Monthly Archives: December 2005

Memorable rallies of the year

When I was invited to speak in a conference of campus journalists in Baguio last October, my approach in discussing the national situation was to identify and contextualize the memorable words or lines in Philippine politics for the year 2005. My list included the following: discernment, calibrated, your honor, supreme sacrifice, pekeng pangulo, will I still lead FPJ by more than 1M, pipilitin po natin Ma’am, yung dagdag yung dagdag, i am sorry, hindi ko matatanggap ang iyong sorry, and hello Garci

I also enumerated the major events which grabbed national attention. My choices were the following: fantaserye and reality shows on TV, boxing champs and beauty queens, natural disasters and bombings, Evat and oil, the Pope passes away, impeachment hearings, Senate hearings, war of widows, Gloria resign rallies and the Hello Garci scandal.

If I would include the last two months of the year, I have to add the SEA games, Garcillano’s appearance in the Lower House, bird flu scare, political killings, Subic rape case, Abat’s arrest and the Citizen’s Congress for Truth and Accountability.

But my concern as a proud and almost veteran street parliamentarian is to identify the significant mass actions of the last half of the year. Indeed, it was a remarkable year for street mobilizations. Have you been to one of these rallies?

June 11 Liwasang Bonifacio prayer rally. The prayers were provided by the independent, thinking and patriotic bishops. This was also first major rally after the ‘Hello Garci’ expose.

June 24 Sto. Domingo-Welcome protest march. The program started in Sto. Domingo church but the planned march to Manila was blocked by the police in Welcome Rotunda. Even the presence of Manila Vice Mayor Lacuna did not convince the police to allow the march to continue.

July 1 Ayala rally. The first major rally in Ayala this year. Almost all political forces opposed to Gloria Arroyo participated in the program.

July 13 Ayala rally. The biggest Ayala rally since Edsa Dos. Susan Roces was the highlight of the program. Showbiz stars entertained the crowd though Dodong Nemenzo was the funniest who wore a barong in a protest action. According to Inquirer, only 40,000 attended the mammoth rally.

July 16 Pro-Gloria rally in Luneta. Arroyo’s friends in the Local Government Units delivered the crowd. High school and college students complained they were required to attend the program.

July 24 SONA rally. The people’s SONA in Commonwealth Avenue remains to this day the biggest anti-GMA rally. According to elder activists, it was also the biggest SONA protest since 1986.

September 6 Batasan rally. After being distracted by the farce Congress hearings on the impeachment complaint, anti-GMA groups held a rally near the Batasan complex to pressure lawmakers who were about to quash the impeachment case. Cory, Susan and Bro. Armin of De La Salle brothers were the frontliners.

September 7 People Power monument rally. The House Minority and other pro-impeachment solons gave speeches which agitated the public and delivered perfect soundbytes for the media. The presence of leaders of political forces proposing the formation of a transition council once Gloria is removed from power made the rally even more significant.

Mendiola rallies. Young activists attempted but failed to cross Mendiola in August, almost made it in September, and when they succeeded in October, they were the first group to be water-cannoned by the police this year. Civil libertarians challenged the policy of ‘calibrated preemptive response’ by holding a democracy walk in Recto but it also ended in a violent dispersal.

October 21 Lakbayan march. The media faithfully covered the caravan of South Luzon farmers from Laguna to Mendiola. The rally was stopped in Recto. A violent clash between police and protesters ensued. Military agents infiltrating the ranks of rallyists were apprehended.

Holy protests. De La Salle became a frequent venue of prayer vigils sponsored by anti-GMA groups. The opposition maximized the many churches surrounding the Palace by holding symbolic protests in these parishes. Malacanang became paranoid of these creeping protests that by the time Teofisto Guingona, Jamby Madrigal and company were in the middle of a ‘Prusisyon ng Bayan’ near Mendiola, police blessed them not with holy water but sewage water. The ghastly image of a heavily drenched Guingona is one of the unforgettable episodes of the year.

