Is there really a need for a new SAMAHAN Constitution?

The final draft of the 2013 SAMAHAN Constitution has already been formally turned over
by the 2013-2014 SAMAHAN Constitutional Commission (ConComm) to the SAMAHAN Central
Board (SCB), upon which the latter readily approved it for endorsement to the Office of Student
Affairs of the university. In fact, the fate of the said draft is now in the hands of the SCB, as the
Commission is done in its conception. Through-out the whole semestral process of drafting the
said document, and before the constitutional plebiscite should take place, it is imperative that
the Ateneo studentry be equipped with the rationale behind ratifying the said constitution.
For a brief background, SAMAHAN does have an existing Constitution that they
currently follow since 1982. It even predates that of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, thus
making it rather outdated, in terms of its constitutionality to the latest laws of the land. Not much
is known about the origins of the said 1982 SAMAHAN Constitution, except for the fact that it
was not ratified, at least according to common knowledge. Also, the governmental structure
from the said Constitution mirrors certain aspects of the 1973 Philippine Constitution, mainly
because it was made at the time of the authoritarian rule of President Ferdinand Marcos. To cut
the whole thing short, the 1982 SAMAHAN Constitution vests both Executive and Legislative
powers all in the hands of a few people, and those are the officers of the SAMAHAN Central
Board. It doesnt even have its own Judicial Branch, which is of utmost importance not only to
uphold the principles of the constitution, but also to resolve matters involving students and the
student government officers in the execution of their functions as such. Thus we only have one
such major branch of the student government, the all-encompassing SCB.
In the past few years prior to this academic year, if not every year, each administration of
the SCB has tried to initiate their own Constitutional Commissions (ConComm), for the sole

purpose of finally achieving a student-ratified, student-made Constitution. And in each and every
year that they tried, for various reasons none of which eventually succeeded. And here we all
are, stuck in A.Y. 2013-2014, still struggling to realize such a difficult political undertaking,
hoping that the curse of finally ratifying a Constitution ends this year.
With all these matters at hand, there are certain arguments that can be made for or
against the need of having such constitution. These arguments are based on either ideal or real
situations that can be applied not only to the current political landscape of SAMAHAN, but also
to that of its immediate future. The question now here is this: Is there really a need for a
SAMAHAN Constitution?
The arguments in favor of this question have something to do with the ideal situation of
SAMAHAN, under the 1982 Constitution. The said constitution provides a rather limited avenue
for student participation, as evident in having only one major branch of the government. This
form of government doesnt even translate into SAMAHAN as a Student Government, but
rather as a Student Council. According to John Klopf in his book College Student Government
(1960), a Student Council is the representative of the student body as a whole. Almost all
member of this council is elected by all the students, and responsible to all of them. However, it
might also mean that each representative is removed from the individual student because he is
responsible to a large group. It rings a bell, doesnt it? The current format of SCB is therefore a
Student Council. Division Representatives convene together in meetings, together with their socalled Top 3 (President, Secretary-General, Treasurer), to discuss what is best for the Ateneo
studentry as a whole. And although each Division Representative supervises his/her own
Division constituents through a Student Executive Council (SEC), they are still more obliged to
the SCB as a whole, rather than their respective cluster of courses. Ideally, the concerns of
these clusters of courses as Divisions should be the primary objective of each Representative,
as it is the grassroots level of the studentry. Each Division, in its entirety, composed of all the

clustered courses therein, is where student participation starts. Only then should they convene
in SCB to discuss all matters, after they have consulted their own Division constituents to
matters concerning them. The answer to this is the proposed 2013 SAMAHAN Constitution,
wherein decentralization of specific powers and duties ideally returns back the decision-making
process to the students, rather than to a few selected student leaders. This supports the 1987
Philippine Constitution, and thus is a practical idea for a democratic SAMAHAN.
In the other hand, there are also arguments that can be made that are against the
question of having a constitution, based on the reality of the current SAMAHAN. We are blessed
in having a very supportive school administration. It is reflective of such a variety of engaging
activities, both academic and non-academic, either initiated by SCB, or the various clubs and
organizations of the students. There really isnt a pressing problem or concern that seriously
undermines the integrity of SAMAHAN, and there never has been, at least in recent history. The
SCB hears all inquiries of the students, ranging from academic concerns, supporting their
activities, and even caseworks, and they are responding well to those matters. Yes, the 1982
SAMAHAN Constitution is not ratified, but that problem is only on paper. In reality, the system
works. And it has been working very well for quite a while. If the system works, why do we need
to change it? Another supporting idea against the revision of the document is that it should be
the students who are supposed to cry out for a change in political scenery, not a select few
student leaders. The purpose in itself of having SCB alone as the main driving force in pushing
for a new constitution is not a representation of the will of the whole Ateneo studentry. It is the
initiative of a few, concerned, and obliged student leaders. The annual concept of making a
new constitution for the sake of glory and recognition of each SCB Administration is flawed. It
shouldnt be a pet project of every administration for the sake of ratifying a constitution which
is causing no such imminent problem in reality.

The idea of a new constitution is rather polarizing. The ideal situation that supports the
making of a new Constitution is rather unproven. The same cannot be said for the real situations
that show that there is no need for a new constitution, as it is rather a form of complacency.
Should SAMAHAN stay as is, play safe and not take the challenges in starting a new Student
Government? Should we opt to risk and approve a Constitution that is structurally rigid, yet
largely idealistic or possibly infeasible?
Then we shall wait for the constitutional plebiscite, wherein the students will have the
final say in whether they will approve this constitution, or not. Such power is given to the
students, and they themselves shall decide in whether there is really a need for a new
SAMAHAN Constitution. As for now, the fate of the Constitution is not anymore in the hands of
Concomm. The rest is now up to SCB, the School Administration; with the final verdict coming
from the undergraduate students of AdDU through the democratic solution of voting.

Cel Lord P. Delabahan

AB-Political Science 4
Chairperson, 2013-2014 SAMAHAN Constitutional Commission