ELECTION CODE REVISION

Minutes of the Meeting

Date: October 28, 2008
Time: 8:40 am
Venue: Jabez Campsite Dasmariñas, Cavite

ATTENDANCE:

Marc Jeffrey Sioco USCE

Ma. Theresa Edalla USCE
Hernan Pantolla USC
Ailene Orong USC
Krisina Rose Benbinuto HF
Rizza Mendoza HF
Margaret Musa CSO
Ronnie Ressurection CSO
Jihan Ledesma PI
Bayani Maucudio PI
Julius Rocas SENTRO
Juan Marianito Delantar SENTRO
Arwin Cortez SINAG
Marie Rachel Coros SINAG
Sebedi Justin Busayong CEAT
Neil Paulo Hernando CEAT
Angelo Jed Velasco CIHM
Mary Grace Sanares CIHM
Florencio Romano III CLA
Jet Caesar Lontok CLE
Asiangel Austin COE
Charlotte Malabanan COE
Christine Gaile Pañares COS
Judea Ana Moralidad COS
Dennyson Hilberto CBA
Rosciel Ojena CO-CHAIR
Leign Anne Oliveros CHAIR

Page 1 of 68
AGENDA DISCUSSION ISSUES/CONCER RECOMMENDATIO DECISION
N N
Prayer
(Amelita
Marquez)
Presentatio
n of Order
of Business
Unfinished CLA Take-from-
Business -Motion to take-on- the-table
the-table Section 10
of Article 2. VOTE
Seconded by all. Yes- 10
No- 2
Abstain- 1
(USCE)

Section 10 was
taken from the table
and became Section
11.

CLA
-Suggest to discuss
further the proposal of
the committee

COMMITTEE CBA SINAG

-The proponent -Can we make the -We should adjust the
would like to font size bigger for section from Section
amend their us to be able to read 10 to Section 11
proposal it? because we added two
-delete the sections yesterday.
word
‘initiative’
-the members
of the SEC
have the power
to remove a
commissioner

SENTRO USC
-The spirit if -The committee shall

Page 2 of 68
 Section 10 is the convene with
same. It is still the SENTRO to finalize
SEC that will the suggestion
decide on the
procedure of
removal and who
will be removed
-How about if there
is a connivance?
How will he/she be
removed?
-There is no
external body who
checks the SEC
-It is the
commissioners’
responsibility to
discipline their
members and
officers. SENTRO Amenable to
-If it is amenable to the the
committee, we should Committee
immediately revise it

USC
-Isn’t it we have to
adopt Section 11
first before we give
comments?
SDAO
SENTRO -Base on what I have
-Point of Order. observed, there are
The Chair asked if matters that need to be
there is any clarified. One problem
suggestion and the in the Election Code is
committee agreed to that there is no
the given distinction between the
suggestion that’s members and the
why I am commissioners. In
approaching the reality, the
Secretariat commissioners are
actually the USCE.
Now, it turns out that
for you to become a
commissioner you
have to apply and be
screened by the

Page 3 of 68
 commissioners. What
if the applicant is a
friend of the
commissioners? What
will be the external
factor to check the
USCE?
-The commissioners
and members should
have distinction in
terms of power
-There should be a
higher standard for the
qualification of the
commissioners
compared to the
members
-Who will have the
voting power?
-I suggest to clear the
picture on what this
convention wanted to
achieve

CHAIR
-The composition
should be clarified
ADVISER
SENTRO -If there is a distinction
-The body clearly between the
settled those matters commissioners and the
yesterday. If there is members, they should
any suggestion, we also have separate
should scrupulously qualifications but the
think about it first. problem is the
members are not
included in the
composition. We don’t
know if it is already
clear to the body

ADVISER
SENTRO -If you say ‘grounds
-In the Electoral for removal of
Commission, the members it pertains to
commissioners are all. It could be better to

Page 4 of 68
 the most powerful use ‘commissioners’
-Qualification of -Qualification is for
members and black and white
officers is within purposes
the discretion of the -There might be a
commissioners. The possibility for it to be
commissioners have abused
the freedom to
promulgate their
own rules as stated
in the Election
Code

USC
-We understand the
recommendation of
the adviser to define
the composition but
we are already in
Section 10

CHAIR
-We are discussing
the unfinished
business. If the
body will agree, we
will adopt the
unfinished business
first before we
proceed to the
suggestions

COMMITTEE
-We hope to clarify
our intention to the
body because we
are prejudiced.

CONSULTANT
-I get your idea but the
provision is referring
SENTRO to the commissioners
-Why not give the that’s why you have to
commissioners the distinguish first who
freedom to choose are the members and

Page 5 of 68
 their members? If the commissioners
the commissioners
will abuse their
power, the Election
Code has Section
11. It turns out that
the commissioners
always abuse their
power. They
seemed to be a
robot. What will be
the importance of
the set USCE
qualifications for -We request the
the commissioners? committee to finalize
Section 11 for us to go
back in Section 5

CHAIR
-Let us suspend the
rule to proceed to the
new business

SINAG
-Section 6 already
has a new title,
right?
-What we are
talking about now is
in the Article 3, the CONSULTANT
article which is not -Yes
yet tackled

USC to
CONSULTANT
-Can we lay-down-
on-the-table the SDAO
unfinished -How come both
business? commissioner and
member be removed if
the members do not
SENTRO have the voting power?
-Motion to adopt You can make the
Section 11 since we Election Code solely
are already for the commissioners

Page 6 of 68
 discussing other or separate members
matters that are not from the
included in Section commissioners. The
11. Seconded by all body must decide.

Section 11
Adopted
USCE
-Motion to lay-on- VOTE
the-table Section 11 Yes- 7
No- 4
SENTRO Abstain- 2
-There is a pending (CEAT, PI)
motion

USC
-Base on our
knowledge, the
proponent has
prepared a
definition of SEC

SENTRO
-Are we going to
proceed to the
unfinished business
because the USC’s
concern is not
included in the
unfinished
business?

