Minutes 08-30-13 (CB)

7/29/2019 Minutes 08-30-13 (CB)

1/20

Room 200 MVP Student Leadership Center

Ateneo de Manila University, Loyola Heights

0916 750 6661 | [email protected]

1

CENTRAL BOARD

CENTRAL BOARD MEETING

Date: August 30, 2013

Venue: MVP 217-218

Time: 6:00pm to 9:10pm

AGENDA (underlined = to be continued, italics = postponed/deferred):

1) Approval of 08/23/13 minutes2) Pork Barrel Stand3) DREAM Team Report

4) HOR Updates5) Curriculum Committee Report6) CB Committee Assessment

OTHER ATTENDEES:

Rob Copuyoc OP Asst for SP

Astrid Ocampo, OP Asst for HOR

Nick Lucero, OVP

Bianca Bueno, COA VP for SP

Renee Arabia, DPR Deputy

Jann Amorado, SJC Audit Prosec

CJ Leong, 1 SOSE EO

Bianca Martinez, The GUIDON

Mickey Mongcal, OSG Secretariat Head

Nikko Dela Paz, OSG Secretariat Team

Miguel Hamoy, OSG Secretariat Team

Jonas Cabochan, OSG KM Head

Joseph Bautista, OSG Log Head

Jace Monje, OSG Web Team / DRS

Koi Mapolon, 2 Block S1 Block Rep /

OSG Blue Bulletin Deputy

Mitch Espiritu, 4 BS ME Course Rep

Carl Lee, 4 BS ME Course Rep

Rainier Roy Rubio, 4 BS ME Course Rep

Kevin Mizon, 4 AB DS Course Rep

Polo Martinez, 3 AB POS Course Rep

Louis De Jesus, SOSS Acads Committee

Danica Manicad

1Proxied initially by Kyla Javellana.

2 Proxied by JV Poe.3

Proxied by Bianca Bueno.4

Proxied by Camille Leong.

ATTENDANCE (underlined = absent, italics = late/early departure, * = non-voting):

Daniel Antonio S. Remo1

President

Redentor John R. Dimla*

SOH Chairperson

Jose Javier V. Poe IV*

JGSOM Chairperson

Ryan Carl Y. Yu2Vice-President

4 SOH Central Board Rep

Larisse Jem H. Mondok4 JGSOM Central Board Rep

Antonio Rafael N. Elicao

Secretary-General

Jose Norberto V. Reyes


Luis Miguel D. De Jesus

3 JGSOM Central Board Rep

Kristine Mae B. Andujare

Finance Officer

Nina Louise J. Atienza


Ray Cristofer C. Gomez


Michaella Paula M. Aldea3

COA President

Rocyl Marie Sangalang


Jared Matthew A. Sarmiento


Von Vincent Rene A. Cruz

ARSA President

Michael Xavier C. Tobias*

SOSE Secretary-Treasurer

Marvin T. Lagonera*

SOSS Secretary-Treasurer

Pamela Anne M. Gaerlan

2 SOSE Central Board Rep

Abelardo G. Hernandez

2 SOSS Central Board Rep

Camille C. Diez4

1 SOSE Central Board Rep

Samantha Nicole M. Warren

1 SOSS Central Board Rep

7/29/2019 Minutes 08-30-13 (CB)

2/20




2

CENTRAL BOARD

MINUTES

Approval of Agenda

Motion to approve agenda by FO, seconded by 2 SOSE CB. Agenda approved unanimously.

Approval of 083013 Minutes

Motion to approve 083013 minutes by VP, seconded by 1 SOSE CB. Minutes approved

unanimously.

Pork Barrel Stand

Motion by FO to change presidership to VP, seconded by 4 SOM CB. Motion approved

unanimously.

Remo: Issue regarding certain members of congress is now in the public consciousness.

Napoles surrenders to Aquino, now in Makati City Jail. COA reports numerous suspicious

transactions between congressmen, uproar from public regarding PDAF culminating in the Million

People's March on National Heroes' Day.

CB determined that we must make a stand. With different student governments declaring desire

to abolish, we have yet to make our stand.

What should we do? Asked our DEA Chair who has represented Sanggu in different meetings and

organizations to make recommendations.

Abesamis: PDAFsum of money given to lawmakers to conduct projects in their respective

assigned units.

This style of disbursement is rooted in American style of government who used local elites to

dominate populace.

Used by executive branch to gain support from legislative branch.

Pork barrel is released by DBM -> necessitates oversight.

Prone to abuse, corrupt practices, ghost projects, patronage politics. Exempt from many checks

and balances, issue of transparency.

Timeline

7/29/2019 Minutes 08-30-13 (CB)

3/20




3

CENTRAL BOARD

July 1210B pork barrel scam exposed by PDI.

July 26Janet Napoles lifestyle exposed.

August 5Senate agrees not to investigate.

August 16COA releases special project report on PDAF from 2007-2009. P156B went to

questionable NGOs, P2B to Napoles.

August 19PNoy reiterates that he will not abolish, Akbayan calls for abolition.

August 23PNoy announces that we will abolish.

August 26Million People's March pushes through.

August 29Napoles surrenders.

Movements Against PDAF

> Assembly

> Youth Against PorkSCAP

> Youth Act NowNUSP

Recommendations

> stand against PDAF

> student movements against

> form task force against

> support FOI

Remo: I participated. Million People's March did not achieve a million, but significant amount of

people.

Question is what should we do now? There are many organizations lobbying for the abolition.

