sanggu1213_042012_minutes_cb joint session

We are your sole autonomous student government. We voice out your concerns. We protect your welfare. We form the community. We are entrusted to lead and committed to serve.

We are your SANGGUNIAN.

A member of BUKLOD ATENISTA, the alliance of student governments of Jesuit tertiary education institutions in the Philippines.

Office of the Secretary-General Room 200 MVP Student Leadership Center, Ateneo de Manila University

0917 – 8172283 | [email protected]

Legend: Bold – Absent Underlined – Late

CENTRAL BOARD MEETING (JOINT SESSION) Social Sciences Conference Rooms 1 & 2

20 APRIL 2012 Agenda: Time Start: 18:10 Time End: 21:13 1) Sanggu CIP Approval (50 mins) c/o Cate Sison 2) Sanggu Thrust (50 mins) c/o Gio Alejo 3) Department Chairpersons’ Appointment, School Committee and Central Board

Committee Appointments (15 minutes) 4) SOH CB Appointment (5 minutes) c/o AJ Elicaño 4) Corona Impeachment Discussion (30 mins) c/o Ian Agatep 5) Ateneo Task Force 2013 (15 mins) c/o Ian Agatep Attendance/People in the Meeting: Gio Alejo Nicole dela Cruz Jonthan Babaran* Marge Mesina* President 4 SOSE CB Rep SOSE Chairperson 4 SOSE Exec Officer Ian Agatep Barce Barcelon Tin Andujare* Cam Mamaril* Vice President 3 SOSE CB Rep SOSE Secretary-Treasurer 3 SOSE Exec Officer Cate Sison AJ Elicaño Jiggy Villamin* Gely Tiu* Secretary-General 4 SOH CB Rep SOH Chairperson 4 SOH Exec Officer Billie Dumaliang1 Felix Mintu2 Adrian Corpuz* Sam Co* Finance Officer 3 SOH CB Rep SOH Secretary-Treasurer 3 SOH Exec Officer Gigi de Villa IC San Pedro Toni Potenciano* Patty Andamo* COA President 4 SOSS CB Rep SOSS Chairperson 4 SOSS Exec Officer Kat Tuason Louis de Jesus Kayla Torres* Makki Araneta* ARSA President 3 SOSS CB Rep SOSS Secretary-Treasurer 3 SOSS Exec Officer Alvin Yllana Polo Martinez3 Mela Yaranon* Bernice Mendoza* 4 JGSOM CB Rep 2 SOSS CB Rep 4 JGSOM Exec Officer 2 SOSS Exec Officer Joben Odulio Fara Supetran4 Mac Chua* 3 JGSOM CB Rep JGSOM Chairperson 3 JGSOM Exec Officer Ryan Yu JV Poe* Alex Tanjangco* 2 JGSOM CB Rep JGSOM Secretary-Treasurer 2 JGSOM Exec Officer






*Observer status Proxied by 1Tin Adujare, 2Nick Lucero, 3Louis de Jesus, and 4Jake Strzalkowski, respectively. Other Attendees Ericka Oyales, DPR Chairperson Paolo Pesuena, DRS Chairperson Lorenz Payonga RJ Dimla Guio Martinez

Moses Albiento, DEA Chairperson Kyla Javellana Arse Armas Miguel Rivera Jorel Lising

Minutes: Nationa l Anthem was l ed by Ky la Jave l lana , fo l lowed by a prayer l ed by Nick Lucero Mot ion to approve agenda was made by Ian Agatep , and was s e conded by Louis de J e sus . There were no ob j e c t ions f rom the Board .

1) Sanggu CIP Approval (50 mins) Time start: 18:17

• CIP run through by Cate Sison • Section 6: Leave of Absence during the Regular Semesters, paragraph regarding proxies

o Elicaño sees the rationale that the proxy must be part of the representative’s constituency but wants to amend and add that the proxy can be part of the CB committee that the representative belongs to.

o Barcelon: I saw in section 25 on appointment of OIC CB representatives when there is a need for proxying during absences that it’s okay even when the proxy is not a course or block representative which I find inconsistent with regard to our policies. Kapag nagappoint ka ng OIC, naghahanap ka ng elected pero pag sa proxy anyone from the constituency. Bakit inconsistent?

Lucero: If its proxying, there’s already an elected representative and you’re just substituting him during his absence. If its appointing, there is no elected representative yet which is why the appointee should be an elected representative.