New COMMITTEE USCE

Business -Members and -Is there any
collegiate head definition for the
will be added co-chair?
in Section 5

Page 7 of 68
COMMITTEE
-There is a CEAT
definition in -Let us finish first
the succeeding the proposal before
sections we ask questions

COMMITTEE
-There are
changes in the
composition of
SEC
Article 3
Section 15

COMMITTEE USC
-Decisions of -Add the article
SEC number of Magistrate
in the USC
Constitution
SENTRO
-We think that there
is no need to add
the article number
since there is only
one article for
Magistrate in the
USC Constitution.
Furthermore, the
USC Constitution
might undergo
revision and the
article number of
Magistrate might
also be changed

CHAIR
-Section 15 is USCE
already laid-on-the- -The committee shall
table present first the
definition before we
proceed to another
sections

Page 8 of 68
 Article 3 SENTRO Motion
Section 17 -Motion for a ten Carried
Powers, Duties minute recess for
and the body to VOTE
Responsibilitie coordinate with the Yes- 10
s of the SEC committee. We are No- 3
in the new business
but we are still
discussing the
unfinished business.
Seconded by
SINAG
Recess CHAIR Amenable to
9:58 am -We should extend the the body
recess since the snacks
is ready
Resume CHAIR COMMITTEE
10:40 am -Where is the -Let us discuss first the
committee? The powers, duties and
committee should responsibilities
present all the
proposals before the
body could give
their comments,
amendments,
motion and
adoption
COMMITTEE USC CHAIR
-Section 17 -It could be better if -The request
which is the we will discuss/revise is carried
Powers, Duties per letter for us not to
and go over it again and
Responsibilitie again because one
s of the SEC whole section is too
will be Section long
15
-Defines the
Chairperson,
Co-chairperson
secretary and
treasurer

USCE
-Point of Inquiry.
Please specify the
letters because at
present all the
commissioners sign

Page 9 of 68
the letters while the
proposal will be
signed and decided
by the Chairperson

COMMITTEE USC to USCE

-The letters pertain -It could be better if
to those that do not we separate resolutions
need extensive to simple letters
decision

USCE PI
-The decision is -It could be better if
always through en the USCE will be the
banc, therefore, one to supply those
they all have to sign letter since it is them
who made it

SENTRO SENTRO
-Maybe the -Substitute
committee pertains ‘correspondent’ to
to communication ‘letters’
letters.
-As being the Chair,
you need to sign the
letter

USC
-Using the word
‘shall’ doesn’t
follow that the
Chair will be the
only signatory but it
requires the Chair
to sign

COE
-Section 15 should
be Section 16

CHAIR
-We interchange the
section of the
‘Decisions of the
USCE’ and the
‘Power, Duties and
Responsibilities’.
Therefore, it should

Page 10 of 68
 retain as Section 15
COMMITTEE
-Continued to USC
present the -‘temporary’ should be
committee written before
report ‘permanent’
-Co-chair shall
also sign the
letters (b.3)

COMMITTEE
-Agreed

USCE
-We have treasurer
but the financial
statement is not on
the regular basis.
We only have our
financial statement
at the end of the
semester

USC to USCE
-It is already
mentioned that it
will be upon the
discretion of the
commissioners or
SEC when to make
the financial
statement

USC to
COMMITTEE
-The USC treasurer
makes the financial
statement per
month. Why not the
treasurer of the
USCE will also do
the same since
USCE treasurer also

Page 11 of 68
 consults the USC
treasurer?

USCE PI
-The USCE -Why not do the
expenditures have financial statement per
specific period activity?
that’s why it is
better to have the
financial statement
at the end of the
semester

USC
-Are there any
instances that
USCE does not
have any
expenditure for 3
months?

USCE
-Yes, there are
instances SINAG
-We suggest, why not
USC monitor the inflow and
-Because outflow of the cash
sometimes the USC -It will be written as
treasurer is “To monitor the inflow
surprised and outflow of the
cash and to make sure
that the SEC
maximizes the amount
of funds allocated for
its operations

COMMITTEE
-Remove the
preposition ‘to’ at the
PI beginning and at the
-Amendment phrase ‘to make’
Change ‘inflow’
and ‘outflow’ into
cash flows

USC
-Will ‘collects and
receives’ also be

Page 12 of 68
 removed? Because
it doesn’t follow
that you handle the
cash but it is alright
if the body agreed
to it
-We agree to the
SINAG’s
suggestion since the
treasurer of the SEC USC
does not actually -We should skip the
handle the money Treasurer because
there is a possibility
USCE that SEC will have an
-The concern of the account other than
USC already deal from USC
with the funding
COMMITTEE
-Signing of letters
must be included to the
commissioners

USC
-If it is okay to the
body, can we remove
“penalize or disqualify
candidates and/or
political parties who
violate this code”

COMMITTEE
-It means
PI
-His/her choice?
USC
-Include the
description of the
COMMITTEE members in the Article
-We can 2
change
“preferably USCE
his/her own -We agree with the
choice” committee but also
provided that it include the
is clearly Chairperson and Co-
defined in your Chairperson since they
suggested are also

Page 13 of 68
description in commissioners. That is
Article 2 then what USCE want USC
kindly modify to define
the person
-“Penalize…
this code”

USC
-Let us define the
decision letters and
communication letters
on the part of the
Chairman

COMMITTEE
-The definition of
the letters will be
specified on the
Chairman

USC
-If we will remove
‘sign all letters’
then we should
include

USCE
-We did not get the
USC’s point
-‘Penalizing’ is
another case. We
hope that
everything will be
specific

USC
-What is the

Page 14 of 68
 difference between
the ‘penalize’ and
‘decision letters’? It
is already specific
but it will be
redundant

USCE
-We really don’t
want to remove
‘penalizing’
because we want to
be specific.
‘Penalizing’ is more
specific since there
are variety of
decision letters

SENTRO
-‘penalize’ and
‘decision’ are two
different words

CLA to USC
-How do you
understand the term
‘penalize’ and CONSULTANT
‘decision letters’ -The USCE only wants
to have a provision on
USC penalizing
-Penalizing is a
decision, right?
Why do we have to
specify penalize if
COMMITTEE the other decisions
-The students are not specified?
will address USC
their complaint -Point of Inquiry.
to the college Does it only include
head. The the students?
college head
will relay the
complaint to
his/her
commissioners
who will
communicate it
to all the

Page 15 of 68
commissioners

USC
-Change ‘of’ to ‘in’ in
the subsection f.1

COMMITTEE CLA
-You will air -What if the
your grievance problem is mix?
to the college How will the
wherein you grievance be aired
are enrolled to the collegiate
head?

