BUKLOD
UPLB Perspective
2
VOLUME 35 |
SPECIAL ELECTION ISSUE
|
FEBRUARY 24, 2009
February 16, 2009
Mr. Christian Rey (sic) BuendiaEditor-in-Chief UPLB Perspective
Dear Sir:BUKLOD-UPLB is the only political organization based in the University of the Philippines Los Baños committedto upholding a student government of
integrity, involvement, and initiative
: to empower the students to
become effective future leaders of the nation through efcient work ethics, competent leadership, and strong
moral values.Last February 13, Friday, we courteously declined an interview with the publication due to following reasons:1) we want to be careful about the statements we release, not being misinterpreted by any correspondentespecially this time of elections;
2) we nd the publication leaning to SAKBAYAN, and we feel that the paper cannot relay our statements to
the student body without any bias towards the said political party; and3) we want to avoid misquotations that have happened to one of our candidates, Mr. Carlo Cruz, in theissue of the publication that was released last semester during the campaign period.We respect the UPLB Perspective’s stand on issues, and its choice to side with a particular political party.However as a political organization, we have had our share of being misinterpreted or being trampled by the
ofcial publication with titles such as, “SCs slam BUKLOD’s call to vote no,” and many other instances. We deem
that whatever issue we need to clarify or to inform the students would be best done by our organization itself.
For your questions or clarications regarding the matter, please do not hesitate to contact me at 09159230850.
In light we remain.Sincerely yours,Faith Abigail A. LumicaoVice Chairperson
19 February 2009
MS. FAITH ABIGAIL LUMICAO
Vice ChairpersonBUKLOD-UPLBDear Ma’am, The editorial board of this publication has repeatedly requested your political organization to discuss
with us the points you have raised in your letters. You have, however, also repeatedly turned down ourrequest, saying your letter is already sufcient to explain your side of the issue.
This is very unfortunate, as your allegations are derogatory, not to mention unsubstantiated.
While you have lambasted the institutional integrity of the
Perspective
as a publication, you have rmlyrefused again and again to answer our clarications.
So we nd it odd that even though your organization demands fairness from us and seeks to avoid
“being misinterpreted,” you chose to veer away from venues that would have promoted fairness andwould have provided for a better understanding of your stance.
You have also decided to take the matter
in your own terms, through statements, blogs and other forms of information dissemination.In the meantime, we feel an urgent need to answer your allegations, given and in spite of the sparsesubstantiation coming from your side. Thus the following points:1)
The
Perspective
, in the spirit of fairness and honest desire for rectication, has always been
open to criticisms of all sorts.
We never hesitated to publish errata and letters to the editor, with acorresponding reply, as a way of atoning for our lapses as student journalists. Indeed, on several counts we have asked members of your organization to formally talk to us or send us a letter to the editor if ever
you have problems with the way we perform our role as vanguards of the students’ right to know. Yet we
never heard from you formally, until now.2)
We have to set the demarcation line between mere perception and assertions backed up byevidence, especially on sensitive matters such as “objectivity” and “bias”.
Your claim that you ndthe “publication leaning to SAKBAYAN” is very sweeping and calls for a more thorough explanation than
what you have already set down in your letter. There is a danger that this claim of yours, taken as it is and without the necessary proof, would
be misinterpreted. You have never pointed out in what way the
Perspective
has become partial to
SAKBAYAN — have we unwarrantedly endorsed the party or in any way deliberately projected them
as the ones deserving the votes of the students?
Ironically, you have provided the venue formisinterpretation, only this time the one that is on receiving end is the Perspective.
It is evident from the start that the publication, as an alternative press, has been very vocal in itsresolve to serve the interest of the students, since they are our publisher.
If there are any congruenciesin our stands on issues with that of SAKBAYAN, these are purely coincidental and have nothingto do with the “choice to side with a particular political party.”
We have our separate and distinctanalyses of local and national issues, and we are more than willing to discuss how we came up with our
stands, say for example on Tuition and other Fees Increases, with you.
