Japan, a rapidly aging society, began accepting foreign nurses and caregivers in 2008 due to domestic labor shortages in medical and nursing service fields.
Foreign nurses are required to return to their home countries if they fail to pass Japan's nurse qualifying exam within three years. Caregivers also need to clear Japan's qualifying exam within four years.
None of the foreign nurses passed last year's national exams held in February as kanji characters and technical terms used in the exam are thought to pose a high hurdle for foreign nurses.
LEAD: 3 foreigners overcome language barriers, pass national nurse exam+
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Hindi Magiging Mabuti ang Kasaysayan*
ni: Rolando Tolentino
Today at 9:16pm
Hindi naman ito usaping personal. Mabuting makitungo si Emerlinda Roman, pangulo ng Unibersidad ng Pilipinas. Makwento ito, at kahit paulit-ulit ang kwento sa iba’t ibang pagkakataon, buhay na buhay pa rin ang kwento. Noong Chancellor pa ito ng UP Diliman, decisive ito kapag may itinanong o hiniling ang unit.
Kaya nakakalungkot isipin na ang sentenaryong pangulo ng UP, ang unang babaeng pangulo nito, ay hindi paborableng huhusgahan ng kasaysayan. Hindi kakatwa na sa dulo ng termino nito bumulwak ang mga isyu, pawang pahiwatig sa kalidad o kawalan nito ng demokratikong governance sa unibersidad.
Dati rati pa nga ay kasama si Roman sa pagtutol sa CPDP (Commonwealth Property Development Plan) ng nauna nang presidente Emil Javier. Gayon naman pala, ang pinakamalaking proyekto ng pribatisasyon, ang UP-Ayalaland Technohub ay maisasakatuparan sa termino ni Roman sa mismong sityo ng CPDP.
Ang walang dangal na pagpataw ng 300 porsyentong pagtaas ng matrikula ay naganap din sa watch ni Roman. Sa isang desisyong itinago sa mga nagproprotestang komunidad, naetsapwera ni Roman ang dakilang misyon ng UP na bigyan ng pinakakalidad na tertiaryong edukasyon ang pinaka-deserving at mahihirap na estudyante.
Dagdag pa sa tiwaling pamamalakad ni Roman, ang malawakang subkontraktuwalisasyon ng mga serbisyo, pagpasok ng unibersidad sa mga kwestiyonableng kasunduan sa pribadong entidad, pagpapalakad ng Board of Regents, ang pinakamataas na policy-making body ng UP, na expired na ang termino ng tatlong Malacanang appointees, at matapos madiskubre ito, nang walang konsultasyon sa kanyang constituency, nirekomendang magkaroon ng full term pa ang mga ito.
Dahil sa sistematikong kawalan ng konsultasyon ni Roman, bumuyanyang ang bigat ng kanyang plano’t aksyon. Tinanggal ang rehente ng mga estudyante, tinanggal ang nahirang nang direktor ng Philippine General Hospital (PGH), inuluklok muli ang Chancellor ng UP Mindanao nang hindi tinutugunan ang mga komento ng Commission ng Audit hinggil sa inagurasyon nito, at iba pa.
Marami nang presidente ang UP. Marami ang makasaysayang pamumuno dahil sa ginawang Filipinisasyon ng unibersidad at sa termino ni S.P. Lopez, ang demokratikong konsultasyon na nauwi sa pagproprotekta nito sa mga lumahok sa Diliman Commune laban sa militar ni Marcos.
Ang di-demokratikong pamamalakad ni Roman ay sarili niyang kagagawan. Sinasabi niyang maliit na pumpon ng nagproprotesta lamang ang nasa Quezon Hall. Tunay na ngang nasa ivory tower si Roman. Wala na itong interes na makinig, itinatatwa na niya ang radikal na tradisyon ng unibersidad na naghirang sa kanya bilang sentenaryong pangulo.
At hindi ito kataka-taka para sa “reyna ng komersyalisasyon.” Pinindeho ni Roman ang kasaysayan ng UP sa poder ng negosyo at reaksyonaryong estado. Hindi hiwalay ang kinikilos ni Roman sa neoliberalismo at fasismo ni Gloria Arroyo, ang napagtagumpayan niyang i-bypass dahil nakakolekta ng bilang ng boto si Roman mula sa mga rehenteng niluklok ni Arroyo.
Hindi naman pala sila magkaiba. Magkahalintulad ang kanilang bisyon sa isang sitwasyon limitado ang resources at may engrandeng bisyon na maging globally competitive ang kanilang pinaghaharian: papasukin ang negosyo, supilin ang demokratikong proseso, buwagin ang natitirang espasyo ng demokratikong karapatan. Ang resulta ay ang pamamayani ng kultura ng impunity.
