Minutes 08-30-13 (CB)

CENTRAL BOARD
Room 200 MVP Student Leadership Center Ateneo de Manila University, Loyola Heights 0916 750 6661 | sanggusecgen@gmail.com
CENTRAL BOARD MEETING Date: August 30, 2013
Venue: MVP 217-218 Time: 6:00pm to 9:10pm
AGENDA (underlined = to be continued, italics = postponed/deferred): 1) Approval of 08/23/13 minutes 4) HOR Updates 2) Pork Barrel Stand 5) Curriculum Committee Report 3) DREAM Team Report 6) CB Committee Assessment ATTENDANCE (underlined = absent, italics = late/early departure, * = non-voting): Daniel Antonio S. Remo1 President Ryan Carl Y. Yu2 Vice-President Antonio Rafael N. Elicao Secretary-General Kristine Mae B. Andujare Finance Officer Michaella Paula M. Aldea3 COA President Von Vincent Rene A. Cruz ARSA President Redentor John R. Dimla* SOH Chairperson <vacant> 4 SOH Central Board Rep Jose Norberto V. Reyes 3 SOH Central Board Rep Nina Louise J. Atienza 2 SOH Central Board Rep Rocyl Marie Sangalang 1 SOH Central Board Rep Michael Xavier C. Tobias* SOSE Secretary-Treasurer Pamela Anne M. Gaerlan 2 SOSE Central Board Rep Camille C. Diez4 1 SOSE Central Board Rep OTHER ATTENDEES:
Rob Copuyoc OP Asst for SP Astrid Ocampo, OP Asst for HOR Nick Lucero, OVP Bianca Bueno, COA VP for SP Renee Arabia, DPR Deputy Jann Amorado, SJC Audit Prosec CJ Leong, 1 SOSE EO Bianca Martinez, The GUIDON Mickey Mongcal, OSG Secretariat Head Nikko Dela Paz, OSG Secretariat Team Miguel Hamoy, OSG Secretariat Team Jonas Cabochan, OSG KM Head Joseph Bautista, OSG Log Head Jace Monje, OSG Web Team / DRS Koi Mapolon, 2 Block S1 Block Rep / OSG Blue Bulletin Deputy Mitch Espiritu, 4 BS ME Course Rep Carl Lee, 4 BS ME Course Rep Rainier Roy Rubio, 4 BS ME Course Rep Kevin Mizon, 4 AB DS Course Rep Polo Martinez, 3 AB POS Course Rep Louis De Jesus, SOSS Acads Committee Danica Manicad
Jose Javier V. Poe IV* JGSOM Chairperson Larisse Jem H. Mondok 4 JGSOM Central Board Rep Luis Miguel D. De Jesus 3 JGSOM Central Board Rep Ray Cristofer C. Gomez 2 JGSOM Central Board Rep Jared Matthew A. Sarmiento 1 JGSOM Central Board Rep Marvin T. Lagonera* SOSS Secretary-Treasurer Abelardo G. Hernandez 2 SOSS Central Board Rep Samantha Nicole M. Warren 1 SOSS Central Board Rep
1 2
Proxied initially by Kyla Javellana. Proxied by JV Poe. 3 Proxied by Bianca Bueno. 4 Proxied by Camille Leong.
CENTRAL BOARD
MINUTES Approval of Agenda Motion to approve agenda by FO, seconded by 2 SOSE CB. Agenda approved unanimously.
Approval of 083013 Minutes Motion to approve 083013 minutes by VP, seconded by 1 SOSE CB. Minutes approved unanimously.
Pork Barrel Stand Motion by FO to change presidership to VP, seconded by 4 SOM CB. Motion approved unanimously. Remo: Issue regarding certain members of congress is now in the public consciousness. Napoles surrenders to Aquino, now in Makati City Jail. COA reports numerous suspicious transactions between congressmen, uproar from public regarding PDAF culminating in the Million People's March on National Heroes' Day. CB determined that we must make a stand. With different student governments declaring desire to abolish, we have yet to make our stand. What should we do? Asked our DEA Chair who has represented Sanggu in different meetings and organizations to make recommendations. Abesamis: PDAFsum of money given to lawmakers to conduct projects in their respective assigned units. This style of disbursement is rooted in American style of government who used local elites to dominate populace. Used by executive branch to gain support from legislative branch. Pork barrel is released by DBM -> necessitates oversight. Prone to abuse, corrupt practices, ghost projects, patronage politics. Exempt from many checks and balances, issue of transparency. Timeline 2
CENTRAL BOARD
July 1210B pork barrel scam exposed by PDI. July 26Janet Napoles lifestyle exposed. August 5Senate agrees not to investigate. August 16COA releases special project report on PDAF from 2007-2009. P156B went to questionable NGOs, P2B to Napoles. August 19PNoy reiterates that he will not abolish, Akbayan calls for abolition. August 23PNoy announces that we will abolish. August 26Million People's March pushes through. August 29Napoles surrenders. Movements Against PDAF > Assembly > Youth Against PorkSCAP > Youth Act NowNUSP Recommendations > stand against PDAF > student movements against > form task force against > support FOI Remo: I participated. Million People's March did not achieve a million, but significant amount of people. Question is what should we do now? There are many organizations lobbying for the abolition. Asked for pulse of the CB, hopefully include those of your constituents. Jeric's recommendations remain recommendations unless we do something. <Nikko and Hamoy> Andujare: Long-term plans? What exactly are we deciding on tonight? The stand? Board agreed to adopt a stand tonight based on consultations. After that, we would observe from then on. Remo: In lieu of formal written statement, in principle we should vote on stand on the issue. Given that, we can move onto what the different units of Sanggu should be doing. Task force? Then executive units of Sanggu will work to forward. Coming from the CB's decision to consult, I would like to hear the pulse of the student body. Decide on stand, get opinions of the people here and of constituents. 3