3)
The special election issue, for which the interview you have declined should have been used, isso designed as to make it virtually bias-free and less prone to misinterpretation.
The
Perspective’s
editorial board brainstorms the questions to be asked to the candidates in an oral interview. Thecandidates are given enough time to compose their answers before the actual recording starts, andif the candidate wishes to repeat his or her answer, the publication consents. The answers are then
transcribed and published verbatim, with minor changes such as deleting unnecessary words, e.g., “Ah”and “Eh”.
For your own perusal, here are the questions we should have asked your University Student Councilslate:
CHAIRPERSON
1. Nasaan ka at anong ginagawa mo noong Feb. 9?2. Kamakailan lamang ay napabalitang kinaltasan ng Senado ng P 323 milyon ang badyet ng 112 StateUniversities and Colleges (SUCs) sa bansa, samantalang dinagdagan ang sa UP ng mahigit P 362milyon, na katumbas na ng pinagsamang badyet ng 47 SUCs sa Luzon. Anong mga kuru-kuro hinggil sakasalukuyang sistema ng edukasyon sa bansa ang mahihinuha mo mula sa nabanggit?3. Magbanggit ng ilang tampok na probisyon sa UP Charter of 2008 at iugnay ito sa kasalukuyang umiiral
na “global economic crisis.”VICE CHAIRPERSON1. Sa isang panayam sa ANC, kinumpirma ni UP President Emerlinda Roman na magkakaroon ng pagtaas
sa matrikula sa unibersidad sa susunod na tatlong taon, sa minimum. Kasalukuyan ding nirerebyuang Socialized Tuition and Financial Assistance Program. Ngayong nasa bungad na ng panibagongsentenaryo ang unibersidad, ano sa tingin mo ang magiging epekto ng mga nabanggit sa karakter ng UPbilang isang institusyong nagtataguyod ng kalinangang akademiko at panlipunang pakikisangkot?
2. Kung isa ka sa mga bumuo ng Codied Rules on Student Regent Selection, anong mga kwalipikasyon
ang iyong ilalagay para magsilbing gabay ng mga konseho sa pagpili ng Rehente ng mga Mag-aaral, atbakit?COUNCILORS
1. Paano mo mapauunlad ang “tag line” o “propaganda line” ng kabilang partido?2. Ilang beses na ring nadawit sa mga isyu ng korupsyon si First Gentleman Jose Miguel “Mike”Arroyo, mula sa Jose Pidal account, ZTE-NBN deal at ngayon sa pagmamanipula sa bidding ng mga
proyektong pinopondohan ng World Bank. Ano ang masasabi mo ukol dito?
We believe that your candidates’ answers to these questions must be heard by the students,
for these are the pressing issues of the times and are gauges of how rmly you stand by your
principles. Unfortunately, you refused to answer these questions. As such, we cannot help if thestudents begin to wonder how your candidates’ would answer these questions.
Also, this time we have proposed to your organization as a concession that you can check the
veracity of our transcription against your own recording of the interview before the newspaperis submitted to the printing press, so as to avoid any misquotations (ask Ms. Ligaya Vanessa
Enriquez, your Elections Committee Head, for details), yet you remained rm in your decision.
Aside from that, you have also refused to furnish us a copy of your General Program of Action,
the history of BUKLOD-UPLB, the picture of your candidates and the logo of your organization.
Frankly, we cannot imagine how we could misinterpret or misquote the aforementioned items.
4)
Like most of your points, your statement “we have had our share of being misinterpreted or
being trampled by the ofcial [student] publication with titles such as, ‘SCs slam BUKLOD’s
calls to vote no,’ and many other instances” needs further elaboration. In what ways were you“trampled” by the publication? What are those “many other instances”?
5) We cannot do anything about your evaluation of Ms. Charisse Bernadine Bañez’ character.
It canpossibly be just your own prejudice working or it can also be well-founded, but with the way you
have fashioned your statement, we denitely have no way of knowing. In any case, you havealready presumed incapacity, in Ms. Bañez’ part, to objectively serve her function as a panelist,which we believe is unfair. Also, let me remind you that the Perspective invited Ms. Bañez by
virtue of her position as the Chairperson of the USC and not as a SAKBAYAN supporter.