Elicaño: The representative being proxied is still accountable. Alejo said that the proxy should be elected into office.

o Yu: I have an issue with what AJ said regarding the CB committee member being part of the allowable proxy because if he’s not your constituent, there would be problems with how he coordinates with the batch. I’d rather the section stays that way.






o Yllana: I think it should be required that the proxy be an elected representative for efficiency purposes. It should be someone who is elected and knows what Sanggu is and what it does.

Lucero: The rationale assumes that elected representatives already know what to do. Some constituents, such as myself, are more capable of handling CB affairs compared to most representatives.

Yu: There are people who aren’t appointed but know of Sanggu’s procedures; so they are probably a little bit more fit. I think the paragraph gives us a good limitation regarding proxying.

o Barcelon: If you were a Block representative and you were asked to be a proxy, do you do both functions of the position you’re proxying for and the position you’re currently holding?

Alejo: Yes. o Alejo asks the board if the paragraph should remain as is. Board agrees.

• Section 8: Resignation: added Section8-c which states that an officer who will resign should provide transitioning for at least a month.

o Elicaño: Since there is a 2 weeks notification regarding the resignation, then that means the officer who will resign will be transitioning for a total of 6 weeks.

o Lucero: Are you willing to take in the word of every CB? From what I see here, you have two options, one is to already start training 2 weeks before the resignation and the other is to follow the provision stated.

Alejo: Letter C provides flexibility. If we can transition within four weeks, then okay.

Yu: Leave it as it is. It’s a case-to-case basis. It’s not always the case that even before resignation, there is already a replacement for the officer.

• Section 9, Section 10, Section 11, and Section 12, and Section 18 were met with no objections.

o Elicaño: The rationale on why it’s a letter to the Board, and not a process of signature campaign is because in the past, we did a signature campaign and the Student Judicial Court [SJC] ruled it out stating that it is the COMELEC who has the responsibility to hold anything elections-related, and holding a signature campaign is somewhat parallel to an election.

• Section 19: Absences: 3 unexcused absences per semester instead of per school year. o Alejo: Actually, after the meeting held by theTop 4, I read the constitution again and

saw that this paragraph conflicts with the footnote in the constitution because it states in the footnote that you are allowed only 3 absences for the whole school year.

o dela Cruz: If the rationale is due to a Sanggu-related event or an event where a Sanggu representative is required to attend, then it’s excused.

o Elicaño: I think we should change it to per school year. o Section 19: per semester was changed to per school year o de Jesus: If you have a proxy and he didn’t come, are you absent?

Alejo: Yes.






o Mendoza: Is there a difference between excused and unexcused absences? Alejo and Sison: Yes, if you are excused then you still have the 3 remaining

allowable absences. But if you’re unexcused, then you only have 2 allowable absences left.

o Yllana: I disagree with the reasoning that if your proxy is absent, then you are also absent. The reason why we get proxies is because we have an excusable reason.

o Yu: Just to settle this matter, in case the proxy is absent, make him give an explanation to the board. Let’s not make it absolute that if the proxy is absent then the representative is automatically absent.

Yllana: Why should we base the attendance of the officer on the proxy’s attendance when recording absences?

dela Cruz: You are still accountable for your proxy. Yu: Go for a case-to-case basis; it’s not your fault, but at least let the proxy

explain. Again, let’s not make it absolute. o Lucero: Are the provisions on absences of proxies written in the CIP already? If not,

write it first. • Section 19: Absences: Emergency Meeting paragraph

o For emergency meetings, only academic activities planned prior to the meeting and those who were not informed are excused.

Elicaño: What if I’m not in school yet? Yu: I agree. I think an announcement that there is an emergency meeting 1

hour before the said meeting is unreasonable. Barcelon: What do you mean by informed? Some of the information goes

through Facebook and not all of us check it all the time. • Agatep: It should come from the Secretary-General. If it did not

come from her, then there is nothing happening. • dela Cruz: like what, a text?

o Agatep: most likely o Sison: That is why there is a need for a reply culture in the

Sanggunian whenever I make announcements. o The Board recommends that either the “academic-related” phrase is to be removed,

or add a provision for unreasonable announcements. • Section 20: Tardiness: The official roll call will start at 6:05

o Alejo: As we can see today, a lot of us were late. Yu: What was the time of the roll call before?

• Sison: 6:20pm • Alejo: We’re stricter this year. • Agatep: I’ll give you a scenario, if there is a 4:30 to 6:00 pm activity,

especially during activity hour, regardless, meeting starts at 6:00 pm Lucero: What if I’m coming from Bellarmine and I’m ‘fat’, can I validate my

lateness by texting the OSG to inform them? • Alejo: That is still considered late.






