Student Organizations Express Support, Concerns Ahead of UEC Amendments Ratification

By Rochel M. Floron IV

Hours before the final deliberation and ratification of the amendments to the UP Manila Electoral Code (UEC), several student organizations released their own statements in support of or in opposition to the removal of the abstention vote and 50%+1 threshold in determining the winner.

Student organizations supporting the amendments cited that the two particular provisions have resulted in the lack of student representation in the University Student Council (USC) since it was first introduced back in 2018 and was formally institutionalized in 2019.

“These provisions have only led to a cyclic problem of waning student representation and student movement, which has crippled our battles for genuine development, and against the use of science and technology in anti-people activities such as intensifying state surveillance and militarization,” said Agham Youth UPM in a statement.

Furthermore, Sulong UPM claims that the implementation and eventual institutionalization of the abstention vote and the 50%+1 threshold were “unconstitutional” because they argue that it was implemented in 2018 without updating the UEC and without consultation with the students.

In a statement, the League of Filipino Students UPM also supported the amendments due to the need for student representation during the continuing challenges in the university, citing the fight against the Return Service Agreement and the incursions of military and police forces in the campus.

On the other hand, while the UP Pharmaceutical Association Student Council (UPPhaSC) agrees with the USC in the call for genuine student representation, it strongly opposes the current amendments being pursued by the USC.

“Amending the election code and lessening the mandate of our leaders may only further detriment the institution of the council and the student’s right to vote and choose,” wrote UPPhaSC in a statement.

The college student council also questioned the effectiveness of other electoral processes such as electoral protests and stringent screening of candidates as a way to ensure that the USC would only be filled by qualified candidates.

In previous consultations with students, USC has proposed that reducing the requirements to be elected would not automatically allow students with questionable qualifications to get a seat in the council because candidates would go through a screening process requiring them to prove their qualifications. They are also arguing that students have the capacity to file for an electoral protest should they deem that a certain candidate is not fit for the position.

Kilos UPM similarly opposes the amendments claiming that it is “undemocratic” and would only “cripple genuine student representation” as these would reduce the power of students to deny candidates who they think do not represent their values.

“Kilos UPM does understand and sympathize with UPM USC’s frustration towards low student participation, but we firmly believe that pushing for these amendments will not prove to be an effective solution to the issue at hand.”

The UEC amendments’ final deliberations and ratification will take place at 6 p.m. today, June 24, in the UPM USC office. All council members, except the chairperson serving as the presiding officer, and college representatives (one per college) will vote on the proposed amendments. A two-thirds majority, or at least six out of nine votes, is required for the approval of each amendment.