Three days since the start of Miting de Avances (MDA) of local student councils (LSC), candidates and aspirants of the studentry’s nod across seven colleges have already taken center stage to air their goals, plans, and platform for Sintang Paaralan’s future for AY 2024-25.
As of September 15, the PUP Commission on Elections (COMELEC) observed nine out of 55 LSC official candidates skipping the first two days of MDA.
Among the nine MDA skippers are the five independent candidates of the College of Human Kinetics (CHK), which are composed of a pair of president and vice president and three councilors, as they unified to snub the MDA scheduled for their college collectively.
According to PUP COMELEC Chairperson Gad Thomas Mendiola, the candidates’ refusal to participate in MDA is rooted in a tradition or practice of preceding CHK SC candidates refraining from engaging with campaign activities, including MDAs, opting to share their campaign materials merely.
Sanctions looming?
According to Resolution No. 010, s. 2024 of PUP COMELEC, which set the rules and regulations of MDAs, “...attendance of all candidates for Local Student Council, and Sentral na Konseho ng Mag-aaral shall be mandatory.”
This also concurs with the Implementing Rules and Regulation (IRR) of the Commission, as Article VII, Sec. 2.1 clearly states that “...political parties vying for seats in the LSC, contested or uncontested, are required to appear before their localities during the conduct of the MDA.”
Despite clear definitions compelling the attendance of candidates to MDA, sanctions for failure to do so are absent in both the IRR and resolution.
PUP COMELEC’s Legal and Administrative Committee (LAAC), through Chairperson Mendiola, confirmed to The Communicator that the Commission did not foresee the event of a whole college refusing to attend the MDA and there are no sanctions to candidates for failing to attend an MDA.
In addition, the commission’s LAAC also argued that while MDA was made “mandatory” for all councils—local or central—it is unconstitutional to declare the act as a sanctionable offense, as they said, “we cannot strip the candidates off with their freedom to choose where they would want to appear.”
The Communicator asked the Commission which part of the constitution could imply that sanctioning non-attendance to MDA is/as unconstitutional. LAAC bared such is not explicitly stated in the election code.
LAAC explained further that, “it is [...] an unspoken rule that freedom of assembly and/or speech also entails that one cannot be compelled against their will to appear before the public—hence its unconstitutionality.”
With the Commission’s clarification and assertion of the freedom of assembly and/or speech, The Communicator inquired about the idea of amending the term “required” from the IRR to enable the election code to satisfy the laws of the land.
LAAC, in response, stated that amending the term “required” from the election code is “definitely being considered.”
Article: Alec Marc Reguya
Comments