• Barcelon: If we can’t follow 6:05, how can we demand anything from our constituents?

Lucero: For practicality’s sake, what if I have a meeting with admin, I have orals or a consultation with a teacher?

• dela Cruz: I believe that’s scheduled ahead of time. Maybe make an EDTAF just in case.

• Alejo: Yes, submit an EDTAF. For example, Ian made an EDTAF but was on time today so the EDTAF was void. If it is an unplanned tardiness, it is okay if the EDTAF is submitted late.

Barcelon: To clarify, in Section 19, do reasons for absences also apply for tardiness?

• Alejo: Yes. • Section 22 and Section 23 did not receive any objections from the Board. • Section 29: Agenda-Setting procedures

o Lucero: What happens to a motion to add agenda? Is it removed? Alejo: No. Yu: Leave it to discretion of the Board. Agatep: Just like last year, all added agenda is to be discussed after the

formal agenda is done. o Barcelon: Can I clarify? Are the members of the Board the only ones allowed to add

to the agenda? Sison: No. There is a footnote provided that if you’re a unit of the Board

such as a CB Committee, Department, Sector, etc, then the one who can propose is the highest officer of the unit. If it’s a School Board then Chairs and Secretary-Treasurers are allowed to propose. If you’re a representative from an external committee, then you can propose, and etc.

o Barcelon: What if constituents want to discuss something to the Board? Alejo: Course it through the Central Board representative.

• Section 39: Regarding decisions on major and minor policies o Lucero: What if the parliamentarian and the presider are in conflict?

Alejo: Let’s add a provision that if there’s a conflict, it will be voted upon by the Board.

• Changes made in Section 41 and Section 44 received no objections. • Section 49: Committee meetings

o Potenciano: Are we going to start talking about the CCR? I think we need to focus on its structure. Or are we saving that for later?

o Alejo: Actually I was going to introduce the new structure of CCR in the next meeting. I was planning on making the CCR to be a committee on steroids.

o Potenciano: Oh, okay. • Section 60: On making a written report and an oral report to the Board

o Barcelon: Do you have to mention that here? The part where you must submit a report?






Sison: You can make a recommendation to remove that portion. o Yu: Regarding the requirement to write a written report, what if it’s not that

important to discuss? Yllana: I don’t think all School Committees should report because there are

some committees that have confidential discussions. • Sison: There are provisions stated in the CIP that if the Committee

is confidential, you don’t have to make the report to the Board. dela Cruz: I suggest that what we could do is to leave it to the discretion of

the Secretary-General after a written report has been made if an oral one is to be made to the Board.

o de Jesus: Are the School Committees different from the CB Committees? Sison: Yes.

o Sison: I have a personal bias that CBs should report to the board because I want everyone to know what’s happening in each committee.

Lucero: What if we pass a written report to the Secretary-General and you post it, then the Board will decide if they want to hear an oral report?

Yu: Shall written reports be available to the public? • Alejo: Yes. We can determine if a report can be released to the

student body or not. o Make a provision regarding oral reports not being mandatory.

• Section 71: Room Decorum regarding food in the Sanggu room. o Potenciano: Should that be included in the CIP? (re: Tumblers and Baunans)

Yllana, dela Cruz, Elicaño, and Lucero agrees. de Jesus: It’s unnecessary as it is already in the schools guidelines. Potenciano: Just don’t leave your baunans. Yllana: It can be a reminder, but not supposed to be in the CIP.

Motion was made by Alv in Yl lana to r emove Sec t ion 71-g f rom the Code o f In t erna l Procedures , and was s e conded by AJ Eli caño .

de Jesus: Maybe we can add a provision saying that House Rules must be followed?

• Yllana: Allowable, but maybe we can put that into a Resolution sometime.

• Objections were made by a lot of Board members.

Voting on the r emova l o f Sec t ion 71-g f rom the Code o f In t erna l Procedures YES - 14 NO - 1 Gio Alejo Ian Agatep

Cate Sison






Gio Alejo Ian Agatep Billie Dumaliang* Gigi de Villa Kat Tuason Alvin Yllana Joben Odulio Ryan Yu Nicole dela Cruz AJ Elicaño Felix Mintu* IC San Pedro Louis de Jesus Polo Martinez*

Cate Sison

*Proxied by Tin Andujare, Nick Lucero, and Louis de Jesus respectively. Motion i s approved .

• Section 82 received no objections. • Section 71-h: Newspapers

o dela Cruz: can you also take that out?

