Scrutinizing the proposed Magna Carta of Students
The context: Commercialized and Repressive Education
Growing number of youth can’t afford to go to school because of the rising cost of education. School owners are running the school in a “business-like” manner. Tuition and other school fees are increasing almost every year even without consultations and despite of the massive opposition of students and parents.
At school, students have been unjustly denied their right to free expression. Members of Student councils, student publications and progressive student organizations are treated like common criminals. When students oppose the glaringly anti-student policies, they are met with threats by the school administration. Student leaders are not even safe from military harassment at school. Military components can freely go to school grounds to demonize progressive student leaders, student institutions and organizations.
It is in this context that we assess the proposed magna carta of students.
Background: Brief History of the Bill and the current status in Congress
The Magna Carta of Students is a piece of legislation that seeks to “protect” and “promote the democratic rights of students”. If approved, this will be binding to all students in both public and private schools in the country.
Since the early 90’s, there have been efforts to formulate and pass a Magna Carta of Student. In the 8th and 9th Congress, Rep. Edcel Lagman filed the bill and the lower house approved it, however, the Senate failed to ratify it. In the 10th, 11th, and 12th Congress, the bill did not even progress beyond the committee level.
Fast forward to 2008, several bills in the House of Representatives are being discussed particularly HB 2584 by Rep. Risa Hontiveros-Baraquel, HB332 by Rep. Edcel Lagman, and HB2520 by Rep. Rufus Rodriguez.
Last August 13, the Committee on Higher and Technical Education of the Congress formed a Technical Working Group (TWG) to consolidate the three bills and the first TWG meet was held last September 10. We welcome these hearings and assert the need for consultations with regard to the bills as venues to expose the real situation of Filipino students in the country and the real situation of the Philippine education system.
Exposing the devilish details of the bills (particularly HB2584 by Akbayan Rep. Baraquel)
The promise of the proposed magna carta is to “respect and protect” the students’ democratic rights and welfare. But if we’ll go into the details, the bills filed in the congress will inflict more injury to the commercialized and repressive character of education rather than to cure it.
Provisions on the right to organize
On student organizations and the definite power of OSA
Section 6 of HB 2584 gave definite powers to the administration, particularly the Office of Students Affairs (OSA), to interfere on the accreditation process and activities, and to impose sanctions to student organizations.
Stated on Section 6a, “The Office of Student Affairs, in coordination with the student council or government, shall take charge in the accreditation of student organizations.”
If were going to analyze the current system of organization recognition, the administration is imposing tedious and unreasonable guidelines and requirements for organization accreditation. More so, many organizations are being denied of accreditation or recognition without valid reason, especially if the organization is political in nature.
Student councils should have the power regarding the accreditation process. The role of the OSA should be limited to mere technical assistance. There are existing practices, particularly in the Polytechnic University of the Philippines (PUP-Sta. Mesa) and the University of the Philippines- Manila (UPM), which will attest that the accreditation process for student organizations is much easier and effective if the process will be handled by the student council or government.
Portion of the Section 6b states that “The OSA may impose sanctions on inactive organizations”
The provision basically gave explicit powers to OSA to penalize student organizations. The basis to declare if the org is active or inactive is arbitrary. In the end, it is still the administration that will set guidelines and determine if an organization is inactive.
More so, No matter how inactive the org may be, OSA should not be given any right to punish these organizations. Organizations have different reasons for being inactive, it may be because membership problems, financial problems, etc. and these are valid reasons.
Section 6c “The Office of Student Affairs shall coordinate on and off campus activities of student organizations”
This provision may seem harmless to organizations but if were going to analyze it deeply, such provision is very bureaucratic and limiting and again, it gave ultimate power to OSA to control the activities of student organizations. OSA can impose “strict guidelines and coordination”. It can even be used as grounds for sanction if the student/organization failed to coordinate the activity to them.