CENTRAL BOARD
Abesamis: Push FOI rather than exactly for abolishment of PDAF. When we went to the School Forum, panelists agreed that PDAF is only one avenue for corruption. Key to fighting is transparency. Motion by FO to suspend parliamentary procedure, seconded by 3 SOH CB. Objection by 4 SOM CB. Mondok: On what grounds? Andujare: Discuss properly. Last week we didn't have a good discussion, not everyone participates. Address that issue. Poe: Remind the house that during this, there are no minutes, no records. Objection withdrawn. Parliamentary procedure suspended. --Parliamentary procedure resumed. Ocampo: Pushing for FOI isn't enough. PDAF is not legislative function. Senators don't have constituents, don't need extra funds. They're trying to get the executive function, balance of power. Very good reason for the abolition. Drilonwhat if there are highway projects? It's not their job to work for it, you have the executive, DPWH. As Sanggunian, think of what PDAF is in the government, aside from simply supporting FOI. Not sufficient. Motion by FO to divide the house on whether the Central Board should support PDAF, seconded by 1 SOM CB. Objection by 4 SOM CB. Lucero: Not enough discussion. Poe: Have they been able to consult? De Jesus, L: Has there been a public record of a formal debate on this issue? Remo: None. De Jesus, L: So before today there has been no official record of how each CB rep has decided? Remo: Ask to explain votes as a matter of public record. If objection stands, there is no motion. Dimla: Let's wait for the A-STAT results. Elicao: We have partial. Dimla: Wait for full. Objection stands. Body votes on whether to divide the house on whether to support PDAF during this meeting. YES 4 NO 10 Secretary-General 1 SOH CB 3 SOM CB Finance Officer 2 SOH CB 4 SOM CB 1 SOSE CB 3 SOH CB 1 SOSS CB 2 SOSE CB 1 SOM CB COA 2 SOM CB ARSA Motion disapproved, the body will not vote on PDAF tonight. 4
CENTRAL BOARD
Sarmiento: Are our constituents educated on the issue well? When I asked people whether they were going, those who said yes said that they wanted to abolish. Haven't heard anyone say reform. Media isn't talking about reform. For FOI, it's also something I'm pushing for, but I'm sure whether my constituents know about it. As Sanggu, educate the public first, decide whether the public is ready. Apathetic constituents do exist, some people only saying abolish to join bandwagon. Reyes: Voted to defer vote because we've done a level of consultations but I find results highly inconclusive. In principle, poll done in SOH SB page but a lot have also not voted. As 3 SOH CB, would also like to wait for final results of A-STAT survey. Mondok: Objected because we haven't heard everyone's opinions. Lucero: A-STAT's doing its job, results soon. A-STAT will not be doing the stand, CB will. You have the political will to release a stand for the student body. Institution stands for a particular set of beliefs that may go against or for what is happening. Vote according to the principles they ran with. When you take a stand, make sure your sources go past Rappler and PDI. Names of 8,000 students on the line. If the CB Reps feel that they have researched enough, go. If they have doubts, don't Warren: So we can vote even going against constituents? Lucero: Representative democracy. Warren: As a constituent, I would ask why did you ask me. Lucero: No right balance. Consultation and representative's will has a factor. No math, you just choose. Poe: You were elected as a representative not as a puppet. They chose you to represent and also for what you believe. You can make that call. Lucero: Are the CB Reps ready enough to make a vote regarding the PDAF? Sarmiento: Wait one more week. No excuse for it, but we should wait one more week to make one more vote. Research and constituents' opinions. Gaerlan: Last week, Tin and I discussed, action plan. Research plan, consult. Isn't that our job as CB, to research and gather opinions? By this time, we should've consulted. Mondok: Agree. Urgent that we have this tonight. Ang tagal na. Andujare: Clarifyas much as we value consultation, no perfect mixture with that and values as representative. The values you ran with when you ran, how you presented yourself during the election. Personally, I value consultation, but I understand that we do not have the full hold. You had the guts to run, you should have the guts to vote.
