For those thinking of joining frats/soros

Posting in light of the recent discussions here on frats and soros in law school.

I’ve gone back and forth on whether to post this, but if it helps even one person make a more informed decision, it’ll be worth it.

Let me start by saying that I have never been affiliated with any fraternity or sorority. Back when I was in UP Law (I eventually left for health reasons and later finished law school in a province), my closest friends were affiliated—some in fraternities, others in sororities.

I was also recruited and had already started the process for a law-based sorority. All I can say is: it messes with you.

The people themselves could be nice outside of the process, but the recruitment experience felt deeply inhumane. You’re expected to call them “Master,” kneel in front of them, endure being shouted at, insulted, and humiliated. They make you do random, degrading tasks. The justification is always the same: “It’s tradition.” “That’s just how it’s done.” “It’s the price you pay to belong.”

Maybe that’s true. But that doesn’t make it right.

From what I witnessed, fraternities often have it even worse, with more physical and psychological hazing. One of my law school blockmates eventually quit law school because he was terrified of the fraternity he had backed out of joining. He even avoided enrolling in a particular professor’s class because the professor was known to have deep ties to that fraternity. (That professor is no longer in UP.)

Yes, we were both “quitters.” After I left the sorority recruitment process, I avoided that second-floor corridor for a long time because I was genuinely afraid of running into them.

The experience changed me, and not for the better. My friend who went through the fraternity process said the same thing. Neither of us came out of it as the same person.

Despite that, we both still became lawyers—just not UP lawyers. We ended up okay. Looking back, I don’t regret walking away.

If you’re considering joining a fraternity or sorority, ask yourself whether any organization that requires humiliation, intimidation, or fear as the price of belonging is truly worth belonging to

[Posting for a friend]

Either Kultura o divisoria pa lang naririnig ko, may iba pang stores kayo na alam na maganda mag invest sa off-the-rack grad attire? (Kahit anong price range)

Exercise your right to vote. Place your bets on the possible outcomes!

Hi again! I used to post a lot about univ-wide politics and elections in the past years (see my profile, still can't link it for some reason). This time around I felt like a lot of current students only know UPD politics through ALYANSA, abstain campaigns, and “independent” candidates who somehow move as a bloc every election season. But university-wide politics in Diliman really used to be much more ideologically defined. So here's a look back to our univ politics' history and my unsolicited analysis to it LOL.

The Era of Big Political Machines

Back in the post-Martial Law years, SAMASA (Sandigan ng Mag-aaral para sa Sambayanan) was the dominant force in rebuilding university-wide student politics after the restoration of the USC in 1981. For a time, it wasn’t just influential; it basically defined campus politics.

But like most long-standing political machines, internal tensions eventually surfaced. By the mid-90s, SAMASA split into different ideological currents, including SAMASA-TMMA (Tunay Militante Makabayang Alyansa), which would later evolve into STAND UP in 1996.

Fast forward to the late 90s and 2000s, and UPD had something many campuses didn’t: A functioning multi-party system.

• STAND UP on the NatDem left in 1995
• UP ALYANSA emerging from independent and reformist coalitions in 2000
• KAISA UP as another ideological bloc in student politics in 2005

For a long time, you had parties with distinct political lines, alumni networks, internal training, ideological continuity, and long-term accountability. Students weren’t just voting for personalities... they were voting for institutions.

Whether you agreed with them or not, parties had identities. They had accountability. They had continuity beyond just one election cycle. You underperform this year, you feel the wrath of the students the following year.

The Slow Blur Into “Independence”

In recent years, that clarity has slowly eroded.

As noted in my several election reflections in the past years, what used to be clearly defined party contests have become more fragmented, less institutional, and harder to read.

And somewhere in that shift, we got the now-familiar phenomenon: “independent” candidates who… function very much like a slate.

Coordinated campaigns, shared networks, synchronized messaging, but no formal party label. Relationship status is givingg It’s complicated, a “we’re not together but we’re also very much together” lol.

As also pointed out during one of my discourses on abstain (see my profile), the issue isn’t just voter apathy—it’s the weakening of visible political structures that used to make accountability clearer.

The “Standependent” Era

This is where things get interesting and honestly, a little ironic.

We still have the same political personalities, the same networks, the same campus influence structures… but increasingly without the party labels that used to make them legible.

So what do we call this?

“Independent,” but coordinated.
“No slate,” but campaigns together.
“No party,” but acts exactly like one.

And considering that many of these personalities and formations trace their roots back to STAND UP, I call them: standependents.

To be fair though, some of them have recently made that even clearer.

In one of their recent statements, members of the coalition explicitly said they have “never considered creating a new political party,” that they are “more than willing to proceed with the rebuilding of STAND UP,” and that these coalitions exist merely as “tactical or short-term unity” while STAND UP undergoes internal rebuilding.

And honestly… that raises an interesting question.

If it’s the same politics, the same organizational roots, the same member formations, the same leadership tradition, and by their own admission, the same long-term campaigns… what exactly makes it “independent”?

Just… the logo? LOL

I’m not even saying that as shade. I’m saying it because students deserve clarity. Especially if they’re being asked to vote for a formation that already knows exactly where it stands. Why not let everyone have that same clarity as well?

Because “we’re still rebuilding” can only work as an explanation for so long before it starts sounding less like strategy… and more like an evasion of accountability.

When everyone is “independent”, things become easier to diffuse and much harder to trace. Who did what when? Especially when controversies hit incumbent councils, coalition members, or allied representatives. Suddenly nobody’s “the party”

Still, There is Hope

And yet, despite all of this… there are actually reasons to be optimistic.

This election cycle saw more candidates entering the race, with 4 Standard Bearer bets and councilor candidates more than the 12 seats available.

Student engagement also appears to be climbing again. Voter turnout has steadily risen across recent cycles:

• 2024 General Elections – 30.82%
• 2024 Special Elections – 37.13%
• 2025 General Elections – 40.01%

That’s not political fatigue. That’s students paying attention again.

And perhaps the clearest sign of that came last year, when Joaquin Buenaflor of Laban Kabataan Coalition received what appears to be the highest numbers of vote for a USC Chairperson—at least from publicly accessible records dating back to the early 2000s.

That doesn’t happen in an apathetic campus. That happens when students are watching, organizing, and choosing to participate again.

So maybe UPD politics isn’t dying. Maybe it’s evolving.

And if these coalitions are indeed choosing to carry forward the politics and legacy of STAND UP, then own that relationship fully. Own the history. Own the politics. Own the contradictions. But most importantly—own the accountability, especially for this year’s performance (aka Jobert lol).

Fair or unfair, that’s what comes with being an actual political party. Institutional memory cuts both ways. People remember your wins, your mistakes, your silence, and everything in between. And that’s exactly the point.

If ALYANSA can still be held politically accountable for decisions and positions from more than a decade ago, then newer coalitions, “independents,” and emerging blocs shouldn’t get a free pass just because they chose not to “formalize” their connection to the past. Honestly, it would be incredibly ironic if members and supporters of the standependent coalition would ask ALYANSA about many of their past issues (as STAND UP has always attacked them on their STS stance or whatever).

Because if you want the machinery… you should also be willing to inherit the accountability.

As always, this is just one way of looking at things and I’m sure there are other interpretations out there. I genuinely love to hear different perspectives, especially from those who experienced earlier eras of UPD politics firsthand.

So let’s keep the discussion critical, grounded, and ultimately, constructive. And more importantly this election season—vote with context, vote with memory, and vote like the future of student representation actually matters. Because it does.

Yung pwede din magpadeliver. Parang awa niyo na buong week na ako nagcrave 🫦🫦