For the first time in four years, Lasallians will troop to the polls to vote not just for aspiring student leaders but also on a measure that will redefine who those leaders are and how they will operate. Last May 24, the Legislative Assembly (LA) voted on a bill that sought to introduce sweeping reforms to the University Student Government (USG) Constitution, which last underwent a plebiscite in Make-up Elections 2021.
It was not without its detractors: one batch legislator (BL) voted against the measure, while several USG officers, former and current alike, criticized the changes it was proposing, from removing certain officer seats to omitting “Laguna Campus” when defining campus governments.
But behind the new Constitution and the polarized reactions it attracted, a handful of legislators and legal advisers say they spent months drafting while holding closed-door discussions with different sectors of the USG, yet stopped short of asking the constituents who will ultimately vote on it.
New charter, new commission
Plans to change the Constitution began in late 2024 when former Chief Legislator and then-Attorney General Sebastian Diaz discussed with then-Chief Legislator Elynore Orajay on how to proceed with constitutional reform. Although their term was ending, Diaz explains they “wanted to get the ball rolling.”
That momentum took shape last November 20, when the LA established the USG Law Commission (LAWCOM), an independent body tasked with developing laws while “spearheading consultations and studies on proposed and potential changes to the USG Constitution.”
Diaz was appointed as the first president of the commission a week later. He was soon joined by Atlas Alviar, a former magistrate of the USG Judiciary, and former FAST2022 BL Irish Garcia as commissioners on December 15.
On January 11, Brent Pasague, another former magistrate, was also added as commissioner. Rounding out the group was Managing Consultant Huey Marudo, a former BL under FAST2023, who is currently running for Vice President for External Affairs under Alyansang Tapat sa Lasallista.
Alviar initially had reservations about the LAWCOM’s role. He personally disagreed with having “another body recommending laws to the LA,” which he considers to be the job of legislators. Still, he joined out of concern that the body might be used to merely “funnel proposals” from USG officers. As such, he viewed the LAWCOM as a support mechanism that could involve the student body and “aid in drafting proposals or amendments for the Constitution.”
With the team complete, LAWCOM began its work on the Constitution. According to Alviar, the division of labor was based on their USG expertise: he and Pasague tackled provisions “that would require a much more legal and technical experience,” such as those on the Judiciary and the Constitutional Commissions, while Diaz and Garcia “took the parts of the executive [and] the legislative.”
Meanwhile, the new batch of legislators elected in Special Elections 2024 opened session on Term 2 of academic year (AY) 2024-2025, with FAST2023 BL Zach Quiambao assuming the role of chief legislator on January 8. Quiambao is presently running for USG President under Santugon sa Tawag ng Panahon.
“The work was immediately reaching out to the Legislative Assembly,” Diaz recounts. “Either they send us representatives from the Committee on Rules and Policies (RnP) to work with us on the Constitution, or they form a new ad hoc committee that would focus on these reforms.”
The LA ran with the latter, and on February 8, they formed the Legislative Committee on Constitutional Revisions—“Consti Reform,” as they call it—a team Quiambao himself led. It was mainly through this group that LAWCOM interacted with the LA. On February 25, after legislators underwent LA exams, they were assigned to the regular committees, including RnP.
He said, she said
When asked how much of the revisions originated from their group and how much was sourced from consultations, Alviar says the majority of the changes were from LAWCOM. “We did ask the LA for certain changes, although it was minimal,” he explains.
However, Diaz sees the distribution differently: “Personally, I don’t think it would be fair to say that the majority of the changes came from the LAWCOM…because by…at least late January…all discussions on constitutional reform were [already] with [Consti Reform].”
Other sectors were also consulted. Current and former members of the executive and judiciary branches were invited to a legislative inquiry on March 12, when the framers presented an initial draft of the charter. Consultations with executive officers continued through informal correspondence for “speedy disposition,” as per Alviar.