Similarly, Ms. Joyce Ann Therese Oracion, the third panelist in last year’s electoral debate, wasinvited to provide a venue for raising the concerns of the freshmen. We never chose her because she is
a “blatant Sakbayan (sic) supporter.”
In fact, she related to us that she came to the debate with anopen mind, and whatever moves she has made thereafter, including her decision to run underSAKBAYAN, was the result of her critical appraisal of the merits and demerits of both parties.
Moreover, we believe it only tting to say that for this year, the editorial board has opted to invite Dr.
Arlene Saniano of the Social Sciences Department as one of the panelists for the debate, aside fromMs. Bañez’ and yours truly.6)
As with the special election issue, we have strived to make last year’s and this year’s electoraldebate as impartial as possible. In fact, the panelists were not even allowed to give judgments
on the answers of the candidates except for purposes of clarication and contextualization.
We have also seen to it that questions from the audience would come alternately from thesupporters of BUKLOD and SAKBAYAN.
So at the end of the day, it is still up to the quality of your candidates’ answers whether or not they will be able to convince the students to vote for them.
These are essentially the points we have in mind when we requested, as an appeal to your “strongmoral values” and sense of fairness, a dialogue with you, which as was mentioned earlier you have
turned down.
Although we appreciate your giving us “all due respect,” challenging the integrityof an institution established and fought for by students themselves requires more than justgood intentions; it requires substantiation of your claims, which is the precondition of fairness,integrity and transparency.When we said that you are not liable to us but to the students, we do not mean that you
can easily ignore the student publication and the sacred trust it signies. We understandyour desire to protect the name of your organization, but you cannot just go about and throw
allegations that can confuse the studentry or worse feed their inherent prejudices and stigmas.In publishing a special election issue and conducting an electoral debate, the Perspectiveis just performing its function as a member of the Central Electoral Board and as a studentinstitution. By refusing to participate in both, you have incapacitated our ability to protect therights of the students to information.
In the spirit of fairness that goes deeper than mere lip service to a much-abused and much-misunderstood conception we remain.For the students,
CHRISTIAN RAY BUENDIAEditor in Chief UPLB Perspective, AY 2008-2009
February 17, 2009
Mr. Christian Rey (sic) BuendiaEditor-in-Chief UPLB Perspective
Dear Sir:BUKLOD-UPLB is the only political organization based in the University of the Philippines Los Baños committed toupholding a student government of
integrity, involvement, and initiative
: to empower the students to become
effective future leaders of the nation through efcient work ethics, competent leadership, and strong moral values.
Last February 16, Monday, we decide not to participate in the electoral debate hosted by the UPLB Perspective because we prefer to have an unbiased set of panelists. This claim is based on the following reasons:1) our USC Chairperson, Ms. Charisse Bañez, is biased as shown by her derogatory actions and remarks towardsBUKLOD-UPLB during their picket rally, by her mockery of the candidates after the Feb fair campaign, and by
her evident support to SAKBAYAN.2) the UPLB-Perspective (sic) is leaning to SAKABAYAN (sic);3) with reference to our presidential debate experience last year, the 3rd panelist whom we were hoping to be
coming from a neutral ground was a blatant Sakbayan (sic) supporter.We respect the UPLB Perspective’s efforts in conducting discussions in line with the election. However as a politicalorganization, we deem that participating in the said activity would not do any good to the party given the circumstances
that I have mentioned above. We take responsibility for all the information dissemination and explanation for the actionthat our organization has taken. We agree to what you have said that the decision we made is not our “liability” to
you but our liability to the students. We acknowledge this liability and we choose to address this issue on our own byreleasing statements and other forms of information dissemination regarding this matter.
For your questions or clarications regarding the matter, please do not hesitate to contact me at 09159230850.
In light we remain.Sincerely yours,Faith Abigail A. LumicaoVice Chairperson
Leave a Comment