THE CONSTITUTIONAL Convention (ConCon) held its supposed final reading for the proposed new constitution on March 11, Friday, at the San Hurtado Hall in the Ateneo School of Government.

The final reading was a public review of the drafted constitution by the ConCon delegates and guests from the Loyola Schools students, administration, and faculty.

On their official Facebook page, ConCon wrote that they envisioned that “the writing process will culminate” during Friday’s final reading.

However, the review of the draft was not finished by the end of the reading’s allotted time, with only four articles out of 11 assessed by the delegates.

The ConCon delegates were only able to reach a consensus regarding the preamble and the first four articles (Loyola Schools Student Body, Student Rights, Duties and Obligations of Loyola Schools Students, and the Ateneo Loyola Schools Undergraduate Student Government).

According to ConCon Head Shiphrah Belonguel, the continuation of the final reading will occur after the Holy Week break from March 21 to 25.

Belonguel also mentioned that the the plebiscite, initially scheduled from April 4 to 8, will be moved “indefinitely.”

Points for debate

Christian Union for Socialist and Democratic Advancement (CRUSADA) Deputy Intelligence Minister Christian Dy probed the delegates on whether or not Article III, Section 1 meant to give the Sanggunian “a compulsive power, and therefore a punitive power” to compel members of the student body to cooperate.

The said provision states that “students should observe the rules and regulations of the University and cooperate with the Ateneo USG in the attainment of a just, democratic, and socially pro-active student body in the context of Philippine Society and the International Community at large.”

In response to Dy, School of Science and Engineering Delegate Randall Co made clear that “it was certainly not our intention to give such power to the student government.”

Moreover, according to Confederation of Publications Delegate Regine Cabato, “what is being asked for here in [Article IV, Section 1] is for students to cooperate [with student government] toward nation-building, but does not necessarily mean agreeing with them.”

Regarding the title of the student government discussed in Article IV, Section 1, Muslims Sector Delegate Amir Wagas clarified that the name stipulated on the draft, “Ateneo Loyola Schools Undergraduate Student Government,” was simply a placeholder for the eventual name to be decided upon by the delegates.

In discussing actions to be taken with regards to the student government’s name, Sanggunian Department of External Affairs Deputy Chairperson Kristoni Go suggested that only the term “Sanggunian” be retained from the original full title “Sanggunian ng mga Mag-aaral ng mga Paaralang Loyola ng Ateneo de Manila.”

Go suggested that an English subtitle, “Loyola Schools Student Government,” be added to the name instead. He explained that such rebranding would be be better for external recognition while retaining the significance of the Sanggunian’s name.

Cabato argued, however, that the name should be retained given that the Sanggunian’s name is rooted in the university’s Filipinization movement.

In addition, she said that external parties would recognize that the Sanggunian is the Ateneo’s student government “institutionally.”

In an overwhelming 20-3 vote, the delegation voted in favor of retaining the student government’s original name, “Sanggunian ng mga Mag-aaral ng mga Paaralang Loyola ng Ateneo de Manila.”

Following the vote, Moderator David Garcia exclaimed, “‘Sanggunian’ stays!”

Internal problems

In addition to discussing issues found in the drafted constitution, the delegates also tackled issues regarding the ConCon itself, with CRUSADA Delegate Mark Legaspi bringing up the ConCon central team’s perceived lack of presence in the process.

“[The central team’s] minimal role in the convention has not led only to flaws in setting the first draft of the Constitution, but also for the whole conduct of the draft, which we see, has a process that lacks guidance and direction,” he said.

“The central team should have played a more active role [in writing the first draft of the constitution]. At the very least, it should have checked the first draft for inconsistencies and errors before deciding to release it to the student populace,” he added.

However, according to Belonguel, the central team has made its role and purpose in the process clear.

“We stand by our our position [of neutrality] because we do want to respect [the delegates’] own opinions. [Had we been more involved], we would have effectively institutionalized ourselves as a constitutional commission,” she said.

However, on behalf of the central team, Belonguel said that “we accept all kinds of responsibility with regard to the draft.”

On the other hand, ConCon Research Committee Head Miguel Hamoy remarked that the proceedings of the final reading could have been better optimized. “I hope we could have expedited the process a bit more,” he said.

In relation to this, Hamoy suggested pre-readings on behalf of the delegates to leave room for new insights from stakeholders not part of the delegation to be taken into account during the actual reading.

Student response

The points for debate in the constitution’s substance and the central team’s decision to adjourn the final reading elicited mixed reactions from attendees.

According to Dy, the accomplishments during the final reading were realistic given the constraints of the ConCon.

“I think [the ConCon] achieved what was possible given the time constraints and the problems with the current content [of the Constitution], so I think we were realistically able to achieve what could be achieved,” he said.

Moreover, Dy said that while he was not satisfied with the answers of the delegates [during the discussions], the overall process was orderly and the delegates generally adhered to them.

Meanwhile, Sanggunian Coordinator Luigi Del Rosario admits that he was “a little bit irked” by the revised schedule, but he trusts “that the delegates have the best interests of the student body at large.”

Del Rosario, however, applauds ConCon for the level of conversation it engages in. “I think that’s what the constitution should be about—not just the idea of some, but really conversations of many.”

For management engineering senior Jet Tiglao, however, the conversations during the reading showed “a lot of promise, but a lot to be worked on.”

He added that the challenge ultimately for ConCon given its “high-level discourse” is “finding a way to communicate it to the student body.”