THE CONSTITUTIONAL Convention (ConCon) conducted the second reading and  public consultation on the third draft of the proposed new constitution on April 1 at the San Hurtado Hall in the Ateneo School of Government.

The first reading, held on March 11 in the same venue, covered the preamble and the first four articles (Loyola Schools Student Body, Student Rights, Duties and Obligations of Loyola Schools Students, and Ateneo Loyola Schools Undergraduate Student Government).

ConCon Head Shiph Belonguel gave her opening remarks with a hopeful outlook that the new draft “would have served to address the comments we’ve got from the student body.”

“[The ConCon was a] long and arduous process not only in terms of content but also in the process of writing,” she stated.

She added that, “in terms of content, we hope that the student body sounds off on issues in the draft.”

This was followed by privilege speeches from Sanggunian Coordinator Luigi del Rosario, Council of Organizations of the Ateneo (COA) President Iesous Hernandez, and Ateneo Student Judicial Court (SJC) Chief Magistrate Cristine Villaruel.

An open forum facilitated by Belonguel commenced afterwards to formally start the public consultation.

Overlap of representation

In Hernandez’s privilege speech, he stressed the prevalence of de facto representations happening across organizations, which highlighted his concern about reconciling multiple representations with the revised constitution.

“It is about the overlaps of representations of regular students that is happening between home organizations and [the] Sanggunian,” Hernandez said.

In response, Analysis and Discourse Cluster Delegate Gabriel Marmeto proposed that the Sanggunian and COA must have an internal agreement to delineate course representation.

Marmeto proposed an internal structure for Sanggunian course representatives to have the additional responsibility of representing and coordinating with their respective home organizations.

“It answers the problem of two people getting the same job and still [maintaining] the representative value for all the constituents of the course and not just [home organizations],” he said.

Marmeto suggested that the Sanggunian hold special elections, or that home organizations appoint their respective course representatives in the Sanggunian.

He warned, however, that some course representatives do not belong to their respective home organizations.

Coming from the perspective of a home organization member, Ateneo Assembly President Kim Bay stated that coordination with home organizations and the academic departments is already effective, which renders the need for Sanggunian course representatives unnecessary.

To counter the argument, Sanggunian School of Humanities (SOH) Central Board (CB) Representative Koko Quilatan pointed out that relying on home organizations would be problematic given that most SOH home organizations are not accredited.

Determining sectors

The forum later on addressed the concern of the qualifications of potential sectors and the people tasked to approve them.

Article V, Section 4 of the new constitution indicates that the Ateneo Commission on Elections (COMELEC) is responsible for the approval of sector representation instead of other elected officials.

The same section also states that, “there shall only be one sectoral representative per sector.”

On the issue of nuisance sectors, Belonguel explained that the COMELEC’s approval could be reversed through the power of the student body to initiate direct veto action.

Article IV, Section 4 stipulates that the said students’ initiative against “undesirable acts of the governing bodies of the Sanggunian” would require approval from the “majority (50% + 1) of the concerned constituency.”

According to Sanggunian CB Representative Railey Montalan, the current Code of Internal Procedures of the Sanggunian already has a protocol on whether or not sectors could join the Sanggunian, which none of the sectors have applied for yet.

Del Rosario, on the other hand, was hesitant to the idea of holding COMELEC liable for approvals without a clear definition of its role and who comprises the decision body.

Otherwise, he suggested that “we do away with sectoral representation” unless it has been settled on whether or not the CB would deem COMELEC worthy as a decision body.

Science and Technology Cluster Delegate Lance Putong also probed on whether the presence of SJC, referendums, and CB are enough to secure the provisions on sectoral representation without restricting the openness of the constitution.

According to Villaruel, the outcomes of sectors passing for referendum are dependent on the yearly iterations being made by COMELEC, despite the presence of an electoral code.

“Maybe a constitution of the sectors is not necessary [for] one year or it will be necessary [in] two years. That ability to be flexible is the whole point of [the constitution]. To hold us accountable, you always have the ability to impeach both COMELEC and SJC magistrates,” she added.

Space for deliberation

Towards the end of the forum, Ateneo Task Force Head Mawe Duque brought up the lack of a deliberative assembly given that certain CB positions had been abolished to accommodate more course representatives.

The Ateneo Task Force is the student arm of the Ateneo tasked to synchronize student initiatives with the 2016 National Elections.

Duque explained that limiting the role of creating and approving resolutions to course representatives would not only exclude the process of deliberation but also “impose problems in participatory democracy.”

He also emphasized that the lack of space to raise concerns poses the problem of undermining the Sanggunian since its essence is discourse among representatives and representation.

“It’s like they’re putting aside the essence of the Sanggunian which brings back to my question on formation—how are these delegates recognizing Sanggunian as a representative body?” he contended in an interview with The GUIDON.

Moreover, Duque scrutinized the renewal process of sectoral representatives, where the electoral code of COMELEC allows the possibility of extending the representative’s term.

Meanwhile, Marmeto suggested that each Loyola School could adopt its own assembly led by their respective chairs, while the other alternative is a university-wide assembly.

Marmeto was open to Duque’s proposal on setting a provision that would name and define the assemblies in the constitution.

Except for the issue on deliberative assembly, Marmeto declared that “no other faults were found in the constitution.”

Better and thorough

In an interview with The GUIDON, Belonguel stated that she believed the session was good and that it shows the level of awareness of how the new constitution will work.

Del Rosario expressed his approval of the reading as well, saying that it was able to cover what previous readings have failed to do.

“My biggest beef with the hearings was why didn’t we talk about structure? Why did we talk about the nature of people’s jobs and it’s only now lumalabas ang mga ganitong issues (My biggest beef with the hearings was why didn’t we talk about structure? Why did we talk about the nature of people’s jobs and it’s only now these kinds of issues are coming up)?” he told The GUIDON.

“I actually like the discussion ngayon and mas nakikita ng mga tao lalo na ng mga delegates na ito talaga ang ginagawa ng Sanggu at baka ito talaga ‘yung hindi natin napag-usapan in the past (I actually like the discussion now and the people, especially that the delegates see more clearly that this is what the Sanggunian does. This is what we probably haven’t discussed before),” he added.

Duque, despite the unresolved issue of the deliberative assembly, noted that the discussion points were debated thoroughly.

According to Belonguel, the next step would be to release sign-ups for volunteers to conduct room-to-room campaigns and to push for the constitution’s passing.

Belonguel hopes to conclude ConCon with one last draft of the constitution and more consultations among delegates.