CLA
-Does it mean that
if you are from
CLA, you will air
your grievance to
the CLA College
head even if the
case involved
COMMITTEE students from
-It will be CBA?
harder if we
also consider /
include the all
other involved
person but the
political parties
have the right
to air their
grievance to
their respective
college head

Page 16 of 68
COMMITTEE USCE
-We refer to -Point of Inquiry.
the person who Kindly discuss the
will attend to validation of ballots
the actual and explain the
election day. system
We only want
SEC to have a USCE
working arm -It is the
commissioners who
COMMITTEE validate the ballots
-If the
commissioner
has other
important duty,
he/she can
delegate
his/her member
for the
validation

USC
-Change ‘as’ to ‘if’ in
subsection g.3

COMMITTEE
-The term ‘as’
has more
weight than the
term ‘if’

USC
COMMITTEE -The validation of
-Use ‘assists the ballots is a HF
the responsibility of the -It could be better to
commissioners commissioner use ‘assists the voters
in validation of during the elections
ballots’ to
simplify it

Page 17 of 68
 COMMITTEE
-HF’s suggestion is
better

USCE
-Retain the term
‘assist’

USC
-The only duty will
be assisting the
voters and not the
matters of the HF
polling period -Subsection g.2 will
tackle the assistance
USCE given to the voters and
-It is commissioners subsection g.3 will be
who really validate about the assistance
the ballots rendered during the
polling period

SENTRO
-We do not get the
point of defining
the word
‘assistance’. In the
first place, they are
members of SEC,
therefore, it will be
the responsibility of
the commissioners.
What we are
defining in
subsection g.2 and
g.3 is the duty of
the members to the
SEC

Page 18 of 68
 CBA
-Motion to adopt
Section 15

USC
-Point of Inquiry.

SENTRO
-There is a pending
motion

USC
-Seconded the
pending motion

CHAIR
-Point of Inquiry
has higher
precedence than the
Motion

SENTRO
-What is the
inquiry?

CHAIR Section 15
-It’s a question of Adopted
privilege
COMMITTEE VOTE
-Subsection g.2 Yes- 13
is about the No- 0
duty of the USC to USCE
members in the -We are confused
election while on the duty of the
subsection g.3 members
is about the
duty of the
members in
other activities Motion
of the SEC Carried

VOTE
Yes- 12
No-0
Abstain- 1
(USCE)

Page 19 of 68
 CLE
-Motion to have a
45 minute recess.
Seconded by all
Recess
12:08 pm
Neil Paulo
Hernando (CEAT)
went out of the
convention to attend
a funeral at 10:00
am and is expected
to be back by 4:00
pm at most
Resume USC Reconsider
1:00 pm -Motion to the Adoption
reconsider the of Section 15
adoption of Section
15 because there’s a VOTE
pending issue on Yes- 7
the treasurer. No- 0
Seconded by HF Abstain- 2
(CLE, COE)

USC
-Proceed to the
funding section of
SEC before the
reconsideration

SENTRO CONSULTANT
-Why are we -Kindly flash the
jumping to funding reconsidered Section
section, if USC 15 on the screen
motioned for the -The motion awhile
reconsideration of ago pertains to the
Section 15? section
-There is no need for
us to talk about the
funding because it is
not Section 15 which
is reconsidered Laid-on-the-
SENTRO table
-Motion to lay-on
the-table Section 15 VOTE
paragraph d. Yes- 11

Page 20 of 68
 treasure. Seconded No- 0
by all Abstain- 2
(USCE, CLA)

SENTRO
-Add ‘officers and CONSULTANT
its members’ to the -Remove the
title of Section 15 introduction of Section
which will be 15 since it is already
written as “…SEC included in the title
-Are the officers
included in the
composition?
CHAIR
-Yes Sir

USC to
COMMITTEE
-We already defined
the distinction
between
commissioners and
officers

CONSULTANT
-They were not
collectively named
as officers? The
reason why I chose
the word ‘officers’
for Section 15
because I presume
that they
collectively named
officers
COMMITTEE
-Chairperson
and Co-
Chairperson
are also

Page 21 of 68
 considered as
commissioners
-The
composition is
not yet final

USC
-Seconded the
motion of SETRO
(title of Section 15)

CONSULTANT

-We will not use the

word ‘officers’ in
CHAIR Section 15 anymore
-Is it amenable to but we should improve
the body? Is there the wordings in the CHAIR
any objection? said section -The
suggestion of
BODY the consultant
-None is adopted

ADVISER
-Is it specified that CONSULTANT
the secretary and
treasurer will be - We cannot put in
appointed by the Section 15 the word
commissioners? If ‘commissioners’
none, can you because secretary and
include it? treasurer have different

Page 22 of 68
 category

-It could be written as

“a. commissioner

a.1 Chairperson

a.2 Co-chairperson

b. officers

b.1 secretary

b.2 treasurer

c. members”

CHAIR
-Let the committee -We should remove the
to continue to suggested title for the
present
Section 15 of
USC
-The reason why SENTRO
Section 15 is not yet
adopted because of
the treasurer. We
don’t know if SEC
can have its own
account

ADVISER
-There has been a
resolution that talks
about the amount to
be given by the
USC to USCE but
the USC including
SDAO and OSS
cannot produce a
copy

USC
-Because it changes
in every term of
USC

CONSULTANT
-If we will define a

Page 23 of 68
 regular amount the CONSULTANT
USCE fund might
be affected -Can we place the
appointment beside the
position of the
secretary and
USC
treasurer? Unless a
-Does the USC
have the right to new provision will be
decide? created

SENTRO
-Yes, the USC has
the right by the
virtue of the USC
SENTRO
Constitution but it Laid-on-the-
will be the SDAO -If it is okay to the table
and OSS that will
committee, we could
talk to the USC VOTE
instead of the put it in the secretary Yes-13
USCE and treasurer. It shall No-0
USCE be written as “The
-Motion to lay-on- treasurer and the
the-table Section 16 secretary shall be
to wait for the OSS appointed by the Taken-from-
Dean regarding the the-table
chairperson with the
proposition of
COMMITTEE SENTRO. concurrence of the VOTE
-continue with Seconded by other commissioners.” Yes-13
the report SENTRO No- 0
(Section 15)
SINAG
-Motion to take COMMITTEE
Section 17 from the
-Let’s just go back to it
table. Seconded by
SENTRO later

Page 24 of 68
 USC to
CONSULTANT
-What is the
difference of 2 days
from calendar days
and working days?

