of matters to be
discussed but on the capacity and legitimacy of the body to discuss any matter. He requested that the body not used
argumentative lines that range on the urgency of the matters to be discussed in the GA.

Councilor Borja moved to divide the house again. College Representative Dominguez objected because according to her,
all the USC does is vote when in fact concensus building should be the top priority. Furthermore, she added that it is the
students who placed Chairperson Sindayen in his position, she requested that the USC not remove his mandate.

Councilor Salinas clarified that voting is not the constant and default action of the USC. According to him, there were
GA’s when concensus building had been the mode of the council. He added that there have been numerous points
where concensus building has been achieved. According to him, the issue on the agenda is not a question of urgency but
of propriety.

College Representative Dominguez stood by what she said and objected to the dividing of the house claiming that
internal matters should be achieved via concensus.

Councilor David pointed out that there are times when concensus can never really be reached. This instance is an
example of that seeing as the USC has been discussing this for more than an hour already yet no concensus has been
achieved. He motioned that the house be divided again.

College Representative Tejano seconded the motion while pointing out that this is the third motion to divide the house
already and that as per parliamentary procedure, it is necessary already that the house should be divided.

At this point Chairperson Sindayen said that he has allowed the body to discuss on his issue. He requested that at this
point the body listen to what he has to say. He expressed his frustration and disappointment with the USC because,
according to him, the USC which is supposedly an independent and autonomous institution is allowing itself to be
swayed and controlled by the administration given that his letter of automatic expulsion came from the administration.
He expressed that ever since this issue started, he was not even given the chance to go through the proper process of
expulsion but that the body only followed what the administration said, what the Election Code has to say and
automatically removed him from office. He said that it is indeed a scary thought that it is the USC that removes its
capacity and independence by attacking its co-member. He questioned the motives of the members of the USC. He
questioned the rules that govern the university by reiterating that the basic requirement to be a student council is to be
a student. He expressed that the council has no right to remove his power because the Election Code is not provided for
in the Consitution and only the constitution and the students has the mandate to remove him from office.
College Representative Tejano motioned to divide the house again. He also clarified, with regard to Chairperson’s
speech, that it is the Election Code that is questioning his legitimacy- the Election Code which is a set of rules governing
the USC- and not the administration. He reminded the Chairperson that the Election Code which he is not recognizing is
also from the students. Councilor Agudo objected saying that the discussion points have not yet been exhausted thus
the discussion should continue.

Councilor David also objected to the deduction of the Chairperson that his issue is a matter of administration
intervention given that it is merely an issue of his academic status vis a vis the rules that govern the USC. He noted that
the discussion points have been exhausted already, that the internal matters should be discussed already and that the
motion to divide the house be followed.

Councilor Ramos contended that it is only the USC Consitution that governs the USC because it is the only set of rules
approved by a referendum of students last 1981. He noted that the USC Consitution states that it is the USC duty to fight
for the right of the students. As such, he moved that framework setting be discussed first because there are students
depending on the USC to fight for their right to education especially, in light, of the issue on the Budget Cut.

College Representative Mayoralgo noted that if the body agrees that the USC Constitution is the highest thing that the
body should abide by, then the USC Constitution’s provision on the Election Code with regard to the composition of
members (Article 6, Section 3) should be followed. He noted that the Election Code is not separate from the USC
Consitution but that these two set of rules work together.

Councilor Garcia arrived at this point: 8:43PM.

At this point, College Representative Go manifested that the body is discussing the issue of internal matters already.
College Representative Tejano again pointed out that the motion to divide the house has been passed and seconded
three times already.

Councilor Garcia objected reprimanding the body for always wanting to divide the house. She noted that the order of
business should be set by the Chairperson and that she sees no reason why the members of the body are questioning
the order of agenda. She noted that she has every right to say her piece albeit the fact that she was late because she
informed Councilor Borja (Secretary-General) that she was going to be late.

At this point, Vice-Chairperson Agudo, deeming that the discussion has been too long already and given the
parliamentary procedures which requires the house to be divided, moved that the voting be done via Viva Voce.

Voting on the Motion: Discuss the Internal Matters first before Framework setting.

College Representative Bravo voted against the motion stating that the interest of the students should be discussed first
before the council’s interests.

College Representative Go voted for the motion given the reasons that he stated earlier.

