LSG OFFICIAL REPORT ON THE STUDENT-FACULTY DIALOGUE

Eugenio Lopez Center, Antipolo City February 11, 2012 In Attendance: LSG CB Jill De Dumo Toff Lamug Gia Recio Kriska Chen Azy Ignacio Mike Tiu Benedict Nisperos Jo Ann Madarang Mai Suarez Dominic Obias Richard Beltran PC Celeridad Ivan Galura Louie Camino Bam Santos Patrick Carbonell BarOps Commission Carlo Marcaida Rey Velasco Lia Veneracion Faculty Dean Danilo L. Concepcion Dean Raul C. Pangalangan Dean Salvador T. Carlota Prof. Concepcion L. Jardeleza Prof. Ma. Gisella N. Dizon-Reyes Prof. Jay Batongbacal Prof. Leo Battad Prof. Dan Calica Prof. Rommel Casis Prof. Tristan Catindig Prof. Rowena Daroy-Morales Prof. Dan Gatmaytan Prof. Rowena Guanzon Prof. Eduardo Labitag Prof. Jay Layug Prof. Linda Malaneb-Hornilla Prof. John Molo Krissy Conti, Student Regent Prof. Alberto Muyot Prof. Elizabeth Pangalangan Prof. Serafin Salvador Prof. Patricia Salvador-Daway Prof. Francis Sobrevinas Prof. Nicholas Ty Official Agenda: A. B. C. D. E. F. G. Academic Delinquency Rules Magna Carta Block v. Bidding OLA and Externship Seniors Bar Review Program Scholarships Dormitory H. I. J. K. L. M. N. Security Utilities & Facilities Library Moot Court Budget Organizations Tambayans Registration Dress Code**

*Confidential **Topic included by the Faculty

A. Academic Delinquency Rules

Premise: There are two different set of rules applicable among the student body: the old University Rules applied to Batch 2012, and the new rules applied to the younger batches. The differentiating factors are the 3Strike rule and Double Probation rule. Response/Discussion: 1. In order to facilitate the discussion, the Faculty noted that everyone has to work on the premise that we cannot do away with the University Rules. If it is imposed by the University, then it cannot be contested. The College can impose stricter rules, but it cannot go below the University Rules. 2. On the 3-strike rule and the double probation rule The Faculty said that they not casting our judgment on the merits of these rules because the QPI has already been abolished. Besides, there is also the problem with the Bar. If it will really improve the quality of the graduates and the performance in the Bar, then the new rules will not be abolished. Meanwhile, the Faculty would like to see first the minutes of the Full Faculty Meeting to which this was approved of, since some are not familiar with the rule. Also, some asked whether or not the rules have the approval of the University Council. The Dean mentioned that the rules may be reviewed, provided the LSG give documented cases of students who suffered injustices because of the rules. Regarding the interpretation of a grade of 4.0. LSG stated that according to University Rules, the grade of 4.0 may be taken out by two equal means: by a removal exam, or by retaking the subject. Thus, the students should be given an opportunity to choose between removing or retaking. LSG was tasked to give documented cases or instances wherein a student is prohibited from taking one option over the other.

2.

B. Magna Carta
*FYI: The UP Law Students Magna Carta is a product of series of consultations with students from year 2008 to the present. The LSG employed focus group discussions and surveys to capture the concerns of students across the years. For the purpose of this presentation, a survey was administered with students of the College for second semester AY 2011-2012 with a sample of 200 respondents.

Premise: The discussion on the Magna Carta was done by using the document to contextualize the concerns students would like to bring up to the Faculty. Each provision was discussed, including the motivations behind it. The question on what to do with the Magna Carta itself was reserved to another date. Response/Discussion: 1. Discrimination and harassment1 - 52.5% of the respondents have been/ felt personally insulted in class or while inside the premises of the college by a Faculty member or an administrative staff.
Students shall be protected against discrimination in the entire duration of being a student in the College. They shall not b e expelled from the College, punished with disciplinary action or any other sanction, personally insulted, or be denied any kind of privilege on the basis of his or her physical handicap, physical appearance, socio-economic status, political or religious beliefs, culture, sexual orientation, gender identity, or membership in student organizations. This protection shall specifically include pregnant students, certified ref ormed drug abusers, and students with HIV/AIDS shall not be discriminated against.
1

LSG cited instances* wherein students were affected by this provision. Some Faculty members agreed that the cited instances were clearly violative of the students rights, while some also expressed concerns that the situations mentioned could have been isolated cases. All agreed that a more concrete and comprehensive grievance mechanism should be established, which proposal should come from the LSG, but in the meantime, it was stressed that even without said mechanism, students who experience any for of harassment and discrimination should report to the administration their complaint.