CONSULTANT
-Calendar days is
safe

CONSULTANT
-How does the
USCE determine its
en banc?

USCE
-If there are five
present, it is already
a quorum then three
will be considered
as en banc

SENTRO
-Has PowerPoint
presentation

CHAIR
-Present it in five
minutes only

CHAIR
-Is there any
suggestion on how SENTRO
the USCE handle
-SEC will prepare a

Page 25 of 68
 the decision- budgetary to be
making? submitted to SDAO
and OSS. SDAO and
SENTRO OSS will talk to the
-Isn’t the situation
of only one USC if it is amenable
commissioner
deciding piteous?

USC
-The
Commissioner-in-
charge will not
decide but be the
one to report to the
en banc

SENTRO
- A commissioner
already has loads of
work and at the
same time the duty
of the
Commissioner-in-
charge will overlap
the function of the
secretary

USC
-College heads shall
be the one to accept
complaints

SENTRO
-If that will be the
function of the
college head, it will
overlap to
Commissioner-in-
charge

USC
-The Chair only
gives five minutes.

CHAIR

Page 26 of 68
 -The given 5
minutes is for the
presentation but
some inquiries are
raised.

PI
-We don’t get the
reason why do we
have to divide the
commissioners if it
will also be
submitted in the en
banc if you are not
happy with the
decision. It will just SINAG
extend the process
SENTRO -Suggest to the
-How does it extend committee to continue
the process? It discussing Section 17
actually lessen the
burden of the
commissioners
-The system was HF
designed to lessen
the commission’s -‘Calendar’ days
work includes holidays and
weekends, it should be
USCE
replace with ‘working
-The reason why we
come up with the days’
decision is to make
the process faster
and to
accommodate more
problems from
other colleges and
parties

CHAIR
-Is it amenable to
the body to have an
election regarding
the proposal of new
system in decision
making of the
USCE?
-Is there any

Page 27 of 68
 clarification?

USCE
-Sponsors the
proposal of Mr.
Rocas (SENTRO)
USCE
SINAG
-Point of -We appreciate the
Clarification proposal
regarding the
confusion between -Let us breakdown the
calendar days and decision into 2
working days commissioners
Rocas’
Proposal,
CHAIR Adopted
-Is it amenable to
the committee to VOTE
change calendar Rocas- 7
days to working Busayong- 2
days? Abstain- 4

USC
-Yes, since it will
still be checked by
the editor

USC
Suggestion
Carried

ROCAS
-It is okay

CHAIR
-Is it amenable to
the body to Reconsider
interchange USCE, Section 4
CLE and COE?
SENTRO VOTE
Yes- 11
-Presented their No- 0

Page 28 of 68
 suggestion on how to Abstain- 2
divide the 9
commissioners for the
COMMITTEE commission to be
-Motion to
reconsider Section flexible and be fast in
4. Seconded by decision-making
SENTRO
USC
-Commissioner-in-
charge, en banc and
magistrate

CONSULTANT Laid-on-the-
-What is the reason table
why it was
reconsidered? VOTE
Yes- 13
COMMITTEE No- 0
-It will be affected

SENTRO
-We agree.
Whatever the result
is, Section 4 shall
confirm
-Motion to lay-on-
the-table Section 4.
Seconded by all

Page 29 of 68
Page 30 of 68
 CHAIR
-Read the proposals of
Rocas and Busayong

USC
-It could be better if
CBA and CLE will be
together

Page 31 of 68
 USC
-Let’s just ignore the
numbering since it will
still be edited

CONSULTANT
-Lay-on-the-table
Section 4
Article 4
Section 1
Political Party

COMMITTEE USC
-The first -Point of Inquiry.
section defines What do you mean
the nature of a by RSO because we
political party have a common
inside the knowledge
school regarding RSO?

COMMITTEE USCE
-We want the -Actually, making
political parties the political parties
to be to be recognized is
recognized but no longer the
they will not be responsibility of the
under the CSO USCE. What’s
important is to
define in the

Page 32 of 68
 election what a
political party is.

COMMITTEE
-Okay. Political
parties are already
defined in the first
section of Article 4

USCE SENTRO
-We don’t -Why not adopt the
understand why definition of the
does it have to be political parties in the
our responsibility to law books?
make the political -Political Parties
parties recognized cannot be under the
CSO since the
organization is non-
partisan
CONSULTANT
-Does the body
have another
definition for the
political party?

USC
-Retain the DLSU-D
HF
-Kindly fix the
format for
consistency

SENTRO
-Article title and CONSULTANT
section title is the -Include SEC in the
same unless there section
are other suggestion -Do we really have to
“Definition of include DLSU-D, if
Student Political we already have SEC?
Parties”

USC
-Remove ‘it is’
because it is already a
USC to redundant
COMMITTEE

Page 33 of 68
-You suggested that
political parties will
be for one year,
what are the
activities that the
party can perform
for the whole year?
COMMITTEE
-Seminars,
symposiums, and
trainings for its
members

CEAT
-Motion to adopt
Section 1 of Article
4. Seconded by
USC

SINAG
-For additional
amendments,
change ‘accredited’
to ‘recognized’, add
‘student’ before
‘government’ then
add ‘which seeks to
achieve its political
goal

CONSULTANT
-Your suggestion is CONSULTANT
the same with the -Add ‘empowering of
last sentence its members’

SINAG
-Sponsors the CONSULTANT
recommendation -Kindly erase the
phrase from ‘election’
to ‘council’, then add
empowerment of its
members to achieve its
political goal through
legal means of
participating in
electoral process

CONSULTANT

Page 34 of 68
 -‘Legal means’ is
redundant. Remove
‘through legal means
of participating in
electoral process’
COMMITTEE
-Read Section USC
1 of Article 4 -Motion to adopt
again Section 1 of Article
4. Seconded by
SENTRO

SENTRO
-Parliamentary
Inquiry. There are
two units who
motioned but
SINAG object
Adopted
CHAIR (Section 1 of
-Amenable to the Article 4)
body
VOTE
Yes- 13
No- 0
Article 4 CONSULTANT COMMITTEE
Section 2 -Who are these -Delete ‘members’ and
members? They change it to ‘bona fide
could be the bona students’
fide students.

