PRIMER on the DRAFT

2009 Code of Student Conduct

For University of the Philippines Diliman

1. When did the present bodies of rules and regulations on student conduct and
discipline first take effect?

The Rules and Regulations on Student Conduct and Discipline (RRSCD),

which generally apply to U.P. students, was approved by the Board of Regents on
September 2, 1976 and was last amended on August 27, 1998. The Revised Rules
and Regulations Governing Fraternities, Sororities and Other Student Organizations
(RRRGFSOSO), on the other hand, was approved by the Board of Regents on
October 24, 1995.

2. Why is there a need to revise the current student rules and regulations?

At present, the rules have not adequately addressed issues in student

discipline. From 1996-2006, 349 student disciplinary cases were filed, or an
average of 31.7 cases filed per year. The number of students charged with
violations per year is 61.3, or 675 over the 11-year period. With regard to cases
involving fraternities, sororities and other student organizations, the numbers are
disturbing. In the last 43 years, there have been 13 fraternity-related deaths. From
1996-2006, 297 respondents in student disciplinary cases were members of 19
fraternities, sororities and other student organizations. These numbers are
disconcerting, and they have not declined even with the present rules and
regulations governing students and student organizations.

In addition, there is much delay in the resolution of these cases because of

the current procedure provided in the rules. It takes about four (4) to six (6) years
before a student disciplinary case is resolved. The rules are outdated and are
becoming increasingly inefficient. Moreover, new types of offenses have come
into existence due to changing times and circumstances, which are not
adequately addressed by the current rules.

3. What procedure was undertaken in drafting the 2009 Code of Student Conduct?

Before the review committee began revising the current rules, a team of
researchers from the College of Mass Communication conducted research to
provide for a well-informed review that is mindful of the welfare of all sectors of the
University community. The research was designed so that its output has been
useful not only to the review but also for understanding a broad range of student
concerns.
 The research team conducted ten (10) focused group discussions and 100
focused interviews with the faculty, non-academic personnel and students of UP
Diliman and its satellite campus UP Pampanga. Approximately 150 informants
participated in the research. In addition, position papers were submitted by some
members of the faculty and administrative personnel commenting on the review.
The research generated comments and suggestions regarding the University rules
and regulations on students and student organizations, which may be summarized
in terms of six anchor concepts:

a. Foundation – The research informants believe that the University needs to

be clear about the underlying framework/philosophy of its rules and
regulations. Rules should also be pro-active and positive, instead of being
reactive and punitive. In addition, these rules should mirror some aspects of
the Filipino.

b. Clarification and articulation – The informants think the current rules need to
be clarified in terms of their intent, scope, and/or application. Penalties
should be clarified; specifically, that for each violation, the corresponding
sanction be indicated. Clarification and articulation also mean that the
rules should be stated in a simple and concise manner, using direct and
specific language, so as not to leave room for misunderstanding.

c. Addition – Several informants suggested that the rules and regulations be

expanded to cover ‘newer’ concerns. There should be an inclusion of
other penalties aside from suspension and expulsion, or what are called
alternative penalties. Additional mechanisms/structures for the processing
of cases are needed, given the slow grind of justice in the Student
Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT).

d. Implementation – There is a perception that the rules and regulations are

not effectively implemented due to the lack of political will to implement
the rules; lack of resources to enforce the rules; the constituents’ ignorance
of the rules; the uneven implementation of the rules; and the geographical
as well as sectoral expanse of the University.

e. Dissemination – The informants also stressed the need to popularize the rules
and regulations, e.g. put the rules online for wide and easy access.

f. Representation – The informants stressed that consultation with all sectors of

the University should be part of the process of revising the rules.

The review committee also analyzed the SDT figures and trends. It also
examined the various existing rules applicable to students and all kinds of student
organizations and noticed some vagueness and disparity across the different
bodies of rules.