College Representative Ico voted for the motion because she deems internal matters to be a more urgent point of
discussion.

College Representative Villar voted against the motion because the agenda has been set already and that the students’
interests and not her personal interest should be given priority.

College Representative Tejano voted for the motion given reasons stated earlier.

College Representative Canlas voted for the motion given reasons stated earlier.
College Representative Cornel voted for the motion given that he sees the issue of legitimacy as a very pressing
concern. He noted that the stands of the Council are contingent on its legitimacy thus the issue of legitimacy should be
resolved first.

College Representative Bien voted for the motion believing that internally, the USC should be able to maintain its
integrity.

College Representative Abesamis voted for the motion pointing out that external problems will only be resolved if the
USC is fixed internally.

College Representative Chua voted for the motion because it is seen as a pressing concern in his college to discuss the
internal matters first.

College Representative Mayoralgo voted for the motion because he believes that we can only fully serve the students if
we are not compromised internally.

College Representative Danganan voted for the motion because he wants the organizational issue to be resolved first
before external issues.

Councilor dela Resma voted for the motion because he deems that the discussion on internal matters won’t take long.

Councilor Mariazetta voted against the motion pointing out the issue on budget cut is a more pressing concern because
it is not just an issue of UP students but of every Filipino student.

Councilor Ramos voted against the motion given the same reason as Councilor Mariazetta.

Councilor Ibaviosa voted for the motion because he believes it to beyond a personal issue but a procedural issue. He
noted that he will not feel comfortable discussing any other matter knowing that there is something big hanging over
our head.

Councilor Garcia voted against the motion because the core principles of the USC dictate that the USC should prioritize
fighting for the students and not fighting against each other. She reprimanded the USC questioning its sincerity in
stripping colors and going beyond partisan interests. She ended with a call to serve the people and no to budget cut.

Councilor Estrella voted for the motion. He also noted that discussing internal matters does not make the budget cut any
less of a priority for the Council.

Councilor Elago voted against the motion noting that how the USC sets its agenda is reflective of its priorities.

Councilor Duran voted against the motion because she would not be able to look at the students if she would priotize
personal interests over the struggles of the students.

Councilor Salinas voted for the motion clarifying that to discuss internal matters would not be an affront or an attack on
the capability of anyone to lead rather on the capacity of the USC to maintain its legitimacy as an institution as rooted
on our capacity to understand our responsibility as students.

Councilor David voted for the motion due to motion stated earlier.

Councilor Borja voted for the motion given motion stated earlier

College Representative Dominguez voted against the motion calling to the body that the Chair’s representation should
not be removed on the period of a 1.39 budget cut on SUC’s.
Councilor Agudo voted against the motion and noted that Framework setting should be discussed first because this issue
is not exclusive to UP alone but to all the education sector. She also noted her disappointment with the body’s
participation in the issue of the Chairperson whereas for her the participation is not the same when the issues are issues
of the students or other sectors of the society.

The Final Tally for the Voting is as Follows:

For the Motion of Discussing Internal Matters First: 11111-11111-11111-1111- 19

Against the Motion: 11111-1111-9

TOTAL: 28

Internal Matters will be discussed first. As arranged, Vice-Chairperson Agudo will preside.

Councilor Borja presented the facts of the case in chronological order:

1) November 6, 2011: Letter from OSA arrived informing the USC of Mr.Rain Sindayen’s removal from the
Department of Psychology and its implications in his tenure as Chairperson as provided by the Election Code,
i.e., as stated in Article 2, Section 6.c:

Section 6. Cessation of Tenure. The term of office of any incumbent officer or member of the University Student
Council shall automatically terminate for any of the causes specified hereunder:

c) “Upon disqualification from re-enrollment for any semester or term during the academic year in his
current academic program for scholastic reasons: Provided: That the automatic termination of his term of
office shall take effect upon receipt of a written notice of disqualification issued by the Office of the Dean
or the Office of the College Secretary in the college/unit where he was last enrolled in”

2) November 6, 2011: Letter content forwarded to the USC via SMS by the Secretary General.
3) November 8, 2011: Investigatory letter was forwarded by the Secretary General to the CSSP College Secretary
and Dean clarifying Rain’s status in his college.
4) November 9, 2011- College Secretary and Dean clarified that Mr. Sindayen has been removed from the
department due to his inability to meet the minimum grade requirement of the department.
5) November 10, 2011: Secretary General Borja informed Chairperson Sindayen of the implications of his removal
from the Council via a letter. It was stated in the letter that given the provisions in the Election Code stating
automatic cessation of tenure, as implied- he is no longer the Chairperson of the Council.
6) A debate ensued via SMS regarding Chairperson Sindayen’s case. In the end it was resolved with the body
deciding to make it the first agenda of the next General Assembly.
7) Chairperson Sindayen’s case included in the agenda of the USC.
8) Is Rain still the Chair? Considered a pending case.