2.

Late submission of grades2 90% of the respondents have received their grades on or after the period of enlistment for the succeeding semester. Some of these subjects are prerequisites to another subject. The Faculty notes that the late submission of grades has academic delinquency repercussions to a student. Dean stated that the Faculty will do its best to submit their grades on time, and in case they cannot do so, he believes it is unfair for the students to be prejudiced by the Facultys failure. Dean Carlota also said that there on the part of the Faculty, there is already a great improvement over the years, but it could not be denied that this still exists. Rest assured that the faculty is sensitive to the unfair implications of the late submission of grades by the professors. Notice of grading components and procedure3 54% of the respondents said that they had taken at least one class wherein they were not informed of the grading components and procedure. 78% said that they had also taken a class where bluebooks, exams, papers, recitation cards and other requirements were not available for review. 43% of the respondents answered that they experienced being denied access to their class records and class standing. 35.2% of the respondents answered that they had experienced taking an exam which they had not been notified of at least two weeks before it was conducted. For those who answered affirmatively to the four preceding items, 57% claimed that their grades were prejudiced by virtue of these causes. The students and the faculty agree that the core of the issue is the transparency of the grades. A Faculty member recognized that the students should know at the beginning of the semester the rules of the game. However, the students should not ask for their grade every after recitation, which becomes annoying already and overly burdensome to the professor. There should be balance. Prof. Guanzon shared her method to the other Faculty members: I have a class beadle. Nobody speaks to me except to the beadle. All my recitation grades are open. The beadle photocopies it to make sure I have a spare copy in case I lose mine. I also made this rule because I would like to establish a custom for myself. Professional ethics requires me to afford my students some equality. Prof. Muyot also shared his method, which is also similar to Prof. Daways: I would like to share my system of transparency, and that is an Excel file which I submit to the Office of the College Secretary before the submission of grades. It is always available for the students. Hence there is no mistake in the computation. I also follow what Bing does and that is only to talk to the beadle. They can also consult but they have to schedule it. The professor is free to come up with whatever method he wants as long as he observes transparency.

3.

Students who belatedly receive their grades from the previous semester shall not be adversely affected in their enrolment for the succeeding semester They shall not be disallowed to underload if reasons warrant and they shall not be required to force -drop a paid-for subject of which the failed subject is a pre-requisite. 3 Students shall be informed of the grading components and procedure at the beginning of class. Bluebooks, exams, papers, recit ation cards and other class requirements shall be available to the students for review. They shall be informed of their class standing upon request of the student. Upon availability of students final grade, he/she shall be given a break-down of grades on such said subject.
2

The Body acknowledges the students right access to his/her class standing; however there should be a more detailed mechanism that will give the Faculty options.

4.