We braved the water cannons, truncheons and police batons; we filled the streets of Ayala and Espana with protesters; we participated in prayer vigils, lightning rallies and pickets; we distributed leaflets, stickers, posters and CDs; we toured the schools, communities and churches convincing the public to oust Gloria and install a new government; we texted and emailed our friends, downloaded ringtones, signed online petitions and blogged the Gloriagate scandal; yet despite all these courageous efforts, Gloria remains in power.

She hobnobs with foreign leaders, spends a quiet Christmas vacation in Baguio, enjoys surfing in an Ilocos beach and boasts that she is named as one of the persons that mattered in the world as if the legitimacy of her presidency has been validated. She mocks us with the easiness which she dismissed our protests and appeals for decency, honor and integrity in public service.

Why is this so?

A former activist friend reminds me that local politicians will continue to stick with GMA to secure the much needed funds for the 2007 elections.

But I disagree. The campaign to end poverty, corruption and the quest for truth and accountability remains valid and viable. The people are still hungry, taxpayers’ money goes to the pockets of bureaucrats flaming public outrage and majority of Filipinos demand the persecution of electoral cheats. The political situation is still not favorable to the ever unpopular GMA regime. Politicians will side with the people once they see the masa and middle class crowds in the streets whether elections are to be held next month or next year.

And so optimism (or call it revolutionary will) prevails. Even the eternal pessimist like me continues to be confident that GMA will soon join the ranks of Marcos and Estrada as deposed presidents.

The ‘Oust Gloria’ campaign went full swing only last June but we already witnessed a flurry of protests which seriously undermined the credibility and position of GMA. Let us remember that it took years before a strong mass movement was developed to topple Marcos. Let us remember that during the previous people power uprisings, people were only demanding a change of leadership. Now, the clamor is to change the political system of the country, an exhortation echoed even by the GMA camp.

Everybody desires a change in the system. We will proceed to this task once GMA is out of Malacanang.

The year 2006 promises to be a more decisive year as the movement surges forward after recognizing the missed opportunities and mistakes of the past year. Expect a whirlwind of protests ala Paris and Sydney in the coming months.


Nannies in Hong Kong

There are studies explaining the costs of labor migration in our society. But what is the impact of the Filipino diaspora in other societies? Aside from changes in the immigration and labor laws, what are the cultural and social influences made by Filipinos in foreign communities?

This curiosity of mine was triggered when I met students in Hong Kong who like our sinigang and adobo but dread the idea of eating balut. I realized that the first generation of HK babies reared by Pinay domestic helpers in the 80s are now studying in universities or already working as young professionals.

I am particularly interested in the case of HK, a city with a population of only 6.8 million. At present, more than 100,000 Filipinos are working as domestic helpers here. Since we are clearly the preferred nannies in HK (and elsewhere), it is fascinating to know what cultural traits and habits are acquired by HK kids from their Filipina yayas.

Recognizing that early childhood development can have a significant bearing in the character formation and adult life of an individual, how big (or small) then is the contribution of our nannies in shaping the human values of contemporary HK society? What Filipino legacy can we trace in the language, education, food, politics, religion, economics and arts of HK? Or is our influence limited to sinigang, adobo, taking a bath everyday and the obsessive desire to speak good English?

Since a DH is a temporary worker in HK, how does a child reacts and copes to the sudden departure of his/her yaya? Can a DH ever recover from the trauma of leaving her ward whom she raised as her own child for two or more years?

According to migrant groups, it is common to hear stories of children suffering from depression when their yayas return home for good in the Philippines or Indonesia. It is also not rare that children become more attached to their yayas than to their parents.

The economics of labor migration has been very well documented by various NGOs. Perhaps the campaign for just compensation of our domestic helpers can be more effectively asserted if we are able to show that our nannies are not just household workers but purveyors of love, knowledge and positive values. It must be emphasized as well that while HK citizens are away from home amassing wealth, Filipino nannies are engaged in a more demanding job of maintaining clean and orderly homes and at the same time ensuring that HK kids are not just healthy and intelligent but they are also loved and pampered.