After the presentation, Councilor Garcia pointed out that Councilor Borja should be reprimanded for grave abuse of
authority when she gave the Chairperson a letter of expulsion without prior consultation to the General Assembly. She
requested that the body should also take action on Councilor Borja’s abuse of discretion given that albeit the Election
Code provides an automatic cessation of tenure, such provision is still open to debate and interpretation thus, the OSA’s
sentence in the letter: “ Please take appropriate action.” She also manifested her disappointement with how lightly the
body takes the mandate given to the Chairperson.

Councilor Borja in response clarified that she, as the Secretary General, in charge of the delivery of letters and the
internal mechanism of the council, only informed Chairperson Sindayen of his status as Chairperson as provided by the
rules that she is tasked to uphold. It does not necessarily mean that she is not considering the decision of the General
Assembly with the full knowledge that the highest decision making body should be the GA, as such when Vice-
Chairperson Agudo requested that the issue be discussed in the GA first, she conceded.

College Representative Tejano questioned what Councilor Garcia meant on taking appropriate action. Because if
appropriate action will be taken, then the OSA implied it already from the letter construction- the appropriate action
that should be taken is Chair Sindayen’s automatic cessation of tenure and the oath-taking of Vice-Chairperson Agudo.

Vice-Chairperson Agudo refused to recognize this should it be the action. She noted that the USC should value
strengthening student governance and not remove a Chairperson or any council member without prior deliberations.

College Representative Dominguez requested for a copy of the Election Code from the Secretary General

Councilor Borja noted that the other copy of the Election Code is with College Representative Villar as she requested
that it be left inside the office for photocopy of the USC members.

With regard to the Election Code, Councilor Garcia questioned its relevance with regard to the expulsion of members in
the USC given that it is not election period anymore noting the sudden significance of the election code. Vice-
Chairperson Agudo agreed to this and noted that once the USC is mandated as members of the Council, it is only the
USC Constitution that should have authority over its members.Vice Chairperson Agudo also manifested her surprise to
the sudden appearance of the code noting that never in any USC’s meeting and plannings has this code been discussed.

College Representative Mayoralgo replied that if the USC will follow the constitution only then that still subjects the USC
to the provisions of the Election Code given that it is stipulated in Article 6 of the Constitution which discusses the
composition of the USC.

Councilor Garcia disagreed to this by saying that the Election Code is mentioned only once in the USC Constitution and
thus, does not provide a heavy bearing on the USC members. In fact, if there is a portion in the constitution that is
relevant in defining membership of the USC – it is Article 3 which dictates the powers and duties of the Council. She
noted that the golden rule is simple: The USc Election Code shall govern only during Election and not when the USC is
already seated as incumbents. Vice-Chairperson Agudo agreed to this. Chairperson Sindayen also agreed to this and
reiterated the same points.

Furthermore, Councilor Garcia raised the following points: Election Code is a code that is centered on elections only. The
provision on the cessation of tenure of on the Election Code may be considered a rider provision in the Election Code. A
rider provision is an additional provision that is beyond the topic of the said code- for instance the provision on the
cessation of tenure is a rider provision in the Election Code whose objective is supposedly limited to election-related
matters. Even Article 6, section 3 of the USC Constitution which states that:

“SEC. 3. The members of the Council shall be elected every academic year in accordance with the rules
promulgated by the University Electoral Board and the provisions of the University Election Code.”