Absence of students in class whenever there is an upcoming examination in another subject, so they can review for that other subject** LSG committed to do its best to communicate the problem to the student body. Scheduling of examinations was raised as a factor in this issue. Some suggestions were floated by the Faculty to remedy the situation, such as blocking off one week to be entirely dedicated for midterms, plus a two-day integration period. This however was countered by the University Rule that professors cannot decrease their prescribed number of class hours. The Dean suggested that before professors schedule their exams, they should confer first with the beadles of the class, to which LSG responded that it communicates with the beadles and in fact sets up the final exam schedules to be submitted to the OCS. The Faculty welcomes any proposal coming from the LSG to address the concern. Evaluation of faculty and staff4 - A means to evaluate faculty members is already in place. A survey form is administered by the OCS at the end of each semester. There are concerns however that there are instances where these are administered haphazardly, sacrificing the quality of responses from the students. These forms are distributed to the students through the class beadles; the students return the forms to the beadles who will return the accomplished forms to the OCS. 3.9% of the respondents attempted to file a complaint against any member of the faculty, college administration or staff. Only 7.1% of those who attempted to file a complaint said that the same had prospered. For those who did not file a complaint, 16% answered that they felt discouraged, harassed, intimidated, threatened or coerced not to do so. The importance of evaluation of faculty is well recognized. The OCS mentioned that per experience, less than 20% give back the evaluation forms. To remedy the situation, it was decided that instead of the beadles being responsible for the distribution of the forms, the responsibility of disseminating the forms should be returned to the administrative personnel. On the question on what happens to the evaluation forms, the Faculty answered that after transcribing the contents of the evaluation form, they are given to the Faculty members so that they can improve their teaching methods. On the comment that the content of the form itself is not really responsive/sufficient to what the students would like to say, and that student anonymity may be prejudiced, the Faculty is receptive to any suggestion or proposal to change the format of the evaluation forms. On the previous request made by students who have already graduated that the evaluation should also be applicable to the OLA Director and the Supervising Lawyers, the Dean manifested that they should be included in the normal College evaluation procedure; their evaluation should not be done internally only. Assistance of the College on specific matters5 This would fall under the grievance mechanism to be proposed by the LSG. Right to enrol in class schedules6 - There are cases wherein class schedule was changed after the student had already enrolled, hence conflicting with their other class. Examples* were given to the

5.

6.

7.

Each student shall evaluate their professors, as well as members of the College Staff and Administration, for each semester using the University Students Evaluation Form. Such Form shall be accomplished to maintain anonymity, and for the University Administr ation to get feedback on the performance of College professors. Such evaluation forms shall be submitted both to the University Administration and to te Dean of the College. 5 Every student has the right to be promptly assisted by the OCS regarding conflicts in class schedules, conflicts in exams, complaints against violations of the Magna Carta, etc.
4

Faculty on this matter. As regards the survey, 64.3% claim that they have had a class which imposed an additional class time without consent and consultation with the students. Out of these students, 45% state that there came a point wherein they werent able to attend class because of the conflict in schedule. The Dean expressed commitment to find effective ways to address this concern in the next Full Faculty meeting. 8. Professors absences and tardiness LSG stated following University rules, in case the professor would be late for class, the students shall be notified of such tardiness. They should also be allowed to leave if the professor does not arrive within the first third of the class hours (1/3 rule). A Faculty member noted that if the students have a 3-strike rule, then professors with unexcused absences should also be subjected to the same. The Dean acknowledges that these are valid concerns and the same shall be taken up in the Full Faculty meeting. Students attendance7 0.6% of the respondents answered that they had been failed or dropped from a subject including OLA (applicable to the 2010 Incident), on the basis of absences except for that prescribed in the University Rules. The Faculty noted that the standing University Rule is that whether excused or unexcused, the student is dropped if he/she missed at least 20% of the total class hours. With regard to the 2010 OLA Incident, the same had been clarified.* A point of information was raised by a Faculty member:* Is the OLA course composed of (1) actual clinical training by counseling and appearing in court with the assistance of the SL, and (2) actual classroom instruction? Clarification on was also raised on whether classroom component is required by the curriculum or not. It was noted that this matter is relevant insofar as clarifying the percentage of allowable absences for the classroom component; otherwise, the percentage may be arrived at arbitrarily. It was resolved that a review of the OLA Curriculum will be made by the Faculty, especially on the genesis of the course description, and on whether or not there the current system is approved by the University Council.

9.

10. Freedom of expression without fear of reprisal8 Based on the survey, there were reports of students being prevented from exercising their freedom of speech. The 2009 Incident was also brought into light. The students strongly manifested that the faculty and administration shall not interfere with speech done by students as far as it is in accordance with law. The Faculty acknowledged such right. 11. Freedom to form an organization and association9 There were reports where the student was prevented/influenced from joining an organization. 54.4% of the respondents belong to an