The case of HK illustrates that the money we receive from our OFWs is a pittance compared to what other countries are getting from the toil, talent and care provided by our people. The fact is we do not just export human labor. Imagine the affection and attention given by a nanny to a child in HK: multiply that to a hundred thousand and that is partly the number of young children in the Philippines without a mother who will love and pamper them this Christmas.

This is the price we have to pay for being the popular caregivers of the world.


To family and friends, click here to view my pictures in HK. Please also find time to read my column in Tinig.

The Hong Kong trap

Hong Kong was chosen as the venue for the sixth ministerial meeting of the WTO to prove that free trade brings prosperity to people’s lives. It is hoped that the vibrant HK economy can help dispel the arguments that WTO policies can only breed poverty and misery to the world especially to the least developed countries.

But like in Seattle and Cancun, the WTO supporters were not able to silence the protests in HK. The organized poor people of the globe made it to the queen city of Asia and they were able to share their stories of how WTO is destroying their lives and families and how they are fighting for the future of their children.

The protests led many HK citizens to question the WTO policies and the supposed blessings of a globalized economy. The government and media tried to hide the glaring facts about the horrors inflicted by the WTO on the working people but the weeklong protests provided the HK public with the unpleasant truth about the unfair trade policies of the developed economies of the world.

It is noteworthy to mention that a large number of HK citizens gathered behind the march of activists attempting to deliver food and water to South Korean farmers who were detained by the police near the convention center. It was the presence of curious and bewildered HK citizens in the march which prevented the police from dispersing the rally

The protests did not alienate the HK public but encouraged them to ask more about the disastrous effects of the ten-year old WTO. They made effort to know what motivated the thousands of people to march in HK and demand the thrashing of the WTO. What kind of suffering can WTO exact on the South Korean farmers who have to swim the cold waters of the Causeway bay and attempted an attack on the Wan Chai side of the conference venue just to call for the abolition of the WTO? Whether its the syncronized drumming of the Koreans, the colorful costumes of the Indians or the loud chanting of the Filipinos, HK citizens responded to these different actions by becoming more interested about the sins of the WTO.

To better understand the sentiments of concerned HK people, here is an excerpt from the letter of a group in HK distributed (together with free soy milk and water) during the last day of the protest week:

"Thank you for your coming here, from far away, to make us aware that this "shopping paradise" is built upon the blood and sweat of peasants and workers from poor and developing countries…Thank you for your patience in explaining to us and our media the devastating effects of the WTO, although your voice have been distorted and submerged in the mainstream representation…Thank you for telling us, through your actions about the meaning of human dignity, it is far more important than economic interest, you have brought along with you fresh air to this money stinking city…Thank you for the colors, songs, dances and body languages that you have introduced to our rally culture, it tells us that demonstrations are not silent requests to the power, but a manifestation and expression of people’s power and creativities…"

Violence – particularly the clashes between the police and Koreans, was once again highlighted in the media. The angry faces of the protesters plus their seeming mad attack on the police were broadcasted to the world giving the impression that it was the activists who provoked the violence in HK. It is evident from the start that the Koreans are really aggressive in their protest actions. The media, especially the government, made it certain that the public would be informed about this fact. But there was no in-depth report or discussion about the source of this violence and hatred. The public was not made aware of the provocation instigated by the WTO which forced many poor and calm people to shout, demand and act for drastic reforms in Seattle, Cancun and now in HK.

Can peace be possible when the dumping of cheap products from developed nations is killing the livelihood of the people in many poor nations? Is not the desire for profit, profit and more profit by greedy companies and corrupt governments a more insidious provocation of violence? The WTO is the monster which is the biggest killing machine in the modern era. It is hoped that just as we see and denounce the rowdy behavior of activists, we should not overlook the reason for this violence nor trivialize (and even worse, ignore) the violence which the WTO is introducing everyday in every community of the world.

Departure/Arrival gates

The film Love Actually begins and ends with heartwarming scenes at the Heathrow airport convincing us that in spite of hate and violence we see everyday, "love actually is all around." I appreciated that message and the effort to bring more cheer to everyone who feels the world is a dangerous, unfair and lonely place.