CONSULTANT USC
-Do we need to Option 1- Include
include ‘verified by ‘verified by the latter’
the latter’? Option 2- Do not
include ‘verified by the
latter’

SENTRO
-Since I (Mr. Delantar)
was the one who
propose to use
‘verified by the latter’,
I would like to change
it to ‘and duly
approved by the latter’

Page 35 of 68
 CONSULTANT
-Do you still
consider the alumni
as member of the
party?

COMMITTEE CONSULTANT
-Yes sir -Therefore, it should
not be ‘bona fide
student’ because they
have to be enrolled
COMMITTEE
-I apologize. Since
every year there is
an accreditation,
alumni will no
longer be
considered as
member of the
party.
Use the
USC phrase ‘and
-Motion to divide duly approved
the house. by the latter’
Seconded by all
VOTE
Use ‘and duly
approved by
the latter’- 9

Do not use
the phrase- 1
Abstain- 2

CSO
-Motion to have a
recess for 30
minutes

USCE
-Limit the time for
recess Motion

Page 36 of 68
 Carried

CSO VOTE
-Make it a 15- Yes- 11
minute recess. No- 1
Seconded by USC
Recess
3:25 pm
Resume
3:50
Article 4
Section 3
Multiparty
System

COMMITTEE SENTRO USCE

-We change ‘at -Since the term of -We would like to
least 2 months SEC will end on the propose to start the
before election month of August, term of office of the
period’ to ‘on on the month of incumbent on the
or before the March there will month of June
month of June’ still be COMELEC
but they are
considered to be
outgoing.
Point of
Information. It
means that those
who will accredit
the political party
are already
outgoing.

USCE
-Why do we have to
approve it just for
the purpose of your
activities?

SENTRO
-Because of the
term ‘accredited’

COMMITTEE
-Article 2 COE

Page 37 of 68
Section 4 was -If they will not be
laid-on-the- able to make it on
table because or before June, does
of the it mean that they
accreditation. will have no chance
The month of at all?
November is
too late.

USC
COMMITTEE -Add the word ‘only’
-It will be upon the at the middle of ‘may’
discretion of SEC and ‘apply’ to include
the phrase ‘span of
time’

USCE
-What is the reason
why do you have to
approve or accredit
political parties that
early?

COMMITTEE
-It is to give the
party the privilege
to conduct activities
in the school.

SENTRO
-Maybe the month
of June is too early.
Usually the class
starts at the middle
of the month;
therefore, there is a
possibility that not
all of the
requirements will
be submitted. There
might be no
members since the
school year has just
started. How about
July?

COMMITTEE
-The only point is

Page 38 of 68
 when does the CSO
accredit?

CEAT
-1 semester to 2nd
st

semester
-10-15 working
days after the last
day of the final
exam

COMMITTEE
-If other
organizations are
able to submit the
requirements that
early, can’t the
political parties also
submit? But we are
open for
amendments.

USC
-Motion to adopt
Section 3 of Article
4. Seconded by PI
Motion is
USCE Lost
-We object. We
think the suggested VOTE
time is too early and Yes- 3
we are only concern No- 9
for the next term. Abstain- 1

Motion
Carried
SENTRO
-Motion to amend. VOTE
We would like to Yes- 9
change ‘June’ to No- 4
‘July’. It will be ‘on
or before the last
COMMITTEE working days of
-Open for July’
amendment
Article 4
Section 4
Registration

Page 39 of 68
 and
Accreditation

COMMITTEE COMMITTEE
-Add a second -SEC and OSS have
paragraph no specific
guidelines to be
abided by the
political parties
that’s why we are
proposing the
provision

CLA
-Kindly define
‘activities and
projects’

COMMITTEE CONSULTANT
-Activities and -Maybe the rationale
projects are of this is to increase
like those of the voters turn out
RSO’s like since political parties
symposiums are not evident
and seminar -Political parties
cannot be under the
CSO but they can be
under the SEC

ADVISER
-We should clarify the
questions in the
guidelines since SEC,
OSS and SDAO will
provide the guidelines
PI
-If the activities will
be held on the 2nd
semester, what will
happen to the new
members? It is a
gray area that will
depend on the
guidelines to be
created by SEC

USCE CONSULTANT
-How about the -The idea of having a

Page 40 of 68
 assurance that there recruitment month is
will be no updates good.
every month
regarding the new
members

USCE CONSULTANT
-Given that there -The SEC has the
will be a decision for that but
recruitment month, the recruitment month
what if they still must be well
have additional promoted.
members?

HF
-Is the position
already identified
on the first
COMMITTEE semester?
-It is not yet
identified HF
-Will there be a
specific time to
submit the list of
the members with
COMMITTEE their respective
-Maybe it will position? ADVISER
be the -The submission of the
discretion of list of members is a
SEC pre-requisite for
accreditation. Once
accredited, you shall
find members for a
certain period of time

USC to USCE
-Did you ask for the
list of members in
the previous
election?

USCE
-Yes CONSULTANT
-It could also be a
USC ground of violation if
-Therefore, this will they will not abide the
help you to better SEC

Page 41 of 68
 monitor the
members
USC
-We should include an
USC to expiration period for
COMMITTEE the accreditation
-Section 3 does
include when the
accreditation will
end. CONSULTANT
-Subsection a of
Section 3 will discuss
the process of
accreditation and
subsection b will be
about the expiration

COMMITTEE
-Section 3 is
already adopted

SENTRO
-I am confused.
What is the problem
with Section 4?
Section 4 discussed
the process of
accreditation. We
should adopt it first
before we include
the period of USC
expiration. -We shall just amend
the title and remove
the registration.