Each student has the right to enroll in class schedules. Changes in the schedule or additional class time may not be imposed, and shall only be effected with the express consent of the student. 7 No student shall be failed or be dropped from a subject including the OLA on the basis of absences except for that prescribed in the University Rules, which is unjustified absences for at least 20% of the total number of class hours for the whole semester. 8 Each student has the right to freedom of expression and to freely express their views and opinions orally, in print, and thro ugh the internet, without fear of reprisal. All students have the right to peaceably assemble and petition the College, the Uni versity, the Government and the authorities for redress of their grievances. Pursuant thereto, no College regulation shall be imposed violating or abridging the students right to freedom of expression and of assembly. Statements from the Law Student Government shall be free from any influence whatsoever from the College Administration, including the Dean and the College Secretary. 9 Students shall be allowed to form and join organization/s of their choice. No Professor or Member of the Faculty, or any Coll ege administrative officer or staff, including the Dean and the College Secretary, shall interfere with lawful and peaceful stude nt-related activities,
6

organization. 6.8% claim that they experienced a point where a Faculty member, administration or staff got involved with their organizations activities without being invited or help solicited. For the respondents who have no organization, only 2% answered that they experienced being prevented by any Faculty member, administration, or staff from joining an organization. The Faculty acknowledges that the right to associate is inviolable. There should be no undue pressure or influence to join or not to join an organization. If such is the case, a complaint should be properly filed with the Dean, or in accordance with the grievance mechanism to be established. Interference should be construed in favor of the perception of the student. With regard to the prohibition against freshmen joining fraternities, sororities, or organizations, the Student Regent clarified that according to University Rules, the specific characterization of a freshman is a college freshman or a student taking up their first year of a college degree. Considering that the College of Law is a postgraduate degree, the same is not covered by the prohibition. It was also noted however that the College may impose a stricter rule than the University. 12. Notice and consultation on introduction and changes in College policies10 Some Faculty members expressed that the introduction and of College policies is a prerogative belonging to them. Also, there are matters best left to the expertise of the faculty especially when students are not directly and substantially affected or concerned. Requiring a student representative to be always present when the Faculty convenes may be overstepping the bounds. On the other hand, other Faculty members stated that the provision is limited to participation in the consultation process, and there is some value in hearing the students inputs. It was also suggested that a culture of participation be established between the students and the Faculty, in lieu of the provision. As such, the proposed Magna Carta provision should be rephrased in a diplomatic manner. It was noted that the rules do not state that invitation to the student representative is obligatory (e.g. LSG President in the Full Faculty meeting), but rather an initiative of the Faculty. As a response, LSG said that the inclusion of the LSG President or any student representative in policy making matters will result in a win-win situation for both parties since the duty of LSG is not only to represent, but to also bridge the gap between the student body and the Faculty. Without a link or a proper coordinating body, no real progress can be expected. On the query of whether or not the students understand that the LSG President does not have the right to vote during Full Faculty meetings, LSG responded that it is clear. Another Faculty member noted that not notifying the President in advance of the agenda to be taken up in the Full Faculty meeting will put her in a disadvantageous position since she will not know how to react properly, given the lack of prior consultation to the student body. The Student Regent meanwhile manifested that there is an ongoing Draft of Student Code of Conduct, which emphasized the students right to collective decision-making regarding their affairs. The rules however do not specify if the student representative shall have the right to vote. Rather, this is left to the discretion of the College concerned.

including projects of the LSG and events and activities of student organizations, without the invitation and express consent of the students conducting the activity. 10 Students shall be notified and consulted of introduction of new policies or changes in policies which will directly affect st udents. There shall be a student representative in the person of the LSG President, or any member of the LSG in his/her absence in policy making processes and decision making.

