The Editorial Board has requested for this dialogue to tackle this irregularity and make resolutions to it. And as such, we would like to question the legality of the screening process done on May 11, 2007 which was facilitated by a committee composed of Engr. Severino Pader (Vice President for Administration and Student Services), Prof. Jocelyn Arcillas (Chair, Humanities and Social Sciences Department) and our adviser, Mrs. Lirio Banal.
The actions carried out by the said committee were undoubtedly illegal. As stated in Art. VII, Sec. 1.1 of the recognized Constitution of VOICE by both parties (the administration and editorial staff), “A semestral competitive screening shall be held to choose POTENTIAL editorial staff members.” The mentioned screening process for POTENTIAL editorial staff members was further explained and elaborated in Sec. 1.2 of the same article which states “Each APPLICANT shall take the written examination prepared by the school paper advisers.” Thus, the current editorial staff member, which already underwent competitive examination and series of interviews, is exempted for the screening done by the committee because they already qualified to be a part of the publication and can not be considered as APPLICANTS for applicants are those aspirants to be an editorial staff. In addition, Art.VII, Sec. 1.5 clarifies the classification of VOICE staff as NEW STAFF and OLD STAFF with the statement “Each of the NEW EDITORIAL STAFF members together with the OLD STAFFERS shall undergo at least yearly journalism seminar.” If logic is to be considered, the NEW STAFF determined in the section are those who had recently passed the screening process stated in Sec.1.1 and 1.2 while the OLD STAFFERS are the senior staff. These only prove that NO STAFF should have been screened by the aforementioned TIP officials.
And what’s worse after the screening, there is already a new line-up for the publication staff. The Editorial Board firmly stands against such actions to reformat and replace the editors of the publication. It clearly violates Art. VII Sec. 1.6 of VOICE Constitution which states, “The number of new editorial staff members to be chosen DEPENDS ON THE NECESSITY AND VACANCY OF THE POSITIONS.” In our case, only the News Editor and Circulations Manager are vacant, making the new line-up prepared by the administration illicit.
Going back, on February 15, 2007, Prof. Arcillas called for a meeting with the Associate Editor and Managing Editor together with some staff informing that there will be new guidelines for the publication to be set by Engr. Pader. Here are some of the provisions that the alleged guidelines shall contain: First, the contents of the paper shall be screened by Engr. Pader before its release in public; Second, the hiring, promotion, demotion, and termination of staff is also under the discretion of Engr. Pader after
undergoing a screening process; and Third, Prof. Arcillas reiterated that VOICE will be under the direct supervision of Engr. Pader and therefore the running and managing of the publication will be under his
control. Prof. Arcillas called such meeting in a basis that she is the VOICE consultant. However, such claim or assertion has no legal basis. In addition, such contention is unlawful based on Republic Act 7079
otherwise known as Campus Journalism Act of 1991. RA 7079 allows an adviser in the publication endorsed by the Editorial Board but no single provision mandates a consultant. Hence, the meeting set by a “consultant” was not worth attending. The Editor-in-Chief, upon knowing that there was a meeting held, demanded for the written or documented copy of the alleged guidelines through the VOICE adviser, Ms. Banal but despite the demand, no guidelines were presented to the Editorial Board.
Granted that a guideline is made by Engr. Pader, such guidelines are unacceptable because it violates the Editorial Board’s rights and freedom to directly govern the publication. It is a clear violation of campus press freedom as contained in RA 7079. It abuses the pertinent provisions of RA7079’s IRR No.IV Sec. 2, “… Once the publication is established its Editorial Board shall freely determine its editorial policies…” And such provision gives freedom of management to the campus press, specifically, the Editorial Board.
