Late first semester of 2009 was the first time in recent history–at least as far as I can remember–that the Chairperson of the CSSPSC has undergone an impeachment trial.

Surely the public deserves to be informed of an issue of this magnitude. To discuss what happened at length here would be futile given the considerable time that has passed. However there was one aspect of publicity the 12 accused council members seemed to have transgressed.

If I may quote from the REAL score, the CSSPSC "approached SINAG... but unfortunately... the SINGA, or the lampoon issue... was the next issue to be released and the inclusion of the news about the impeachment trial was improper." At first reading it would seem that it is the publication’s fault the issue has not been publicized. The truth is far from it.

First off, the statement said that it was deemed inappropriate to publish the issue because the SINGA, or the lampoon issue of SINAG–CSSP, was to be released. On whose discretion was this? Who said it was inappropriate to publish Chairperson Bagcal’s trial on the lampoon issue? Certainly not the publication.

To give an example, let me tell you about my first assignment on the lampoon issue last year. It was about the Veterans Bank heist in UP (in which, if I’m not mistaken, somebody died). Now that was serious. Whether that was more serious than this spectacle is not for me to tell. So, if SINAG can publish a bank heist then why not a trial?

Secondly, the REAL reason why SINAG was not able to publish the Bagcal trial was that the layout of the lampoon issue had already been already submitted to the printer when the Council approached us. It was impossible to change the layout at such a short notice if the lampoon issue was to be released on time, that is, before the Christmas break.

This brings us to the third correction. The impeachment trial occurred last 21 October 2009. The announcement was made on a KAPPulungan meeting on the 18th of November 2009, well before the issue was released. The publication could have been contacted for further publicity. What happened between the 21st of October and the 18th of November and why has the Council been so hush–hush about the issue? Beats me.

Lastly, there was no official correspondence on the part of the Council. The approach, during which the trial was not even fully disclosed, was based on informal connections between the two institutions. This changed the publication's perception on the severity of the issue.

It has been over a month since the infamous complaints and response letters, the petition from the “concerned CSSP Students” and the convocation which ended rather abruptly. Yet SINAG–CSSP has never seen the 12 accused council members disseminate the rectified version of their “REAL score.” Not even a statement of apology.

While it is true that the issue was cleared up between the 12 council members and SINAG–CSSP, insofar as the CSSP students are concerned, they did not know a thing. Indeed, we want to move on from this issue; the REALLY REAL score, however, is an altogether different matter.