A night that could have been the basis for the birth of a renewed student political vigor descended into a miscarriage of transparency. 

A near-complete council was proclaimed Friday following the conclusion of this year’s University Student Council regular elections. The high-turnout election, greater than all polls after 2021, is a complete shift from last year’s regular election that left all university-wide posts vacant. Yet such a ground for celebration was blunted by the University Student Electoral Board’s (USEB) sudden announcement of its decision not to honor the existing precedent on abstain, which outvoted proclaimed Vice Chairperson-elect Chloe Antonio.

The abrupt reinterpretation of abstain by an appointed electoral board is an undemocratic exercise that contravenes the spirit of the campaign for a legitimate, genuine, and consultative council.

We recognize that there can be various reasons for abstention. We also understand the grave peril emanating from a lack of genuine student representation. But these recognitions are precisely the reason why we need a widespread, participative, student-run process that would determine the meaning of abstain and other electoral reforms. 

Such is not the case with USEB’s move. Its manner of breaking precedent fell into the same trap of arbitrariness criticized by some as the supposed problem in the board’s initial interpretation of abstain. 

The USEB, which ran special elections for the past two years, may have eventually arrived at the decision due to its recognition of the grueling nature of the lack of functioning council and the additional conduct of polls. The rationale articulated by Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs Jose Carlo de Pano is not without basis, after all—the argument that the combined votes of all candidates overtook abstentions is the same one elucidated by Olivia Herrera, Ramon Christian Placido, and Aimee Ramos, who were not proclaimed in the 2024 special elections after having lost to abstain. 

Yet their petition was junked by the University Student Electoral Tribunal (USET) after upholding its previous rulings. Among them is the 2016 Artiaga case, where the victory of proclaimed law representative to the USC Juan Paolo Artiaga was nullified. USET concluded that abstentions are a “positive action, a valid option, and a legitimate choice of an elector aside from the candidates running for a particular position or office.” 

Still, de Pano invoked a supposed precedent to justify their decision. He may be referring to an instance in 2015 when the then College of Science representative to the USC Joanne Lim, contested in her race unlike Artiaga, was proclaimed despite being outvoted by abstain. The fact of the matter remains, however: USET’s more recent 2016 and 2024 interpretation of abstain was assumed to be in effect, so at least some students abstained with the intended consequence of rejecting all candidates in mind.

Therefore, USEB’s move to overrule USET’s 2024 pronouncement should have at least come with both adequate consultation and prior announcement. Without these, the electorate was blindsided and bereft of knowledge that may have informed their votes. .Even Antonio’s party, which reiterated its recognition of abstain’s validity, recently raised clarificatory inquiries to USEB’s basis for the proclamation.

Such an equally arbitrary decision and the succeeding silence on USEB’s end to justify its decision undermines the electorate’s trust in the system, eroding the very pursuit of energizing student participation at a time when it is just surging yet again. It is thus an affront that winning candidates who ran under the banner of a consultative and transparent leadership are lauding this development. 

The most prominent argument among those affirming the decision and advocating for the removal of abstain is that doing so would ensure that the council will not be left dysfunctional. But the recent electoral exercise filled seats in the USC, even with 1,100 abstentions for councilors and more than 4,000 abstentions for chairperson. This shows us that abstention as an active action by some may not necessarily be the impediment to student representation. Instead, the real dilemma lies in various factors such as lackluster campaigns that undergird people’s motivation to abstain. 

Suddenly not honoring abstain, then, may only disillusion more from participating. The decision sends a message that their expression of rejecting all options is unrecognized. Instead of having a genuine representation that can mobilize the constituents, the inverse may be realized: Students would feel disconnected from the leaders whom electoral participants deliberately defied in the first place.

The resulting weak mandate is just as concerning in the pursuit of having a galvanized student movement. Even if some were to say that at least having sitting leaders would mean having actual people to hold to account, a detached studentry may not even bother doing so anymore. USEB, and the incoming council, must realize that there are no shortcuts to attaining sustainable, genuine student representation. 

Part of this path is a serious consideration of the suggestion long made by the Office of the Student Projects and Activities: enact amendments to our outdated 2010 electoral code. Given the various concerns that have been raised, the best way to go about this is through a referendum on abstention and other suggested electoral reforms. 

Students must be allowed to definitively ascribe their meaning to abstain and decide whether it must be retained or replaced with options such as “none of the above,” if their power to oppose all candidates were to be maintained. This way, we would have a clearer picture of what abstaining means for students in a manner that involves them and therefore lends greater legitimacy to the processes they participate in. Means of filling up succeeding vacancies must also be part of the measures people will vote for. 

It may also be high time to consider in the referendum the creation of a student-run electoral body to ensure that students themselves will operate our polls and resolve our disputes. This is already the case with some units like the College of Law, which has its own commission and tribunal. 

The referendum is the most democratic way to break the seeming impasse we are in. This, too, will demonstrate an earnest commitment to a participative recalibration of our electoral process to adequately capture the student body’s intentions and desires. Without so, decisions will remain at the behest of officials whose interpretations vary on every case. 

This is undeniably arduous, but equally necessary. It is also very possible. The Collegian conducted the first successful university-wide referendum in recent history when, in 2012, it called for a greater budget through a higher share of the student publication fee. Its members engaged in consultation and room-to-room activities until it reached more than half of all UP Diliman students and secured their votes.

Faith in any institutional activity is a necessary precondition for its sustainability. Fostering this entails the promulgation of consultative and transparent measures that are consistent with the constituents’ values. Such conditions will pave the way for long-term, genuine student representation. Anything less is a miscarriage of democracy. ●