Asked for pulse of the CB, hopefully include those of your constituents. Jeric's recommendations

remain recommendations unless we do something.

Andujare: Long-term plans? What exactly are we deciding on tonight? The stand? Board agreed to

adopt a stand tonight based on consultations. After that, we would observe from then on.

Remo: In lieu of formal written statement, in principle we should vote on stand on the issue. Given

that, we can move onto what the different units of Sanggu should be doing. Task force? Then

executive units of Sanggu will work to forward.

Coming from the CB's decision to consult, I would like to hear the pulse of the student body.

Decide on stand, get opinions of the people here and of constituents.

7/29/2019 Minutes 08-30-13 (CB)

4/20




4

CENTRAL BOARD

Abesamis: Push FOI rather than exactly for abolishment of PDAF. When we went to the School

Forum, panelists agreed that PDAF is only one avenue for corruption. Key to fighting is

transparency.

Motion by FO to suspend parliamentary procedure, seconded by 3 SOH CB. Objection by 4 SOM

CB.

Mondok: On what grounds?

Andujare: Discuss properly. Last week we didn't have a good discussion, not everyone

participates. Address that issue.

Poe: Remind the house that during this, there are no minutes, no records.

Objection withdrawn.

Parliamentary procedure suspended.

---

Parliamentary procedure resumed.

Ocampo: Pushing for FOI isn't enough. PDAF is not legislative function. Senators don't have

constituents, don't need extra funds. They're trying to get the executive function, balance of

power. Very good reason for the abolition. Drilonwhat if there are highway projects? It's not

their job to work for it, you have the executive, DPWH. As Sanggunian, think of what PDAF is in the

government, aside from simply supporting FOI. Not sufficient.

Motion by FO to divide the house on whether the Central Board should support PDAF, seconded

by 1 SOM CB. Objection by 4 SOM CB.

Lucero: Not enough discussion.

Poe: Have they been able to consult?

De Jesus, L: Has there been a public record of a formal debate on this issue?

Remo: None.

De Jesus, L: So before today there has been no official record of how each CB rep has

decided?

Remo: Ask to explain votes as a matter of public record. If objection stands, there is no

motion.

Dimla: Let's wait for the A-STAT results.

Elicao: We have partial.

Dimla: Wait for full.

Objection stands. Body votes on whether to divide the house on whether to support PDAF during

this meeting.

YES 4 NO 10

Secretary-General

Finance Officer

1 SOSE CB

2 SOSE CB

1 SOH CB

2 SOH CB

3 SOH CB

1 SOM CB

2 SOM CB

3 SOM CB

4 SOM CB

1 SOSS CB

COA

ARSA

Motion disapproved, the body will not vote on PDAF tonight.

7/29/2019 Minutes 08-30-13 (CB)

5/20




5

CENTRAL BOARD

Sarmiento: Are our constituents educated on the issue well? When I asked people whether they

were going, those who said yes said that they wanted to abolish. Haven't heard anyone sayreform. Media isn't talking about reform. For FOI, it's also something I'm pushing for, but I'm sure

whether my constituents know about it. As Sanggu, educate the public first, decide whether the

public is ready. Apathetic constituents do exist, some people only saying abolish to join

bandwagon.

Reyes: Voted to defer vote because we've done a level of consultations but I find results highly

inconclusive. In principle, poll done in SOH SB page but a lot have also not voted. As 3 SOH CB,

would also like to wait for final results of A-STAT survey.

Mondok: Objected because we haven't heard everyone's opinions.

Lucero: A-STAT's doing its job, results soon. A-STAT will not be doing the stand, CB will. You have

the political will to release a stand for the student body. Institution stands for a particular set of

beliefs that may go against or for what is happening. Vote according to the principles they ran

with. When you take a stand, make sure your sources go past Rappler and PDI. Names of 8,000

students on the line. If the CB Reps feel that they have researched enough, go. If they have

doubts, don't

Warren: So we can vote even going against constituents?

Lucero: Representative democracy.

Warren: As a constituent, I would ask why did you ask me.

Lucero: No right balance. Consultation and representative's will has a factor. No math, you

just choose.

Poe: You were elected as a representative not as a puppet. They chose you to represent and also

for what you believe. You can make that call.

Lucero: Are the CB Reps ready enough to make a vote regarding the PDAF?

Sarmiento: Wait one more week. No excuse for it, but we should wait one more week to make

one more vote. Research and constituents' opinions.

Gaerlan: Last week, Tin and I discussed, action plan. Research plan, consult. Isn't that our job as

CB, to research and gather opinions? By this time, we should've consulted.

Mondok: Agree. Urgent that we have this tonight.Ang tagal na.

Andujare: Clarifyas much as we value consultation, no perfect mixture with that and values as

representative. The values you ran with when you ran, how you presented yourself during the

election. Personally, I value consultation, but I understand that we do not have the full hold. You

had the guts to run, you should have the guts to vote.

7/29/2019 Minutes 08-30-13 (CB)

6/20




6

CENTRAL BOARD

Dimla: Kung dito papasok yung values as elected officer, you should've researched. If we didn't

research, we need to move it, but one week is too much. Kulang kung one-sided.

Hernandez: Move it because even if there's no perfect balance, if we create a stand without

consultation, tapos wala pa tayong masyadong alam, those values might not mean anything.

Mondok: We all agreed that tonight well make a stand. We planned this last CB meeting.

Andujare: We agreed unanimously. That was my point. I want you to admit that you didnt do

anything, you didnt consult.

