Student Governance is Student Trust

Public office is public trust, as a principle, has been an effective guide for public service and also applies to student governance.

Amidst the concerns raised by student political parties, a democratic alliance, student organizations, and college student councils on bullying incidents allegedly perpetuated by ‘student servants’ from the University’s highest-governing student body, restoring trust among the studentry is paramount. 

Integrity is about doing what is right even if no one is looking. The claims may be divulged or not, student servants must uphold integrity and be a model to the studentry. Student leaders being good in public is no use if there are moments when they are not true to their principles when students cannot see them. This is demanding integrity by a constituent from their elected officials and leaders. 

It can be agreed that no one is perfect and may be susceptible to mistakes. At the same time, integrity and offices of student governance are no ordinary principles and positions to take lightly. The mistakes have been allegedly made and trust has been put into question but, what will be the resolution? Remorse from mistakes and proactively taking accountability may have been the way.

One may argue that self-imposition of corrective and disciplinary measures is not hard for those who genuinely would like to show remorse. Community service for the University and issuance of public apology, it may be for the victims or for the student body in general, may be reasonable instead of seeing the involved “student servants” walking around campus as if nothing has happened.

If it is true that an “internal” investigation was being conducted, preventive suspension of involved officials is a standard move to keep them from exercising the powers vested to them. The concern about the continuity of the operations of the council is valid. If it is really their position to not hinder the operations, suspensions could be done alternatively per involved officials while the investigation is ongoing. This is because the issue involves a large part of the bureaucracy of the council.

Article XV of the 2014 Supreme Student Council (SSC) Constitution and By-Laws provides who will impeach officials and why should they be impeached. It is upon the SSC officers to impeach an officer with their majority vote based on several grounds in accordance with Section 2 of the article.

One of the grounds is If an SSC officer is found to deliberately violate the constitution (Section 2a, Article XV). But, what could be a violation of the SSC Constitution?

This may be the failure of an officer to put priority in defending and electing the rights and general welfare of the studentry in the University stipulated in Section 2b, Article II of the same constitution.

It may also be a violation of the constitution if an officer fails to serve the highest sense of responsibility, integrity, dignity, and efficiency… to the studentry and the university (Section 1, Article XV).

The other grounds for impeachment is if an officer acted or conducted inimical to the interest of the PLM SSC (Section 2d, Article XV).

It does not say anything about filing a case with the Office of Student Development and Services, though the filed case may further help in the decision-making of the council. The article does not provide procedures. Hence, the matter could be handled the way how council decides on its matters. One way is by voting on the matter may be through an adoption or approval of a resolution. 

In the application of basic parliamentary procedures with the absence of internal rules and procedures, it is just reasonable that a meeting could be called upon with a quorum, and if the presiding officer is involved the next in line could preside over the meeting.

In line with due process, the involved parties may be called upon to present their cases and open the proceeding to the interested members of the student body. 

If the body determined that due diligence has been made in the conduct of the meeting, a resolution could be drafted relevant to the impeachment and let the SSC officers vote based on the merits of the cases and arguments presented. 

Out of delecadeza and common sense, it is just for the involved parties to be recused from the decision-making of the council. There is also a question on the characterization of the majority vote. Basic parliamentary procedures with the absence of internal rules and procedures, suggest that it is more than half of the officers present in the meeting and not by more than half of the total number of voting members. 

For the members of the student body, you may call on your respective College Representatives and uninvolved Executive Officers to do what is necessary and just. Proceedings related to Article XV must be transparent.

In the matter of the continuity of governance, suspending or even the removal of a large number of the officials may lead the studentry to appoint additional student officials or even hold special elections if the constitution permits. 

Given the track record of previous elections, there are lone candidates for the Secretary, no candidate for the Auditor, no candidates in some college representative posts, and lone slates for the majority of the College Student Councils. If this path will be pursued, to what extent can the student participate in governance? Are there students who will step up after this fiasco? These are the questions for the whole student body.

However, the alleged bullying, whether a victim has resolved it with the involved parties (though, other victims must also be considered) must not be tolerated. The student body has already let a former administration off the hook for their own political mistakes. This time, accountability must prevail. If trust cannot be restored, how can students approach whom they voted for and supposedly the representatives of their interests?

The stakes are too high and there is a need for a functional and formidable student council. There are vacancies in the Board of Regents posts, the highest governing body of the University. 

It is unclear if the Pamantasan has a President or an officer-in-charge or if the budget of the council has been approved. Also, the implementation of the council’s programs and activities, and attending to day-to-day concerns from the student body. 

Student governance is student trust. Without trust, how will the student body move forward with these issues and agenda of the student council?