Recognizes that the USC Election Code is a code that will govern student elections only. Councilor Garcia noted that,
once in office, the USC Constitution should be the only binding set of rules in the Council given that the Electoral
Code is only a creation of the USC and, thus, should be subservient to the USC and its constitution whereas the USC
Constitution is ratified in a plebiscite. She said that the Election Code provision is rider provision because it amends
the law without informing the people who will be affected that such amendment existed. This cessation of tenure
provision substantially amends on the grounds by which we purge the Council of its Chairperson and it impairs the
right of student-leaders and the rights of students who elected them. She also noted that her basis for the rider
provision is that she consulted with Prof. Pangalangan of the College of Law.

College Representative Martirez questioned the USC Electoral Code as being subservient to the USC Constitution She
noted that since the USC Election Code is mentioned specifically in the USC Constitution, i.e. since it was referred; it
already forms part of the constitution. There may be provisions contrary to the USC Constitution but the fact remains
that the moment we run for office, we acceded to be governed by the Election Code and we cannot just assail its
validity.

Councilor Garcia, in response to College Representative Martirez, said that her arguments are stretching the validity of
the Election Code too much. According to her, we agreed to be part of the elections because we want to regardless of
the rules. A rule is not invalidated because we submitted to it- if such were the case then there would be no more room
for discourse in the Supreme Court. For instance, just because the members of the UP Law community are members of
the bar, it doesn’t mean they cannot question the Supreme Court’s decisions.

College Representative Villar, on a different note, said that the body is being unfair to Chairperson Sindayen. She asked
that the body reflect first their performance in the USC before questioning why Chairperson Sindayen had to miss his
classes to cover up for some USC members’ unfinished tasks.

Chairperson Sindayen called on the body to not overstretch the Election Code. The Election Code’s coverage should be
the elections only. He challenged the body to recognize this and to produce documents that would show that once you
decide to run you already waive yourself of your rights even when in the USC.

College Representative Martirez again manifested her dissent to the idea that the Election Code covers Election related
matters only. She argued, however, that in the same manner that there are laws that mention certain laws without
appending it but it is followed all the same, the USC Constitution- upon mentioning the Election Code- even without
appending it- should already be followed.

Councilor Salinas commented on the rider concept on the USC Election Code. According to him, every law is on a case to
case basis such that it is always a question of which particular law will govern. The Election Code, having been drafted by
USC’s and political formations of the past, should continue to govern the USC now. He added that this is not a question
of Chairperson Sindayen’s performance but a question of procedures.

College Representative Go explained that the School of Economics Student Council had the same situation where the
Chairperson was removed from his position because he was removed from his degree program.

Councilor Garcia retorted that she is not familiar with this case. She added that the Golden Rule on Construction is that
when there is the contradiction that which is consistent should be upheld. Noting that the purpose of the Election Code
as stated in its objective is to govern student elections and not to end the tenure of Chairperson Sindayen, he requested
the body to put the USC Constitution above the Election Code. Furthermore, she mentioned that there are precedences
favoring the Chairperson’s case.

Councilor Borja responded that the preceding cases that Councilor Garcia mentioned may have happened well before
the ratification of the Revised Electoral Code. With regard to other arguments raised, she noted that- the moment you
run for office, you are bound by the provisions on the Election Code already and that the qualifications provided when
you run for office are continuing qualifications. For instance, you run for Philippine President, you cannot just change
your nationality because the qualification when you run is that you should be a Filipino. She noted that the USC may be
autonomous but we are not sovereign- the USC is still bound by rules and just because we don’t agree or the rules do
not favor us, we will choose to disregard it already.

Councilor Garcia inquired on where the continuing qualification is written in the Election Code. Again she pushed that
the only way for a Council member to be removed from office is on Article 10 of the USC Constitution discussing the
Expulsion and Discipline of Council Members.

Councilor Borja clarified that Chairperson Sindayen is not being expelled or remove from office, it just so happened that
the he does not fit anymore the qualifications needed to continue his term. Expulsion indicates an underlying
assumption that he violated that constitution but then he did not, he’s just not qualified anymore.

Councilor Garcia pushed again that the provision on the Cessation of Tenure, yet alone the whole Election Code needs to
be revised because of the existence of the Rider Argument on the Cessation of Tenure when the Election Code is only
supposed to govern election- related matters.