CENTRAL BOARD
Dimla: Kung dito papasok yung values as elected officer, you should've researched. If we didn't research, we need to move it, but one week is too much. Kulang kung one-sided. Hernandez: Move it because even if there's no perfect balance, if we create a stand without consultation, tapos wala pa tayong masyadong alam, those values might not mean anything. Mondok: We all agreed that tonight well make a stand. We planned this last CB meeting. Andujare: We agreed unanimously. That was my point. I want you to admit that you didnt do anything, you didnt consult. Hernandez: Question is, for the people who know, are we willing to make a stand based on their opinion only? Mondok: Can we defer even if we decided unanimouslyly? Remo: CB can mandate what it wants to do. Dimla: Who can tell us when the A-STAT study will finish? Too raw to base only on partial results. Leong: Make stand by tonight, taking too long. Even before the March we didn't release anything, release by now. Tobias: We're talking about whether we want to make a stand or defer. Can we arrive at a decision already? Figure out what to do now. Motion by 4 SOM CB to divide the house on whether to do the stand tonight, seconded by VP. Objection by 3 SOH CB. Reyes: If we say no, it just means no stand tonight, right? Remo: Yes. Objection withdrawn. YES 6 Vice-President Secretary-General Finance Officer 4 SOM CB 1 SOSE CB 2 SOSE CB NO 8 1 SOH CB 2 SOH CB 3 SOH CB 1 SOM CB 1 SOSS CB 2 SOSS CB COA ARSA
No stand tonight. Mondok: Why? We're quorum now. Andujare: We agreed last week, sensitive to time. 6
CENTRAL BOARD
Dimla: We're elected by constituents. Consider that not everyone did the homework. It's unfair to make a stand that's so half-assed. Not everyone researched. Damage to reputation as an institution. More damage to release a stand wherein we're not informed. Poe: When do you suggest we do make a stand? Sarmiento: Next week is too long. Opted for next week because I don't know if we have another avenue. Earlier than next week if possible. Copuyoc: One week is too long. Middle? Hernandez: Emergency CB meeting, on Monday? Remo: President can call for emergency session. Mondok: In line with emergency CB meeting if ever, and in line with what Dimla said and our decision last week, we have to understand, nakaka-frustrate lang because we have to realize the urgency, the relevance. We decided to have a stand tonight. Reyes: I don't see this issue's relevance waning soon. We've already missed the March, so not as much urgency. Dimla: Online vote? Remo: Possible. Prescribed in the constitution and in the CIP. Gaerlan: Sunday night or Monday may stand na? Monday? Sarmiento: I'm for emergency. Physical discussion is more productive than online. Andujare: Can't decide when exactly. Reason why people voted on not having a stand tonight is to wait for the A-STAT results. Following the logic of those who voted not tonight, we can't decide when to call. Play it by ear. Leong: Still believe stand tonight. If we're going to have the emergency meeting, okay if it's online. Have just to say final vote. Sarmiento: Physical because most of us don't have enough information. Better informed opinion if online. Reyes: Contestationwe have to go to information itself, primary sources. Motion by Sec-Gen to defer discussion until A-STAT results, seconded by 1 SOSS CB. YES 7 NO 8 Vice-President Secretary-General 1 SOH CB Finance Officer 2 SOH CB 4 SOM CB 3 SOH CB 1 SOSE CB 1 SOM CB 2 SOSE CB 1 SOSS CB COA 7
CENTRAL BOARD
2 SOSS CB
ARSA President (tie)
Remo: Voting because of the tie. To strengthen political party system. Vote on beliefs of party or personal beliefs. Against a deferral. Reyes: Voted tonight not to release, voted not to defer till A-STAT. What now? Remo: First motion is not to release a stand tonight. Second, we will not call for an emergency session. Defer to next week's CB, online, or no decision. Or remain silent. Poe: If we're not making a stand, why discuss tonight? Motion by 4 SOM CB to have online vote from the CB on Monday night 9pm to be conducted by the Sec-Gen, seconded by 1 SOSE CB. Objection by 1 SOSS CB: Warren: Aren't we waiting for A-STAT? Mondok: Don't believe that we should wait. We're elected representatives. We should have enough hold from constituents. Objection withdrawn. : What are we voting on tonight? We agreed to have a stand tonight. We cannot release because people believe that we do not have enough. : Monday night via online. Give people time to research. Tobias: Clarifyon Monday, vote on a formal stand? : Motion is to defer decision on Monday 9pm. Whatever that will be is up to CB. Tobias: Stand afterwards to reflect? Remo: Yes. YES 13 NO 1 Vice-President Finance Officer Secretary-General 1 SOH CB 2 SOH CB 3 SOH CB 1 SOM CB 4 SOM CB 1 SOSE CB 2 SOSE CB 1 SOSS CB 2 SOSS CB COA ARSA Remo: Incorporate results into the minutes of this meeting. Sarmiento: Explanation online along with vote? Remo: Monday's vote will be a roll call vote. Present an explanation if you wish. 8
CENTRAL BOARD
Reyes: Mechanics? 9pm vote, or vote by then? Remo: Discussion on mechanics to OSG afterwards.