A recent visit in the Manila Airport (NAIA) led me to review my appreciation of the movie. Yes, we can see happy people in the arrival gates of NAIA. We are proud witnesses to noisy family gatherings, a parent-child reunion, lovers’ passionate embrace and kisses. But these scenes are different from what we saw in the movie Love Actually.

Indeed, Heathrow is different from NAIA, in almost all aspects, especially the happiness we seem to feel and see at the arrival gates.

In London, those waiting at the airport are anxious relatives, friends and lovers of arriving passengers who are going home after a vacation, school semester or business trip. In NAIA, majority of the returning Filipinos are overseas Filipino workers who will stay for only a month or less.

It is love we feel and see at the NAIA, but not a complete happiness like what we were made to see at the Heathrow. We may be overjoyed to be reunited with our loved ones but it will only be a brief reunion. We will soon realize that we can only sustain this feeling of completeness for a few weeks.

What do returning OFWs feel when their children can barely recognize them? What do children feel who expect to see the smiling eyes, soothing hands and familiar face of their parents but those who greeted them in NAIA have older eyes, tired hands and almost different persons? We can never see these scenes at the Heathrow, but only in NAIA.

Love actually is all around – How do we say this to a child in the NAIA arrival gates who is waiting for the cadaver bag of his/her OFW mother?

You want to prove that there is love in this world, the kind of love depicted in the movie Love Actually? Well, don’t look for it in the airport of Manila.

The saddest place

The saddest place these days can be found at the departure gates of NAIA. There is no Filipino who ever want to be away from his/her family during the Christmas season but the lines are still long at the NAIA. Then there is the cruel sign in the airport that instructs passengers to unload for two minutes only. The OFW, the modern day hero according to the government, has two minutes to prepare his/her things and to bid farewell to his/her loved ones. To hell with traffic and airport security. Give OFWs the time they want to be with their families for the last moments before they become foreigners in other countries. It will be years or decades before a son can feel the comforting and strong hands of his father or his mother’s warm embrace and the government is giving them two minutes in the airport?

While waiting for my turn at the Immigration counter, I overheard a woman encouraging her companion to cry. "Mamya na lang, pag wala ng tao," replied the other person. In tha plane, away from thr prying eyes of airport personnel and other passengers, I saw the woman quietly sobbing in her seat. Merry christmas, indeed.

This story was relayed by a friend: A returning domestic helper in Hong Kong told me at the airport that she knows nothing about the best places to visit in the city. She stays in her house the whole six days and on Sundays, she will be in the park together with other Filipinos. This is their routine.

After hearing this story, I remembered that Randy David once wrote that aside from the growing influence of TV and radio, the overseas employment of Filipinos can help in the drive towards political modernity. This thinking must reconsider that majority of Filipinos are below ocean liners in the middle of seas or locked inside the homes and factories of other countries that chances of them acquiring mature political beliefs are small. This also assumes that societies in other countries are democratic and responsive to the real needs of the people. Mr. David is too well-traveled and well-read to overlook this fact. What he had in mind may be cosmopolitan Filipinos studying or working as career officials in other countries. But this is an insignificant number to influence the body politics in the Philippines.

The UP Student Council 1951-1968

Marcelo Fernan, Homobono Adaza, Randolf David, Delfin Lazaro, Miriam Defensor – before they became prominent public figures, they were members of the UP Student Council during this period.

March 29, 1951: First UP Diliman student rally to Malacanang led by the USC, Senior Student Council, Junior Student Council and the Woman’s Club to express support for UP President Gonzales who invited Claro M. Recto, arch critic of President Quirino, to deliver commencement address at UP graduation. Vidal Tan eventally replaced Gonzales. But the students won the right to listen to Recto on their graduation and have Gonzales sign their diplomas instead of President Tan.

November 30, 1952: USC Chair Rafael Salas led the students to a rally in Malacanang protesting the policies of President Elpidio Quirino.

