Isang tula na isa lamang pilantik sa aking nag-iisang utak na diniktahan ng nag-iisang damdamin na nais sanang ialay sa isang taong hinahanap sa isang panahong malungkot dahil ako'y nag-iisa lamang sa opisina at may isang trabahong tinatapos kaya naisipang gumawa muna ng isang tula. Wheeew! Ang daming 'isa' dala na rin siguro na ang isang taong sumulat nito ay may isang pangarap...Ü
Katabi ngunit
hindi makanti…
Iniiwasang maulanan
ni maarawan
Sapagkat kahalagaha’y
ganun na lamang
Kaulayaw ngunit
hindi mahagkan…
Ang mga labing
kaakit-akit na tulad
sa isang anghel
na marikit
Kausap ngunit
hindi mayakap…
Inaasam na
ikaw at ako'y
magkakadaupang palad sa
isang tinadhanang alapaap
Kailan kaya makakanti,
mahahagkan at mayayakap
Ang tinuturing mahalagang
anghel sa alapaap?
Oh sadyang ikaw ay
isa lamang pangarap…
Matapos ang isang tula, may isang ngiti mula sa isang emo na bata...Ü haha!
About Me
- Onick Roxas (Ronoriendo Roxas y Mañabo)
- Too many written poems, short stories, essays, op-eds and columns... Someday, somehow; I'll find the way to organize, collect and post them in this blog... Thanks be to God and I'd became a campus journalist, member of a collegiate official student publication (VOICE), College Editors Guild of the Philippines (CEGP) guilder and an activist... I learned not to write only for myself but for the masses...
Monday, January 3, 2011
Answers
Nothing but accusations…
It is really hard to speak because you do really have to be aware of loopy statements that will surely jeopardize the credibility of your assertion. (I just don’t know if other persons out there have that consideration.) Thanks God, the publication you are now reading is trying to give the best it can to cultivate its nature. I’m talking about VOICE being sensible, credible and responsible. For more than 25 years, we are often fed with complaints from members of the school community of various sorts. It’s a favorable outcome then because it only proves that our labors are being regarded. Nevertheless, there are many provocative impressions. Indeed, we cannot please and convince everybody but at least, despite all the efforts we render; our ideas reached the TIP community. And for now, after all those complaints being thrown to us, it’s time to answer them. I want to clarify things - crystal clear.
The past weeks, we are being scolded by security personnel assigned to Students Center Building (it is where our office is located). Their reason: we stay beyond 9:30pm every MWF and 9:00pm every TTh. We do admit we’re staying up that long but because of some important works (take note: WORKS and not REASONS). But I can fully attest, in behalf of the VOICE staff that we don’t stay longer than the alloted five minutes and after that time, we have to leave. It is only very ridiculous that one of the security guards that is assigned in the building has to use his radio phone telling his superiors "Ayaw umalis ng TIP VOICE". An exaggerated report because it implies that we are resisting to leave OUR office. It seems we are being extra* rebellious, right? The Discipline Office and OSA told me that complaint and I’m thanking, however*, the two offices for listening to our side. I have nothing personal against the Security Office, I know that they are just doing their "commanded"* work, maybe the guards just have to compromise and to use some appropriate words.
"Some VOICE staff is being demanding… they have to consider they are also students." This is another complaint told to me by the OSA. Again, compromise. In every inter-office transaction, we often ask them when they can comply with our transaction. However, it doesn’t imply that we are being demanding. It’s professionalism and business in our part. That complaint perhaps resulted due to pressure. But the so-called pressure is not from the TIP VOICE but from the work that they must accomplish. We do really give too much work to other offices in our institution but it is for the welfare of the school community and our staff. It doesn’t mean that we’re being demanding, just doing our work and I hope those persons that are complaining must do their respective duties also. And foremost, it is the duty and responsibility of every school employee and administrator to serve and give the demands of every student, for the students are the bread and butter of a school, a school can never be a school without students.* In addition, that complaint can also be a result of our question: "Ma’am mga what time po o kailan?" We are only considering their time availability, so as ours. Importantly, we don’t want to disturb them in the middle of their work, neither to come in their office if they are out for a break. Is it more enjoyable to have a coffee break after or whatever kind of leisure after a stressful work? Duty first before pleasure…
When the word radical flits in my ears, it simply annoys me. It is intended for persons whose wisdom and intelligence is being overpowered by their emotions, regardless of the idea they’re fighting for. A radical being is synanimous to a revolutionary person. The accusations against us that we are being radical are only an exaggerated backtalk. We, in the VOICE are peace-lovers. As a matter of fact, one of my Christmas wishes (perhaps my unending desire since time immemorial) is world peace. If ever we are holding extreme political views or advocating thorough change, it doesn’t mean we are being radical. We only love our nation as well as this institution. On my part, I won’t spend so much time and effort just to destroy an academy I’m associated. If I will then so, I see to it I’m not only good at destroying but building anew as well.* I’ll continue to pinpoint problems and give my suggestions so there will be solutions. That is how I show love, and that is true love. If I won’t speak, it only indicates that I don’t care.
Those are the answers for the complaints against us and while making this column, I reallized something VOICE loves its community.
