17/05/2025
#𝐏𝐢𝐨𝐄𝐝𝐢𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐥 | 𝐁𝐚𝐧𝐝-𝐚𝐢𝐝 𝐟𝐢𝐱: 𝐎𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐥𝐨𝐨𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐛𝐲𝐩𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐬𝐭𝐮𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩
As the end of the university elections draws near, expectations heighten as the student body yearns for competent campus leaders who will prioritize their interests. However, just like in national elections, it is crucial that these leaders not only have student-centered platforms but also possess qualifications that align with the existing constitution.
The administration has abruptly adjusted the residency requirements for student council candidates with the stated goal of increasing leadership opportunities for students in accelerated programs such as Human Biology, Communication, and Legal Management. This change addresses a longstanding concern that these students—who complete their degrees in less time—have been structurally excluded from certain leadership roles.
An operating constitution ensures these individuals can represent their fellow learners. Therefore, the administration’s release of a memorandum of this year’s “adjusted” qualifications for electoral candidates not only breaches the student councils' constitution and by-laws (CBL) but also undermines the credibility of this framework for governance that may threaten the autonomy of student leaders.
𝐏𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐫 𝐨𝐟 𝐠𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞
Ensuring structured and fair governance requires a foundation that subjects not only the masses but also their leaders to the same supreme law that promotes responsibility and accountability. As such, the presence of a constitution from the national scale down to the walls surrounding our schools and universities remains a vital facet of leadership and institutional integrity.
This framework can only function as a “higher law” if it is below no one. For instance, the country’s President and Vice President faced scrutiny when the former’s office unconstitutionally transferred funds to the latter. This event shows that even the highest-ranked leaders should still adhere to the constitution.
For this reason, the university administration’s sudden imposition of new student council qualifications, which lowered the residency requirement stated in CBL’s Article VIII Section 2.2 and Article IX Section 2.2, poses a question to this governing entity’s credibility.
𝐂𝐨𝐬𝐭𝐥𝐲 𝐩𝐮𝐬𝐡 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐥𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐭𝐲
As per the Office of Student Affairs and Financial Aid (OSAFA), this decision seeks to open opportunities for leadership to more students, especially those enrolled in the university’s accelerated programs. While the intention may be inclusive, it does not excuse bypassing the current governing CBL, which should have been amended before the imposition of this adjustment. Although the mentioned provisions’ amendments were already in discussion since last year, the administration has instead resorted to a ‘band-aid solution,’ which may indicate a lack of attention to constitutional processes.
Some may argue that the CBL’s Article V Section 4 allowed the OSAFA to subject candidates to their qualifications, but this does not dismiss the existence and function of the CBL’s provision on campus council qualifications, as stated in Articles VIII and IX. The current CBL also lacks a provision on how the office should impose its qualifications beyond the said guidelines. However, if Article V Section 4 makes the said memorandum valid, it could further testify to the current CBL’s susceptibility.
𝐁𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐫𝐮𝐥𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐧 𝐚 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐦
Beyond the CBL’s provisions on student council members’ qualifications are their functions as the highest governing student body. The current CBL’s vulnerability to alterations may also undermine the standard role the students expect from their leaders. This instability may cause these student officers to deviate from identifying and upholding their core responsibilities. Hence, if left unchecked, future memorandums may threaten the foundation that defines not only the student councils’ purpose but also their guiding principles as servant leaders.
The CBL’s Article III Section 3 ensures students the right to due process, which aims to promote “fair play” in disciplinary proceedings. A case of this right’s enforcement in the past is the University Student Executive Committee’s (USEC) conduct of procedural meetings to assess the charges held against student council members.
However, these procedures that protect learners from “arbitrary administrative measures and penalties,” as well as “compulsory self-incrimination,” may be put at risk due to the current constitution’s potential ‘changing’ nature. Which, in this case, was compromised because of the rushed amendments by the memorandum.
Having this right on a hanging thread may further inhibit student leaders from exercising their autonomy from the administration. As their independence serves as fuel to amplify the student body’s voice, their shield against unjust forces that may suppress their autonomy must remain unyielding.
Moreover, this situation highlights the tension between immediate inclusivity and procedural consistency. The administrative decision appears to have prioritized expanding representation opportunities over strict adherence to established amendment processes. While a move to widen representation is good, this is still a values-based decision that merits discussions rather than immediate dismissal.
Again, the constitutional amendment would be the most procedural method. However, it seems there were time constraints. The question lies in why the elections and electoral proceedings feel like they were procrastinated. They were rushed to the point of making big interim decisions, such as bypassing the constitution. Shouldn’t the elections be given the most preparation, knowing the major impact they will have on student affairs?
𝐒𝐡𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐚𝐫𝐝 𝐨𝐟 𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩
These points suggest that the recurring constitutional issues require the university’s stakeholders’ primary attention. Time constraints may seem a sufficient reason for the CBL’s delayed amendment, but the urgency to resolve the need for a functional constitution that caters to the interests of today’s students resonates louder.
While the amendments were conducted with good intentions for inclusivity, careful considerations and discussions with the affected stakeholders must be implemented to ensure the credibility of the constitution is not compromised. It is also worth noting that the amendments to the CBL further affect the university elections, which should be prepared meticulously and conducted in a sufficient time frame, for this event dictates the future and representation of the student body.
Therefore, the incoming USEC, as the highest governing student body, must prioritize this pressing concern and employ means to avoid possible alterations in the future. The administration should promote and support campus leaders in exercising due process to protect the integrity of campus governance. Students, as the core of any educational institution, must be aware of their rights to effectively resist the potential compromise in the service of campus leaders brought by the issue.
Schools and universities serve as a training ground for our country’s future leaders. An educational institution’s role in producing competent servant leaders will only be possible if it nurtures its students with excellence, fairness, and discipline. In the end, the way these institutions mold their students will reflect the leadership they will exhibit in the future.
(Cartoon by Aaron Dwight Lachica/ The Pioneer)
