Adhoc ECC: Evidence was against Bagcal, not the other 11

“It was evidence against Chair Jay Bagcal, but not against the other eleven.”

In the convocation held Jan.20 at the AS lobby, Louie Camino, then officer-in-charge of the adhoc Executive Coordinating Committee, said the petition for a public trial against the 12 council members who co-authored the proposal for the Codified Rules for Student Regent Selection (CRSRS) was dismissed for “insufficient evidence.” (see timeline)

Camino said the only evidence presented in the investigation was the petition letter itself, containing the original complaint filed by Councilor Peter Sengson and Department Representatives Kei Garcia and Casey Giron.

Camino said one of arguments for the convocation was that it would have been a trial by publicity, which has always been frowned upon in any legal system.

In a series of interviews with SINAG, Praxis Chair Veda Vedan said she and the other petitioners were disappointed with the ECC decision.

“Hanggang ngayon, hindi pa rin malinaw sa ’kin kung ano ba yung sufficient evidence,” said Vedan. “We’re not calling for expulsion, it’s a call for the hearing and accountability.”

Camino said in a separate interview that the council deliberating in a public hearing might not raise the questions the students want answered.

“What the people wanted were answers, and not necessarily a trial,” said Camino.

Councilors Ian Cortez and Gil Turingan, two of the 12 councilors in the petition, agreed that the convocation was the right venue for students to ask questions.

Turingan said a hearing would only give students limited time to ask questions, considering the strict flow of a council trial.

Cortez said, “The convocation started and ended peacefully... Wala naman sumugod sa amin at sinampal kami.”

Cortez said if the answers were not sufficient, someone would have submitted a new petition.

The original proponents of the impeachment complaint against Bagcal believed the students deserved a public trial.

Garcia said the council could make guidelines—since there were none to begin with—to adjust drawbacks in a public hearing, like the limited time for questions from students.

Sengson said a convocation allowed the council to filter the questions they wanted to answer. He said that in a format where the students are simply to ask questions and receive answers, there was no room for deliberation and argumentation.

Giron said there were questions insufficiently answered. A student asked the council what it did for the three CSSP students hurt in the police dispersal during the UP-Toyota Auditorium inaugural ceremonies December last year. Giron felt the question was completely unanswered.

A convocation does not achieve the same accountability achieved in a trial, said Giron.

During the ECC investigation, 60 signatories of the Jan. 6 petition filed a counterpetition to withdraw their signatures, saying they were misinformed. This reduced the total number of petitioners to 212, which still met the 10 percent requirement set by the CSSPSC constitution.

Vedan said the petition and a chronology of events were attached to the proposal, so students who claimed they were misinformed may have not read the petition carefully.

“Siguro hindi lang na-explain yung details pero available naman yung petition, may copies naman na pwedeng mabasa,” ▪

Quick Links

SINAG March 4, 2010 GA + EHEBM re:deliberation on the comments addressed to the charter

2010 SINAG-CSSP Charter (3rd Draft)


*Due to hosting problems, the 2010 SINAG-CSSP GA and EHEBM Audio Recording deliberating on the comments addressed to the charter will only be available upon request from or thru the SINAG office.

Renze Carlo Santos
Web and Systems Adminstrator