Hernandez: Question is, for the people who know, are we willing to make a stand based on their

opinion only?

Mondok: Can we defer even if we decided unanimouslyly?

Remo: CB can mandate what it wants to do.

Dimla: Who can tell us when the A-STAT study will finish? Too raw to base only on partial results.

Leong: Make stand by tonight, taking too long. Even before the March we didn't release anything,

release by now.

Tobias: We're talking about whether we want to make a stand or defer. Can we arrive at a

decision already? Figure out what to do now.

Motion by 4 SOM CB to divide the house on whether to do the stand tonight, seconded by VP.

Objection by 3 SOH CB.

Reyes: If we say no, it just means no stand tonight, right?

Remo: Yes.


YES 6 NO 8

Vice-President

Secretary-General

Finance Officer

4 SOM CB

1 SOSE CB

2 SOSE CB

1 SOH CB

2 SOH CB

3 SOH CB

1 SOM CB

1 SOSS CB

2 SOSS CB

COA

ARSA

No stand tonight.

Mondok: Why? We're quorum now.

Andujare: We agreed last week, sensitive to time.

7/29/2019 Minutes 08-30-13 (CB)

7/20




7

CENTRAL BOARD

Dimla: We're elected by constituents. Consider that not everyone did the homework. It's

unfair to make a stand that's so half-assed. Not everyone researched. Damage to

reputation as an institution. More damage to release a stand wherein we're not informed.

Poe: When do you suggest we do make a stand?

Sarmiento: Next week is too long. Opted for next week because I don't know if we have another

avenue. Earlier than next week if possible.

Copuyoc: One week is too long. Middle?

Hernandez: Emergency CB meeting, on Monday?

Remo: President can call for emergency session.

Mondok: In line with emergency CB meeting if ever, and in line with what Dimla said and our

decision last week, we have to understand, nakaka-frustrate lang because we have to realize the

urgency, the relevance. We decided to have a stand tonight.

Reyes: I don't see this issue's relevance waning soon. We've already missed the March, so not as

much urgency.

Dimla: Online vote?

Remo: Possible. Prescribed in the constitution and in the CIP.

Gaerlan: Sunday night or Monday may stand na? Monday?

Sarmiento: I'm for emergency. Physical discussion is more productive than online.

Andujare: Can't decide when exactly. Reason why people voted on not having a stand

tonight is to wait for the A-STAT results. Following the logic of those who voted not

tonight, we can't decide when to call. Play it by ear.

Leong: Still believe stand tonight. If we're going to have the emergency meeting, okay if it's online.

Have just to say final vote.

Sarmiento: Physical because most of us don't have enough information. Better informed opinion if

online.

Reyes: Contestationwe have to go to information itself, primary sources.

Motion by Sec-Gen to defer discussion until A-STAT results, seconded by 1 SOSS CB.

YES 7 NO 8

Vice-President

1 SOH CB

2 SOH CB

3 SOH CB

1 SOM CB

1 SOSS CB

Secretary-General

Finance Officer

4 SOM CB

1 SOSE CB

2 SOSE CB

COA

7/29/2019 Minutes 08-30-13 (CB)

8/20




8

CENTRAL BOARD

2 SOSS CB ARSA

President (tie)

Remo: Voting because of the tie. To strengthen political party system. Vote on beliefs of party or

personal beliefs. Against a deferral.

Reyes: Voted tonight not to release, voted not to defer till A-STAT. What now?

Remo: First motion is not to release a stand tonight. Second, we will not call for an

emergency session. Defer to next week's CB, online, or no decision. Or remain silent.

Poe: If we're not making a stand, why discuss tonight?

Motion by 4 SOM CB to have online vote from the CB on Monday night 9pm to be conducted bythe Sec-Gen, seconded by 1 SOSE CB. Objection by 1 SOSS CB:

Warren: Aren't we waiting for A-STAT?

Mondok: Don't believe that we should wait. We're elected representatives. We should

have enough hold from constituents.


: What are we voting on tonight? We agreed to have a stand tonight. We cannot release

because people believe that we do not have enough.

: Monday night via online. Give people time to research.

Tobias: Clarifyon Monday, vote on a formal stand?

: Motion is to defer decision on Monday 9pm. Whatever that will be is up to CB.

Tobias: Stand afterwards to reflect?

Remo: Yes.

YES 13 NO 1

Vice-President

Secretary-General

1 SOH CB

2 SOH CB

3 SOH CB

1 SOM CB

4 SOM CB

1 SOSE CB

2 SOSE CB

1 SOSS CB

2 SOSS CB

COA

ARSA

Finance Officer

Remo: Incorporate results into the minutes of this meeting.

Sarmiento: Explanation online along with vote?

Remo: Monday's vote will be a roll call vote. Present an explanation if you wish.

7/29/2019 Minutes 08-30-13 (CB)

9/20




9

CENTRAL BOARD

Reyes: Mechanics? 9pm vote, or vote by then?

Remo: Discussion on mechanics to OSG afterwards.

DREAM Team

Motion to change presidership to VP by VP, seconded by 1 SOSS CB. Motion approved

unanimously.

Remo: Accomplishments and raw data on DREAM Team.

I would like to thank Sanggu for its efforts. I would like to especially thank the Special Assistant to

DREAM Team, Barce Barcelon. After five days of relief ops starting Tuesday, we packed 4135 reliefgoods [sic] which will go to 4100 families. Secondly, as of Friday night last weekend, DREAM Team

raised 400,000 pesos.