DREAM Team Motion to change presidership to VP by VP, seconded by 1 SOSS CB. Motion approved unanimously. Remo: Accomplishments and raw data on DREAM Team. I would like to thank Sanggu for its efforts. I would like to especially thank the Special Assistant to DREAM Team, Barce Barcelon. After five days of relief ops starting Tuesday, we packed 4135 relief goods [sic] which will go to 4100 families. Secondly, as of Friday night last weekend, DREAM Team raised 400,000 pesos. Successful constituency check. Eleven serious cases. Congratulate everyone for complying with first ever constituency check. In line with procedure, approximately recruited 1,500 volunteers over the five days. Personal opinionsSanggunian constituency check is not a perfect system. Helps and affects lives of constituents. Helped give admin a clearer picture of what was happening on the ground. Have to establish procedure that we can institutionalize for future disasters. Formal recommendation will be that OSG through KM come up with recommendations. Restricted volunteersmade by the operations subcommittee of DREAM Team, Sanggu, HS through Dr. Marquez, OSA, COA, ARSA. Needed critical mass of goods before we could operate. As Sanggu officers, our responsibility to respond first before calling constituents. Had to balance goods, volunteers, how to deploy and manage volunteers. Recommendationthe system has to be improved. Student arm should be increased, manned by elected Sanggunian top officers. Ensure welfare, representation. We as a Sanggunian must prepare our constituents for the likelihood of disasters. Risk management is becoming a fact of life. Many constituents are not aware of how to cope. Mondok: Regarding non-suspension of Thursday classes, many asking why admin did not suspend. Remo: Decision was made to defer to LGU chief executive, in our case Mayor Herbert Bautista. By 6pm announcement, he assessed that the situation was clear for QC. We abided. Ateneo's autonomy? Even if chief executive says we should have class, university can suspend. Recommendations from ADSA and other offices said to abide by the LGU. Report given based on constituency check data, taking into account CHED memo. Decision left with VPLS, Rudy Ang. 9
CENTRAL BOARD
For why UP and Miriam suspended in the afternoon, checks from offices and student governments said a significant percentage of the community was affected. When our offices checked, and when we did constituency checks, most was not affected. Raised the issue, that was the decision. In terms of representative functions, we did our jobs. Clearly the constituency check did not reach all 8,500 students. Institutionalize the process, find a better system. As to response of Sanggu as to concerns for why suspension stood, come up with system by which these can be addressed. Lucero: How could we reform the constituency check? Who has been monitoring? Remo: In transitioning from previous administration to this one, documentation was not good. Monitoring is under prerogative of the president. Implementation this year, upon consultation with VP, Sec-Gen, FO. Andujare: In talks with DRS to conduct the study of the roads that our constituents pass by in order to have better information. This will not compensate for the holes the current system has, but layer of quality. Remo: DREAM Team has utilized Manila Observatory to create an app to see the most affected areas. Map like the MMDA app system. Elicao: Context as to how the system has developed. It used to be purely text-messagebased. Now, with online avenue, a lot more replies. System still needs improvement. Mondok: Informally recommend that we know where our constituents live, check up on people more vigorously in affected areas. Remo: Recommend that we institutionalize. OSG through Knowledge Management Team to spearhead.
HOR Update Ocampo: Orientation on September 6. Supposed to be today, but pushed because of suspension due to promos and logistics having been delayed. Orientation was meant to be same day as DEA pol ed, but that didn't push through. Venue is SEC LEC C. Make-up orientation on September 11. September 13, 4:30-6:00 at Leong will be the first HOR assembly. Spread the word to constituents. While executing HOR, making a modified framework for Con-Con. Use this year to evaluate the mistakes for the long-term HOR. Remo: I will not be requiring reps to attend. I believe that as reps, it is their responsibility to be able to go to these events. Never been done before, this systematically. Encourage everyone to encourage reps to attend. Part of the goal is to empower reps, make the system more democratic. They are accountable to block- and coursemates. Rules that will be discussed there for the first session next next Friday. HOR is part of Tatak Sanggu, flagship member development program. Forming our members into the four pillars of this institution. 10
CENTRAL BOARD
Encourage our CBs to encourage the reps to go. New program, success depends on participation. Gaerlan: Given that it's non-required, if not many go, how do we train? Remo: Give every opportunity. Activity hour. Make-up session. If they choose not to go, liable to their constituents. New program, constitutionally we cannot mandate yet. Lucero: Has the new system managed to accommodate over 200 reps in the time? Fear is that the system might not work for 200 ideas in the time. Ocampo: Work within timeframe. This year will be a test for the next years to come. Remo: Point is to create a way for reps to engage the institution as a whole. Cultural change, allow representatives to take hold of the responsibilities. Work should mostly be done outside. Need these sessions to train. Goal is to push that culture change. There are points for improvement, but the goal is to get as many people into the system as possible. De Jesus, L: What will be the agenda? Vote on issues that have been voted on in CB? Specifics of the voting system, will OICs be allowed to vote? Ocampo: Elections of house officers for first system. Organize early. Agenda trying to make it a lower house. Whatever is discussed in either CB or HOR will carry over. Legitimate say on whatever CB decides. CB has to re-approve whatever HOR says. Check and balance. As for OICs, because we lack, trying to suspend observer status for OICs as it would defeat the purpose if most reps aren't elected. Remo: Still referring to SJC until they have formally determined status of OIC reps. In terms of Constitution, HOR does not exist, but the president may create special bodies to help discharge his functions. My guarantee is that anything discussed will be part of CB agenda. Points to be raised in agenda for future CB session. Check and counter-check the CB.
