Ateneo heats up in CamSur split forum

Ateneo de Naga University, Naga City – Here, close to 1,300 Ateneans, officials from various local government units, student leaders from other schools and local media filled the Gymnasium on November 18 for the grand forum on House Bill 4820 dubbed To Divide or Not: What’s in it for us?

The proposal to split Camarines Sur and carve out a new province, Nueva Camarines, has triggered discussions in the University, whether in classrooms or in social media. This motivated the Office of Student Affairs to organize a forum to provide the University community a venue to raise and deepen their awareness and understanding on the bill and important issues related to it. OSA partnered with the Social Sciences Department to compliment classroom discussion on the topic. As a form of outreach, the OSA offered the external community invitation to the forum.

University President Primitivo Viray Jr., S.J. at the start of the program talked about Pope Benedict XVI’s Caritas et Veritate (Charity in Truth) to set a perspective in the discussion. He said that while the truth may be elusive and multifaceted, the community should seek for it. He also reminded the politician-speakers to articulate their versions of the truth not only with passion but with humility. Finally, he urged all to see the truth in the spirit of charity or love.

In the forum, Third District Representative Luis Villafuerte, co-author of HB 4820, presented the background, salient points and rationale of the proposal. Camarines Sur board members Angel Naval and Warren Senar, were given the opportunity to explain the reason for their opposition.

Rep. Villafuerte argued that the division proposal is not novel, citing historical accounts of subdivision in the region. He stressed that the bill is compliant with the legal requirements as provided for in the Local Government Code, particularly the criteria on land area, population and land area. He told the crowd that the division would create two first-class provinces, and a reduced Camarines Sur would benefit from more focused governance. He disputed the arguments being presented by the opposition to the public. Among others, he pointed out that it is not true that there will be new taxes for Nueva Camarines as the law provides that a new province should not impose new taxes five years within its creation. He further clarified that the division will not affect the current tourism development as the Caramoan tourism program, for instance, can stay with Camarines Sur unless an agreement can be made to benefit both the old and new provinces. He defended the timing of the proposal as the law requires a year of transition to facilitate the preparations of the division and to have the elections of the new local government in 2013 should the plebiscite affirm the proposal.  

The opposition, on the other hand, said that their camp finds no compelling reason to divide the province. Naval described HB 4820 as a defective product, revealing that the proponents asked the Senate to insert amendments in the original version that had been approved by the House of Representatives. He said that the amendments constitute an admission from the proponents that the bill is erroneous. He also countered the proponent’s point that Camarines Sur is too big to be governed, saying that it is a leadership challenge. Senar, moreover, warned that the division means that provinces in the region need a large amount of resources to accommodate the financial requirements of Nueva Camarines creation. The IRA shares of provincial governments and the income of Camarines Sur will significantly decrease because of the split.

After the presentations, Ateneans shared their reactions and questions to both sides. Social Sciences faculty Tito Valiente found no economic or social feasibility offered by both sides. Student debater Arcci Relloso, on the other hand, challenged both camps – for the proponents to justify the timeliness of the proposal, and for the opposition to provide stronger arguments other than IRA or income concerns. Other students raised their concerns during the controlled open forum. One student expressed frustration on the quality of the infomercial in TV and radio commercials produced by both camps, while another commented on the shift of the discussions about the bill from the real issues to personalities.

In the end, Supreme Student Government President Ludel Maiello Mier and Director of Student Affairs Fr. Ritche Elot, S.J. urged the participants to continue learning about and reflecting on the issue so as to come up with an informed and intelligent opinion on the matter. The organizers clarified, however, that the activity does not serve as precedent to the formulation of an institutional stand. They explained that what is important is the ongoing reflection to reach an informed choice, whether for or against the division of the province.

The OSA was assisted by the Liga ng mga Estudyante sa Agham Pampulitika and other student volunteers. For interested student organizations, faculty and offices in the University, videocopies of the forum courtesy of IM Multimedia are available at OSA.