Motion to r emove Sec t ion 71-h f rom the Code o f In te rna l Procedures was made by Nico l e de la Cruz, and was s e conded by Ryan Yu. There were no ob j e c t ions f rom the Board . The mot ion was vo t ed on by a show o f hands and passed unanimous ly . Motion to extend by 5 minutes was made by AJ Eli caño , and was s e conded by Nico l e de la Cruz. There were no ob j e c t ions f rom the Board . Mot ion to approve the Code o f In t erna l Procedures cons ider ing the changes ment ioned above was made by Nick Lucero . Louis de J e sus ob j e c t ed and mot ioned to extend the d i s cuss ion o f the Code o f In t erna l Procedures to the next Centra l Board mee t ing . Cate S ison opened the mot ion for debate .

• Sison: [to de Jesus] What is your rationale to move this to the next Central Board meeting? You should have read this beforehand.

o Potenciano: We cannot approve this document since we have not discussed everything that needs to be discussed such as the resolutions to be approved later.

o dela Cruz: It would be better for us to approve the CIP after the decisions have been made. o Elicaño: Since we have a lot to discuss today, maybe it would be helpful to move the Code

of Internal Procedures approval after we’ve formed the CB committees so we can discuss it in those contexts.






o Lucero: Let us approve appointments first before the CIP is presented. Mot ion to in c lude the amendments and pres en t the amended Code o f In t erna l Procedures to the Board on Monday (Apri l 22, 2012) and pos tpone the approva l o f the Code o f In t erna l Procedures to Fr iday ’ s Centra l Board Meet ing (Apri l 27, 2012) was made by Nick Lucero , and se conded by Nico l e de la Cruz. There were no ob j e c t ions f rom the Board . The mot ion was vo t ed on by a show o f hands and passed unanimous ly . Time end: 19:16

2) Sanggu Thrust (50 mins) c/o Gio Alejo

Time start: 19:17 • We came up with different salient points:

o Nation-building o Identity building o Provision of basics to our constituents

• Thrust 2012-2013 o “In aims of a holistic student life, the Sanggunian ng mga Mag-aaral ng mga

Paaralang Loyola ng Ateneo de Manila 2012-2013 will further pursue the cultivation of the person by strengthening the Atenean identity working towards building the nation.”

• Some people said that it’s going too far, and for some it’s just right. I now open the floor for the deliberation of the thrust. This is internal and will not be resonated to the whole community.

o de Villa: I believe that the thrust should be known by the student body. Even if the Sanggu has its internal thrust, it should also have an external thrust that is visible to the students. The Sanggu should be transparent.

de Jesus: But isn’t the thrust going to be distributed all over school? • Alejo: No.

Alejo: I agree with Gigi. As an example, the COA has two thrusts. An internal one and an external one for its constituents.

Potenciano: Although I’m okay with the process [of making two thrusts], we have to consider the fact that each board has their own thrusts. Having two thrusts for the Sanggunian would be too much.

• Alejo: The thrust intends to give the message: ‘make the most out of your student life’. Thus the phrase ‘meron pa’. Are we in agreement? [directed towards AJ]

• Elicaño: One issue we have regarding nation-building is that it was an old term for an old paradigm. Nowadays, there are multiple ‘nations’ already—there are ARMM kids, there are city kids. When you say nation-building: what nation are you pertaining to? Whose identity is that if you’re talking about Ateneo? The problem we have here is that, one, we are choosing






a particular nation (or particular concept which may not be the whole Philippines) and two, we are imposing what we think the Atenean identity is on Ateneans.

o Potenciano: I think the Ateneo identity is the Atenean traditions. We’re not imposing; we’re basing what an Atenean is according to our [university’s] values. The word ‘identity’ is confusing but it’s strengthening the Atenean traditions.

AJ: Okay, cool. o Yu: I think we should add “and” after the word “identity” o dela Cruz: In the stepladder process or branching out issue, if we go for a step

process, how exactly can we say that we are done with a certain step. Are we going to gauge it by looking at the outcome? For me, we’re going to be pushing it a bit too far if we say that it is a stepladder process because we do not know the definite end of each step.

Alejo: In the crafting of the thrust, we did not have the step process in mind, more of like a web.

o Lucero [towards Toni]: Sanggu’s job is to foster everything for our constituents including opinions on Atenean tradition, in a sense, they also have the right to not be ‘Lux in Domino.’

Potenciano: Sanggunian needs to stand up for the university at large. What would you rather be if not a man for others? I do not see your point.