There are also certain provisions on the bill that intrude on the internal arrangements of organizations. Included on the Section 6 e which states “the acts that impair the right of students to organize are prohibited are the:” (5) excessive fees imposed by student organizations to its members and (6) unnecessary requirements for admission.
Basically, imposition of fees and the application process is an internal agreement within the organization, deliberated and decided upon by its members. More so, who will determine what is necessary from unnecessary? There are certain organizations (particularly talents, sports orgs, etc) which require tedious process of application or training and they find it necessary because it is the nature or orientation of their organization.
In addition to, the proposed bill aims to guard the rights of students to join and create organization; however, it failed to address some of the issues concerning the right of students to organize. Such as protecting the rights of students to form and create political organizations, and to join nationwide alliances or formations.
Right now, there are schools that do not accredit organizations that are political in nature and the organization should get the approval of the administration before they can join nationwide formations
On student councils/ governments
The Student Council or Government is an autonomous and democratic center of the Student Body, representing the interests and welfare of the students. But under the proposed Magna Carta of Students, the basic right of this institution is not even guaranteed.
Section 7 of HB 2584 stated that there should be a student council in every educational institution; however, it failed to assure that the student councils elections should be purely a student activity and should be free from any administration intervention.
Although the bill stated that the COMELEC should be independent. It failed to provide specific measures to protect the autonomy of the COMELEC. The COMELEC should be composed only by bona fide students and minimal tasks should be given to the OSA. The student Council election should always be free from any form of intrusion by the school administration.
Furthermore, the proposed bill is still weak in assuring the financial autonomy of the student councils or governments. At present, the intrusion of school administrations to the management of student councils’ funds is widespread. There are many cases wherein the release of funds entails very bureaucratic process and is delayed, or student council fund is being withheld by the school administration.
On student publications
The student publication is a tangible testament of freedom of expression inside the campus; however, there are provisions in the bill that curtails the autonomy and rights of this institution. The bill remains powerless in addressing the issues faced by student journalists, such as censorship, withholding of funds, and harassment.
On Section 7 b of HB2584, the bill did not provide an option, that on the tertiary level, the appointment of faculty adviser is optional.
The provision also failed to qualify what technical assistance means. It should be clarified that that technical assistance of faculty adviser means any concern related to the grammatical concerns, proofreading, and the like only because at present, the intrusion of the faculty adviser in the management of student publication is prevalent. The faculty adviser or the school administration is directly controlling the publication by meddling in financial matters, screening of articles to be published, and in choosing the members of the editorial board
Section 8 d “Ethics in journalism shall be observed by the editorial staff. It shall be the responsibility of the editorial staff to ensure that the student paper is not used for purposes contrary to the law”. Basically, there is an already existing international ethical standard in writing and there is no need to elaborate more on the issue of ethics. The provision is broad and vague and this is dangerous to student journalist since this may be used to ensure that the editorial board would not criticize the school administration policies and be involved in national and political issues. This clause may be taken against student journalists to brand their articles as “subversive”, “seditious”, and the likes.
Like the provision pertaining to student council funds, the bill also failed to assure the financial autonomy of the student publications. At present, there are many cases of admin's intrusion to financial matters. Such as, (1) the funds are being withheld by the school administration, (2) the release of the publication fee is delayed, (3) the excess fund is not turned over at the end of the semester, (4) the editors and staff are not informed of the total amount of collection, (5) the administration continues to collect the publication fund even if the publication is already closed.
Furthermore, the bill is silent in protecting the rights of student journalists from unjust disciplinary action on the basis on what he/she has written. There are cases wherein the student editors received sanction from the administration because of exposing the issues in their schools.
Provision: On Tuition and Other Fees Increase
According to section 19 c “Minimum standards in consultation shall be strictly observed in imposing tuition fee increases”
The bill even watered down the existing mechanisms in consultations. More so, it is important to note that in increasing tuition and other fees, mere consultations are not enough, school administrations should get the consent of the students before they can implement the proposed increase. This is very important, especially when we consider the past track records of schools in terms of the TOFI issue. Consultations made by administration and students had no binding effect on the decision made by the admin.