All provisions of the alleged guidelines, aside from being illegal are also unconstitutional; making it intolerable to the Editorial Board for it violates Art. III, Sec.4 of the Philippine Constitution which states that “NO LAW SHALL BE PASSED abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the PRESS…”
All steps done by the administration is a direct insult to our capability and credibility to run and manage the publication independently. And any insult to the publication is also an insult to their readers which are the students and employees of the institution for the publication serves as their medium in their right to be informed and express sentiments. VOICE is read and managed by the students, so its leadership should be trusted to students as well. It is but needed for us to act on this matter since it is the whole school community who will be greatly affected.
We therefore demand that a resolution be made possible and thus make the publication staff, specifically its Editorial Board be independent in its affairs and free from any intervention from the administration. Furthermore, since there was an unlawful screening process, all staff terminated because of not undergoing the screening process last May 11 must be retained to the publication staff and no reformatting of editors should have been done by the said TIP officials. Lastly, amendments must be done to the VOICE Constitution by the Editorial Board with respect to the Philippine Constitution, as the highest form of law in the land and Campus Journalism Act of 1991.
complete copy of the above publication snapshot can be downloaded at:
~courtesy of Philipine Collegian; Official Student Publication of the University of the Philippines Diliman
____________________________________________________________________________________
The Editorial Board’s request for a dialogue on June 16, 2007 was conducted on June 21 together with some TIP administrators. The purpose of the said dialogue was to resolve the irregularities the publication is facing as stated in the letter addressed to the TIP President’s Office dated June 13, 2007. A position paper was presented which pinpointed relevant relevant issues that were deemed irregular.
On contrary, no resolutions were made with regards to the relevant topics the Editorial Board was raising despite the position paper presented to the TIP President’s representative. The representative focused more in the internal grudges of some of the staff against the Editorial Board, rather than the relevant issues being raised.
Here are the following essential points with regards to the issues raised. These issues were answered by the persons involved in the dialogue but not given so much attention and therefore remain unresolved.
–The alleged guidelines as mentioned in the fifth paragraph of the position paper
During the dialogue, Atty. Resurreccion (TIP President’s representative) asked Engr. Pader (VPASS) to explain the alleged guidelines. Engr. Pader, replied that there were no guidelines made.
It only proves that the legitimate guidelines for TIP VOICE is one being implemented by the Editorial Board and contained in the revised TIP VOICE-QC Constitution and By-laws.
In addition, there was an attempt to make a guideline that will allow censorship and direct management and supervision to TIP VOICE as instigated by Prof. Arcillas in a meeting with some staff. The said meeting can be justified for it is recorded to the TIP VOICE logbook for minutes of meetings.
–The screening process done on May 11
The said process was clarified by Engr. Pader as a "getting to know each other" only. Hence, the process carried out on May 11 stands no bearing whatsoever to any form of reshuffling done to the publication staff lineup and therefore gives enough and just reasons for the Editorial Board to resume office and proceed in managing the publication’s affairs and presswork but it was not permitted by Ms. Banal (publication adviser). Ms. Banal despite of such pronouncement from Engr. Pader still insisted her new lineup (which she instigated) to administer the publication.
–Reformatting of the TIP VOICE Editorial Board
Engr. Pader and Ms. Banal clarified that it was only temporary. It is unjust to make a new lineup for it totally disregards the Ed Board’s willingness and initiative to serve the school and students. In addition, the formulation of the new lineup didn’t comply with the due process. It is done by elections with the nominees for some selected position was presented by Ms. Banal to the staff. No consensus was done with the editorial staff, for the it is ed staff who fully knows the performance of their constituents. The process done by Ms. Banal also violated the TIP VOICE Constitution and By-laws and RA 7079.
In connection with the dialogue’s results, Atty. Resurreccion called for another dialogue with the rest of the staff that she believes to have personal grudges with the Ed Board. This action then led the real issues unresolved and made the real essence of the Ed Board’s request for an inquiry petty because it appears the Ed Board seek the attention of the TIP President’s Office just to resolve internal problems of the organization. In addition, she told that the resolution will be made available to the publication staff in the first week of July but there were no resolutions presented in the expected date. On contrary, it was presented in the third week of July, thus, two weeks late.