August 4, 1955: USC Chair Fernando Campos held an emergency meeting expressing support for three members of the Board of Regents (BOR) and planned a rally demanding ouster of Fr. John Patrick Delaney from UP for interfering in university affairs

November 1955: The UP Student Catholic Action (UPSCA) and UPSILON Fraternity war flared anew when four UPSCA USC members filed charges against Campos, an UPSILONIAN. The charges were illegal alteration of USC Resolution of August 4, grave abuse of power, and shameful conduct unbecoming his office. Campos countercharged that the complainants were conducting a systematic campaign of vilification against him. Both charges were dropped by the University Committee on Student Organizations and Associations.

June 22, 1956: UPSCA takes full control of USC defeating UPSILON from top post to minor posts.

December 16-17 1957: “Peaceful and spontaneous” strike of students led by USC on inaction of the BOR to elect a new UP President. The University Council (UC) was forced to declare an early Christmas Vacation. On the third day of strike, students held a victory motorcade around Quezon City and Manila passing Malacanang Palace.

January 2, 1958: Executive Committee (EC) of UP dialogued with student leaders to discontinue future strikes.

January 20, 1958: Students Johnny Antillon, Emmanuel Santos, Epifanio San Juan Jr., and Romulo Villa petitioned to expel USC Chair and Vice Chair Lagua and Adaza first for the illegal and immoral use of the Philippine Collegian to malign the BOR and the UP administration; and second for inciting a thousand university students to join the student strike.

March 30, 1958: EC sustained recommendations that Lagua be suspended for nine months and dropped as USC Chair. Adaza permanently dropped from the rolls of the university. The two were required to apologize in writing to the BOR. Senator Emmanuel Pelaez spoke in behalf of the two and declared that they had suffered from serious miscarriage of justice.

June 24, 1958: UP President Vicente Sinco issued Administrative Circular no. 1 which limited the representation of any student organization to one representative only in each of the student councils (to counter the dominance of the UPSCA). UPSCA said the circular was “illegal, discriminatory, unreasonable, undemocratic and arbitrary.” They filed a case in court. Supreme Court dismissed the petition on technical grounds saying that UPSCA should have exhausted administrative remedies within the university. The decision came only in 1960. In effect, there was no USC from 1958-1960.

January 1961: BOR approved Article 448 which was the Circular no. 1 of Pres. Sinco. It also approved Article 437 which provided for a Student Union which would take charge of cultural and social programs and activities of the student body.

March 14, 1961: Investigation of the Committee Against Anti-Filipino Activities (CAFA) on 10 UP Professors for their alleged involvement in communistic activities. A thousand UP students held a demonstration in Congress to denounce the witchhunt in the university.

January 6, 1962: The Student Union protested Macapagal’s offer to Carlos P. Romulo to become UP President. The Union said “UP is not an auction bloc at Macapagal’s personal disposal.”

January 12, 1962: Union Chair Enrique Voltaire Garcia led the UP students to a rally in front of Quezon Hall affirming support and trust in BOR, the only sole body tasked to choose UP President.

January 18, 1962: Student Union met for two hours to pass a resolution calling Macapagal to withdraw the offer of the University Presidency to Romulo “in order to that the independence and prestige of the state university may be restored.” Thirty-eight Union members voted “yes” for the resolution, only three voted against.

June 1962: USC restored by UP President Romulo. USC presented former UP President Sinco a plaque during his resignation for his “ commitment to the preservation of the free and secular nature of the university.”

July 1963: President Romulo proclaimed Academic Year 1963-1964 as the Year of the Student.

AY 1964-65: USC initiated the jeepney campus boycott until the fares for campus rides were reduced to five centavos from 10 centavos.

December 1964: The Student Cultural Association in UP (SCAUP) made a float with Jun Tera in the stance and uniform of a Vietnamese guerilla during the Lantern Parade. Instead of Christmas Carols, the students sang the Internationale.

September 11, 1966: USC Chair Voltaire Garcia led a mammoth demonstration at the Palace to protest the senseless shedding of Filipino blood for a foreign power and cause.

October 24, 1966: The USC led a historic hike of students from QC to Manila Hotel where the Manila Summit was held. 5000 students were protesting the continuing American intervention in the Vietnam War. Police violently dispersed the protesters. Sores were hurt. The USC called for an inter-university indignation rallies. The October 24 Movement was formed.