Yllana: Sanggu has our own values that we should stand up for. For example, in the Grand Consultation, a lot of students wanted a spa. But of course, we don’t lobby for this because Sanggu has foundations—we need to stand up for something.

Potenciano: I’m not imposing, I just want to clarify that the Sanggu should stand up for the university’s sake.

• Lucero: the thing with the thrust is, the nation-building motion is outdated, it turns Ateneo into the larger community. We must not impose the identity of a particular nation to the whole Philippines. Am I not entitled to act against nation-building?

o Potenciano: But this is the Sanggu thrust. This is what the Sanggu has decided. I don’t think we must adjust our thrust just because someone said “ayoko.”

• de Villa: Maybe it would help that we have a supplementary document. For example, in Father Jett’s thrust he defined that nation-building is working towards defeating poverty etc.

o Alejo: I agree, we should put a definition of terms so it is clearer.

• Potenciano: I’m okay with [the general thrust] being vague because that’s where the school thrusts [which are specific] come in.

Motion to approve the thrus t o f the Sanggunian 2012-2013 read as “In a ims o f a ho l i s t i c s tudent l i f e , the Sanggunian ng mga Mag-aara l ng mga Paara lang Loyo la ng Ateneo de Mani la 2012-2013 wi l l






fur ther pursue the cu l t i va t ion o f the per son by s t r eng then ing the Atenean ident i t y and working towards bu i ld ing the nat ion .” was made by Ian Agatep , and was s e conded by Ryan Yu. YES - 13 NO – 2 Gio Alejo Ian Agatep Cate Sison Billie Dumaliang* Gigi de Villa Kat Tuason Alvin Yllana Joben Odulio Ryan Yu Nicole dela Cruz IC San Pedro Louis de Jesus Polo Martinez*

AJ Elicaño Felix Mintu**

*Proxied by Tin Andujare, and Louis de Jesus respectively **Proxied by Polo Martinez Motion was approved .

• dela Cruz: What about the tagline? o Alejo: The tagline is a different thing, this is the thrust. The tagline is not ‘meron pa’.

Time end: 19:38

3) Department Chairpersons’ Appointment, School Committee and Central Board Committee Appointments (15 mins) c/o Gio Alejo Time start: 19:38

• We will be appointing you to your CB committees and your own School committees. You are expected to attend your respective meetings after the appointments.

A. Central Board Committee Act 2012

• Elicaño: Just in case people were wondering why appointments can be changed, it’s because needs change dramatically.

o Alejo: Yes. It is not set in stone. It provides flexibility. • de Jesus: What is the process if the chairperson is to be changed?

o Alejo: You will see among you who will be the best person for the chair. They will present themselves before the CB and if a majority vote is reached, then he is appointed as chairperson. When there is a point in the year where your chair is ineffective or when you feel qualified to be a chair already, you can tell the CB that






you want to contest the current chairmanship given that you have consulted the current chair first. So if you want to be chair, you have to tell the CB that you want to contest the chairmanship.

de Villa: Is there a document for that? • Sison: We will add it in the CIP.

• Barcelon: What is the role of a chairperson? o Alejo: Someone who delegates, coordinates, and facilitates etc.

Barcelon: So I should report to that person? • Alejo: If you want to submit your agenda for CB, it is the chair’s

responsibility to tell the Secretary-General. That’s why CB committees are required to meet at least once in two weeks.

Motion to approve The Centra l Board Commit t e e s Appoin tment Act o f 2012 was made by AJ Eli caño , and was s e conded by Nico l e de la Cruz. There were no ob j e c t ions f rom the Board . The mot ion was vo t ed on by a show o f hands and passed unanimous ly .

B. School Committees Appointment Act of 2012 • Barcelon: Maybe we should include a provision in the resolution stating to whom we should

submit our reports to in the 5th whereas. • Alejo: Use your committee representation powers well.

o de Villa: Are we [ARSA and COA] required to send a representative for off-housing and dormitory committee?

Elicaño: The problem is that that school committee rarely calls for meetings. Alejo: It’s up to you [towards Gigi] on whether to send a representative or

not. de Villa: Let’s just remove COA. Alejo: Okay. So it’s removed.

Motion to extend by 5 minutes was made by Ryan Yu, and was s e conded by Barce Barce lon . No ob j e c t ions were made by the Board . Mot ion to approve the Schoo l Commit t e e s Act o f 2012 wi th the amendments s ta t ed was made by Nico l e de la Cruz, and was s e conded by AJ Eli caño . No ob j e c t ions were made by the Board . The mot ion was vo t ed on by a show o f hands and passed unanimous ly .

