Click here to download.

Click here to download the file.

FactCheck UP Diliman called the College of Mass Communication (CMC) electoral campaign “the dirtiest in this year’s election.” We will not concede to such a hasty generalization. However, we cannot dismiss the fact that recent events may have contributed to this assertion.

On Feb. 11 and 16, candidates from the Interdependent Student-Centered Activism (ISA) were seen wearing yellow shirts bearing their nicknames on the back. On Feb. 17, the Student Alliance for the Advancement of Democratic Rights in UP CMC (STAND UP-CMC) filed a complaint with the College Student Electoral Board (CSEB), citing Art. 8 Sec. 1 of the University Student Electoral Code (USEC): “The giving, distribution and use of buttons, badges, matches, T-shirts, food, multimedia promotional materials, gifts and other forms of political gimmickry shall be prohibited.” The parties faced off when the CSEB convened on Feb. 18. ISA was warned for the violation. According to the USEC, penalties could range from formal warning to the disqualification of the entire slate.

But the story does not end there. On Feb. 19, ISA said it was agreed upon in a meeting between the parties and the incumbent student council that only shirts with the name and/or logo of the party—not the candidates’ nicknames—would be banned.  The party filed a counter-complaint accusing STAND UP-CMC members of wearing on Feb. 17 t-shirts bearing the name and logo of STAND UP-CMC. In defense, STAND UP-CMC said the person seen wearing the shirt was John Francis C. Losaria, who was part of the campaign team in 2008, when the use of shirts was still allowed. STAND UP-CMC said he was not a member of the party or of the campaign team this year.

The case is now up for the CSEB to decide, just hours before the first ballot is cast on the 24^th.

It all boils down to “political gimmickry.” Even Prof. Lourdes Portus, College Secretary and de facto CSEB chair, said its definition laid out in the USEC is vague. The Code only said shirts were not allowed, but it did not explicitly state what constitutes a gimmicky shirt. Should it have the logo and name of the party? Or does a candidate name on a shirt suffice for a warning from the CSEB? Do these rules extend to alumni and former party members as well? Even the penalties for violations during campaign period are not clear for college candidates. That has been open for individual colleges to interpret.

In times that the system is flawed, aspiring student leaders should let their consciences be their guides and err on the side of caution. Do the parties’ actions still respect the students’ right to fair and honest elections, where money or any other form of undue advantage does not determine who wins the most seats?  In the same way loopholes in the national Omnibus Electoral Code are exploited to allow premature campaigning for the 2010 national elections, the hazy limitations imposed in student campaign season leave much room for the imprudent to engage in political gimmickry and exorbitant spending.

We are not here to define the specifics of political gimmickry. That is a task we urge the CSEB to accomplish by drafting Implementing Rules and Regulations to clarify the vague points of the Code. We suggest adding a limit to the amount parties and individual candidates can spend, considering that a similar provision exists in the Omnibus Election Code.

More so, we are not here to point fingers at any particular party.  The merits of their cases are for the students to decide. For that reason, we urge the parties to come clean—to tell all the students the motives behind their actions and to clarify reports—both verified and unverified—and accusations about alleged violations of the Code. In a college that prizes transparency, that is an obvious must.

Let us not forget that this issue is just one of the many factors influencing the vote. We urge students to look at each candidates’ platforms and track records. Instead of asking around and relying on second hand information, ask the candidates themselves. Find out what their stand on the issues are.

We need to prove that the CMC voting public is not as dumb as some people make it seem. The CMC campaign has been called the “dirtiest campaign” out there. It is up to all of us to clear our name.

NOTE: Due to a technical error, the last part of this round was not recorded. A transcription will be provided as soon as possible.

Part 1 (Includes Introduction and Explanation of Mechanics)
Featuring USC Councilors candidates Valeri Inting (Kaisa), Simoun Salinas (Alyansa) and Neil Nucup (STAND-UP).

2010 USC Debate Forum – USC Councilors Round (part 1) from Rachel Miranda on Vimeo.

Part 2
Featuring USC Councilors candidates Ranel Cheng (Kaisa), Richard Estrella (Alyansa) and Charles Icasiano (STAND-UP)

2010 USC Debate Forum – USC Councilors Round (part 2) from Rachel Miranda on Vimeo.

Part 3
Featuring USC Councilors candidates Mark David (Kaisa), Carlo Suguitan (Alyansa) and Jemimah Garcia (STAND-UP)

2010 USC Debate Forum – USC Councilors Round (part 3) from Rachel Miranda on Vimeo.

(Videos taken by Rachel Miranda, with assistance from Katrina Alba and Jenin Velasquez. Apologies for the delay, and for the technical problems that have occurred in the production of this series!)

The following videos are of the USC Vice-Chair Round, featuring candidates Froilan Bacungan (Kaisa), Beverly Lumbera (Alyansa) and Fermina Agudo (STAND-UP).

NOTE: Due to a technical error, the first question in this round was not recorded. A transcription will be provided as soon as possible.