Curriculum Committee Report [full text available here] Gaerlan: Agendanewly proposed AB Sociology. Aims to answer CHED's integration, added units. Discussed AB Sociology, newly proposed courses. AB Sociology Worried about distinction with AB SOS. Difference is six units. Worry on how students will choose courses, difference not distinct. AB SOS will lean towards anthropology, AB SOC towards sociology. Few faculty members. Proliferation of slash courses. Discuss with Dean, more than curriculum matter. New Course Proposals Feedback is mostly on descriptions. 11
CENTRAL BOARD
Recommendationsgather feedback, address proliferation of slash courses. Andujare: Disseminate information to constituents? New courses and so on. Gaerlan: Can do the same thing. Remo: Method of gathering feedback from constituents? Gaerlan: Talk to DRS. Remo: Are Curriculum proceedings confidential? Gaerlan: According to Ryan, he's been posting results before. Not strictly prohibited. Motion to adopt report by FO, seconded by 4 SOM CB. Report adopted unanimously.
Committee Assessments Motion to change presidership to VP by VP, seconded by FO. Motion approved unanimously. Remo: CAA deals with CB academic processes. CEA deals with organizational life, student groups. CAS deals with administrative services. CFS deals with formative services, OSCI, CMO, INAF. Auxiliary committees help CB in its special functions. COR helps deal with the rules of CB. CCR reviews and reforms the constitution. CSPA to deal with socio-political affairs. Ask CB Reps for transparency and empowerment what to join. Recommend that we suspend parliamentary procedureadministrative process, not sensitive. Matter of personal choice. Motion to suspend parliamentary procedure by President, seconded by Sec-Gen. Motion approved unanimously, parliamentary procedure suspended. --Parliamentary procedure resumed. Committee Composition Committee Members CAA Larisse Mondok, Nina Atienza, Abbo Hernandez, Jared Sarmiento, Camille Diez CEA Juno Reyes, Rocyl Sangalang, Sam Warren CAS Maki De Jesus, Dan Remo, Ryan Yu CFS Pam Gaerlan, AJ Elicao, Tin Andujare CCR Ryan Yu, Abbo Hernandez, Camille Diez COR AJ Elicao, Rocyl Sangalang, Nina Atienza, Juno Reyes, Larisse Mondok, Sam Warren CSPA Jared Sarmiento, Ray Gomez, Maki De Jesus, Pam Gaerlan 12
CENTRAL BOARD
Reminders Andujare: Last budget hearing September 20. Proposals due the week before. Use proper format. Top officers, OSA EvSem October 14-16, required. Elected top officers, lobbying for dept chairs. Dimla: For operations, retroactive? Andujare: Can. Andujare: This is the last budget hearing. Subsequent will only be for special emergency cases. Unit heads, convene with members to talk about efforts for the year. Poe: Do we have any set schedule for Sanggu EvSem? Remo: Sanggu top officers' EvSem to be determined within the week. October 20 onwards will be Buklod Atenista. Need to choose delegates, I will be mainly sending freshmen and sophomores. In Naga. Individual SB PlanSems to be determined by your chairs. Motion to adjourn by 1 SOSE CB, seconded by 1 SOSS CB. Motion approved unanimously, meeting adjourned.
ONLINE VOTE Date: September 2, 2013
Venue: n/a Time: 9:00pm to 12:00mn
Andujare: The problem with the PDAF is not its existence. It's in managing it and in keeping record of where it actually goes. The concept behind creating it, the need it was meant to address, continues to exist today. And so, abolishing is not the solution. What we may have to do is to readjust it. Such that it would actually be most efficient and true to its purpose. Reforming will allow for details like these to be focused in. De Jesus, M: As unanimous to the voting of the third year batch, third year school of management has agreed that the PDAF is a source of corruption for people involved in the government. The only way to avoid and finally stop this corruption is by abolishing the PDAF. Our batch has agreed to cast a vote against and for the abolish of the PDAF. Gomez: Abolish. Why should we try waste time and efforts in improving a system that clearly promotes corruption in our administration when we can abolish it completely? It has been established that it's existence is a clear negative. Efforts in trying to make this system better will merely reduce the damage being dealt at best but even more practically speaking, it will still be an avenue for corruption. This administration should stop trying to justify wrong actions. It doesn't work. It doesn't help. It actually makes things worse. The answer is to remove it. Law makers should focus on their actual job descriptions. First, giving these representatives and senators funds to spend and the discretion on where to allot these things increases the likelihood of corruption happening. Let's face it, the more hands there are that hold the money, more money is lost. Projects, services, etc that have to be given right away to specific parts of the Philippines should 13
CENTRAL BOARD
course through LGUs and state agencies. Do they have the potential to be corrupt? Of course. Thus, having 2 of these things actually doubles the risk. Furthermore, we see that it is very inefficient for these law makers to be doing both their original job and worry about their pork barrels. Magpokus nalang sila sa talagang trabaho nila. A lot of them have been underperforming these past years. They should just focus on making themselves better lawmakers and let the LGUs do their job. No matter what you call this system, PDAF, CWF, etc., corruption will be there. Reform will be futile and don't say we haven't tried. If we are to truly change the way this administration works, abolishing the PDAF will be a significant step and will increase the momentum the Aquino administration's thrust towards the Matuwid na Daan. Right now, obviously the Philippines has yet to experience more progress in terms of governance. We can't afford increasing anymore risks. We have to play it safe and remove as much avenues for corruption there is. This is a government by humans and having said that, it is inevitable that part of whatever resources we have will be consumed those tempted to do so. Remove as much temptation as possible. The complete abolition of pdaf will be a milestone for a country which has a long way to go in improving it's administration. Let's stop trying to see the good in these inherently