C. The Sanggunian Departments Appointment Act of 2012 • Document was read by Ian Agatep, and made the correction that the resolution was to take

effect upon approval of the Board via 2/3 vote and not via majority vote. o Alejo opens the floor for concerns.






o Lucero: What if there is a constituent who approached me and wants to be chair of a department?

Alejo: It [appointment of Chairperson of Departments] is actually up to the prerogative of the president. I want formal appointments to come from you [The Board]. Given that one of the problems is there is another person who wants to be chair of DPR, we can approve that later since DPR needs an interim department chairperson immediately since DPR is a department that needs lots of work done and is the only department that has not yet taken off. This issue is to be discussed after Mari comes back

Albiento: I read the minutes of 2010 and the departments were appointed by Rob Roque but he opened the discussion to the CB for the mandate [of the departments] to be formally recognized. I fear that the student will be disenfranchised to apply again since we already shut down or rejected options for her.

• Alejo: You are proposing that the department chair appointment be postponed?

o Albiento: Yes. • Sison: Is it right to include DSWS and DSLD there considering that they have their own

structures and are already institutionalized? o Agatep: The reason behind that: as stated in the constitution is that departments are

to be appointed by the president. The other four departments are still working towards becoming more like the last two so the point of adding the last two is just to appoint them officially. It is more or less a titular formalization since the president appoints the department chairs.

Yllana: The problem with that is disrespect. Last year, DSWS had their internal elections and Micky Roa was voted. What if we hold elections today and he does not win, would it not be disrespectful if we were to replace him?

• Lucero: Actually, it’s allowable that we do not recognize him since they held their own elections.

o Yllana: I believe that’s kind of disrespectful. o Lucero: Is there an official document that states that they

can hold their own elections? • Elicaño: I agree that it’s kind of disrespectful but the constitution

requires that we decide on them. o Lucero: We respect that they have their own procedures

but we require mutual respect. They should also have respect for Sanggu’s decisions. We allow them some sort of autonomy because they have excellent performance, but what if they want to separate themselves from Sanggu? They can do that but they cannot take the names ‘DSWS and DSLD.’






Motion to extend for 5 minutes was made by Nico l e Dela Cruz. AJ Eli caño ob j e c t s the mot ion and mot ions to extend on ly fo r 3 minutes . The la t t e r mot ion was wi thdrawn, ther e fo r e the main mot ion s tands . Main mot ion was s e conded by Louis de J e sus . No ob j e c t ions were made by the Board .

• Torres: She [Mari] is going to come back come July.

o Alejo: I don’t want DPR, an important department, to be chairperson less for June and July. It is a department that tells the constituents what we do.

o Albiento: How do you come up with people to select? Alejo: I consulted with the former department chairs; Jove for DRS, Billie

for DIA, Reg for DEA, and Misha for DPR [No consultation was done with DPR]—For DPR, I looked for the next best person who is Ericka because she is a communications major, and she has an in-house production team. Both of them are capable, but one [Mari] cannot be here until June.

• dela Cruz: Is this going to change? • Alejo: we need to amend it

o de Villa: Why is there a special consideration for DPR? Alejo: She [Mari] expressed intention to be chairperson and I promised her

that I’ll open it up to the students, but she cannot be here right now because of work. So I’m inclined to appoint a chairperson until Mari comes back. The two [Ericka and Mari] can talk later regarding official chairpersonship.

Motion to extend fo r 3 minutes was made by Ryan Yu, and was s e conded by Nico l e de la Cruz. No ob j e c t ions were made by the Board .

• Yu: Ericka Oyales is the head today so if they make a new decision later, they should just talk to the CB. Let’s keep Ericka as the chairperson in the meantime.

o dela Cruz: If Mari is really determined to help DPR, why does she need to be the department chair?

o de Villa: It will benefit the whole council if we appoint now because if we appoint an interim and formalize come June, then even the direction of DPR under a new chairperson will change.

Motion to approve the The Sanggunian Depar tments Appoin tment Act o f 2012 was made by Alv in Yl lana , and was s e conded by Nico l e de la Cruz. No ob j e c t ions were made by the Board . The mot ion was vo t ed on by a show o f hands and passed unanimous ly . Time end: 20:17






4) SOH CB Appointment (5 mins) c/o AJ Elicaño Time start: 20:18

• AJ introduces Arse to the Board and explains why there is a need for appointment. • The thing with SOH is, if you lose a batch once, it’s hard to get them back. So we’re

proposing to appoint Arse because: o He would like to be rep o He is one of the representatives who are very critical and aligned with CB work o I’ve worked with him before

• Andujare requested for Arse to speak before the Board on why he thinks he is the person most apt for the job.

o Andujare: Why do you want the job? What can you do for batchmates? Armas: I was approached by AJ for the position. Although I was worried,

he introduced me to the work and I realized that I may be able to follow what is happening.