***Hindi makikita sa naunang lathala ng kolumn na ito sa VOICE tomo xxvi bilang tatlo. Inilagay ng may-akda sa blog upang magbigay diin. Itong kolumn na ito ay tugon ng may-akda sa iba’t-ibang empleyado at administrador ng TIP hingil sa mga binabatong aligasyon sa pahayagan. Nariyan nabansagan na aktibista, radikal at subersibo. Hanggang ngayon, nabubuo pa rin sa mga nagparatang ang ganung ideya sa may-akda sampu ng kanyang mga kasamahan. Kung ang paglaban at pagtindig para sa mga naaapi, inaalisan ng tinig at napagkakaitan ng karapatan ay pagiging aktibista, radikal, subersibo at kahit pa rebolusyonaryo ay ikaluluwalhati’t ikakagalak ng may-akda na mabansagan ng mga ganoong taguri.
***From http://onick-roxas.blog.friendster.com/
It is really hard to speak because you do really have to be aware of loopy statements that will surely jeopardize the credibility of your assertion. (I just don’t know if other persons out there have that consideration.) Thanks God, the publication you are now reading is trying to give the best it can to cultivate its nature. I’m talking about VOICE being sensible, credible and responsible. For more than 25 years, we are often fed with complaints from members of the school community of various sorts. It’s a favorable outcome then because it only proves that our labors are being regarded. Nevertheless, there are many provocative impressions. Indeed, we cannot please and convince everybody but at least, despite all the efforts we render; our ideas reached the TIP community. And for now, after all those complaints being thrown to us, it’s time to answer them. I want to clarify things - crystal clear.
The past weeks, we are being scolded by security personnel assigned to Students Center Building (it is where our office is located). Their reason: we stay beyond 9:30pm every MWF and 9:00pm every TTh. We do admit we’re staying up that long but because of some important works (take note: WORKS and not REASONS). But I can fully attest, in behalf of the VOICE staff that we don’t stay longer than the alloted five minutes and after that time, we have to leave. It is only very ridiculous that one of the security guards that is assigned in the building has to use his radio phone telling his superiors "Ayaw umalis ng TIP VOICE". An exaggerated report because it implies that we are resisting to leave OUR office. It seems we are being extra* rebellious, right? The Discipline Office and OSA told me that complaint and I’m thanking, however*, the two offices for listening to our side. I have nothing personal against the Security Office, I know that they are just doing their "commanded"* work, maybe the guards just have to compromise and to use some appropriate words.
"Some VOICE staff is being demanding… they have to consider they are also students." This is another complaint told to me by the OSA. Again, compromise. In every inter-office transaction, we often ask them when they can comply with our transaction. However, it doesn’t imply that we are being demanding. It’s professionalism and business in our part. That complaint perhaps resulted due to pressure. But the so-called pressure is not from the TIP VOICE but from the work that they must accomplish. We do really give too much work to other offices in our institution but it is for the welfare of the school community and our staff. It doesn’t mean that we’re being demanding, just doing our work and I hope those persons that are complaining must do their respective duties also. And foremost, it is the duty and responsibility of every school employee and administrator to serve and give the demands of every student, for the students are the bread and butter of a school, a school can never be a school without students.* In addition, that complaint can also be a result of our question: "Ma’am mga what time po o kailan?" We are only considering their time availability, so as ours. Importantly, we don’t want to disturb them in the middle of their work, neither to come in their office if they are out for a break. Is it more enjoyable to have a coffee break after or whatever kind of leisure after a stressful work? Duty first before pleasure…
When the word radical flits in my ears, it simply annoys me. It is intended for persons whose wisdom and intelligence is being overpowered by their emotions, regardless of the idea they’re fighting for. A radical being is synanimous to a revolutionary person. The accusations against us that we are being radical are only an exaggerated backtalk. We, in the VOICE are peace-lovers. As a matter of fact, one of my Christmas wishes (perhaps my unending desire since time immemorial) is world peace. If ever we are holding extreme political views or advocating thorough change, it doesn’t mean we are being radical. We only love our nation as well as this institution. On my part, I won’t spend so much time and effort just to destroy an academy I’m associated. If I will then so, I see to it I’m not only good at destroying but building anew as well.* I’ll continue to pinpoint problems and give my suggestions so there will be solutions. That is how I show love, and that is true love. If I won’t speak, it only indicates that I don’t care.
Those are the answers for the complaints against us and while making this column, I reallized something VOICE loves its community.
***Hindi makikita sa naunang lathala ng kolumn na ito sa VOICE tomo xxvi bilang tatlo. Inilagay ng may-akda sa blog upang magbigay diin. Itong kolumn na ito ay tugon ng may-akda sa iba’t-ibang empleyado at administrador ng TIP hingil sa mga binabatong aligasyon sa pahayagan. Nariyan nabansagan na aktibista, radikal at subersibo. Hanggang ngayon, nabubuo pa rin sa mga nagparatang ang ganung ideya sa may-akda sampu ng kanyang mga kasamahan. Kung ang paglaban at pagtindig para sa mga naaapi, inaalisan ng tinig at napagkakaitan ng karapatan ay pagiging aktibista, radikal, subersibo at kahit pa rebolusyonaryo ay ikaluluwalhati’t ikakagalak ng may-akda na mabansagan ng mga ganoong taguri.
***From http://onick-roxas.blog.friendster.com/
VOICE POSITION PAPER - MAY 2007
TIP VOICE, the official school and student publication of TIP-QC, is currently experiencing an irregularity in its operation. A supposed deliberation of guidelines that turned out to be a screening process was carried out by some TIP officials. In this occurrence, the Editorial Board’s governing powers as well as its right to run and manage the publication independently was disregarded.
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.
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)