USCE
-Accreditation should
SENTRO not be included there
-Point of Inquiry because those are the
What is the requirement for you to
difference between be accredited
the registration and
accreditation? What
will be its effect to
the political party

Page 42 of 68
 CONSULTANT
-Accreditation is for
the existing political
party while
registration is for
the new political
party
-Do you mean that
there must be a CONSULTANT
founder every year? -Registration will be
for the new political
USCE parties
-Yes sir -Re-accreditation will
be for the existing
political parties

CONSULTANT
-Registration comes
with accreditation
USCE
-The registration
and accreditation CONSULTANT
will be held yearly -Once registered it
means that you are
USCE already accredited
-It is confusing

USC to USCE
-Do the registration
and accreditation of
the new and the
existing political Motion
parties have the Carried
same requirements? Yes- 10
No- 0
USCE Abstain- 1
-Yes
-Motion to have a
10-minute caucus.
Seconded by all
Caucus
4:48 pm
Resume USCE
4:58 pm -Motion to amend

Page 43 of 68
 Section 4
-The title will only
be ‘accreditation’
regardless if it is
existing or new
political party since
they have the same
requirements

USC
-Can we remove
‘registration’ then
separate them from
each other. It seems
that new political
party has the same
level with the
existing political
party

CONSULTANT
-It’s a political party.
Sometimes it is full of
controversy. To protect
the integrity of the
political party, the
students need an
additional requirement
from them

ADVISER
-Will it not be harsh
because they have
done nothing?

USC CONSULTANT
-Before we accept -It should be fully
them, we must be student activity,
familiar with them therefore, it’s a must to
for us to know their protect the integrity of
agenda the political party and
it starts in the
registration or

Page 44 of 68
 accreditation
USCE to USC
-Kindly present
your requirement
before we give our
comments.

USC
-It is still the same
except that
‘maximum existing
member’ is added

USCE
-We do not see the
logic of having
different
requirement for the
new and existing
since it is still
subject for the
approval of SEC

USC
-Motion to have a
votation
Option 1- same
registration or
accreditation for
new and existing
political party
Option 2- different
registration or
accreditation for
new and existing
political party
Seconded by all

COMMITTEE

Page 45 of 68
 present the
proposal on-
screen

PI General
-Motion to have a Consent
5-minute caucus.
Seconded by all
Caucus
5:10 pm
Resume USCE Option1- 5
5:20 pm -Point of Option2- 8
Clarification
Accreditation only

CONSULTANT
-What is the
original motion?

CHAIR
-What option is to
be adopted?

CBA
-Section 4 CONSULTANT
Registration -It has no accreditation

ADVISER CONSULTANT
-When will it be -What is a registered
called as political political party?
party? -It could be better to
add ‘duly approved’
because if it is not
approved then it will
not be considered as
political party
-Change the term
‘accreditation’ in
Section 4 to
‘registration/registered
’
-The title will read as
‘Registration of New
Political Party
USC Adopted

Page 46 of 68
 -Motion to adopt
Section 4 of VOTE
Article 4 Yes- 8
No- 3
Abstain- 2
(CLE, CLA)

Article 4
Section 5

COMMITTEE CBA Adopted

-The title will -Motion to adopt
be read as Section 5 of Article VOTE
‘Accreditation 4. Seconded by all Yes- 10
‘of Existing NO- 3
Political Party’
-Copy the
introduction of
Section 4 then
change
‘registration’ to
‘accreditation’
Article 4
Section 6

COMMITTEE SENTRO
-The title will -It could be better to
be written as cite the title of Batas
‘Rights of Pambansa 232
Political

Page 47 of 68
 Parties and
Political Party
Members
CONSULTANT
-It is much better to
include it in subsection
C since it is only one
law. You can make it
as subsection c.1, c.2
and so on

ADVISER
-Use ‘have’ instead of
‘has’

CEAT
-What does the
committee want to
say in subsection b?
Does it pertain to
both members and
ordinary students?

CEAT
COMMITTEE -Therefore, it is not
-Maybe it is only the members
included in any of the political
related school party.
activities.
USC
COMMITTEE -Regarding the said
-Yes. projects and activities,
let’s just leave the
decision to SEC

CONSULTANT
-Add ‘subject for
existing school
regulations, every
political party and its
members, shall have’

CBA
- Can we use that
section for election
cases?
Adopted

Page 48 of 68
COMMITTEE SENTRO
-The guidelines -Motion to adopt VOTE
that will limit Section 6 of Article Yes- 10
the section will 4. Seconded by No- 0
be created by CLE Abstain- 3
SEC (USC, HF,
USCE)
Article 4
Section 7
Resolution of a
Petition

COMMITTEE USC to USCE

- Did not -Do you really
change conduct hearing to
anything in the resolve cases?
provision
USCE
-Yes

USC to USCE
-Is it okay with you
to conduct the
hearing for only
five days?

USCE Adopted
-Motion to adopt
Section 7 of Article VOTE
4. Seconded by all. Yes- 11
No- 0
Abstain- 2
(CEAT,
CBA)

USC
-Motion to
reconsider Section 6
subsection c.3
because we want to
clarify what does
the section mean.

USC
COMMITTEE -Does the member
-We lift it from represent the
Batas political party in

Page 49 of 68
Pambansa 232 these assemblies?
but we are They might think
taking away that this is a tie-up
the right of the with the RSO.
members to
join the stated
events
PI
-The point is
members of the
political party can
still join other
organizations.

USC
-The RSO does not
accept officers from
political party.

COMMITTEE
-It is what the law
stated. Does the
CSO do not allow
it?

CSO
-It is stated in the
SO Constitution not
to endorse any
political party.

CONSULTANT
-Will it be possible?

BODY Motion is lost

COMMITTEE -Seconded the
-It is still the motion of USC to VOTE
SEC who has reconsider Section 6 Yes- 2
the final say. subsection c.3 No- 7
Abstain- 4
(HF, CBA,
USCE, USC)
Article 4
Section 8
Prohibition for
Accreditation

COMMITTEE USCE Reconsider

Page 50 of 68
 -Did not -Motion to Article 4
change reconsider Section Section 7
anything in the 7. Seconded by all.
provision VOTE
Yes- 13
No- 0
Reconsidering USCE
of Article 4 -Make it ‘5 working
Section 7 days’

SENTRO
-Add the word
‘decision’

CONSULTANT to
SEC
-What are the
petitions made by
SEC?
-Maybe it doesn’t
need to be
generalized
-The number of
days might affect a
provision

USCE
-We haven’t
received any
petition of protest
yet.