Successful constituency check. Eleven serious cases. Congratulate everyone for complying with

first ever constituency check.

In line with procedure, approximately recruited 1,500 volunteers over the five days.

Personal opinionsSanggunian constituency check is not a perfect system. Helps and affects lives

of constituents. Helped give admin a clearer picture of what was happening on the ground.

Have to establish procedure that we can institutionalize for future disasters. Formal

recommendation will be that OSG through KM come up with recommendations.

Restricted volunteersmade by the operations subcommittee of DREAM Team, Sanggu, HS

through Dr. Marquez, OSA, COA, ARSA. Needed critical mass of goods before we could operate. As

Sanggu officers, our responsibility to respond first before calling constituents.

Had to balance goods, volunteers, how to deploy and manage volunteers. Recommendationthe

system has to be improved. Student arm should be increased, manned by elected Sanggunian top

officers. Ensure welfare, representation.

We as a Sanggunian must prepare our constituents for the likelihood of disasters. Risk

management is becoming a fact of life. Many constituents are not aware of how to cope.

Mondok: Regarding non-suspension of Thursday classes, many asking why admin did not suspend.

Remo: Decision was made to defer to LGU chief executive, in our case Mayor Herbert

Bautista. By 6pm announcement, he assessed that the situation was clear for QC. We

abided. Ateneo's autonomy? Even if chief executive says we should have class, university

can suspend. Recommendations from ADSA and other offices said to abide by the LGU.

Report given based on constituency check data, taking into account CHED memo. Decisionleft with VPLS, Rudy Ang.

7/29/2019 Minutes 08-30-13 (CB)

10/20




10

CENTRAL BOARD

For why UP and Miriam suspended in the afternoon, checks from offices and student

governments said a significant percentage of the community was affected. When ouroffices checked, and when we did constituency checks, most was not affected. Raised the

issue, that was the decision. In terms of representative functions, we did our jobs.

Clearly the constituency check did not reach all 8,500 students. Institutionalize the process,

find a better system. As to response of Sanggu as to concerns for why suspension stood,

come up with system by which these can be addressed.

Lucero: How could we reform the constituency check? Who has been monitoring?

Remo: In transitioning from previous administration to this one, documentation was not

good. Monitoring is under prerogative of the president. Implementation this year, uponconsultation with VP, Sec-Gen, FO.

Andujare: In talks with DRS to conduct the study of the roads that our constituents pass by

in order to have better information. This will not compensate for the holes the current

system has, but layer of quality.

Remo: DREAM Team has utilized Manila Observatory to create an app to see the most

affected areas. Map like the MMDA app system.

Elicao: Context as to how the system has developed. It used to be purely text-message-

based. Now, with online avenue, a lot more replies. System still needs improvement.

Mondok: Informally recommend that we know where our constituents live, check up on

people more vigorously in affected areas.

Remo: Recommend that we institutionalize. OSG through Knowledge Management Team to

spearhead.

HOR Update

Ocampo: Orientation on September 6. Supposed to be today, but pushed because of suspension

due to promos and logistics having been delayed. Orientation was meant to be same day as DEA

pol ed, but that didn't push through. Venue is SEC LEC C. Make-up orientation on September 11.

September 13, 4:30-6:00 at Leong will be the first HOR assembly. Spread the word to constituents.

While executing HOR, making a modified framework for Con-Con. Use this year to evaluate the

mistakes for the long-term HOR.

Remo: I will not be requiring reps to attend. I believe that as reps, it is their responsibility to be

able to go to these events. Never been done before, this systematically. Encourage everyone to

encourage reps to attend. Part of the goal is to empower reps, make the system more democratic.

They are accountable to block- and coursemates. Rules that will be discussed there for the first

session next next Friday. HOR is part of Tatak Sanggu, flagship member development program.Forming our members into the four pillars of this institution.

7/29/2019 Minutes 08-30-13 (CB)

11/20




11

CENTRAL BOARD

Encourage our CBs to encourage the reps to go. New program, success depends on participation.

Gaerlan: Given that it's non-required, if not many go, how do we train?

Remo: Give every opportunity. Activity hour. Make-up session. If they choose not to go,

liable to their constituents. New program, constitutionally we cannot mandate yet.

Lucero: Has the new system managed to accommodate over 200 reps in the time? Fear is that the

system might not work for 200 ideas in the time.

Ocampo: Work within timeframe. This year will be a test for the next years to come.

Remo: Point is to create a way for reps to engage the institution as a whole. Cultural

change, allow representatives to take hold of the responsibilities. Work should mostly be

done outside. Need these sessions to train. Goal is to push that culture change. There arepoints for improvement, but the goal is to get as many people into the system as possible.

De Jesus, L: What will be the agenda? Vote on issues that have been voted on in CB? Specifics of

the voting system, will OICs be allowed to vote?

Ocampo: Elections of house officers for first system. Organize early. Agendatrying to

make it a lower house. Whatever is discussed in either CB or HOR will carry over.

Legitimate say on whatever CB decides. CB has to re-approve whatever HOR says. Check

and balance. As for OICs, because we lack, trying to suspend observer status for OICs as it

would defeat the purpose if most reps aren't elected.

Remo: Still referring to SJC until they have formally determined status of OIC reps. In terms

of Constitution, HOR does not exist, but the president may create special bodies to help

discharge his functions. My guarantee is that anything discussed will be part of CB agenda.