wrong systems. Let's start committing fully to transparency and good governance. Yu: The three branches of government exist in order to ensure that there is a check and balance of powers, and there is much danger when the lines between these branches are not clearly drawn. In the case of our legislative branch, their role is clear: lawmakers must make laws. The allocation and spending of the budget should be left with the executive branch in order for them to properly fulfill their appropriate role in the government. The legislative branch does not need the PDAF in order to fulfill its function of lawmaking, and the ones who benefitted from the PDAF will still be given the chance to receive the same benefits if the money were coursed through and appropriately spent by the executive branch of government. Ultimately, abolishing the PDAF eliminates one major source of corruption in our national government, and I believe that this is a necessary step towards the good governance that our country desperately needs. Mondok: Abolish. Because history of this kind of fund shows that whatever kind of reform has been happening, corruption ensues. Transparency should go with the abolishment; FOI Bill is also key for the abolishment to have any sort of effect. Sangalang: Reform. When the PDAF is abolished, the government will only recreate this under a new name, more or less with the similar details as the current PDAF. If it is reformed, it should be so that there is more supervision as to where the funds are going. The legislators with access to the PDAF should be granted less funds because the PDAF is only meant for mostly minuscule projects. As long as there is a proper way of tracking where the money goes, is known to be put into good use, and that it is shared with the public in accordance with the FOI bill, I see no reason to abolish it. The citizens need a form of government subsidy, and without the help the PDAF gives, it will be more difficult for them to find that subsidy. All it takes is to recalibrate the details of the PDAF in all aspects. Cruz: https://www.facebook.com/notes/tats-quiblat/reclaiming-our-dignity/10151861775271742 14
CENTRAL BOARD
Reyes: Supposedly, the Priority Development Assistance Fund is an attempt to somehow balance the spread of wealth, to grant the less fiscally-inclined parties of our country easier access to their needs by allocating a certain portion of the national budget to legislators, to allow them to instigate projects that are, supposedly, at least in the case of the members of the lower house, more localized and closer to their beneficiaries. Clearly not a bad prospect in itself, at least, on the theoretical level. The contestation? That this is not what is happening in real life. That the allocated funds are not being utilized properly, and are being misspent and wasted by these legislators, with the people who are supposed to benefit from them no longer getting any sort of help, while the people continue to pay their dues, or a lot of them, at least. At this point, to keep it as is is clearly out of the question. The query presents itself: abolish or reform? On one side, those who call for reform. A big chunk of those who benefit from the PDAF are from impoverished families who, due to material conditions, have no access to the most fundamental of human needs, and thus, depend on other structures that will grant them access to these needs. Kasama na rito ang mga opisina ng kanilang mga kongresista na ginagamit ang kanilang PDAF upang tulungan ang mga humihingi ng tulong. However, as we have seen countless times, not all congressmen put the money allocated to their offices to good use. The Napoles incident? Merely the tipping point, the loud culmination of a tradition of corruption that has festered, year in and year out. Thus, the call for total abolition of the PDAF system. Yet at the risk of sounding ridiculously trapo and faux-makamasa, I ask, why must we lessen the already limited avenues in which the government can reach out to help the people just because of bad tradition? As dangerously romanticized as this sounds, an attempt at total reallocation of the funds puts the people who currently benefit from the PDAF at an awkward position of not knowing where to ask for help. This, without even taking into account that the instances of corruption found in legislators are not echoed in and through the people within the executive branch. I vote for reform, in the belief that through an overhauled system that necessitates transparency more than ever, not only will the beneficiaries of the PDAF continue to benefit, but that more and more people will actually benefit so long as the flow of money, or even more, of information, is subjected to public watch and scrutiny. On the arguments against this being counter-intuitive to the recommended check-and-balance between the three branches of the government, I say: do not forget that the structure, the government itself, is but a means towards the actual end goal of service to its people. If it becomes a point of choosing between serving a greater number people or pedantic subscription to political tradition, I have no qualms with opting for the former. 15
CENTRAL BOARD
On the claims that corruption is somehow inculturated and that reforms will inevitably just lead to corrupt politicians recalibrating how they steal the peoples money: if you are so intent that mans natural tendency is to be exploitative, then is it not only reasonable to assume that these calls for a transformation into a (relatively) matuwid na daan equally futile? Ultimately, this choice for reform is motivated by the belief that our own specific context calls for a specific response, that the way towards the ultimate goal of serving the people in our country is paved by culture-specific decisions not entirely based on historicity or tradition, but by the cultivation of the now. Through reappropriating existing systems and fitting them into a mode of transparency, we not only allow the people who are already reaping the benefits of properly exercised PDAF spending to continue doing so, but we also make a step towards making the scope of beneficiaries more inclusive, and we can also somehow mitigate bad practice of an otherwise good idea. Atienza: I was able to consult with a good number of the SOH Sophomores (through one-on-ones, text