2010 USC Debate Forum – USC Vice-Chair Round (part 1) from Rachel Miranda on Vimeo.

2010 USC Debate Forum – USC Vice-Chair Round (part 2) from Rachel Miranda on Vimeo.

(Videos for the USC Councilors Round will be uploaded as soon as possible. Videos taken by Rachel Miranda, with assistance from Katrina Alba and Jenin Velasquez.)

The following videos are of the USC Chairperson Round, featuring candidates Gabriel Villamil (Kaisa), Mario Cerilles (Alyansa) and Rainier Sindayen (STAND-UP).

Part 1: Introductions, Questions on University Issues, National Issues

2010 USC Debate Forum – USC Chairperson Round (part 1) from Rachel Miranda on Vimeo.

Question # 1: Assuming that you win, how would you unite the different council members to achieve a consensus on matters that are political in nature?

Follow-up Question: So it seems that you are all results-oriented. So for instance, you have to release a political statement on a stand of the USC on a very divisive political issue. Are you willing to release a statement of behalf of the USC that might not necessarily reflect your own stance or your party’s stance but majority of the council members want that?

Question # 2: What is your stance on companies and corporations that donate money, equipment and facilities to the university? What do you think of the leasing of land by UP to private corporations?

Follow-up Question: If you believe that the idle assets of the university should be used, can you name some examples and what you plan to do with them? Or if you don’t believe that idle assets should be touched at all, then what do you plan to do with them? Do you plan to let them stay idle, or do you plan to do something else with them?

Question # 3: Should we have a grade requirement as a standard for the selection of the next Student Regent?

Follow-up Question: If you don’t believe that we should have a grade requirement, what do you think is the most important student interest that that Student Regent must represent? Or if you believe that we must have a grade requirement, what exactly is that grade requirement? Is a GWA of 3 enough, or should the Student Regent step up?

Question # 4: We have a particularly problematic current event. So can you please assess the government’s action when it comes to the arrest of the 43 medical workers who were allegedly members of the CPP-NPA?

Note: The continuation of the answers to this question is recorded in Part 2.

Part 2: National Issues, Personal Question

2010 USC Debate Forum – USC Chairperson Round (part 2) from Rachel Miranda on Vimeo.

Follow-up Question: Assuming that all legal safeguards are there, all rules were followed, there was no torture and there were no human rights violations, will it still be justifiable for the government to arrest and detain 43 people on suspicion of being communist insurgents?

Question # 5: If you were to vote now, who would you vote for as president in the national elections and why?

Follow-up Question: Do you plan to pursue politics after college or after law school?

Question # 6: I hope none of you will take this personally, or take any offense. But assuming that you cannot vote for yourself, who would you vote for among you three candidates? One final disclaimer: you cannot vote for abstain.

(Videos for the USC Vice-Chair and Councilors Rounds will be uploaded as soon as possible. Videos taken and transcribed by Rachel Miranda, with assistance from Katrina Alba and Jenin Velasquez.)

Hosted by Box.net

It can also be read online below or at Scribd:

Tinig Ng Plaridel – September 25, 2009

Video embed:

Incoming College of Mass Communication (CMC) dean Rolando Tolentino said Thursday that he will expand the college’s offered programs in the tradition of an “independent and liberal” education amid the “growing state control of media”.

The eighth CMC dean said he will strengthen the college’s diploma and online master’s degree in journalism, and the undergraduate offerings in new media; as well as the certificate course in film, and the doctorates in both communications, and media and cultures.

“It’s time to strengthen the liberal character of our programs, that the media is liberating and our graduates are agents of liberating thought and action,” Tolentino said during the formal turnover at the CMC auditorium.

However, the Film and Audiovisual Communications professor acknowledged that CMC’s resources — such as its buildings — should be improved for these plans to take place.

“First is the upgrading of our classrooms. Second is the supporting structures of a new auditorium, a permanent canteen, tambayan, offices and library services as well as media archives and groundwork for a third and final building at the media complex,” Tolentino said.

The renovation and upgrade of the second-floor classrooms in Plaridel Hall, funded by major dailies Philippine Daily Inquirer and Philippine Star, has been ongoing since May.

Tolentino, a Philippine cinema, literature, and pop culture expert, promised to garner support from the faculty, staff and students to continue these projects.

He earned both his economics undergraduate degree and Philippine studies master’s degree at De La Salle University. Tolentino got his doctorate in film at the University of Southern California.

A member of the Congress of Teachers and Educators for Nationalism and Democracy (CONTEND-UP), Tolentino joked that there were benefits to being dean, such as a reserved parking space and a private bathroom in his office.

“I learned that there are more people I should smile at and greet while walking in the college. My friends and people who want to be my friend suddenly increased,” he added.

During the ceremony, outgoing dean Elena Pernia presented a tambuli, a native wind instrument made from carabao horns and the symbol for CMC, to Tolentino marking the beginning of his three-year term until 2011.

The event was the second turnover ceremony for the deanship in CMC. It started in 2006 when Nicanor Tiongson gave way to Pernia’s term as head of the college.

Representatives from different sectors within the college such as the faculty, administrative and Research, Extension and Professional staff, students, alumni and retired professors shared their messages for both the outgoing and incoming deans.

Also present were UP President Emerlinda Roman and other university officials.

Video embed:

Download the PDF file by clicking on the image

Alternate download link