C. Block versus Bidding

Premise: 1. The premise of the discussion was that the bidding system currently employed by the sophomores onwards will be retained, and that the return to the block system shall be applied prospectively, that is, to the current freshmen. 2. Based on the SFD survey with a total of 200 respondents, 52% were in favor of the block system, while 47.9% were for the bidding system. As for the freshmen, 78% were in favor of blocking. The presentation of this result came with the caveat that the freshmen students made such a decision without having undergone bidding yet. 3. A report presenting the advantages and disadvantages of both systems was made by the LSG, but the crucial point was the definition of matching a learning style, which was identified as one of the main advantages of the bidding system. Response/Discussion: 1. On what is meant by learning style** The Faculty members position is that while it is admitted that there are variations in teaching style, there is still a common ground, namely, the Socratic Method and the case law method. And reading cases on the original is not dispensed with. The LSG responded that learning style may mean that there is a fit between the teaching style of the professor and the way the student learns. For instance, if the student learns more from cases, then he will choose a professor who focuses more on that. If the students learn more from practical application, he will choose that professor. On the other hand, it may also mean choosing a professor who allocate higher points or percentages in an area where the student excels in (e.g. recitation, examinations). The Faculty understood the point, but made the position that still, there is only one learning style, and that is to work hard. Example, if Professor X is a finalist, then the student has to pass even if he had low recitations, but the learning style remains the same. The student just has to go to the library to read the cases in the original, ask the Professor if he does not understand the questions, and prepare for recitation. On the theory that some students in the bidding process choose professors who give high grades or who give students an easy time** LSG contested such position and stated that there are actually students who seek out the socalled difficult professors* because they teach well and have a solid reputation in being fair when giving out grades. The argument was admitted by the Faculty member. On the policy behind the bidding system To contextualize the situation, the LSG asked the Faculty what was the motivation behind the bidding system. Prof. Hilbay mentioned that the bidding system was proposed during the time of Dean Carlota, but it was rejected. It was not until Dean Leonens term that it was implemented. The idea behind it was to treat the students as mature individuals who have the ability to choose their own professors, rather than subjecting them to a block system. Everyone is allowed to pick a professor, so it is a fair system. It is also implemented in other law schools outside the country. Prof. Casis meanwhile stated that one of the points raised during the discussion of whether or not to implement the bidding system was that bidding will counter what a block systems effect of a perverse incentive to students not to do well initially.

2.

3.

4.

On the position of the evening students** The question of was propounded because some Faculty members observed that evening students do not really have a choice in the bidding system. LSG mentioned that while the evening students are still technically a block, they would like to have a rotation of professors because there are cases wherein the same professor teaches around 12 units. A Faculty member* noted that once a student fails a subject under a certain professor, there is a risk that the same professor will also fail the student the next time. Another Faculty member* also stated that a professors teaching assignment is already within the prerogative of the Dean, and the problem mentioned may be addressed by the Facultys goal of enlarging the stable of lecturers in the College. The request however will be taken into consideration for the next semester. On the results of the survey** The Faculty noticed that there are only 173 respondents out of a total of 700 students in the college. The number raised doubts as to whether or not the survey was representative of the general sentiment of the student body. To make the decision democratic, LSG undertook to do another survey, this time with the aid of the OCS to make the survey mandatory among the student body.

5.

D. OLA and Externship

Premise: 1. All internal matters (e.g. requirements) were already settled with the OLA Director last September 2011 at a General Assembly attended by all OLA interns, with the LSG President acting as the representative of the batch. 2. What was submitted for discussion was a request for an update on the externship program, including its direction and extent. Response/Discussion: 1. An extensive discussion among the Faculty members took place on the following matters, in particular the OLA description (Law 127 and 128) in the Curriculum, as duly approved by the University Council. Some Faculty members noted a disparity between the current experience in OLA and their own experience as OLA interns. Some also noted a difference between the course description of OLA and what is actually practiced. Past and present OLA Directors stated that to strictly follow the course description of having the classroom component as the sole requirement for Law 128 would mean that no interns would handle the cases during the said semester. 2. 3. The Faculty will be revisiting of the OLA curriculum in the next Full Faculty Meeting. There is a categorical pronouncement from the Dean that the development of a parallel program (externship) which will run together with OLA will be a priority. The administration is currently waiting for responses from the government agencies before carrying out the rest of the externship program. They will also look at the components of the externship program so it will fit the course description of OLA.

E. Seniors Bar Review Program

Please see notes released by the BAROPS Commission.

F. Scholarships
*FYI: There are 28 scholarships offered to law students. Of these 28, only 22 are availed of. There are also a few scholarships with multiple beneficiaries. We currently have 31. The scholarship grants range from Php 5,500 to Php 25,000 per semester. Premise: Some of the matters raised are the following: a. b. Restrictive Qualifications E.g. gender qualifications, location qualifications, grade requirement Amount of financial assistance given Given the current monthly expense of an average law student, along with the tuition fee increase of the University, the amount granted by the different scholarships do not seem to be enough to cover the expenses of an average law student. Late release of grades With grades as basis for scholarship applications, the late release of grades by some Faculty members pose a problem for students who are planning to avail of the scholarships. This causes either a delay in the release of grants for current scholars or an inability of a student to apply for a scholarship. Lack of awareness of the students Based on our surveys, the reason why 30% of students do not avail of scholarships is that they are unaware of these scholarships available to them. Aside from the problem of information dissemination, the problem lies in the fact that the scholarship list is not updated (i.e. whether or not they have been taken). Scholarships for freshmen There is a lack of available scholarships and financial grants for incoming freshmen. Aside from this, majority of the incoming freshmen availing these scholarships are unable to qualify in time for the first semester. Transparency There is a lack of transparency as to the reason why some students are denied in their scholarship application.

c.

d.

e.

f.