Points to be raised in agenda for future CB session. Check and counter-check the CB.

Curriculum Committee Report [full text availablehere]

Gaerlan: Agendanewly proposed AB Sociology. Aims to answer CHED's integration, added units.

Discussed AB Sociology, newly proposed courses.

AB Sociology

Worried about distinction with AB SOS. Difference is six units. Worry on how students will choose

courses, difference not distinct. AB SOS will lean towards anthropology, AB SOC towards sociology.

Few faculty members. Proliferation of slash courses. Discuss with Dean, more than curriculum

matter.

New Course Proposals

Feedback is mostly on descriptions.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/166489462/Curriculum-Comm-Report-August-28-2013http://www.scribd.com/doc/166489462/Curriculum-Comm-Report-August-28-2013http://www.scribd.com/doc/166489462/Curriculum-Comm-Report-August-28-2013http://www.scribd.com/doc/166489462/Curriculum-Comm-Report-August-28-2013

7/29/2019 Minutes 08-30-13 (CB)

12/20




12

CENTRAL BOARD

Recommendationsgather feedback, address proliferation of slash courses.

Andujare: Disseminate information to constituents? New courses and so on.

Gaerlan: Can do the same thing.

Remo: Method of gathering feedback from constituents?

Gaerlan: Talk to DRS.

Remo: Are Curriculum proceedings confidential?

Gaerlan: According to Ryan, he's been posting results before. Not strictly prohibited.

Motion to adopt report by FO, seconded by 4 SOM CB. Report adopted unanimously.

Committee Assessments

Motion to change presidership to VP by VP, seconded by FO. Motion approved unanimously.

Remo: CAA deals with CB academic processes. CEA deals with organizational life, student groups.

CAS deals with administrative services. CFS deals with formative services, OSCI, CMO, INAF.

Auxiliary committees help CB in its special functions. COR helps deal with the rules of CB. CCR

reviews and reforms the constitution. CSPA to deal with socio-political affairs.

Ask CB Reps for transparency and empowerment what to join. Recommend that we suspend

parliamentary procedureadministrative process, not sensitive. Matter of personal choice.

Motion to suspend parliamentary procedure by President, seconded by Sec-Gen. Motion

approved unanimously, parliamentary procedure suspended.

---

Parliamentary procedure resumed.

Committee Composition

Committee Members

CAA Larisse Mondok, Nina Atienza, Abbo Hernandez, Jared Sarmiento, Camille Diez

CEA Juno Reyes, Rocyl Sangalang, Sam Warren

CAS Maki De Jesus, Dan Remo, Ryan Yu

CFS Pam Gaerlan, AJ Elicao, Tin Andujare

CCR Ryan Yu, Abbo Hernandez, Camille Diez

COR AJ Elicao, Rocyl Sangalang, Nina Atienza, Juno Reyes, Larisse Mondok, Sam

Warren

CSPA Jared Sarmiento, Ray Gomez, Maki De Jesus, Pam Gaerlan

7/29/2019 Minutes 08-30-13 (CB)

13/20




13

CENTRAL BOARD

Reminders

Andujare: Last budget hearing September 20. Proposals due the week before. Use proper format.

Top officers, OSA EvSem October 14-16, required. Elected top officers, lobbying for dept chairs.

Dimla: For operations, retroactive?

Andujare: Can.

Andujare: This is the last budget hearing. Subsequent will only be for special emergency cases.

Unit heads, convene with members to talk about efforts for the year.

Poe: Do we have any set schedule for Sanggu EvSem?Remo: Sanggu top officers' EvSem to be determined within the week. October 20 onwards

will be Buklod Atenista. Need to choose delegates, I will be mainly sending freshmen and

sophomores. In Naga. Individual SB PlanSems to be determined by your chairs.

Motion to adjourn by 1 SOSE CB, seconded by 1 SOSS CB. Motion approved unanimously, meeting

adjourned.

ONLINE VOTE

Date: September 2, 2013

Venue: n/a

Time: 9:00pm to 12:00mn

Andujare: The problem with the PDAF is not its existence. It's in managing it and in keeping record

of where it actually goes. The concept behind creating it, the need it was meant to address,

continues to exist today. And so, abolishing is not the solution. What we may have to do is to

readjust it. Such that it would actually be most efficient and true to its purpose. Reforming will

allow for details like these to be focused in.

De Jesus, M: As unanimous to the voting of the third year batch, third year school of management

has agreed that the PDAF is a source of corruption for people involved in the government. The

only way to avoid and finally stop this corruption is by abolishing the PDAF. Our batch has agreed

to cast a vote against and for the abolish of the PDAF.

Gomez: Abolish. Why should we try waste time and efforts in improving a system that clearly

promotes corruption in our administration when we can abolish it completely? It has been

established that it's existence is a clear negative. Efforts in trying to make this system better will

merely reduce the damage being dealt at best but even more practically speaking, it will still be an

avenue for corruption. This administration should stop trying to justify wrong actions. It doesn't

work. It doesn't help. It actually makes things worse. The answer is to remove it. Law makers

should focus on their actual job descriptions. First, giving these representatives and senators funds

to spend and the discretion on where to allot these things increases the likelihood of corruption

happening. Let's face it, the more hands there are that hold the money, more money is lost.

Projects, services, etc that have to be given right away to specific parts of the Philippines should

7/29/2019 Minutes 08-30-13 (CB)

14/20




14

CENTRAL BOARD

course through LGUs and state agencies. Do they have the potential to be corrupt? Of course.