SENTRO
-It is only the
rendering of
decision that has
given a time frame
but the decision is
still the discretion
of SEC

CONSULTANT
-Therefore, this
section is
misplaced.

USCE

Page 51 of 68
 SENTRO -Kindly clarify.
-In the original
Election Code,
it is 5 working
days
-It pertains to
petition for
accreditation
-Section 19
discusses the
time frame and
Section 20
discusses when
accreditation
will no longer
be allowed

COMMITTEE
-The title should be
written as ‘Resolution
of a Petition for
Registration and
Accreditation’ so it
will not be confusing.

Adopted

CBA VOTE
-Motion to adopt Yes- 11
Section 7 of Article No- 0
4. Seconded by Abstain- 2
SENTRO (CLE, PI)
Article 4
Section 8
Prohibition for
Registration
and
Accreditation

COMMITTEE SENTRO
-Did not -Can we separate the
change two ‘no’? It will be
anything in the subsections a and b.
provision The title will be
pluralized. Change
‘Prohibition’ to
‘Prohibitions’

Page 52 of 68
 CBA to
COMMITTEE
-How about the
violence?

SENTRO
COMMITTEE -In addition to
-We will violence, we could
consult the include deceit, fraud,
Student intimidation, undue
Handbook for influence, coercion and
the definition any other acts
of violence. prohibited by law

CEAT to
COMMITTEE
-What if it is only
the member and not
the political party?

SENTRO CONSULTANT
-Obviously, it will -There should be a
be the person who complaint and it
will receive the should fall under the
punishment since grounds for the denial
political party is of accreditation or
abstract. registration.

COE
-How will you
commit mistakes if
you are not yet
accredited?

CONSULTANT COE
-Accreditation is for -It should be re-
the existing party. accreditation.

CONSULTANT SENTRO
-That was my -To satisfy the
suggestion earlier. delegates from COE,
let us add ‘re’ in the

Page 53 of 68
 word ‘accreditation’

COE CLA
-Clarification to -Use RSO in
subsection a subsection a to
simplify it

USC
-It could be a good SENTRO
suggestion but RSO -Subsection a
is not the only “no student group as
organization in our stated in Section 14
school. Article 2 of USC
Constitution shall be
registered as a political
party
PI
-How about those CONSULTANT
new political parties -Might as well add the
that committed a registration
violation?
-There is no
provision for the
violation that new
political parties may
commit.

SENTRO
-Remove ‘re’ in the
word ‘accreditation’
USC Adopted
-Motion to adopt
Section 8 of Article VOTE
4. Seconded by Yes- 11
SINAG No- 1 (USCE)
Abstain- 1
(HF)
Article 4
Section 9
Dissolution of
a Political
Party
USC
COMMITTEE -There is a need for a
-Did not provision stating how

Page 54 of 68
 change long will be the denial
anything in the of the accreditation.
provision

COMMITTEE
-New section should
be added before
Section 9

CONSULTANT
-The body should
decide how long will
be the denial of the
accreditation

COMMITTEE
-I think there is no
need for a new
provision since the
duration of the term
of the party is only
one year regardless
of the offense as
long as it is proven.

CLA
-Is it ‘file
candidates’ or it
should be file for
registration and
accreditation?

COE SENTRO
-It will be -It should be ‘field’
redundant. which means
‘magpatakbo’

CEAT
-Change the term ‘re-
accreditation’ to
‘registration’

USCE
-It will be a new
registration

Page 55 of 68
 CONSULTANT
-If dissolved
political parties will
have to register
again therefore they
will start from
scratch. The need to
register again
seemed to be
inconsiderate since
the dissolved
political parties
have already proven
itself.

HF
-We support the
suggestion of USCE
since we believe
that the need to
register again is
justifiable CLE
-Change ‘field’ to
USC ‘run’
-In addition,
dissolved political
party will submit
their application to
a new set of
members of the
commission.
CONSULTANT
SENTRO -The term ‘field’
-In Tagalog, ‘field’ sounds like informal. It
means could be better to use
‘magpatakbo’. If the term ‘run’ since the
you will change it term ‘field’ has various
to ‘run candidates’, meaning
it sounds like the
candidate is a
machine.
USCE
-Put period after ‘next
election’ because you

Page 56 of 68
 will not apply for
accreditation if not for
the election, right? Adopted

CEAT VOTE
-Motion to adopt Yes- 12
Section 9 of Article No- 0
4. Seconded by all. Abstain- 1
(COE)

Article 4 SENTRO
Section 10 -Adds another
Disqualificatio subsection
n of a Political “c. must have been
Party found guilty of
culpable violation of
this Election Code,
USC Constitution,
Student Handbook and
other pertinent school
regulations”

USCE
-Amends 1st paragraph.
-Add“and all
accredited” after “a
registered”

USC Amenable to
-Remove “during the
election period” Committee

CONSULTANT
-Maybe you could still
improve it.
-Add “After due notice
and hearing”
-Subsection c could
begin with the word
‘culpable’

Page 57 of 68
 USC
-Add “during the
whole academic year”
at the end
-Do we still need to
include whole
academic year if there
will be no gap?

HF
-Change ‘party’ to
‘parties’ in the title

SENTRO SENTRO
-Subsections a and -Retain “during
b emphasize that election period” in
the party is active subsection b since it is
during the election. supported by
Subsection c is subsection c.
added because there
is a gap.

USC to
COMMITTEE
-Why is it election
period because
earlier it was
campaign?

COMMITTEE
-Campaign is part
of the election
period.

CEAT
-Motion to adopt
Section 10 of
Article 4.