Response/Discussion: 1. As a backgrounder** In the past, what was done was to approve the application conditionally, subject to the submission of the grade. Applications are also accepted and tailor fit them to the available scholarships so everyone gets a scholarship. 2. On the question of whether or not there are really indigents in the College** LSG posits that there are, and in fact, the President receives notice from OCS every end of the semester of the names of students who have not yet paid their tuition fees and are thus in danger of being purged from their classes. Dean Raul Pangalangan mentions an Alumni* who nobody really thought was an indigent since he dressed properly in school, until years later when he mentioned that he skipped meals during college due to lack of funds. On the question of why the students do not apply for STFAP Bracketing** STFAP rules are difficult to comply with because of: (1) the tedious process of application; (2) the flawed criteria for qualifying; and (3) the fact that it does not consider the situation of

3.

10

evening students who, while are employed, are not only supporting themselves, but also their families. 4. On students who have cheated in their scholarship applications** Some Faculty members state that there were instances when students were caught cheating in their scholarship application. On the lack of awareness Some Faculty members stress that students must also do their part and ask for scholarships available. The resolution is a greater coordination between the OCS and the LSG in the release of information regarding scholarships at the beginning of every semester. A copy of available scholarships will be given to the LSG regularly. On the lack of transparency regarding the application process The resolution is for the Scholarship Committee to officially inform the student, through a letter, of whether or not their application has been granted. On the amount of financial assistance given Prof. Catindig suggested that a scholarship fund (separate from the current ones) be created, where the Faculty will target a number of donors, with donations pegged with a minimum requirement. Regular reports will be given to these donors. Prof. Guanzon also suggested that a specialized fund be created, in case the student only has specific needs (e.g. book fund). These suggestions will be taken up in the next Scholarship Committee meeting.

5.

6.

7.

11

G. Dormitory
Premise: a. The application process is done during the summer, primarily through the online portal http://dormapplication.upd.edu.ph where student applicants fill out an online form where basic information is supplied. Based on the data supplied, applicants get points to aid the priority of assigning dormitory slots. b. Aside from the points earned for the data supplied, there is also a high/low priority categorization for applicants based on the type of residence hall s/he chooses. If an applicant rejects the preassignment, the application will be categorized as low category. Juris Doctor students are preassigned to two dormitories: Sanggumay Residence Hall for females and the Engineering Centennial Dormitory (in Kamagong Orchard) for males. Sanggumay has two (2) occupants per room, while the Centennial Dorm has six (6) occupants per room. c. Graduates of the college requesting accommodation in any of the residence halls channel their applications through the Bar Operations Commission and the college administration to coordinate with the Office of Student Housing, while students course their requests through the Law Student Government. d. The current standard in determining the maximum number of years in residence halls is: Undergraduate and graduate student residents may be allowed to stay in residence hall/s for not more than the minimum number of years required to finish his/her degree according to the students respective program.

e. f.

The Acacia-Law Residence Hall (Law Centennial Dormitory) is not yet finished. There is also a concern among the bar candidates if they will be given accommodations in the dormitories in the campus, especially if they will not be enrolling in the UP Law Centers Bar Review Program.

While this amended rule theoretically solves the problem of how long JD students may stay in the residence halls, there is still some confusion as JD students are still treated akin to MA/MS students the default expectation of completion of which is two (2) years [four (4) years for doctorate degrees]. Hence, after two years of staying in a residence hall, they must talk to their dormitory managers when manifesting intent to apply for the next school year.