The LAWCOM also met with the Laguna Campus Student Government (LCSG) separately, according to Alviar, receiving “a lot of advice towards the removal of the Laguna Campus government provisions.” This ultimately led to a more general language on campus governments in the charter.
But LA consultations left much to be desired for CATCH2T28 BL and interim Chief Legislator Jules Valenciano. As RnP chair, she raises that they were not privy to the discussions between LAWCOM and Consti Reform, despite her committee’s scope covering charter change. “I expected na they’ll have consultations with us, but that didn’t happen.”
Valenciano repeatedly asked Quiambao whether the ad hoc committee intended to consult RnP. She claims he never gave a “concrete answer.”
FOCUS2024 BL Pauline Galias, who was not affiliated with either RnP or the ad hoc committee, confirms that she “[was] not consulted, in a way that [her] opinion or stance on the [constitutional] reform was not requested before the session itself.”
Yet, both Diaz and Alviar convey that consistent back-and-forths were had with the LA through Consti Reform, expecting the committee to have separate hearings and inquiries with the rest of the legislative body regarding the revisions. “And based on our discussions,” Diaz claims, “we got feedback.”
EXCEL2027 BL and RnP Committee member Pharell Tacsuan also counters his fellow legislators, insisting “the LA, as a whole, was continually apprised of the proposed amendments through a combination of a public hearing in March, informal dialogues, and even internal polling.”
Although the accounts differ on the involvement of the LA, all parties acknowledge that public discussions with the student body were limited.
Valenciano believes the student body should have been involved earlier through surveys or forums. Diaz concedes the lack of public input, attributing it to the generally low student participation in USG initiatives: “At least on my end…the public aspect of it, [I] was really hoping for more student participation through the LA.”
The eleventh hour
By May, the new charter was nearing completion. “At the very least, two or three weeks before the actual passing of the bill, we had the final draft,” Diaz says. Notably, the revised charter was only brought to the floor for voting on May 24—just a day after it was publicly announced. Article V, Section 2 of the Rules of the LA states that bills must be submitted to the sponsoring committee at least a day before it is lobbied to the LA. Yet, the RnP was only approached at 8:18 am on the day of the session.
Valenciano says it was the first time she saw the amended charter since their public hearing in March. “We didn’t really get updates after that,” she contends.
Tacsuan shares that the late advisory left them with “limited time for a comprehensive, collective discussion” in the committee. It was agreed then that sponsoring the bill would be done individually.
Even then, Valenciano refused to sponsor the bill, but the rest of RnP did.
Among them was Laguna Campus Legislator Nicole Javier. Although she was unavailable for the consultation with LAWCOM, she says RnP reviewed the revisions and clarified concerns about the impact on her constituents. “We discussed the objectives of the revisions, and there was a shared understanding that the changes aim to better serve the student body without causing confusion.”
BLAZE2026 BL Jianna Marie Añonuevo was also one of the framers of the revised Constitution and “would of course sponsor the bill,” Valenciano notes.
Diaz rebuffs the notion that a sponsorship delay “would be symptomatic of the actual bill being rushed,” highlighting that sponsorships were “something that we (LA) have customarily been doing last minute.”
“What we did with our approach is not really a matter of everyone agreeing,” Diaz defends the charter change, “but more so seeing the robustness of the Constitution and if it can withstand…criticisms or critiques.”
Although the session proceeded, the space for debate was stifled. “The opportunities for debate and discourse were unequal,” Galias narrates. “Just asking one question that is not affirmative of the bill will get you six to seven legislators in line waiting to negate what you said.”
Valenciano shares similar sentiments, reasoning that had more consultations been done beforehand, the session could have solely focused on the merits of the revisions. “We could have debated about it instead of questioning and questioning,” she adds.
In the end, the bill passed with a 13-1-1 vote. Only Valenciano voted against it, while CATCH2T27 Batch Legislator Ivan Mangubat abstained.
A dash to the finish?
