THE CONSTITUTIONAL Convention (ConCon) has made its final preparations for the plebiscite of the revised Constitution of the Undergraduate Students of the Loyola Schools.

The plebiscite will determine whether or not the new constitution will be ratified based on the pulse of the Loyola Schools (LS) student body. The final draft of the constitution was released to the LS community last April 7.

Voting will occur from April 25 to 29 at polling stations in Faura Hall, Gonzaga Hall, Science Education Complex A, Matteo Ricci Study Hall, and the Rizal Library.

To prepare for the upcoming plebiscite, the Ateneo Commission on Elections released a guide detailing the voting process for LS students. Students will vote on hard ballots, which will be marked with indelible ink after they cast their vote.

In an interview with The GUIDON, ConCon Head Shiph Belonguel said that all LS students should vote in the plebiscite.

“If we want a government we can believe in, if we want to stop having failures of elections, people should vote,” Belonguel stressed.

Preparations

According to ConCon Externals Committee Member EJ Ofilada, following the release of the final draft of the constitution, “all [of ConCon’s] efforts have been directed toward preparing for the plebiscite.”

He mentioned that the ConCon central team circulated copies of a brochure detailing the major changes in the new constitution with the help of Introduction to Ateneo Culture and Traditions student facilitators.

Belonguel added that the ConCon central team has been preparing for the plebiscite via room to room promotions and social media engagement.

According to her, the promotions were meant to “blanket as much of the campus as possible.”

However, for ConCon Research Head Miguel Hamoy, preparation for the plebiscite began since the inception of the constitutional convention.

He cited the formation seminars for the central team and delegates, which provided “needed background and a space to orient themselves toward what kind of constitution they wished to write.”

Hamoy also brought up the readings and public consultations meant “to gather insight directly from the stakeholders on the draft.”

Feedback on final draft

Both Belonguel and Hamoy said that no negative feedback was received regarding the final draft of the constitution.

Belonguel attributes the absence of negative feedback to ConCon addressing concerns from the student body regarding the content of the document.

“We’ve addressed most of the concerns from before, or successfully defended our stand when we felt differently with other people,” she said.

Hamoy asserted that the delegates have addressed the remaining concerns on the constitution following their public consultation with the LS community.

“The delegates have communicated a final consensus of confidence in this particular draft,” he added.

Belonguel mentioned, however, that the top concern raised during their room-to-room promotions was the removal of quota during Sanggunian elections.

In response, she said that the ConCon believes that “removing quota will make elections more competitive.”

Belonguel added that “our stand is always that the [constitution] should ensure representation first, and then make sure the checks and balances are there to make that representation not only sustainable but effective.”

Forwarding personal advocacies

For ConCon information campaign volunteers Ysa Da Silva, Katherine Culaba, and Karin Bangsoy, the new constitution provides an avenue for them to forward their personal advocacies as students.

According to Culaba, “with better student representation, advocacy groups will be given stronger assistance and support to engage in the political arena.”

Bangsoy also aired that the new constitution allows for students to forward their own advocacies by “giving [them] a space to be represented and lessening bureaucratic hindrances.”

Meanwhile, Da Silva, who is currently the Department of Internal Affairs chair for the School of Humanities, said that “the new constitution would greatly enable me to do more than just represent my constituency. It would help school boards forward ideas.”

Voting beyond oneself

While voting in the plebiscite is on a per individual basis, Belonguel challenged the voting populace to go beyond themselves when casting the vote.

“Voting becomes a more crucial exercise [given] the idea that our vote isn’t just for ourselves, but for other people, those who might need government the most,” she added.

Meanwhile, Da Silva believes that voting in the plebiscite is a student’s testament to what he values in the Ateneo community.

“Voting is a chance to show that you care for something greater than you or me, and greater than just [the Sanggunian],” she said.

Ofilada, on the other hand, wants the voting populace to realize that the new constitution “is an effort to beyond our individual selves and imagine ourselves as a community.”

UPDATE (April 24, 2016 / 9:56 pm):

Petition for injunction

On the eve of the plebiscite, Ateneo Student Judicial Court (SJC) Ayesha Del Rosario filed a petition for injunction against ConCon and COMELEC with regards to the cancellation of the 2016 general elections.

Del Rosario contends that two block representative candidates, Francisco Vista and Karlo Lovenia, were “induced by the respondents to withdraw their respective candidacies.”

Moreover, her petition stated that the two Sanggunian arms “used fraud or negligence, and inequitable conduct to persuade the two candidates to rescind their candidacy.”

According to Del Rosario, the three candidates for block representatives would have continued running for office “if the fraudulent machinations were not uttered by [ConCon and COMELEC].”

The petition labels the actions of ConCon and COMELEC as “a violation of the [constitution], and is a violation of student rights.”

Del Rosario states that Belonguel approached all three candidates and brought up the possibility of withdrawing from the elections.

She said that Belonguel reasoned out “that with only three of them in the Sanggunian in case the plebiscite fails to be passed, they will not be able to efficiently meet the students’ needs.”

The petition highlighted that Lovenia was unsure of his plans for withdrawal and was approached by COMELEC regarding his notice of withdrawal despite the fact that “he never passed anything or even talked about rescinding his candidacy to anyone.”

The petitioners requested that COMELEC hold special elections during the first semester of next school year, that COMELEC and ConCon issue a public apology, and the student court to “grant such other and further relief which the [SJC] deems just and appropriate.

UPDATE (April 24, 2016 / 11:00 pm): 

In an interview with The GUIDON, SJC Chief Magistrate Cristine Villaruel clarified that the petition for injunction will not affect the scheduled plebiscite this week.

“The petition concerns developments over the general elections that was previously scheduled to be held this month,” Villaruel said.

She added that “the COMELEC will continue to hold the plebiscite as scheduled unless substantial developments and legal questions are raised by any constituent of the Sanggunian.”

With reports from Gabrielle M. Lombos