*FYI: Every beginning of the school year, LSG submits a letter to the Office of Student Housing, with the endorsement of the Dean, requesting for the readmission of law students who were not given any housing options inside the Campus. Response: 1. As reported by the Dean, the Acacia-Law Residence Hall is not even half way done. Some Faculty members inquired if the contractor should be held liable considering the delay in the construction of the hall, which was supposed to have been finished early 2012. The Dean agreed with the Faculty members, and will undertake to write the Engineering Office of the University to formally inquire about the status of the construction. 2. Regarding law students being ejected from their dormitories and the bar reviewees concern, the Dean undertook to write the Office of Student Housing so that the revised rule will be implemented in favor of the law students. The LSG will draft this letter.

12

H. Security
Premise: a. New agency Winace Security won the bid for the service contract for the north sector (where UP Law Complex is in) late last year. They took over on New Years Eve, with many security guards not getting absorbed, and some regular guards being demoted into being relievers. b. The Terms of Reference between the UP administration and the security agency included the implementation of the new policy of rotating guards in different buildings after a certain period to other buildings/units. c. Allegedly, there is also the plan of the UP Administration of setting up CCTVs around campus to beef up its security. d. As of date, there had already been many instances theft, even inside the UP College of Law (e.g. loss of W-IFI router at the Student Lounge, loss of 12 bottle containers for the water dispenser, loss of cellphones and laptops, etc.). There were also reported incidents of construction workers peeping at the comfort room for girls. e. Another issue is the sufficiency of having only two guards detailed to UP Law at night, considering our building structure, and the evening activities of the College, in particular, classes which extend beyond the normal 9 P.M. dismissal time. Also, the guard posted at the library only stays until 7 P.M. when the operation of the library extends until 9 P.M. f. Also, the possibility of getting back our previous guards who were absorbed by the new agency was brought up, given the new rotation policy of the University. Response/Discussion: 1. Security guards should not actually stay for a long period time because it promotes familiarity.

*FYI: LSG has made a letter addressed to WinAce Security Agency to absorb the old security guards of the College, which was granted. As of the moment, LSG is drafting a new letter, to be accompanied by a signature campaign (as suggested by some students), for the permanent assignment of the guards in the College of Law.

2.

On the sufficiency of the two guards at night The Faculty will undertake to request the Security Agency for an increased number of guards detailed in the College, and more particularly, in the library. On construction workers peeping in the restrooms The initial instruction of the Faculty to the developer was to coordinate with Ms. Elsa Ochoa, but apart from this, the Dean will see to it that there will be requirements which the developer must fulfill, such as, but not limited to: (1) not allowing any worker to sleep inside the College; and (2) not allowing them to wander inside and go beyond their enclosed space. A meeting with the contractor will be called to clarify these concerns. On the installation of CCTVs No, because its not preventive.

3.

4.

13

I.

Utilities & Facilities

Premise: LSG presented major areas where College facilities need improvement. Response/Discussion: 1. Restrooms In bad condition. Dean acknowledges the need to improve the bathroom facilities of the College. He cites an instance where the Dean of an American University came to the College, but he could not let him use the 1F C.R. due to its current condition. On the long-term, there is a plan to renovate the restrooms, but for the meantime, the provisional remedy is to increase personnel in charge of cleaning the restrooms. 2. Water supply The entire UP Law Community (including non-UP bar reviewees) seems to be using this, but the funds come from the LSG. The Faculty will address this, but for the meantime, the Dean suggested that the water dispenser be placed in a location accessible to students only. Student Lounge Request for renovation made by the LSG.

3.

*FYI: UP LSG has sent a letter to Batch 1968, as the primary donors of the Student Lounge, sometime in September 2011 to ask for their help in the renovation of the Lounge (e.g. replacement of furniture, dividers, tiling). Informal meetings have been held with the Batch Representative and LSG about the proposal. Other matters such as repainting of the walls and fixing of air conditioning units have been done by the Property Office during the 1st semester, upon the request of the LSG.

Prof. Salvador (Batch 1968 Representative) and the Dean agreed to help one another to undertake the renovations before the end of March 2012, one step at a time. Negotiations with all entities concerned are currently being done.

4.

Projectors Some Faculty members acknowledged that indeed, there is a difficulty in securing projectors for their classes, especially if everyone is requesting for it. The Faculty committed to buying more projectors to be placed in each classroom. Lighting The Dean acknowledged that lighting in the College is deficient and improvements are underway. Better WI-FI services A suggestion was made wherein the administration will try to source a provider that can give the College a bigger bandwidth, but the requirement is that the supply will be controlled by a card that will be given to each student per semester, with a free load per semester. If a students consumption will be more than the free load in the card, the student has to pay. The LSG was tasked to determine the position of the student body regarding this suggestion.