messages, block group comments, and polls) from mid-last week to this Monday and majority of their votes were for the reformation of the PDAF. I agree with their votes. To abolish PDAF entirely would be to let its negative effects override its benefits. The mechanics of PDAF must be remodeled - its purpose must always be centered around serving the Filipino people instead of stealing from them and the system must be one wherein it is easier to properly monitor funds. Gaerlan: I don't believe that PDAF should be abolished, however, I believe that it should be reformed. Abolishing PDAF is not the solution, as I think that PDAF is essential to our country. It was established to allow representatives to identify projects for communities that the LGU cannot afford. I believe that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with this policy, but the problem with it, however, is that the public is not aware of where the money goes. It is also abused by a few congressmen, thus, it is questionable to the eyes of many. I do believe that it's all just a matter of good governance and transparency. It is not the PDAF that should be blamed for this existing problem. It is those who choose to abuse the system. Many say that legislators should only focus on purely legislative work, as that is mainly their job. I think that it aside from law making, it is also vital for them to cater to the communities' needs as they are officials that should be serving their constituents. It's just that, many choose to use this as their private fund. This is where good governance comes in. Good governance is essential in achieving a better system. It's all about being a RESPONSIBLE government official. I push for a reformed system that enables transparency. I believe that we as citizens of this country have every right to know where our money goes, and this is what the existing system lacks. In line with this, I push for the passage of the FOI Bill, as this will enable full disclosure of government funds. If PDAF were to be abolished, the money will go to the national government. I don't think the executive department alone can handle this. Also, abolishing it either way will not completely rid of corruption. There are many ways in which corrupt officials can abuse public money. Certainly, abolishing PDAF is not the way to address this issue. I believe that the system should be reformed, in such a way that enables full disclosure of funds and at the same time, having a proper monitoring system and a better budget allocation system. 16
CENTRAL BOARD
Diez: The PDAF still needs to exist in order to fund projects among other things. There's nothing wrong with the purpose of its existence. The problem is the execution- it needs to be systematic and needs more transparency to the public or even higher-ups. The fact that Janet Napoles was able to slip away this much money was not caused by the existence of the PDAF, but by the poor system that accompanies it. Warren: PDAF has been an ongoing source of corruption even before it was even called the Priority Development Assistance Fund. 17 years ago, people were startled by the pork barrel which was then called the Countrywide Development Fund. What was supposedly a reformation of the CDF in order to prevent corruption and eliminate the pork barrel obviously did not work seeing that the PDAF, as it is now known, is still ground for corruption and is STILL known as pork barrel. Reformation did not work then so how can the masses be assured that it will work now? The mere fact that money passes through the legislative body is wrong. This should not happen especially because they are not the ones executing projects. Although abolishing PDAF is certainly a very small part in the elimination of corruption, it will help us show the government that we are not their puppets. We will not be taken for granted, we will stand up for ourselves, and we will fight back. A culture of indifference allows corruption to persist, therefore the masses have to show the government that they work for us. As PNoy refers to his constituents, "Kayo ang boss ko," it is indeed time for us to show that and for him to stay true to that. Elicao: Long-term abolish, short-term reform. Separation of powers, proper clarification of the roles of the executive and legislative branches, and everything that has been mentioned by my fellow members of the Central Board. My concern, though, is for those in far-flung areas who view PDAF (or as one Internet commenter called it pera ni congressman") as one of the only ways by which they feel any kind of service from their government, owing to the national budget not reaching them through the executive. While I do believe that abolishing PDAF will catalyze a series of reforms, which may lead to addressing this problem, my concern as a systems guy is whether these reforms will be timely enough to address what these people will lose from the admittedly imperfect, flawed service granted them by PDAF. That said, I am still ultimately for Abolish. I, as Sec-Gen and as a member of IgnITE, believe in grassroots empowerment, and hope that the resources allocated by PDAF will be given to the executives on the ground, closer to the communities, who can push for these necessary changes. There are reforms necessary for this to work--transparency, freedom of information, addressing corruption--but I feel that these are necessary regardless, and that this change, though drastic, may be the impetus for all these others to finally occur. Hernandez: First, it compromises lawmakers from performing their primary job to legislate. Administering development projects has never been part of their mandate, especially if they are not even representing certain cities or provinces. 17
CENTRAL BOARD