• Yu: Can we hear your plans? Your platforms? o Armas: I’ll be starting with Jan Belmonte’s plans and will

be working with him hand in hand this summer. Villamin said that representatives had already talked amongst themselves

and agreed to wanting him. Elicaño also added that the representatives have suggested a signature

campaign but the SJC deemed it unnecessary. Motion to extend fo r 2 minutes was made by Ryan Yu, and was s e conded by Nico l e de la Cruz. No ob j e c t ions were made by the Board . Mot ion to approve the appo in tment o f Arsen io Mari M. Armas, e l e c t ed Blo ck E repres en ta t iv e , as Of f i c e r - in -Charge Centra l Board r epres en ta t iv e unt i l the Freshmen Elec t ions was made by Louis de J e sus , and was s e conded by Nick Lucero . No ob j e c t ions were made by the Board . The mot ion was vo t ed on by a show o f hands and passed unanimous ly .

• Potenciano: Quick question, why are we here, what is our purpose? Why are the School Boards here in the Joint Session? We don’t have voting powers, we’re just spectators.

o Alejo: It has something to do with the last agenda [ATF 2013]. Traditionally, we start CB meeting as a joint session.

Sison: Also the thrust. • Alejo: Yes. So that the thrust can be approved by the top 55.

Time end: 20:26






5) Corona Impeachment Discussion (30 mins) c/o Ian Agatep Time start: 20:26

• Alejo: Since the trial ends by June, I want us to decide on what we will do as Sanggu. • Background of the Corona Impeachment by Ian Agatep

o Articles of Impeachment against Corona: Only 3 of the 8 articles remain valid Failure to Disclose SALN Appointment of wife to a seat in the Bases Conversion and Development

Authority TRO in favour of GMA re: medical travel

• General Plan of Action o Listen to Senate. Listen to what the defense and the prosecution is saying.

What will the statement include? • Ateneo’s opinion • Do we include the SCAP [Student Council Alliance of the

Philippines] statement? Ateneo is an institution so we should see how our statement will affect them.

Who is the audience? • Ateneo and Sanggu is an institution so we have to see how it will

affect them. What will Sanggu push for in the name of good governance?

• Should we make a manifesto? What do we want to say as Sanggu? • For the next 20 minutes, the floor was opened for the Board to give ideas regarding what we

will do with the issue. o de Jesus: I think that since we represent the Ateneo student body, and we know that

the evidence points to conviction (at least for me). We have to be committed to making a stand one way or another.

o Albiento: It should come from the people. Anything we have to say will have an effect. We have to consider that he is still appointed and is making decisions during trial. Expect Miriam Defensor Santiago to talk against you if you release anything regarding this.

o dela Cruz: We have to show the students that we tried to talk about the issue to them. An info-drive or dissemination drive can be done.

Alejo: Actually, a survey was conducted by ASTAT and The Assembly where the pulse of the students was analysed. 400 Ateneans participated.

de Jesus: We should not wait for 100% full knowledge of the issue for the students.

o de Villa: We should set our priorities. Is it making a stand or letting the students be aware?

Yllana: We should also define who made the statement. Is it Sanggu’s only or is it representing the student body?






• Alejo: We can say that it’s just on behalf of our constituents. • Potenciano: We are elected into our positions to make a decision.

But in regards with this issue, we need to consult because this issue is something that is very black and white.

de Jesus: I suggest we craft a series of statements leading up to his conviction.

• Elicaño: A statement or a stand? • de Jesus: A statement is a stand. • Elicaño: The perception of a statement is neutral whereas a stand is

a ‘one way or another’ kind of thing. People are getting statement fatigue from us, so we need a stand.

Potenciano: What other statements have we released to cause statement fatigue?

• Sison and Elicaño: The issue with the security guards, SM Blue, Comm protocols, and the Corona statement before we ended last school year.

o Potenciano: But those are statements from the last administration.