College Representative Martirez, on the basis of continuing qualification, noted that this is exactly the basic principle of
elections. According to her, from the day you file your candidacy to the day your term ends, you are bound by the
Election Code. She added that if there is one basic thing- the basic is- if you are not a student in your degree program
anymore, you cannot be part of Council. She manifested that she doesn’t agree that the Election Code is for election-
related matters only. The reason why there are no qualifications in the Constitution and the Election Code is mentioned
in the Constitution is precisely because the Election Code is the qualifier of membership. She told the body that it would
be an abuse of discretion of we will amend the code just because it doesn’t suit us.

Councilor Garcia conceded that from the day we ran, there are qualifications in the code that are continuing until we
finish our term. However, the rule is for the council members to carry the normal load prescribed by his college. With
regard to the cessation of tenure, she disagreed with College Representative Martirez that this a case of abuse of
discretion because if there is an abuse that is happening it is the sudden existence of the Election Code. According to
her, if the USC will include the Election Code or remove a member on the basis of the Election Code then this is the
abuse of discretion because it, in effect, amend the USC Constitution. The Golden Rule, The basic rule, according to her,
is that you need to be a student to be a member of the council. As long as Rain remains to be a student, he should
remain as Chairperson.

College Representative Tejano said that, albeit the fact that he is not a legal expert, he believes that the USC cannot just
downplay the merits of the Election Code. He conceded that the USC Constitution is superior over the Election Code
however it still has effects on the principle of transitivity I.e. if the USC will give merit to the Constitution because it was
ratified by the students then in the same way, the USC should give merit to the Election Code because by transitivity- the
students voted for the USC and thus, our mandate to approve and ratify rules is part of our official duties as mandated
leaders. He asked if the USC will remove Rain from office because he is ineligible to stay in office, is the USC violating any
provision in the Constitution.

Chairperson Sindayen asked the body again what they have to gain from this exercise. He also inquired on why the USC
is fighting hard to remove him from office. This is the abuse of discretion- when the members of the USC are
misconstruing the law and rules to forward their own interests. He added, the golden rule is in the UP Charter of 2008
wherein it is provided that to be a member of the Student Council you have to be a student. He qualified that as he
remains to be a student, he remains to be a chairperson.
Councilor dela Resma said that not everyone is an expert in constitutions and laws. According to him, he’s trying to learn
from listening to the sentiments of the body however, he cannot help but feel irritated everytime our job in the USC is
being used as an excused for our academic delinquency. He manifested, however, that he is siding with the idea that the
election code should only apply during elections.

College Representative Dominguez pointed out that the Election Code has a lot of contradicting points. She said that
since majority of the Council is not from the College of Law, not everyone understands the technicalities included in the
discussion as such she requested the body to not focus on the laws and the institutions but on Chairpeson Sindayen’s
performance. She asked the body to stop including their personal motives in this deliberation.

Councilor Salinas pointed out that there is no political motive. He said that he clearly remembers Councilor Borja texting
the body to keep the matter internally first before it is resolved so as to prevent including colors in the discussion. It is a
wonder to him how, a day after that text message was forwarded, an article was published in the Collegian already. He
pointed out that if this was discussed in a such a way that it is fixed internally first then there would be no point on
anyone assuming that there is a motive to just make this a noisy issue. He also requested that the body not resort to the
counting of things that one did inside the council because he feels like it defeats the purpose of all logical arguments. He
called on the body to refrain from ad hominem. He pointed out, however, in response to College Representative
Dominguez that even Lean Alejandro recognized that we cannot just neglect our academics because as much as we are
the catalyst and leaders for societal change, it does not necessarily remove us from our academic and sectoral bounds as
students.

Councilor Garcia called on the body again to end the case of Chairperson Sindayen. According to her, it is unfair for
Chairperson Sindayen and ironic for the body that Chair Sindayen is practically begging us to not remove him from
office. She called on everyone to give premium to student representation and to be on Chairperosn Sindayen’s side. She
repeated the arguments mentioned earlier and called on the body to uphold the tenure of Rain Sindayen as
Chairperson.

Vice-Chairperson Agudo, then presiding officer, asked if there were any more objections. When no one replied, she
decided to move on to the next agenda.

At this point Councilor Borja inquired if just because no one is raising points anymore, that ends the debate already on
Chair Sindayen’s case? She also manifested her thoughts on the issue: According to her, outside of the Election Code and
all the technicalities of the USC Constitution, the basic principle is for every student-leader to give premium to the
education that he is getting. She pointed out that there is no hierarchy in being a student and a leader because when
translated in Filipino, it’s lider-estudyante- but that a balance must be kept between the two roles. She also called on the
body to give value to consistency whereas we fight fot higher budget for the university but then we waste this budget by
failing our classes because we were unable to balance our academics and our calling and duty as a leader.