And for now, the fight for VOICE independence is still unresolved…
The freedom of the press, its independence and as well as the freedom of information of all students are unto a dreadful dilemma.
Uphold Campus Press Freedom!
Hear our calls!
Defend every individual’s right to information!
Gag us not!
Ronoriendo Roxas
Editor-in-Chief (Sgd)
Martin Valenzuela
Associate Editor (Sgd)
Allan Billones
Managing Editor (Sgd)
The Editorial Board’s request for a dialogue on June 16, 2007 was conducted on June 21 together with some TIP administrators. The purpose of the said dialogue was to resolve the irregularities the publication is facing as stated in the letter addressed to the TIP President’s Office dated June 13, 2007. A position paper was presented which pinpointed relevant relevant issues that were deemed irregular.
On contrary, no resolutions were made with regards to the relevant topics the Editorial Board was raising despite the position paper presented to the TIP President’s representative. The representative focused more in the internal grudges of some of the staff against the Editorial Board, rather than the relevant issues being raised.
Here are the following essential points with regards to the issues raised. These issues were answered by the persons involved in the dialogue but not given so much attention and therefore remain unresolved.
–The alleged guidelines as mentioned in the fifth paragraph of the position paper
During the dialogue, Atty. Resurreccion (TIP President’s representative) asked Engr. Pader (VPASS) to explain the alleged guidelines. Engr. Pader, replied that there were no guidelines made.
It only proves that the legitimate guidelines for TIP VOICE is one being implemented by the Editorial Board and contained in the revised TIP VOICE-QC Constitution and By-laws.
In addition, there was an attempt to make a guideline that will allow censorship and direct management and supervision to TIP VOICE as instigated by Prof. Arcillas in a meeting with some staff. The said meeting can be justified for it is recorded to the TIP VOICE logbook for minutes of meetings.
–The screening process done on May 11
The said process was clarified by Engr. Pader as a "getting to know each other" only. Hence, the process carried out on May 11 stands no bearing whatsoever to any form of reshuffling done to the publication staff lineup and therefore gives enough and just reasons for the Editorial Board to resume office and proceed in managing the publication’s affairs and presswork but it was not permitted by Ms. Banal (publication adviser). Ms. Banal despite of such pronouncement from Engr. Pader still insisted her new lineup (which she instigated) to administer the publication.
–Reformatting of the TIP VOICE Editorial Board
Engr. Pader and Ms. Banal clarified that it was only temporary. It is unjust to make a new lineup for it totally disregards the Ed Board’s willingness and initiative to serve the school and students. In addition, the formulation of the new lineup didn’t comply with the due process. It is done by elections with the nominees for some selected position was presented by Ms. Banal to the staff. No consensus was done with the editorial staff, for the it is ed staff who fully knows the performance of their constituents. The process done by Ms. Banal also violated the TIP VOICE Constitution and By-laws and RA 7079.
In connection with the dialogue’s results, Atty. Resurreccion called for another dialogue with the rest of the staff that she believes to have personal grudges with the Ed Board. This action then led the real issues unresolved and made the real essence of the Ed Board’s request for an inquiry petty because it appears the Ed Board seek the attention of the TIP President’s Office just to resolve internal problems of the organization. In addition, she told that the resolution will be made available to the publication staff in the first week of July but there were no resolutions presented in the expected date. On contrary, it was presented in the third week of July, thus, two weeks late.
And for now, the fight for VOICE independence is still unresolved…
The freedom of the press, its independence and as well as the freedom of information of all students are unto a dreadful dilemma.
Uphold Campus Press Freedom!
Hear our calls!
Defend every individual’s right to information!
Gag us not!
Ronoriendo Roxas
Editor-in-Chief (Sgd)
Martin Valenzuela
Associate Editor (Sgd)
Allan Billones
Managing Editor (Sgd)
complete copy of the above publication snapshot can be downloaded at:
~courtesy of Matanglawin; Official Student Publication of Ateneo de Manila University 
No comments:
Post a Comment