Thus, having 2 of these things actually doubles the risk. Furthermore, we see that it is very

inefficient for these law makers to be doing both their original job and worry about their porkbarrels. Magpokus nalang sila sa talagang trabaho nila. A lot of them have been underperforming

these past years. They should just focus on making themselves better lawmakers and let the LGUs

do their job. No matter what you call this system, PDAF, CWF, etc., corruption will be there.

Reform will be futile and don't say we haven't tried.

If we are to truly change the way this administration works, abolishing the PDAF will be a

significant step and will increase the momentum the Aquino administration's thrust towards the

Matuwid na Daan. Right now, obviously the Philippines has yet to experience more progress in

terms of governance. We can't afford increasing anymore risks. We have to play it safe and

remove as much avenues for corruption there is. This is a government by humans and having saidthat, it is inevitable that part of whatever resources we have will be consumed those tempted to

do so. Remove as much temptation as possible. The complete abolition of pdaf will be a milestone

for a country which has a long way to go in improving it's administration. Let's stop trying to see

the good in these inherently wrong systems. Let's start committing fully to transparency and good

governance.

Yu: The three branches of government exist in order to ensure that there is a check and balance of

powers, and there is much danger when the lines between these branches are not clearly drawn.

In the case of our legislative branch, their role is clear: lawmakers must make laws. The allocation

and spending of the budget should be left with the executive branch in order for them to properly

fulfill their appropriate role in the government. The legislative branch does not need the PDAF in

order to fulfill its function of lawmaking, and the ones who benefitted from the PDAF will still be

given the chance to receive the same benefits if the money were coursed through and

appropriately spent by the executive branch of government. Ultimately, abolishing the PDAF

eliminates one major source of corruption in our national government, and I believe that this is a

necessary step towards the good governance that our country desperately needs.

Mondok: Abolish. Because history of this kind of fund shows that whatever kind of reform has

been happening, corruption ensues. Transparency should go with the abolishment; FOI Bill is also

key for the abolishment to have any sort of effect.

Sangalang: Reform. When the PDAF is abolished, the government will only recreate this under a

new name, more or less with the similar details as the current PDAF. If it is reformed, it should be

so that there is more supervision as to where the funds are going. The legislators with access to

the PDAF should be granted less funds because the PDAF is only meant for mostly minuscule

projects. As long as there is a proper way of tracking where the money goes, is known to be put

into good use, and that it is shared with the public in accordance with the FOI bill, I see no reason

to abolish it. The citizens need a form of government subsidy, and without the help the PDAF

gives, it will be more difficult for them to find that subsidy. All it takes is to recalibrate the details

of the PDAF in all aspects.

Cruz: https://www.facebook.com/notes/tats-quiblat/reclaiming-our-dignity/10151861775271742

7/29/2019 Minutes 08-30-13 (CB)

15/20




15

CENTRAL BOARD

Reyes: Supposedly, the Priority Development Assistance Fund is an attempt to somehow balance

the spread of wealth, to grant the less fiscally-inclined parties of our country easier access to theirneeds by allocating a certain portion of the national budget to legislators, to allow them to

instigate projects that are, supposedly, at least in the case of the members of the lower house,

more localized and closer to their beneficiaries. Clearly not a bad prospect in itself, at least, on the

theoretical level.

The contestation? That this is not what is happening in real life. That the allocated funds are not

being utilized properly, and are being misspent and wasted by these legislators, with the people

who are supposed to benefit from them no longer getting any sort of help, while the people

continue to pay their dues, or a lot of them, at least.

At this point, to keep it as is is clearly out of the question. The query presents itself: abolish or

reform?

On one side, those who call for reform. A big chunk of those who benefit from the PDAF are from

impoverished families who, due to material conditions, have no access to the most fundamental of

human needs, and thus, depend on other structures that will grant them access to these needs.

Kasama na rito ang mga opisina ng kanilang mga kongresista na ginagamit ang kanilang PDAF

upang tulungan ang mga humihingi ng tulong.

However, as we have seen countless times, not all congressmen put the money allocated to their

offices to good use. The Napoles incident? Merely the tipping point, the loud culmination of a

tradition of corruption that has festered, year in and year out.

Thus, the call for total abolition of the PDAF system. Yet at the risk of sounding ridiculously trapo

and faux-makamasa, I ask, why must we lessen the already limited avenues in which the

government can reach out to help the people just because of bad tradition?

As dangerously romanticized as this sounds, an attempt at total reallocation of the funds puts the

people who currently benefit from the PDAF at an awkward position of not knowing where to ask

for help. This, without even taking into account that the instances of corruption found in

legislators are not echoed in and through the people within the executive branch.

I vote for reform, in the belief that through an overhauled system that necessitates transparency

more than ever, not only will the beneficiaries of the PDAF continue to benefit, but that more and

more people will actually benefit so long as the flow of money, or even more, of information, is

subjected to public watch and scrutiny.

On the arguments against this being counter-intuitive to the recommended check-and-balance

between the three branches of the government, I say: do not forget that the structure, the

government itself, is but a means towards the actual end goal of service to its people. If it

becomes a point of choosing between serving a greater number people or pedantic subscriptionto political tradition, I have no qualms with opting for the former.

7/29/2019 Minutes 08-30-13 (CB)

16/20




16

CENTRAL BOARD

On the claims that corruption is somehow inculturated and that reforms will inevitably just lead to

corrupt politicians recalibrating how they steal the peoples money: if you are so intent that mansnatural tendency is to be exploitative, then is it not only reasonable to assume that these calls for

a transformation into a (relatively) matuwid na daan equally futile?