Councilor Salinas agreed with what Councilor Borja said. He further recognized that it is hard to be a student-leader at
the same time and he values Chairperson Sindayen’s efforts however, he called on Chairperson Sindayen to value his
education more and not use his job in the USC and service as an excuse for his academic performance.

Councilor Borja also requested the body to better their performance in the coming days because it is really difficult to
work in a USC with inconsistent members. She requested that the body give importance to their mandate as USC.

College Representative Chua manifested that as the BA Representative it is his job to forward to the body the
sentiments of the BA students. According to him, BA students value student-representation but more than anything, BA
students value academic excellence. He called on the body to remember that the College of Business Administration is
also part of what they are representing and to value academic excellence.
 College Representative Bravo went home at this point: 10:54PM.

College Representative Martirez also manifested that in the College of Education, she knows that grades are subjective.
She said that the body should not attack Chair Sindayen just because he failed his classes because he did not fail because
he was delinquent in his performance- he was not partying or drinking in bars or playing Ragnarok, he was serving the
students; that is why he failed.

Vice-Chairperson Agudo pointed out that the student-leader debate has always been an issue across parties. However,
she manifested that the tuition of Chair Sindayen is not wasted because he is serving the people. She also called on the
body to perform better as members of the USC.

College Representative Go manifested that as the School of Economics Representative, he would like to manifest that his
college gives premium to academic excellence.

College Representative Majoralgo informed the body that, upon informing the Architecture Student Council of the
decision of the body, they disagreed with the USC because in the College of Architecture, they give premium as well to
academic responsibility.

College Representative Tejano addressed Chairperson Sindayen and told him that Chair Sindayen, coming from CSSP, a
college that CSSP Representative Tejano represents, should put premium and more importance in what we specialize in,
in his education because to not do so would be to waste the taxpayers money.

Councilor Salinas said that he is hoping that this would not cause a bad precedent- that is the laxity of students in terms
of fulfilling their academic responsibility because the USC started setting itself as an example.

Councilor Garcia pointed out that she would never consider the money of the taxpayers wasted because Chairperson
Sindayen truly reflected what it is to be a UP student, to be an Iskolar ng Bayan as he served the people by representing
their interests and forwarding their struggles.

At this point, the body moved to the next agenda.

COUNCILOR KALINGKING’S CASE

Councilor Borja presented the facts of Councilor Kalingking’s case:

1) Her attendance grade is only 29.1% over-all which is the lowest amongst all Council members. As required in the
House Rules, all USC members need to get 60% attendance grade to pass and not be expelled from the roster.
There are nine more who didn’t reach the 60% grade requirement; however, they missed it by a couple of points
only thus, the body considered the curving of the grade to accommodate their cases.
2) She has reached the four consecutive absences allowed plus the fact that she missed this GA too. According to
both the House Rules and the Constitution, this can lead to the expulsion of any council member due to
dereliction of duty. According to Councilor Borja, her excuses ranged from death in the family to on-the-job-
trainings required for class.

At this point, Councilor David informed the body that Councilor Kalingking is having difficulty attending the General
Assemblies due to schedule and family problems. He noted that it would be better if she would be able to explain. He
also informed the body that Councilor Kalingking is currently out of the country.He clarified that he is not defending
Councilor Kalingking’s attendance records, he is merely informing the body of her situation. He still believes that the
constitution is the highest governing rule in the USC.
College Representative Mayoralgo requested if the body can choose to resolve Councilor Kalingking’s issue some other
time because unlike Chairperson Sindayen’s case, the issue of Councilor Kalingking does not require an immediate reply
from the offices of the administration. College Representative Martirez agreed with College Representative Mayoralgo
and Councilor David’s request to give Councilor Kalingking the opportunity to explain.

Councilor Elago manifested that she is finding it ironic that she has to hear about her co-head via Councilor David and
Councilor Borja. She also manifested her disappointment with Councilor Kalingking pointing out that the body gave
Councilor Kalingking a semester to perform in her duties as co-head of COFS but she failed to do her duties. As
compromise, Councilor Elago agreed to give Councilor Kalingking time to explain herself but moved that she be removed
from the COFS Co-head position regardless if the body will decide to accept her explanation and retain her as Councilor.