The USC called for a National Students’ Congress for the advancement of nationalism to be held in Diliman. 500 student leaders attended the event.

July 1968: The USC, Philippine Collegian, Katipunang Makabansa, Pagkakaisa, and the Partisans led 14 busloads of students to the Congress building to oppose the Second Philippine Civil Action Group bill on the involvement of the country in the Vietnam War.

August 16, 1968: Metrocom dispersed a rally led by UP students at US Embassy and Malacanang to protest the “Special Relations” between the Philippines and USA. Five UP students suffered bruises.

September 1968: Senator Lorenzo Tanada, head of the Movement for the Advancement of Nationalism (MAN) protested the Americanization of UP. USC started to lead demonstrations against the Vietnem War, Philippine participation in the war, oil monopolies, implementation of the retail trade nationalization laws, and US Imperialism.

Roster of USC Chairpersons and Vice-Chairpersons

1950-51 Teodoro Padilla
1951-52 Marcelo B. Fernan                              Tranquilino Orden Jr.
1952-53 Rafael M. Salas                                  Orlando Sakay
1953-54 Jose Palanca, Jr.                                 Julian Meimban
1954-55 Elias B. Lopez
1955-56 Fernando C. Campos                          Primitivo Galinato
1956-57 Fernando A. Lagua                             Homobono Adaza
1957-58 Fernando A. Lagua                             Emmanuel V. Soriano

UP Student Union

1961-62 Enrique Voltaire Garcia II                    Manuel Tuting Jr./Ruperto Marigza
1962-63 Eric O. de Guia                                   Dionisio Gil Jr./Rodolfo Salazar
                                                                         Adolfo Santos/Thomas W. Choa

UP Student Council

1963-64 Leonardo A. Quisimbing
1964-65 Benjamin N. Muego                            Ma. Cielo Burce
1965-66 Tristan A. Catindig                              Randolf David
1966-67 Enrique Voltaire Garcia II                   Violeta Calvo
1967-68 Delfin Lazaro                                      Miriam Defensor


1. UP: The First 75 Years, a Diamond Jubilee Publication (UP Press 1985) edited by Oscar Alfonso
2. The University Experience: Essays on the 82nd Anniversary of the University of the Philippines (UP Press 1991) edited by Belinda Aquino.
3. The University of the Philippines: University for Filipinos edited by Gloria Feliciano (1984 UP-IMC)
4. Philippine Collegian
5. Philippinensian

The UP Student Council 1913-1950

I wrote earlier about the history of the UP Student Council during the martial law years. Now, let me share my little research project which I undertook four years ago about the early years of the main student body of UP.

1913: The Student Council of UP was instituted under the auspices of UP President Barlett. Manuel Tabora of the College of Law was the first Chairman of the Student Council.

October 6, 1913: The USC participated in the popular demonstration in honor of Governor-General Harrison.

December 15, 1917: First student protest against a Manila police captain and his men for arresting Victoriano Yamzon during the first University Day. The police have mistaken the 1st Editor of College Folio as part of an unruly crowd.

March 12, 1918: First protest of Freshmen. They petitioned to Board of Regents to extend their scholarship

July 17, 1918: Students led by Carlos P. Romulo and Jose Romero held a rally from UP to Sta Cruz Bridge at the Manila Times office to protest the editorial of the newspaper criticizing UP President Ignacio Villamor

January 21, 1921: The Executive Committee (EC) of the University approved a memorandum embodying the idea of creating an inter-collegiate student council.

1922: The EC approved the adoption by the student body of a so-called “bill of rights of the USC.” It would take two more years before the constitutional convention for the creation of a USC would take place.
Bill of Rights:
1. To develop university spirit among the ranks of students and promote their general welfare.
2. To advise the President of UP on student matters, affairs, activities of distinctly inter-collegiate concern.
3. To organize and direct student activities of inter-collegiate nature.
4. To adopt its own Constitution and promulgate rules and by-laws for its own internal and general government.
5. To have such powers and perform such other duties as the university authorities may from time to time grant or delegate tot he USC.