Ultimately, this choice for reform is motivated by the belief that our own specific context calls for

a specific response, that the way towards the ultimate goal of serving the people in our country is

paved by culture-specific decisions not entirely based on historicity or tradition, but by the

cultivation of the now.

Through reappropriating existing systems and fitting them into a mode of transparency, we not

only allow the people who are already reaping the benefits of properly exercised PDAF spendingto continue doing so, but we also make a step towards making the scope of beneficiaries more

inclusive, and we can also somehow mitigate bad practice of an otherwise good idea.

Atienza: I was able to consult with a good number of the SOH Sophomores (through one-on-ones,

text messages, block group comments, and polls) from mid-last week to this Monday and majority

of their votes were for the reformation of the PDAF. I agree with their votes. To abolish PDAF

entirely would be to let its negative effects override its benefits. The mechanics of PDAF must be

remodeled - its purpose must always be centered around serving the Filipino people instead of

stealing from them and the system must be one wherein it is easier to properly monitor funds.

Gaerlan: I don't believe that PDAF should be abolished, however, I believe that it should be

reformed. Abolishing PDAF is not the solution, as I think that PDAF is essential to our country. It

was established to allow representatives to identify projects for communities that the LGU cannot

afford. I believe that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with this policy, but the problem with it,

however, is that the public is not aware of where the money goes. It is also abused by a few

congressmen, thus, it is questionable to the eyes of many. I do believe that it's all just a matter of

good governance and transparency. It is not the PDAF that should be blamed for this existing

problem. It is those who choose to abuse the system. Many say that legislators should only focus

on purely legislative work, as that is mainly their job. I think that it aside from law making, it is also

vital for them to cater to the communities' needs as they are officials that should be serving their

constituents. It's just that, many choose to use this as their private fund. This is where good

governance comes in. Good governance is essential in achieving a better system. It's all about

being a RESPONSIBLE government official. I push for a reformed system that enables transparency.

I believe that we as citizens of this country have every right to know where our money goes, and

this is what the existing system lacks. In line with this, I push for the passage of the FOI Bill, as this

will enable full disclosure of government funds. If PDAF were to be abolished, the money will go to

the national government. I don't think the executive department alone can handle this. Also,

abolishing it either way will not completely rid of corruption. There are many ways in which

corrupt officials can abuse public money. Certainly, abolishing PDAF is not the way to address this

issue. I believe that the system should be reformed, in such a way that enables full disclosure of

funds and at the same time, having a proper monitoring system and a better budget allocationsystem.

7/29/2019 Minutes 08-30-13 (CB)

17/20




17

CENTRAL BOARD

Diez: The PDAF still needs to exist in order to fund projects among other things. There's nothing

wrong with the purpose of its existence.

The problem is the execution- it needs to be systematic and needs more transparency to the

public or even higher-ups. The fact that Janet Napoles was able to slip away this much money was

not caused by the existence of the PDAF, but by the poor system that accompanies it.

Warren: PDAF has been an ongoing source of corruption even before it was even called the

Priority Development Assistance Fund. 17 years ago, people were startled by the pork barrel which

was then called the Countrywide Development Fund. What was supposedly a reformation of the

CDF in order to prevent corruption and eliminate the pork barrel obviously did not work seeing

that the PDAF, as it is now known, is still ground for corruption and is STILL known as pork barrel.Reformation did not work then so how can the masses be assured that it will work now? The mere

fact that money passes through the legislative body is wrong. This should not happen especially

because they are not the ones executing projects.

Although abolishing PDAF is certainly a very small part in the elimination of corruption, it will help

us show the government that we are not their puppets. We will not be taken for granted, we will

stand up for ourselves, and we will fight back. A culture of indifference allows corruption to

persist, therefore the masses have to show the government that they work for us. As PNoy refers

to his constituents, "Kayo ang boss ko," it is indeed time for us to show that and for him to stay

true to that.

Elicao: Long-term abolish, short-term reform. Separation of powers, proper clarification of the

roles of the executive and legislative branches, and everything that has been mentioned by my

fellow members of the Central Board. My concern, though, is for those in far-flung areas who view

PDAF (or as one Internet commenter called it pera ni congressman") as one of the only ways by

which they feel any kind of service from their government, owing to the national budget not

reaching them through the executive. While I do believe that abolishing PDAF will catalyze a series

of reforms, which may lead to addressing this problem, my concern as a systems guy is whether

these reforms will be timely enough to address what these people will lose from the admittedly

imperfect, flawed service granted them by PDAF.

That said, I am still ultimately for Abolish. I, as Sec-Gen and as a member of IgnITE, believe in

grassroots empowerment, and hope that the resources allocated by PDAF will be given to the

executives on the ground, closer to the communities, who can push for these necessary changes.

There are reforms necessary for this to work--transparency, freedom of information, addressing

corruption--but I feel that these are necessary regardless, and that this change, though drastic,

may be the impetus for all these others to finally occur.

Hernandez: First, it compromises lawmakers from performing their primary jobto legislate.

Administering development projects has never been part of their mandate, especially if they are

not even representing certain cities or provinces.

7/29/2019 Minutes 08-30-13 (CB)

18/20




18

CENTRAL BOARD

Second, it allows the patronage culture that pervades Philippine politics to fester.

