The Legislative Assembly (LA) held its first formal session regarding the proposed 2014 University Student Government (USG) Constitution today, December 6, following the postponement of last week’s session due to the quorum not being met. USG President Migi Moreno opened the session by reiterating the rationale behind the proposed amendments as well as the grounds for Operation REFOCUS which he stated in the informal LA session held last week, November 29.
The session covered the first four articles of the proposed 2014 Constitution, namely: name and seat; membership; declaration of principles, purposes, and policies; and the declaration of rights, duties, and responsibilities of students. Articles I, II, and the first parts of Article III were passed without major changes and much contention from the legislators.
The first major arguments were raised when partisanship was named as a possibility given the provisions under Article III, Section 13, which states that “the USG shall provide avenues for different political views to support proposals in the legislative process,” and in Article IV, Section 8, that says “every student shall be encouraged to participate actively in extra-curricular and civic affairs and in the promotion of the common good.”
Minority floor leader Vani Altomonte (IV, AB-CAM) claimed that these provisions may allow for partisanship within the USG. The body went into a discussion on the grounds for partisanship but it was decided that issue will be laid down and the discussion continued in the next session. As part of the agenda, the first part of Section V: Legislative Branch was discussed but amendments were not finalized, as the LA went into a lengthy exchange on whether or not the LA should be given the power to approve appointed officers in the USG.
The minority argued that in order for the LA and Executive Branch to have equal powers with regard to appointment and selection of officers, the appointed officers of the Executive Board (EB) should be approved by the LA, more than its power to lay down the qualifications for selection.
The proponents and the remaining majority, however, stood by the amendments in the proposed Constitution, arguing that to ensure a check and balance of all branches, the LA’s duty is to set the qualifications, while the EB will appoint. In the event of appointed officers not meeting the qualifications, the Judiciary will step in to resolve the matter.
Due to time constraints and the quorum not being met, the body agreed to lay the matter on the table for further discussion and resolution in the next session. Following the University calendar, the LA will resume office at the beginning of the third term in January. The remaining twelve articles as well as the amendments left unresolved in today’s session will be discussed in the next LA session on January 10, 2014.
The LaSallian will be pursuing this story as it continues. Discussions on the amendments will be ongoing for the remaining LA sessions of the 3rd term. Students may consult with their batch LA on the developments of the plebiscite, or sit in during the LA sessions held every Friday at 2:30 pm.
The soft copies of documents pertinent to the plebiscite can be accessed through these links:
Resolution Calling for the Approval of the Amendments to the 2009 University Student Government
Appendix B1 – 2004 USG Constitution (original proposal)
Appendix B2 – 2009 USG Constitution (ratified and with supplementary guidelines)
Appendix B3 – 2013 USG Constitution (unratified with DLSU-STC Government Article)
Appendix D – 2014 USG Constitution (with proposed amendments)
Appendix F – Table of Proposed Amendments in the 2014 USG Constitution
Appendix H – Operation REFOCUS (USG AY 2013-2014)
One reply on “LA opens discussion on 2014 Constitution”
Hi.
The term “minority” (used in the 5th paragraph) refers to the the minority of LAs that support the idea that the LA should approve the appointment of officers. The term “majority” (used in the 6th paragraph) refers to the majority of LAs supporting the idea of how appointed officers are legitimized in the proposed constitution. A division was called during the meeting to see how the LAs, as a whole, stand with the issue thus creating a majority and minority of LAs.
Just wanted to point that out in case someone interprets “minority” and “majority” as the Minority Party and the Majority Party, respectively, since that was not the case.
Thanks. 🙂