September 27, 1924: UP President Rafael Palma revived the University Student Council (USC). The student fund was Php 1.50. The first projects of the USC were the establishment of the post office building and awarding of scholarships and medals to outstanding students.

January 31, 1926: USC initiated the first meeting of students from different colleges and schools ever held in Manila at the Zorilla theater. The USC then was composed of 96 members with each class of every college entitled to two representatives. The USC also published the Philippinensian.

1927: The USC passed a resolution radically reducing the number of USC members to 24.

1929: The USC protested the increase of fees and the rigid rules of the Department of Physical Education

January 18, 1933: Demonstration in students in support of the Hare-Hawes Cutting Act. President Quezon disapproved of the rally saying that students should be studying for their examinations and should not participate in political affairs.

Students also held a rally at the same year protesting the bill that will reorganize government personnel except legislators. Lawmakers who visited the university were booed and heckled.

June 1935: Both USC candidates for the position of President received equal number of votes even after two hours of repeated deliberations. The candidates agreed to divide the term upon the behest of the council adviser. Thus, the deadlock was broken.

1937: UP students and faculty campaigned for the right of Filipino women to vote

February 5, 1939: The USC petitioned the BOR that it be given the power to elect the Editor-in-Chief of the Philippine Collegian. The USC reasoned that since it is the highest governing student body, it must be given control over the official student organ.

1940: USC office located in 2nd floor of the newly built Alumni Hall with Philippine Collegian, Philippinensian and Institute of National Language. USC also started to elect a Vice-Chairperson not from UP Los Banos Representatives. Instead they elected a student from Veterinary Science to be the Vice-Chair.

1946: USC was revived after World War II together with other student organizations notably the Junior and Senior Student Councils. USC passed a resolution affirming faith in UP President Gonzales amidst rumors university not satisfied with administration.

April 1948: USC President Villanueva observed that a major problem in the university was the deficiency of the students in their command of English.

1950: Huks attacked PC Detachment in Balara sending dorm residents to take cover in basements and in the Law building.



1. UP: The First 75 Years, a Diamond Jubilee Publication (UP Press 1985)
edited by Oscar Alfonso
2. The University Experience: Essays on the 82nd Anniversary of the University of the Philippines (UP Press 1991) edited by Belinda Aquino.
3. The University of the Philippines: University for Filipinos
edited by Gloria Feliciano (1984 UP-IMC)
4. Philippine Collegian
5. Philippinensian

Roster of USC Chairpersons and Vice-Chairpersons

1913 Manuel Mariano Tabora
1915 Andres Ranola                                                Vicente Hilario
1925-26 Eduardo R. Alvarado                                 Francisco G. Tonogbanua
1926-27 Juan Chuidian
1927-28 Ramon Nolasco
1928-29 Lorenzo Sumulong                                     Alfredo Gatbonton
1929-30 Gregorio Lantin                                         Eleazar Sitchon
1930-31 Enrique J. Corpus                                      Jose Viado
1931-32 Manuel Sevilla                                           Patrocinio Abaya
1932-33 Wenceslao Q. Vinzons                              Dominador Clemente
1933-34 Ramon Enriquez                                        Vicente Defensor
              Alberto Leynes
1934-35 Avelino Pascual
1935-36 Potenciano Illusorio                                   Andres Angara
              Jose B. Laurel, Jr.
1936-37 S. Angeles
1937-38 Roberto S. Benedicto
1938-39 Sotero Laurel                                            Dioscoro Umali
1939-40 Florante Roque                                         Juan Umali
1940-41 Hermogenes Concepcion, Jr.
1941-42 Antonio Azores
1943 Quintin Gomez
1944 Troadio T. Quiazon, Jr.
1946-47 Troadio T. Quiazon, Jr.                              Jesus Moran Sison
1947-48 Delfin Villanueva                                        Mario Belisorio
1948-49 Emilio Espinosa, Jr.                                    Jose Culig
1949-50 Antonio M. Meer                                       Leandro Sinco