Informed with all of the above, the committee revised the rules and
produced the draft 2009 Code of Student Conduct. This draft has undergone
further revisions based on the suggestions of the members of the UP Diliman
Executive Committee, who in turn discussed the draft with their respective Faculty.

4. Which student rules and regulations have been revised?

The Rules and Regulations on Student Conduct and Discipline (RRSCD), the
Revised Rules and Regulations Governing Fraternities, Sororities and Other Student
Organizations (RRRGFSOSO), the Guidelines on the Application for, or Renewal of,
Official Recognition of University-based Student Organizations (GARORUSO), and
the General Guidelines on Tambayan in UP Diliman (GGTUPD). The last two were
included in the review due to their connection with the management of student
organizations, which affect the implementation of the proposed new rules.

5. What are the major features of the draft 2009 Code of Student Conduct?

a. TATAK UP. Article I of the draft 2009 Code of Student Conduct (CSC)
contains a declaration of principles on which the draft code rests. It is titled
“TATAK UP”. It puts in perspective the role of the University and its
community in contributing to the betterment of the Philippine nation. It
embodies the importance of the University to the history, culture and
identity of the Philippines. It also responds to the first key suggestion that
emerged out of the research conducted prior to the review. (See Article I
of the draft 2009 CSC.)

b. Harmony of provisions. The draft 2009 CSC harmonized the definitions and
disparate rules of the current bodies of rules and regulations. To ensure that
rules are consistent with each other, the old bodies of rules were integrated
into one. This is expected to simplify and make more efficient the process
of implementing the rules.

c. Clarification of violations and addition of new violations. The violations

provided in the draft 2009 CSC have been clarified, such that adequate
definitions have been provided to determine the scope of the violations.
The Code classifies misconduct into five categories, namely Intellectual
Dishonesty, Fraud, Harm to Person and Property, Inappropriate Behavior,
and Violations of the Accepted Use Policy for Information Technology
Resources of the University.

An example of the clarification of violations is found in Article VI, Section

1.1, on Intellectual Dishonesty. Instead of using “cheating” as in the old
rules to identify this specific misconduct, the draft 2009 CSC uses the
broader term “Intellectual Dishonesty”, and specifies the kinds of
intellectual dishonesty a student may commit. (See Article VI Section 1.1.)
 Another example: The scope of “Fraud” has been broadened and
particular acts of fraud have been specified, indicating respective
penalties for each act. (See Article VI Section 1.2.)

Moreover, new offenses have been specified or added in order to address

the changes in culture and the social environment over the years, such as
sexual harassment (Article VI Section 1.3.1f) and violation of the Approved
Acceptable Use Policy for Information Technology Resources of the UP
System (Article VI Section 1.5).

d. Rationalization of penalties. Penalties for certain violations have been

amended in order to emphasize the reformative or disciplinary rather than
punitive nature of these penalties. There is now a gradation in the
reckoning of the offenses and the corresponding penalties. Also,
alternative penalties are provided to encourage reform. For instance, the
requirement to go to counseling is provided in some cases. Community
service is also an alternative in some other cases.

e. Simplification of procedure for student disciplinary cases. The procedure

for hearing cases, from the filing of the complaint to the promulgation of a
decision, has been simplified. It takes into account the complexity of the
University’s structure (i.e. several Colleges) and is designed to prevent
delays.

f. Introduction of Alternative Dispute Resolution. Alternative dispute resolution

may be applied to cases of less serious misconduct by which the dispute is
resolved by the parties themselves with the assistance of a third party.

g. Same rules for Fraternities, Sororities, and Organizations. The draft 2009 CSC
covers fraternities, sororities, and organizations evenly, in order to be fair
and to afford all student groups equal protection.

6. Where can UP Students find a copy of the 2008 Code of Conduct?

Click here to access a soft copy of the draft 2009 Code of Student
Conduct. Email all comments and suggestions to student-code@up.edu.ph