In a statement released last January 16, Student Regent Shan Abdulwahid reiterated her earlier decision to submit only one question to the students during the referendum:

"Do you approve of the existing Codified Rules for Student Regent Selection (CRSRS) as rules and qualifications to govern the selection of our student representative to the UP Board of Regents?"

SR Abdulwahid denied the protest-appeal submitted by 13* student councils and several student leaders to include specific questions regarding proposed amendments to the Codified Rules for Student Regent Selection (CRSRS). According to the proponent councils, such amendments would provide voting students with options, unlike the present question which "only pushes students to the wall" for a "yes" vote.

In a 6-page decision, SR Abdulwahid said that RA 9500 provides only for a referendum rather than an initiative. While the former gives constituents the power to approve or reject legislation, the latter allows them to propose and enact legislation.

SR Abdulwahid also cited Republic Act 9500 of the UP Charter of 2008, stating that under the current CRSRS, "proposed changes thereto should be submitted to the Office Of The Student Regent not later than the first day of October" (i.e. October 1, 2008) and that such rules "may be changed through the majority vote of all the student councils of the UP system." If these two conditions are met, then such changes become "valid and proposed amendments" to the CRSRS, and can thus be put to a vote of yes or no among the students.

The student councils and student leaders who appealed, collectively known as the Choose to Know Alliance, criticized the SR's decision as a manifestation of her unwillingness to yield to the substantial merits of the proposal by resorting to and insisting on mere technicalities.

The Alliance said the SR could not invoke the October 1 deadline for submission of amendments since it was set without consultation, contrary to Article IX of the CRSRS. Said provision states that, "The dates and periods pertinent to the selection process in the college, and system levels shall be fixed by the OSR with the consent of all the USCs and regional units."

The Alliance also questioned the SR's interpretation of a referendum as involving only a single question and her reliance on the ruling in Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority v. COMELEC (G.R. No. 125416, September 26, 1996).

Sophia San Luis, the College of Law Representative to the University Student Council (USC), said "There is nothing in the laws and jurisprudence cited that says there should only be one question in a referendum. In fact, in Sanidad v. Comelec, the Supreme Court upheld a referendum where there was more than one question in the ballot."

The Law Representative argued that the case cited by the SR is inapplicable. "The laws cited in the abovementioned case were created for a specific purpose. RA 6735 Section 3 says, 'For purposes of this Act, the following terms shall mean…'"

"What this tells us is that the purpose of the definition that followed was limited specifically to initiative and referendum in order to amend the constitution, statutes or local legislation. As stated in the case of Defensor v. Roco (G.R. No. 127325), "R.A. No. 6735 was, as its history reveals, intended to cover initiative to propose amendments to the Constitution, " and the CRSRS does not, by any means, fall under this," she said.

Following the SR's "final statement" on the matter, the student councils and student leaders strongly condemned the decision of the SR to make the process "undemocratic by taking away choices from the students, while hiding behind unsound technicalities of her own inaction".

Meanwhile, students from different UP units have continued to rally behind the proposal. Student council members, organization officers, alumni, and non-partisan students, have signed and expressed their support to the Manifesto of Protest and Appeal to the Student Regent posted at http://choose2know.multiply.com.

The Manifesto denounced the earlier decision of the OSR to limit the referendum question to a mere "yes or no" saying that "such a decision is an affront to elementary concepts of democratic consultation and maximum student participation. " It called on the SR to include amendments to the upcoming referendum. The Student Regent has stuck to her decision notwithstanding mounting protests from various sectors for her to do otherwise.

The Choose to Know Alliance is a group comprised of student councils, student leaders and organizations, with support from ALYANSA and KAISA, formed in order to ensure that the referendum will not be a wasteful exercise of sovereignty.

* Not twenty as was inadvertently reported earlier.