Having leapt over the hurdle of obtaining legislative approval, what remained was the plebiscite two months down the line. Three days after the bill was passed, the LA publicized the document to the student body. However, the public campaign stalled.
Diaz admits the plans for room-to-room (RTR) outreach were scrapped when “certain members [ran],” which limited their manpower.
Instead, members of the LA and LAWCOM held their first—and only—press conference on the proposed charter last July 9, right in the middle of the campaign period for General Elections (GE) 2025.
This apparent lack of publicity became even more apparent during an open forum organized by the DLSU Commission on Elections (Comelec) last July 16 at the Laguna Campus. Candidates were gauged on various issues, but Marudo and Quiambao in particular were pressed on how the information campaign was handled.
“Hindi ba kayo gumawa ng plans to make sure na talagang ‘yung campaign is very active and something na nararamdaman ng mga tao?” asked USG Coordinator Zaldy Dueñas.
(Did you not make plans to ensure that the campaign is very active and felt by the student body?)
Quiambao responded by saying a “certain coordinator” barred them from conducting RTR campaigns, an accusation Dueñas dismissed. “RTR kasi is subject to the approval of the Provost,” he pointed out. “One of the reasons kung bakit ‘yung RTR for the revised Constitution [was denied] kasi mag-RTR kayo for [electoral] campaigns, and siyempre ayaw natin na maapektuhan ‘yun…We expect other efforts.”
(One of the reasons why the RTR for the revised Constitution was denied was that you were going to have RTRs for electoral campaigns, and we didn’t want to get in the way of those.)
When quizzed further, Quiambao admitted that he had also turned to the political parties to campaign for the new charter. Meanwhile, Marudo revealed that the LA and LAWCOM are working to conduct person-to-person campaigns, but it remains unclear how much of that materialized after the open forum.
It is also unclear if candidates from either political party included the plebiscite or the revised Constitution in their campaign talking points.
Ultimately, the LA released various sets of FAQs—all written by LAWCOM—last July 18 and 19, just two days before the voting period.
‘We wanted the plebiscite to happen’
Despite falling short in educating voters on the reforms, the framers maintained that the plebiscite had to happen in GE 2025.
“I suggested that it take place this term because the [GE] would serve as a leeway for the student body as a whole to vote not only for the executive board candidates, but also for the plebiscite,” Alviar says. “Having it on the first term [of AY 2025-2026] with the [freshman] elections (FE) would be ineffective as the only ones who will vote are the frosh.”
Quiambao affirmed this during The LaSallian’s Head to Head interviews, saying “Siguro nagulat lang ‘yung mga people [by] the timeline itself, [because] we wanted the plebiscite to happen this [GE].”
(Perhaps people were just shocked by the timeline itself because we wanted the plebiscite to happen this GE.)
Diaz, on the other hand, was in favor of having it done the following term instead, “because at the end of the day, the actual elections that will be affected will be GE 2026.”
“We didn’t try to habol the GE kasi we would have tried to make it happen, whether or not it’s FE 2025 or GE 2025…If it fails now, we can pass another Constitution by next term; that’s not a problem,” he allays.
If ratified in this plebiscite, the revised Constitution will take effect next AY, specifically the amended roles and responsibilities of USG officers. Those elected to roles that have been converted to appointed in this GE, such as the executive secretary, will continue to serve their incumbency until the next elections.
The LaSallian initially reached out to Quiambao and LCSG President and Tinig Coalition campus legislator bet Nauj Agbayani for their involvement in the discussions on the new Constitution as framer and consultant, respectively. However, as both are presently candidates in GE 2025, the publication excluded their responses to adhere to the DLSU Comelec’s directives.
ERRATUM: July 28, 2025
An earlier version of the article incorrectly stated that BLAZE2026 BL Jianna Marie Añonuevo did not respond to an interview request. The request had been mistakenly sent to a different person bearing the same name. The interview, however, will not be in pursuit given that the article has already been published. The publication apologizes for the oversight.