CLA
-Kindly erase
“election” in
subsection c

Adopted
BODY

Page 58 of 68
 -Seconded the VOTE
motion of CEAT Yes- 13
No- 0

Motion
CLE carried
-Motion to have a
45-minute recess. VOTE
Seconded by all Yes-12
No- 0
Abstain- 1
(CLA)
Recess
7:07 pm
Resume Neil Paulo
7:53 pm Hernando (CEAT)
came back at
exactly 7:00 pm
Article 5
Elective
Positions
Section 23
Elective
Positions for
the University
Student
Council

COMMITTEE USC
-Did not -Add “2008 USC
change Constitution
anything in the
provision
USCE
-Motion to adopt
Section 3 of Article
5. Seconded by
SINAG

SENTRO Amenable to
-Sections 23-24 are the
already black and Committee
white in the USC

Page 59 of 68
 Constitution and
revisions are
minimal, therefore,
we could adopt two
sections at a time.

Adopted
(Section 23 of
Article 5)

VOTE
Yes- 13
No- 0
Article 5
Section 24
Elective
Positions for
the College
Student
Council

COMMITTEE HF
-Add “internal -Why did you
and external remove the position
public relations of business manager
officer” and auditor

COMMITTEE
-We apologize.
They are still
included.

USCE
-Please flash
Section 23 on
screen.

CONSULTANT
-You cannot amend
or change the
elected positions
because the USC

Page 60 of 68
 Constitution
governs it. It is not
the function of the
Election Code

COMMITTEE
-The transitory
provision in the
USC Constitution
provides an
exception.

CONSULTANT
-The transitory
provision is for the
College Student
Council unless the
CSC allows it.
-Can I hear from the
colleges?

COMMITTEE
-Agreed to the
CONSULTANT

CHAIR
-College delegates
are requested to
state their opinion

CLA
-The reason why
“internal” and
“external’ are
specified is to avoid
confusion and
conflict in service.

CONSULTANT
-I remain with my
contention because
there will be a
conflict if we insist
to change it

Page 61 of 68
 USCE
-Point of
Information.
Regardless whether
internal and
external what’s
important is who
will win as PROs

USC
-Point of
Information.
According to the
Article 4 Section 3
of USC
Constitution any
document that will
contradict the said
constitution will be
considered as null
COMMITEE and void. Adopted
-Retain “PRO
(2)” instead of CBA VOTE
“internal” and -Motion to adopt Yes- 12
“external”. Section 24 of No- 0
Article 5. Seconded Abstain- 1
by all. (CEAT)

COMMITTEE
- Cite “Article 4
Section 8” before
USC “2008 USC
-Motion to Constitution”
reconsider Section
23 Article 5. For
uniformity, let’s
cite the Article and
Section from the
USC Constitution. Reconsider
Section 23

USC VOTE
-Seconded the Yes- 11
motion to No-
reconsider 1(SENTRO)
Abstain-1
(CBA)

Page 62 of 68
 SENTRO
-This also happened
yesterday. What if
the USC
Constitution will be
revised and the
number of article
will be changed,
will the Election
Code be also
revised. This is the
reason why we
voted not to
reconsider the
section.

USC
-Article and Section
from the USC
Constitution are
cited in the first
sections that have
been adopted.

CONSULTANT
-Regardless
whether the Article
and Section are
cited, if the USC
Constitution will be
revised it will be
useless since it is no
longer 2008. CONSULTANT
-We should not be too
specific but you can
proceed since that’s
how the previous
CHAIR sections were adopted.
-Is the comment of
the CONSULTANT
amenable to the
body?
Article 5
Section 25

Page 63 of 68
Other College
Council
Positions

COMMITTEE PI
-Did not -Motion to adopt
change Section 25 of
anything Article 5.

HF
-There is a
grammatical error.
Make “csc” all caps
and remove “s” in
the word “officers”

USC
-Add “s” to the
word “council”
since there are
seven councils
CONSULTANT
COMMITTEE -Remove “s” since it is
-Maybe it is no used as generic term, it
longer needed to doesn’t matter if it is
add “s”. plural or singular.

Adopted
USC
-Seconded the VOTE
motion of PI to Yes- 13
adopt Section 25 of No- 0
Article 5.
Article 5
Section 26
Program
Councils and
Year-Level
Representative
s USC Amenable to
COMMITTEE -Arrange the order the
-Did not of words COMMITTE
change E
anything
in/from the
provision USCE
-Remove the Section
26 since it is already

Page 64 of 68
 the responsibility of
the CSC. If you will
notice SEC is not
included in the
provision.
CONSULTANT
-I agree. It is
already included in
the power of CSC

USCE
-SEC is for USC
and CSC only. We
are applicable only
to USC and CSC

USC
-Sponsor the
suggestion of USCE
and
CONSULTANT.
-Motion to delete
Section 26 of
Article 6. Seconded
by the USCE.

SENTRO
-Point of Inquiry.
The reason why we
are revising is to
mend the ambiguity
in the Election
Code but we should
not limit the
revision according
to our experiences.
We should look at
the future
circumstances.

CONSULTANT
- Limit ourselves
with the power that
the Election Code
gave to us.

Page 65 of 68
-What and where is
our power now?
-We will include it
but we still have no
say.
-Who initiate the
election of the
program council?

CLA
-In our college, it is
the CLASC who
initiate the election.

CONSULTANT
-Do the protests of
the program council
reach SEC?

CLA
-The protest do not
reach SEC

ADVISER
-There was incident
in the program
council and it
reached
the office of SEC.

CONSULTANT
-It will be a
violation in the
USC Constitution if
the Election Code
will include the
section since USC
Constitution gave
way to the by-laws
of every CSC.

USCE
-We believe that we
should not interfere
with the CSCs.
Since they have
their own by-laws,
therefore, they

Page 66 of 68
 should a decision.

HF
-Motion to call for Delete
the previous Section 26
question which is
the removal of VOTE
Section 26 of Yes- 9
Article 5 of the No- 2
Election Code. Abstain- 2
Seconded by (CBA,
USCE. CEAT)

Article 5
Section 27
Vote of
Confidence

COMMITTEE USCE
-Add -For us, the added
“However… 2 paragraph is vague
working days”
for extreme
case

COMMITTEE USCE USC

-The added -The paragraph -That could be the
paragraph does include what point.
wants SEC to will be the task of -Since we are now
give SEC. revising then might as
consideration well include a new
to the provision.
candidates.

USCE to
COMMITTEE
-We think we don’t
have any
responsibility if the
candidate received
low number of
votes

HF
-Point of
Clarification.
Section 25 should
not in Article 5.

Page 67 of 68
Page 68 of 68