In an intimate kapihan forum held around lunchtime at the Leong Hall, these were the strong words of former Akbayan Party-list Representative Risa Hontiveros (AB SoS ‘87) to the Christian Union for Socialist and Democratic Advancement (Crusada) and some other guests, last January 28.
She expressed these opinions when a member of the audience raised Crusada’s concerns about the PMS—a system imposed on student groups by the Office of Student Activities (OSA). OSA has been implementing the PMS for student political parties since January 2009, in line with a provision in the memorandum of agreement that enforced a temporary moratorium on student political parties two years ago.
The audience member who raised a point was unhappy with how Crusada, the newest political party on campus, has to be evaluated by OSA through “success indicators,” and have its goals “subject to approval” in the PMS.
Although Hontiveros noted that the school administration “would probably interpret [it] as confrontation,” she agreed that there should be efforts to have the PMS, which she described as “anti-democratic,” repealed.
OSA has imposed the PMS for a long time, and a lot of student groups have similarly expressed dismay regarding its supposed restrictive mechanisms.
At the conclusion of his term more than a year ago, former Sanggunian President, Gio Tingson, even went as far as saying, “[Hindi] kami accountable sa OSA (We are not accountable to OSA).” But what is the fuss really all about?
A yearly cycle
All accredited student organizations in the Loyola Schools (LS), student political parties, and even the Sanggunian, are required to adhere to the PMS standards put forth by OSA. The only student groups exempt from this system are the independent student organizations and the Confederation of Publications, composed of The GUIDON, Heights and Matanglawin.
For the student groups required to adhere to the PMS, the failure to meet the imposed standards merits either a probationary status or the termination of accreditation.
Along with the various benefits that come hand-in-hand with being an accredited student group—such as subsidized budgets, guaranteed org rooms, and the permission to use the Ateneo name—comes the inescapable obligation of working along the PMS framework.
The PMS consists of a year-long series of responsibilities and tasks that must be performed by each duly recognized student group.
Tasks are divided into three phases. The first phase, which takes place from April to May, is comprised of an orientation for the concerned student groups as to what the PMS is all about, plus the setting of these groups’ goals for the coming school year.
The second phase begins in June, and lasts all the way to January. This is the period where the accredited student groups’ activities are implemented and various planning and evaluation seminars are held. The student groups also undergo consultations with their assigned OSA moderators.
Finally, the accredited student groups are tasked to submit a Year End Status (YES) Report during the third phase, which takes place from February to March. The presentation of YES Reports takes place in a panel with OSA, whose officials scrutinize and examine the work that has been done by the accredited student groups.
After a thorough evaluation of the performance of each student group, OSA then determines which groups keep their accreditation and which groups are placed under probation.
“Too bureaucratic”
Immediate Past President of the Council of Organizations of the Ateneo (COA) Jemika Soledad says that many student orgs view PMS “as something too bureaucratic,” and OSA “as a new bureaucracy.”
New COA President Kenneth Abante also points out the criticisms various student groups have of the system. “Some organizations feel that they are limited [because] they cannot do more things, since they weren’t able to [include these things] in the PMS,” he says.
For Sanggunian President Drew Copuyoc, however, OSA still engages student groups in the appropriate way. “I believe that our OSA professionals have shown great trust in the abilities of our [student] leaders,” he says. He has also seen improvement in OSA’s systems.“OSA has given the organizations more space in choosing what projects they want to do and how they want to do it,” Copuyoc says.
Abante is happy with the way things are being run in OSA right now. “I’m very happy with [OSA Director Christopher Castillo’s] performance and the way he engages students,” he says.
He has also taken note of the improvements over the past few years, and says, “[PMS] has become more manageable than it was before.”
Possible changes
Castillo says that OSA is currently studying the possibility of making changes to the PMS. “We are revisiting it to make it more helpful [to the student groups],” he explains. Beginning next school year, a refined version of the PMS will be tested on some willing student groups.
“The way we are proceeding… is not just from what students say,” Castillo says.
“We are going to have [OSA’s systems] studied objectively, from a third person perspective.”
OSA has already begun implementing some changes, including a change in the format of the YES Report presentations; from the rigid, panel-style presentations, the latest YES Reports were presented in a kapihan session between OSA and the different student groups.
Jeopardized independence
Nevertheless, a lot of individuals and groups in the community continue to see OSA’s PMS as a restrictive mechanism. Much of the frustration stems from the belief that OSA has not been respecting the independence of the university’s student groups.
In his January 2011 guest column for The GUIDON, entitled “The downside of formation: Renewing independent student politics in Ateneo,” History Department Lecturer and Batch 2007 Valedictorian Lisandro Claudio argued that OSA has been overstepping its role on campus, to the detriment of student independence.
“The various reports and ‘consultations’ have allowed the OSA to survey and scrutinize everything from budget, org structure, and codes of internal procedure,” Claudio wrote. He continued, “Of course, OSA’s commandments are packaged as ‘recommendations.’ But disobeying recommendations always comes with the threat of not being accredited or getting fewer points in the OSA scoring system.”
Claudio went on to lambast OSA’s strong grip on the Sanggunian; among other things, the office facilitates the Sanggunian’s formation seminars, evaluation seminars and the like.
He wrote: “[The Sanggunian] is a student-elected body that should primarily be accountable to those who elected them. Why does OSA presume to have a right to directly intervene in its affairs?”
These words by Claudio presaged the news two months later that the Sanggunian, led by Tingson, was effectively boycotting its YES Report panels with OSA. “Huwag niyo naman bigyan ng grado [ang Sanggunian] kasi hindi naman kami accountable sa [OSA] (Don’t give the Sanggunian a grade because we are not accountable to OSA),” Tingson was quoted at that time, addressing the OSA in The GUIDON April 2010 article entitled “Sanggu: No to YES Report.”
A lot of groups also expressed dismay with the imposition of the PMS on student political parties. This imposition was brought about by the January 2009 memorandum of agreement promulgated to address the flaws in the Loyola Schools political party system.
The memorandum says that the political party PMS to be “created by [OSA]” in coordination with Sanggunian officers and other student representatives “shall contain an exact and working definition of what constitutes a political party and shall stipulate the guidelines by which a political party can be accredited and recognized by the Loyola Schools.”
The Assembly, the political science student org on campus, was quick to criticize the introduction of this system and the memorandum in general.
“The creation of a PMS stands as an institutionalized limit to true political maturity among parties by creating a standardized reference as to what validly constitutes the political,” The Assembly’s official statement on the memorandum stated. “Placing political parties under the tutelage of a single structure that has a considerable distance from the scrutiny of the general public is tantamount to the idea—albeit being on a small scale—of totalitarian formation.”
Mistakes, power, and democracy
In reality, compared to the situation in other schools, student groups in the Ateneo still have it much easier. Abante says, “Not many schools have organizations that are [as well-off] as the ones we do. Not all of them have rights.”
Castillo points out that orgs in the Ateneo are actually quite fortunate. “Some of the student leaders I know [from other universities] are quite surprised, in a good way, with how a system is in place in the Ateneo. In their case, it’s a go-do-your-thing process, which is causing them problems.”
For Claudio, though, this is not necessarily undesirable. “True formation should be about allowing students to think for themselves,” he wrote. “Students should be allowed to make mistakes and to learn from these mistakes.”
Calling for a repeal of the PMS, he argued: “Certain things are worth getting into trouble for—independence being one of them.”