Consultations become irrelevant as Administration officials only promised to “present” the results of the consultation and nothing more.
Provision: on the right to peacable assembly, right to freedom of expression
On section 12 c “School authorities are required to designate a certain area within school premises where students can express their grievances and organize activities.”
The provision is like the concept of “freedom parks” of the city government wherein the freedom parks are the only “legitimate area” where the people can address their grievances.
The provision is very limiting. We should take note that the students do not shed their constitutionally-mandated right to free speech and assembly within the school premises. Their exercise to discuss matters affecting the student’s welfare or involving national interest should never be subjected to punishments from school administrators.
Moreover, at present, students are suspended, dismissed and expelled without valid reason, and received disciplinary actions without justifiable cause by exercising their constitutional rights of free speech and assembly. However, the proposed magna carta of students failed to address the protection of students against the imposition of such unjust penalties or sanctions from school administration.
Provision: right to due process, etc
SECTION 14 (b) “There shall be an independent Student Disciplinary Board to be composed of 1 faculty members and two students to conduct investigations into and decide on cases of student violations of disciplinary standards. The member from the administration shall serve for five years, the members from the faculty for three years, and the members from the student body for one year.”
Basically, the structure of the Student Disciplinary Board in the bill is vulnerable to power relations.
On Section 14 f “The Office of the Guidance Counselor of the respective schools in consultation with the SDB shall publish on a periodic basis acts that are deemed violative of the school rules and regulations and the corresponding disciplinary actions.”
This provision lacks qualifiers and this may be used by school administration to interpret and invent rules that are favorable to them in imposing sanction or disciplinary actions to students.
Furthermore, At present, school administrations are arbitrarily imposing disproportionate and unjust disciplinary sanctions to students, there are no speedy resolutions on the cases filed to the students in the student disciplinary board, student leaders are subjected to cases in court to silence them and to prevent them from enrolling, and educational agencies such as CHED and DepEd remain toothless in reviewing and acting over the disciplinary cases decided by schools. With all of the above stated concerns currently faced by the students, the provision on the right to due process of HB2584 remains powerless and useless in addressing or resolving such concerns.
Provision: Campus militarization
Although there is an existing accord (the Sotto-Enrile Accord) which prohibits military components in schools; cases of military harassment to student leaders and progressive student organizations are rampant. Military elements are free to enter in schools to demonize progressive student organizations. However, HB 2584 or the Akbayan bill do not even have any provision in addressing this grave violation of student democratic rights.
---------:
We are currently engaging in the TWG, as what stated earlier, to expose the real situation of the Philippines Education system, to introduce some amendments on the bill, and to expose the “devilish” details of the bill.
However, we do not have any illusions that the proposed magna carta of students will resolve all the issues regarding the democratic rights and welfare of the students. Instead, the magna carta bills currently filed in the Congress will only legitimize the repression that the school administrators and the state are doing to the students.
The proposed Magna Carta of Students would only be a futile attempt to uphold student rights if urgent problems such as tuition and other fee increases and the cases of harassment by school administrators and military elements to students are left unresolved. In the immediate, we urge for the investigations and resolutions of violations to students by the school and the state.
As the largest and oldest existing alliance of student councils/governments/unions in the country, the NUSP has served witness to the years of struggle of the Filipino students for our democratic rights. With or without an enabling law, the Union shall be resolute in defending and upholding our basic right to education and our rights and interests. Throughout the years, we have actively led students on issues such as tuition increases, budget cuts to education and repressive policies in campuses. We have clearly shown that by our united strength and uncompromising position to assert our rights, we have gain victories for the youth and students.
By the way, may article na sinulat si Vencer tungkol dyan sa Pinoy weekly.