Sison: I don’t think we should disregard what the previous has done. The current administration is not mutually exclusive from the previous administration and therefore our actions towards our students this year should take into account what the last Sanggu was able to do.

o Lucero: In the light of sustainable development, we need to process what the previous administration has done. The students don’t see us as different every year. It’s not Rob’s administration, Drew’s administration, etc. The students just see it as one Sanggu all throughout.

o de Villa: Before we delve into this further, what do we want? Is it to have impact or more involvement? Be clear on what we want.

o de Jesus: I suggest that we bring it in House of Representatives [HOR] and affix what would happen to the stand that they would craft.

Elicaño: We need to decide our timeframe (part of priority) Yu: Information dissemination is important, just like what we did regarding

the RH Bill issue. Our constituents need to know what is happening now. o Andujare: Releasing a stand or a statement may be detrimental instead of

informative because the trial is still on going. The best thing to do is to have a CJ on trial ‘watch’. We bring it to the HOR, and make a stand or a statement afterwards.

Yu: I agree with Tin. But we have to begin consulting particularly with the stand of SCAP because it is more urgent.

• GPOA: General Plan of Action






o Alejo: It’s good if we craft a plan of action because hearing resumes on May 7 so we have around two weeks to decide on this. What do you propose we do?

Lucero: First level off with yourselves [top 55] and then choose, since we have too many stands.

o Alejo: We will do two things. First is levelling off from this week to next week and second is to hold an information campaign.

• Potenciano: A constituent is asking, ‘Why have we [Sanggu] been silent regarding the SM Baguio issue on cutting trees? Aren’t we mad at SM?.’

o Agatep: One reason for that is that we got tired. But I think we should still say something soon.

• de Jesus: Let us call for an HOR [third point of action]. o Alejo: We will include it in the induction this coming May.

• dela Cruz: I think we should put emphasis to present all sides of the issue to the representatives, not to follow the HOR format and present the prosecution and the defense.

o Agatep: We should assign CSPA in coordination with DEA to craft a system. • Barce: I think it’s important that people know the principles we, as Sanggu and Ateneo,

stand for because I was shocked by what the constituent said that we were “mad at SM,” when we were only fighting for good governance. We are principled people.

Motion to extend fo r 5 minutes was made by Louis de J e sus , and was s e conded by Barce Barce lon . No ob j e c t ions were made by the Board .

• de Jesus: We should make an information campaign on why students should be interested. o Alejo: Yes. DPR will make it and will be approved by you guys.

• dela Cruz: Does the info campaign start on April 23 to May 7? I think the statement should be deferred until the trial resumes, data from our constituents become available, and HOR assembles.

• dela Cruz: We align with SCAP right? Do we release a statement regarding that [SCAP statement]?

o Alejo: Yes. We need to decide to make a middle ground statement. Time End: 21:01

6) Ateneo Task Force 2013 (15 mins) co Francis Ian L. Agatep *Timeframe changed to 9 mins by Cate Sison due to the reservation time limit Time start: 21:02

• Four phases: o Voter’s Registration o Voter’s Education o Mock Elections o Voter’s Mobilization

• COMMENTS






o Alejo: I met with Commissioner Sarmiento and he allowed us to have satellite registration in the school during May [2012]. However, this is still pending the approval of the local COMELEC of QC. May 13, 2013 is the date of the elections and we need everyone to be involved and encourage constituents to be active.

o dela Cruz: OSCI has high involvement with communities. Motion to extend fo r 1 minute was made by AJ Eli caño , and was s e conded by Nico l e de la Cruz. No ob j e c t ions were made by the Board .

• Agatep: OSCI has strong connections with the SLB [Simbahang Lingkod ng Bayan], COMELEC etc.

o dela Cruz: Maybe we can ask for one NSTP day for the students to educate the people in their area about voting. [Community education]

o Ian Agatep and Gio Alejo agrees. o Agatep: Ateneo is catering particularly to District 3.

Motion to ad journ was made by AJ Eli caño , and was s e conded by Nick Lucero . No ob j e c t ions were made by the Board . Time End: 21:13 Prepared By: Neil Eric L. Pecache OSG Secretariat Sanggunian ng mga Mag-aaral ng mga Paaralang Loyola ng Ateneo de Manila Noted By: Catherine Therese M. Sison Secretary – General Sanggunian ng mga Mag-aaral ng mga Paaralang Loyola ng Ateneo de Manila

sanggu1213_042012_minutes_cb joint session

Documents

soss cb rep soss chairperson

jgsom cb rep jgsom chairperson

soh cb rep soh chairperson

sose cb rep sose chairperson

soh exec officer gigi

soh cb appointment

finance officer

mins time