5.

6.

14

J. Library
*FYI: A letter dated 26 January 2012 has been sent to the Library through the Librarian, Ms. Lily Echiverri. The letter mentioned three matters which needed immediate attention: (1) the denial of entry to the library of law students who have not yet paid their tuition fees; (2) air conditioning units at the 3F; and (3) charging fees of P20/hour. Response: 1. LSG was invited to the Library Committee meeting to resolve the I.D. problem, while the air conditioning units have been fixed. The P20/hour fee has been elevated to the Dean for his consideration, which is why it was included in the SFD agenda. 2. On the P20/hour charging fees LSG said that since the request to remove last year was granted, it is hopeful that the same be done this year. Also, the energy bill included in tuition should cover the costs. The Faculty however mentioned that there were reported incidents where students from other Colleges go to UP Law to charge their laptops, resulting in the increase of the Colleges electricity bills. The LSG responded that ff the problem is monitoring, it can be done since students from other Colleges cannot enter the Library without their IDs. They can also log in to ensure that charging will only be available to law students. The resolution was to remove the P20/hour fee. On the P4/page printing charge According to Blessings, they can provide photocopying machines which can print directly from a USB device without need of any computers. The Dean said that this new technology may be made the standard for all businesses who intend to bid for the photocopying services in the College. If this will be done, then the printing services at the library may be removed. Dilapidated OPAC Computers Through response of Kuya Jojo from the Library, it was found out that the OPAC computers were only donated by IBM. The Faculty acknowledges that the equipment is obsolete, so a study on which equipment needs upgrading will be conducted soon.

3.

4.

*Regarding BLESSINGS: The results of the SFD survey pertaining to the performance review of Blessing will be forwarded to the latter for them to attach in their application for contract extension, and to the Library for their consideration. Updates on this will be given separately.

15

K. Moot Court Budget

Premise: In the past years, the College gives subsidy to the teams fielded in these competitions. Recently, however, budget has been cut short due to shortage of funds. Currently, only the Jessup Team is assured of a subsidy through the Institute for International Legal Studies. FYI: In a previous meeting with the Dean, LDMU and LSG, there was a proposal by the Dean to create a moot court fund which will be opened to donors willing to support the students involved in mooting. Response: 1. As of the moment, there are no donors yet for the fund. 2. A suggestion was floated in that the students should propose four (4) moot court competitions which will be prioritized by the College. Budget will be given, and such will be proportionately allocated among the four competitions. 3. The four competitions are: IHL, Jessup, Pictet, and Stetson.

L. Organizations Tambayan
Premise: Several organizations in the UP College of Law, including the LSG itself, are being ejected from their designated rooms in the College. Other organizations meanwhile are clamoring for a space to practice for moot or conduct their monthly meetings, etc. Response: 1. The ultimate plan of the College is to restore Malcolm Hall to what it was meant for to provide for classrooms. This is also necessitated by the fact that a new section (Block F) will be added for the next school year. 2. Note that UP Law is a heritage site, which prevents its faade or the main building from being overhauled, which is why the Annex is the only way for the College to address the need for space. 3. On the issue of lack of notice to the organizations being ejected, the removal will not take place until after one year, or after the construction of the Annex/es planned. 4. The Law Forum Building/Annex (construction at the right side of the Law Complex) is dedicated for faculty rooms. There is however an ongoing fund-raising for the mirror image of this building at the left side. This second Annex shall be allocated for the students, and shall include provisions for the organizations tambayans. The timeline of this project shall depend upon the speed of the fund raising. As of the moment, there is already an initial donor.* 5. The fundraising will be a personal commitment of the Dean.

16

M. Registration
The issues on registration will be tackled separately with the OCS in a meeting to be scheduled in the succeeding weeks.

N. Dress Code**
Premise: LSG made a categorical pronouncement that it is not in favor of a dress code. The Faculty however said that it is only making a request that the students come to class dressed decently. Response: LSG committed that this request will be forwarded to the student body.

CERTIFIED TRUE AND CORRECT:

JILLIANE JOYCE R. DE DUMO

President

GELINA ROSE RECIO

Secretary

17