Second, it allows the patronage culture that pervades Philippine politics to fester. Third, it marginalizes the more far-flung sectors of society because of its top-down approach. That is, it is the legislator at the top who decides which projects should be funded, rather than the constituents at the bottom, who actually know their immediate needs. Sarmiento: The reformation train of thought is that human nature is intrinsically good and that people will have a sense of honor when it comes to checks and balances when it comes to the system. That is a presumption in the theoretical level. But in the pragmatic level, is that a logical assumption? That ALL our legislators are good and honorable people who will not attempt to gain from the system? Does that fly with the historical background of this issue? No matter how good a system you have, the people involved in it will always determine the efficiency and just use of it. Again, think historically and pragmatically. Put yourself in the system if you want, if working with 300 fellow legislators, will the majority of them actually be honorable as the affiliation of their names Hon. Blah blah say? Historically in the hands of legislators, whatever ideal system you put in place, will that ideal system be enforced and respected by honorable men and women, or is that too much of a risk wherein it can end up having a minority of honorable and the majority dishonorable? Even other away around, it only takes a few 3 or 4 dishonorable people to compromise the system. It takes one rotten apple to taint a basket full of clean apples. In the case Janet Napoles and a few 3 or 4 senators involved, that was enough to create this outrageous scandal which involves billions of pesos from millions of people that has put the integrity of the entire congress in issue and demanding for the abolition of the pork barrel system at the minimum, or congress at the best. If your answer is human nature is human nature or that the Filipino culture has not reached the level of maturity to demand and elect into office the most honorable men and women in congress who dont to game the most ideal system you can give them, then your gamble is a guaranteed failure. No matter how ideally you can argue for the reformation of PDAF as a convincing reality, the truth on the congressional floor is that we have elected men and women who have sought office not to serve but to be served. Not to lead but to enslave. Not to develop the country but to perpetuate themselves through corruption and patronage politics. If you want proof, refer to our very recent history and this very current issue we are now facing. In the 2008 congress, the House Speaker Jose de Venecia Jr. and Majority House Leader Prospero Nograles issued a report virtually guaranteeing that the PDAF system has been sufficiently reformed with adequate checks and balances to ensure that no corruption will happen again but as subsequent events have proven, the latest COA report on the use of the PDAF from 2007-2009, billions of PDAF have been misappropriated and selfishly used and looted through corrupt actions of legislators. Basically, they were lying through their teeth. You have people willing to spend hundreds and millions of pesos to buy votes and get them into office, any congress in session is basically payback time big time. Tell me if thats not a reasonable forecast of what will happen in each and every post election scenario. A significant number of people who have engaged in vote buying or perpetuated themselves in a dynasty fashion assume 18
CENTRAL BOARD
their office not in as a measure of public trust, but in deception and abuse of that same trust and even hopes and aspirations in exchange for a few crumbs to their constituents. In the hands of thieves, the best system is no system. In the hands of the dishonorable and crooked officials, it might as well be no system at all. The most effective way to combat corruption in public office is to actually assume the worst in our legislators so that they can be trained by practice and public demand to weed themselves out of corruption. The best way to rehabilitate an addict is to go cold turkey in his/her addiction. If PDAF corruption is an addiction, the only way to heal such addiction is total withdrawal. Not a taste, sniff or even sight of pork. Thats the reality of rehabilitation currently used in any form of addiction, why would it be any different from the addiction of corruption and money gaining that these legislators of ours are currently facing. If we have Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King, Mahatma Ghandi, Mother Teresa, or in a local level, Claro M. Recto, Jobito Salonga, Jose Diokno, and Ninoy Aquino among others of the 70s and 80s in our congress, then I would gladly change my mind. But with what we have right now, indefinitely no thank you. If you have 10 yrs of zero pork, then it only increases the likelihood that the people with right and good intentions for public service will actually for such positions and truly use these positions to serve our country. Conversely, you actually significantly and maybe even zero out those crooks who look and seek for the financial benefits and treat congress as a business. What does it profit to a crooked legislator to run and put in hundreds of millions of their money to win a seat in congress without any expectations, certainty, and guarantee that they will have a return on their evil investments from any monkey business through that office. How would you expect a cigarette addict to continue smoking if you remove the nicotine from the cigarette? Or an alcoholic to continue drinking liquor when the alcohol level is 0%? Theoretically and maybe in my hopes and dreams of such a perfect scenario and set congressmen and women, I am for the reformation of the PDAF. But in practically, historically, and realistically, I am for the abolition of PDAF. The latter is what I choose to stick to. ABOLISH 10 Vice-President Secretary-General 1 SOM CB 2 SOM CB 3 SOM CB 4 SOM CB 1 SOSS CB 2 SOSS CB COA ARSA REFORM 6 Finance Officer 1 SOH CB 2 SOH CB 3 SOH CB 1 SOSE CB 2 SOSE CB
19
CENTRAL BOARD
Prepared By: Miguel Franco Ignacio M. Hamoy Secretariat Team Office of the Secretary-General Sanggunian ng mga Mag-aaral ng mga Paaralang Loyola ng Ateneo de Manila Antonio Rafael N. Elicao Secretary-General Sanggunian ng mga Mag-aaral ng mga Paaralang Loyola ng Ateneo de Manila Micah G. Mongcal Secretariat Team Office of the Secretary-General Sanggunian ng mga Mag-aaral ng mga Paaralang Loyola ng Ateneo de Manila
20

Minutes 08-30-13 (CB)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Minutes 08-30-13 (CB)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CENTRAL BOARD

CENTRAL BOARD MEETING Date: August 30, 2013

Venue: MVP 217-218 Time: 6:00pm to 9:10pm

ARSA President (tie)

ONLINE VOTE Date: September 2, 2013

Venue: n/a Time: 9:00pm to 12:00mn

You might also like