Third, it marginalizes the more far-flung sectors of society because of its top-down approach. Thatis, it is the legislator at the top who decides which projects should be funded, rather than the

constituents at the bottom, who actually know their immediate needs.

Sarmiento: The reformation train of thought is that human nature is intrinsically good and that

people will have a sense of honor when it comes to checks and balances when it comes to the

system. That is a presumption in the theoretical level. But in the pragmatic level, is that a logical

assumption? That ALL our legislators are good and honorable people who will not attempt to gain

from the system? Does that fly with the historical background of this issue? No matter how good a

system you have, the people involved in it will always determine the efficiency and just use of it.

Again, think historically and pragmatically.

Put yourself in the system if you want, if working with 300 fellow legislators, will the majority of

them actually be honorable as the affiliation of their names Hon. Blah blah say? Historically in

the hands of legislators, whatever ideal system you put in place, will that ideal system be enforced

and respected by honorable men and women, or is that too much of a risk wherein it can end up

having a minority of honorable and the majority dishonorable? Even other away around, it only

takes a few 3 or 4 dishonorable people to compromise the system. It takes one rotten apple to

taint a basket full of clean apples. In the case Janet Napoles and a few 3 or 4 senators involved,

that was enough to create this outrageous scandal which involves billions of pesos from millions of

people that has put the integrity of the entire congress in issue and demanding for the abolition of

the pork barrel system at the minimum, or congress at the best.

If your answer is human nature is human nature or that the Filipino culture has not reached the

level of maturity to demand and elect into office the most honorable men and women in congress

who dont to game the most ideal system you can give them, then your gamble is a guaranteed

failure. No matter how ideally you can argue for the reformation of PDAF as a convincing reality,

the truth on the congressional floor is that we have elected men and women who have sought

office not to serve but to be served. Not to lead but to enslave. Not to develop the country but to

perpetuate themselves through corruption and patronage politics. If you want proof, refer to our

very recent history and this very current issue we are now facing.

In the 2008 congress, the House Speaker Jose de Venecia Jr. and Majority House Leader Prospero

Nograles issued a report virtually guaranteeing that the PDAF system has been sufficiently

reformed with adequate checks and balances to ensure that no corruption will happen again but

as subsequent events have proven, the latest COA report on the use of the PDAF from 2007-2009,

billions of PDAF have been misappropriated and selfishly used and looted through corrupt actions

of legislators. Basically, they were lying through their teeth.

You have people willing to spend hundreds and millions of pesos to buy votes and get them into

office, any congress in session is basically payback time big time. Tell me if thats not a reasonable

forecast of what will happen in each and every post election scenario. A significant number ofpeople who have engaged in vote buying or perpetuated themselves in a dynasty fashion assume

7/29/2019 Minutes 08-30-13 (CB)

19/20




19

CENTRAL BOARD

their office not in as a measure of public trust, but in deception and abuse of that same trust and

even hopes and aspirations in exchange for a few crumbs to their constituents.

In the hands of thieves, the best system is no system. In the hands of the dishonorable and

crooked officials, it might as well be no system at all. The most effective way to combat corruption

in public office is to actually assume the worst in our legislators so that they can be trained by

practice and public demand to weed themselves out of corruption.

The best way to rehabilitate an addict is to go cold turkey in his/her addiction. If PDAF corruption

is an addiction, the only way to heal such addiction is total withdrawal. Not a taste, sniff or even

sight of pork. Thats the reality of rehabilitation currently used in any form of addiction, why

would it be any different from the addiction of corruption and money gaining that these legislators

of ours are currently facing.

If we have Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King, Mahatma Ghandi, Mother Teresa, or in a local

level, Claro M. Recto, Jobito Salonga, Jose Diokno, and Ninoy Aquino among others of the 70s and

80s in our congress, then I would gladly change my mind. But with what we have right now,

indefinitely no thank you.

If you have 10 yrs of zero pork, then it only increases the likelihood that the people with right and

good intentions for public service will actually for such positions and truly use these positions to

serve our country. Conversely, you actually significantly and maybe even zero out those crooks

who look and seek for the financial benefits and treat congress as a business. What does it profit

to a crooked legislator to run and put in hundreds of millions of their money to win a seat in

congress without any expectations, certainty, and guarantee that they will have a return on their

evil investments from any monkey business through that office.

How would you expect a cigarette addict to continue smoking if you remove the nicotine from the

cigarette? Or an alcoholic to continue drinking liquor when the alcohol level is 0%?

Theoretically and maybe in my hopes and dreams of such a perfect scenario and set congressmen

and women, I am for the reformation of the PDAF. But in practically, historically, and realistically, I

am for the abolition of PDAF. The latter is what I choose to stick to.

ABOLISH 10 REFORM 6

Vice-President

Secretary-General

1 SOM CB

2 SOM CB

3 SOM CB

4 SOM CB

1 SOSS CB

2 SOSS CB

COA

ARSA

Finance Officer

1 SOH CB

2 SOH CB

3 SOH CB

1 SOSE CB

2 SOSE CB

7/29/2019 Minutes 08-30-13 (CB)

20/20




20

CENTRAL BOARD

Prepared By:

Miguel Franco Ignacio M. Hamoy

Secretariat Team

Office of the Secretary-General

Sanggunian ng mga Mag-aaral ng mga

Paaralang Loyola ng Ateneo de Manila

Antonio Rafael N. Elicao

Secretary-General



Micah G. Mongcal

Secretariat Team

Office of the Secretary-General



Minutes 08-30-13 (CB)

Documents