u/EntertainerFew5506

We have been stripped of our voice.

The recent pronouncement of the FEU COMELEC declaring the abstain vote as merely “symbolic” and not a valid expression of the student body’s will is deeply alarming. An abstain vote is not silence. It is a statement. It is protest. It is accountability.

To President-elect Calara,

This is your moment to prove whether “Transforming Ahead” was merely a campaign slogan or a genuine commitment to democratic student governance.
Listen to your constituents. Stand with the students who made their voices heard through the abstain vote. Lead the call to challenge and nullify the proclamation of candidates who were unequivocally rejected by the very community they seek to represent.

Leadership is not measured by victory alone, but by the courage to uphold what is right even when it is politically inconvenient.

We are waiting for your resolve.

To the candidates who lost to abstain,

You know who you are. You also know what the right thing is.

You still have a choice. Before taking your oath, you may choose to step aside and respect the clear sentiment of the student body. If you truly stand for democratic principles and claim to be pro-student leaders, then hear the message delivered by the FEU community.

The students have spoken.

Do not hide behind technicalities and procedural lapses and loopholes to justify holding onto positions that the electorate has already rejected in principle.

A graceful exit is not weakness. It is integrity.

The FEU community is watching. History will remember whether you chose power or principle.

Respect the voice of the students.

I appreciate that the FEUCSO VP finally released a more detailed explanation regarding ARANGKADA. At least now, students have something more concrete to scrutinize and discuss. But honestly, the clarification raised even more concerns than answers.

First, there are still no actual numbers.
Until now, there is no clear data showing:
• how much each student will receive;
• how many students can realistically benefit;
• how often assistance will be given; and
• how the proposed 10–12% FEUCSO budget allocation will actually sustain the program.

Saying “existing funds” will be used is not enough. Students deserve transparency through real computations and projections, especially since student funds are involved. Kasi hindi naman unlimited ang FEUCSO budget. If a large portion will be allocated to one flagship project, students also have the right to know what programs, services, or initiatives might be affected or deprioritized because of it.

Second, the proposal still feels financially vague and structurally unstable.
Initially, the percentage allocation was unclear, then eventually became “10–12% after discussion.” For a flagship proposal, dapat sana finalized or at least backed by feasibility studies before being heavily campaigned. Hindi yung parang inaayos pa habang nasa gitna ng criticism.

Third, the auditing and accountability mechanism itself appears weak because it heavily depends on entities outside FEUCSO’s control.
The statement says they intend to collaborate with organizations with auditing expertise, administrative offices, and possibly external auditing bodies. But what happens if those organizations refuse to participate?

Can FEUCSO force JPIA or other organizations to audit the project? Obviously not.
And that is the problem.
The entire transparency mechanism becomes dependent on whether institutions voluntarily agree to help. What if they:
• do not support the proposal;
• do not want the workload or liability;
• do not want to be involved in political controversy; or
• simply refuse participation?

If the accountability structure itself is uncertain, then the safeguards protecting the program are also uncertain. Hindi puwedeng “possible external auditing” lang when the credibility of the entire system heavily relies on it.

Fourth, the “long term solution” narrative honestly does not make sense. One year lang ang term ng FEUCSO officials. By next year, naka LOA na sila and they will already move on to supporting the next candidates from their party. So where exactly is the long term sustainability? Once naibigay na yung subsidy or pamasahe, ubos na rin yung pera. The student’s financial situation still remains the same after that. That is temporary financial relief, not structural reform.

And lastly, students are justified in being cautious because once financial assistance systems are introduced in student governance, the risks of favoritism, politicization, selective screening, and possible misuse become very real.

The criteria may sound objective on paper, but implementation is what matters. “Strict screening” and “transparency” are easy to promise during campaigns. The difficult part is guaranteeing them consistently once power, discretion, and money are already involved.

At the end of the day, no one is against helping financially struggling students. The intention is good. But good intentions alone are not enough to justify a program that still lacks concrete numbers, guaranteed safeguards, institutional stability, and long term sustainability. Students are not wrong for asking hard questions now, because accountability should start before the project begins — not after problems already happen.

Let's vote, wisely! Basahin ang mga proyekto nila dahil iyan ang reflection ng kanilang brand of student leadership. Good luck sa atin, may isang araw pa tayong baguhin ang sistema. VOTE WISELY!

Having said everything, I have decided to ABSTAIN the FEUCSO VP.

I understand that the FEUCSO VP 💙 provided an explanation regarding this project, but I will explain later why it is deemed to have failed.

I hope that, instead of justifying the program/project, she could have acknowledged the lapse in judgment regarding the proposal. Pero pinipilit pa talaga hays. Humility in accepting mistakes is something that student leaders should learn and embody.

😔