HUMSSSOC TOTS
PRESIDENT
She presents herself confidently, although I noticed that she's quite soft spoken. Still, okay naman and clear yung mga points na gusto niyang iparating, yung tipong alam mo na prepared and well spoken naman siya. Some of her platforms may seem similar to projects from previous terms, but I can still see her dedication and how she defended them well during the MDA. I think one thing she can improve on is becoming more confident and outspoken when speaking, especially since president is a position that requires strong communication and presence.
IVP
As student leaders, especially for an IVP, I think it's important to be outspoken and unafraid to express yourself, and I can see that quality in one of the candidates. It's also evident how much she genuinely wants to lead because despite her loss during the SC elections, she still chose to run again for HUMSSSoc. The OTHER candidate also shows us how important fighting for the student body is. Overall, I honestly think it's difficult to choose between the two because they both have strong advocacies and both seem passionate about amplifying the students' voices. TIP: if you're struggling to choose between both candidates because they're both capable, assess them more, especially the platforms you would want to see be implemented.
EVP
I think her credentials and the way she presents herself already show why people support her. Her platforms are well thought out and aligned with the office she's running for. Magaling din talaga siyang magsalita and she carries herself confidently during discussions.
As for the other candidate, he honestly seems kind and dedicated as well, and I don't think he deserves all the backlash he's receiving right now. From what I've heard from others and observed, he also seems determined and committed despite the circumstances. I think people should still give him the chance to prove himself more instead of immediately dismissing his capabilities. TIP: if you're struggling to choose between both candidates because they're both capable, assess them more, especially the platforms you would want to see be implemented.
SECRETARY
I can really see how much she embodies what a secretary should be—accountability, transparency, and responsibility. I also appreciate that her platforms touch not only on office work and academics, but also on community development and mental health, which are things students genuinely need. Although I noticed that some parts of her advocacy may come across as familiar or commonly used, especially the focus on transparency, I guess that's also because transparency is really a core responsibility of the office itself. Some of her platforms may not seem directly aligned with the position at first, but I can still somehow see the connection she’s trying to establish.
TREASURER
At first, I genuinely tried to keep an open mind because his platforms looked promising on paper. However, during the MDA, I personally felt that he struggled to defend and explain them clearly. I think communication and preparedness are important, especially when presenting plans to the student body. Since he's also not originally from the office he's running for, I think people naturally became curious about how he would handle the responsibilities of the position. Still, I believe he deserves the opportunity to continue proving himself and improving moving forward.
AUDITOR
She seems very capable and knowledgeable about her platforms, and she was able to defend them properly during the MDA. It's also noticeable that she has a strong support system and campaign team behind her, which reflects how much people believe in her capabilities. Based on her past experiences, I can also see her potential as a leader. I just hope to hear her voice and personal perspectives even more throughout.
IPRO
Both candidates honestly seem to have the same level of experience and expertise for the office. Their platforms also seem somewhat similar, but still both are somehow distinguishable and unique so I'm still not entirely sure who to vote for. However, based on the MDA performance alone, I found myself slightly more toward one side because the other candidate seemed a bit nervous and struggled to articulate some points clearly but given the situation, it's normal to feel a bit nervous. Still, overall, I genuinely think they both possess the creativity, skills, and energy fit for an IPRO position. They both feel very “IPRO material” to me. Maganda rin dynamic nila. TIP: if you're struggling to choose between both candidates because they're both capable, assess them more, especially the platforms you would want to see be implemented.
EPRO
What I appreciate most about her is that her advocacies are not only focused on engagement (EPRO things), but also on making sure students are informed. I honestly think she has the capability to help people feel more connected and involved within the HUMSS Society. I did notice that she's also quite soft spoken and sometimes trails away from the question a little, but she's still able to answer thoughtfully and communicate her ideas and advocacies well.
Please continue to assess these candidates based on their credentials, platforms, pulso interviews, and especially their MDA performances.
At the end of the day, yes, they are candidates, but they are students as well—students who had the courage to step up and represent the student body. Tao rin sila, so I hope we all become more careful with the words we throw around, especially when accusations and rumors are being spread without proper proof. That's all, padayon!