Sooo after my last post, I came across additional information that I think students deserve to consider before voting on May 20.

To be clear: these are circulating claims and discussions that I cannot independently verify in full though I have three independent sources (some of which are from mass orgs), which is exactly why I think they should be brought into the open and clarified by the parties involved.

Apparently, there were conversations within certain orgs aligned with the standependent bloc about the direction of their electoral strategy this year, particularly around whether to revive STAND UP this year. What's worse is there were also claims that internal sensing was done regarding how students still recall the 2023 SH controversy and its aftermath.

If true, this raises a very simple but important question: Why does voter memory matter in internal strategy discussions more than direct, public accountability?

Because if the goal is genuinely rebuilding and reform, then the conversation should not be about whether people still remember. It should be about what is being done to confront what happened, acknowledge harm, and demonstrate change in a way that does not depend on forgetting.

Because from where I’m standing, “Do people still remember?” sounds less like reflection and a lot more like damage control.

And as for why these plans allegedly never pushed through? I can only speculate. But given everything that later surfaced surrounding Laban Kabataan's CAL Rep Pillas, it’s hard not to notice the irony of another SH-related controversy emerging at the exact moment a party comeback was supposedly being considered.

Again, I want to stress: I am not presenting these as confirmed facts about any official coalition position. But they are being discussed, and that alone is already enough reason for clarification.

Because this election is not just about platforms or personalities. It is also about political culture: how parties respond to criticism, how they handle historical accountability, and whether “rebuilding” actually includes openness or just strategic distancing when convenient.

So I’m putting this out there for transparency, and I welcome any response, correction, or clarification from those concerned before election day.

At the end of the day, students deserve leadership that does not rely on selective memory whether from supporters or from the electorate. And we should all be critical enough to ask what kind of USC we are actually voting into existence.

Unless this gets addressed, I already know who I'm voting for but I'm including some standep councilors to complete the 12 so there can at least be a complete USC. Looking forward to their Upfront performance online later though.

———

PS: I know I’ve defended and supported the standependent coalition in the past as there were clear assurances of accountability and the distinction that last year’s candidates were not directly involved in the 2023 case. But at some point, we also have to be honest about what we’re actually seeing. Because if there is continued public alignment with STAND UP (even with all the “rebuilding” and “logistical” issues), and if there is a pattern of carefully avoiding any direct, meaningful confrontation of that history, then they have become complicit in the issue itself, accountable to the injustices STAND UP has committed, and are no different from those who make forgetting the easiest form of accountability.

At that point, it stops being just about “rebuilding.” It starts looking like selective distancing depending on what is politically convenient. And that contradiction matters.

Because you cannot rebuild something while refusing to fully name what broke it in the first place. You cannot talk about reform while treating memory as something to manage instead of something to reckon with.

Never forget the accounts of survivors and whistleblowers that surfaced in 2023.
Never forget the silence and fallout that followed.
Never forget how accountability was ultimately deferred at the height of public scrutiny.

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.