Councilor Estrella suggested that Councilor Kalingking be given till Friday to reply to Councilor Borja. Councilor Borja will
inform her of her current status as a member of the council via all possible means of communication so as to ensure that
it reaches her.

College Representative Tejano objected to Councilor Elago’s motion saying that in the same way that Chairperson
Sindayen was given a chance to defend himself, it would probably be fairer for the body if Councilor Kalingking would be
given the chance to defend her position both as USC Councilor and COFS head.

Councilor Borja agreed with the written communication due till Friday. She manifested that she would also like for
Councilor Kalingking to participate in the GA.

Vice-Chairperson Agudo also requested for a disposition check on the next General Assembly to also assess on the status
of the USC members especially those whose attendance records are below 60%.

College Representative Tejano formally made the motion to allow Councilor Kalingking to forward a written explanation
on why she has underperformed as a Councilor and COFS Head by Friday and that she mandatorily attend the next USC
GA to allow us to deliberate on her case. Should she not comply with any of one of the above, the USC shall
automatically consider her removed from office.

College Representative Martirez seconded the motion.

At this point, Councilor Garcia requested a disposition template from the Secretary General. Secretary General noted it.

College Representative Cornel left at this point: 11:40PM.

With regard to her position as COFS Head, it was decided that her case would be deliberated one by one- first as USC
Councilor, then as Committee Head.

FRAMEWORK SETTING:

1) USC Calendaring and Budgeting

a. For the calendar, Secretary-General Borja conceded that the deadline be moved to November 26.
b. Budgeting will commence this week.
2) Campaigns

Chairperson Sindayen commended the USC for its timely and immediate response to pressing issues however, he
noted, that the efforts to mobilize the masses are still lacking with regard to the issues of society. According to him,
it is not enough to just release a statement on issues, intensified action and noisier propaganda is necessary. He
noted the following media to mobilize the students:
 1) KILOS NA Alliance: Increase the number of member organizations and thicken the protest atmosphere on
campus.
2) Calendar of Events:
a. Organization Meeting, UP KILOS NA Public Assembly and Convenors Meeting.
b. Within the week: Target the release of the huge tarp showing protest on budget cut.
c. Dormitory Day tomorrow: November 16, Art Attack.- Dormitory Hop, Kalayaan
d. College Assignments for Organization hopping will be uploaded in the groups.
e. International Students Day Mobilization, 12NN, Mendiola, 8:30-11:30, AS Lobby, Wednesday. The USC
will serve as a marshall.
f. Diliman Multisectoral Summit, November 18, 1-4PM- tie-up with CSSPSC for the reservation of the AS
Lobby.
g. The USC will be holding dialogues with local college administration to discuss the issue on budget cut.
3) Other Events:
a. From the College of Law: On the 18th, the LSG will be holding a Restore Integrity March. Every college
who will participate will be given a free tarpaulin showcasing their protests.
b. November 19, President Selection, 9AM-12NN- Wear Shorts! (Shortchanged) LCC will be distributing a
copy of the open letter to the BOR.
c. November 20, Kasama sa UP, Luzon Wide Caucus
d. November 22-26, UP System Wide Coordinated Action.
4) Other Matters:
a. Student Code
i. The Student Code was included to be part of the next agenda of the next USC meeting.
b. UP Fair Night:
i. Tuesday, Wednesday, Saturday: USC Night
ii. Adelfe Enu Crea: Thursday
iii. EMC2: USC Night
c. Assessment Forms: uploaded in the groups.

The meeting was adjourned by 12:45AM

Prepared by: Noted by:

Kristine C. Borja Rainier Astin Sindayen

Secretary General, USC Councilor USC Chairperson

*Approved by the General Assembly this ____ day of ________ 2010 during the ______ Official General Assembly of the
University Student Council 2010-2011*2

2
Good for reproduction and distribution to the Philippine Collegian, other University Publications, Local College Councils, Dormitory Councils,
Organizations, Fraternities, Sororities, and any other body or institution or student that may so request for a copy. To be posted in all colleges,
dormitories, and USC bulletin boards and the USC online sites.