Walang takot sa parusa si Roman o si Arroyo, walang remorse sa pinaggagagawa kahit natitiyak na natitinag din ito sa ilang beses na paghiyaw na “Roman resign!” ng mga nagproprotesta. Sino ang hindi? Dagdag pa ito sa kanyang makasaysayang panunungkulan: sentenaryong presidente, unang babaeng pangulo, at unang pinanawagan magbitiw na sa panunungkulan?
Na pati ang fasistang Chancellor ng UP Los Banos ay nahawahan na ng kulturang ito, walang takot na naghahari at nananakot sa kanyang kampus? Pati ang iba pang hinirang ni Roman na maging reservoir ng kapangyarihan niya, kasama na ang midnight appointments ng tatlong rehente ng Malacanang, ay namamayagpag sa kanilang kingdom come.
Tulad ni Arroyo, si Roman ay hindi rin natatakot maparusahan, hindi rin bibitiw sa kapangyarihan, kaya ang kasaysayan ang huhusga sa kanila. At tulad ng mga linya sa puntod, dito nakahimlay ang empire ni Roman, magarang monumento pero mabilis na naaagnas na, tulad ng maraming naghari nang may pag-iimbot, naglilingkod sa makauring interes ng negosyo at gobyerno.
Nabigwasan na ng progresibong kilusan sa unibersidad ang akala ay toreng pinagtitirikan ng kapangyarihan ng empire ni Roman. Mula sa kanyang posisyon, di na lamang alapaap ng sariling kapangyarihan ang natatanaw. Nasira na ang view ng mga graffiti at nagproprotestang komunidad.
* This article was written after a successful protest action today, participated by students, faculty and staff in front of Quezon Hall thereby preventing the holding of another Board of Regents meeting without the participation of a Student Regent
Today at 9:16pm
Hindi naman ito usaping personal. Mabuting makitungo si Emerlinda Roman, pangulo ng Unibersidad ng Pilipinas. Makwento ito, at kahit paulit-ulit ang kwento sa iba’t ibang pagkakataon, buhay na buhay pa rin ang kwento. Noong Chancellor pa ito ng UP Diliman, decisive ito kapag may itinanong o hiniling ang unit.
Kaya nakakalungkot isipin na ang sentenaryong pangulo ng UP, ang unang babaeng pangulo nito, ay hindi paborableng huhusgahan ng kasaysayan. Hindi kakatwa na sa dulo ng termino nito bumulwak ang mga isyu, pawang pahiwatig sa kalidad o kawalan nito ng demokratikong governance sa unibersidad.
Dati rati pa nga ay kasama si Roman sa pagtutol sa CPDP (Commonwealth Property Development Plan) ng nauna nang presidente Emil Javier. Gayon naman pala, ang pinakamalaking proyekto ng pribatisasyon, ang UP-Ayalaland Technohub ay maisasakatuparan sa termino ni Roman sa mismong sityo ng CPDP.
Ang walang dangal na pagpataw ng 300 porsyentong pagtaas ng matrikula ay naganap din sa watch ni Roman. Sa isang desisyong itinago sa mga nagproprotestang komunidad, naetsapwera ni Roman ang dakilang misyon ng UP na bigyan ng pinakakalidad na tertiaryong edukasyon ang pinaka-deserving at mahihirap na estudyante.
Dagdag pa sa tiwaling pamamalakad ni Roman, ang malawakang subkontraktuwalisasyon ng mga serbisyo, pagpasok ng unibersidad sa mga kwestiyonableng kasunduan sa pribadong entidad, pagpapalakad ng Board of Regents, ang pinakamataas na policy-making body ng UP, na expired na ang termino ng tatlong Malacanang appointees, at matapos madiskubre ito, nang walang konsultasyon sa kanyang constituency, nirekomendang magkaroon ng full term pa ang mga ito.
Dahil sa sistematikong kawalan ng konsultasyon ni Roman, bumuyanyang ang bigat ng kanyang plano’t aksyon. Tinanggal ang rehente ng mga estudyante, tinanggal ang nahirang nang direktor ng Philippine General Hospital (PGH), inuluklok muli ang Chancellor ng UP Mindanao nang hindi tinutugunan ang mga komento ng Commission ng Audit hinggil sa inagurasyon nito, at iba pa.
Marami nang presidente ang UP. Marami ang makasaysayang pamumuno dahil sa ginawang Filipinisasyon ng unibersidad at sa termino ni S.P. Lopez, ang demokratikong konsultasyon na nauwi sa pagproprotekta nito sa mga lumahok sa Diliman Commune laban sa militar ni Marcos.
Ang di-demokratikong pamamalakad ni Roman ay sarili niyang kagagawan. Sinasabi niyang maliit na pumpon ng nagproprotesta lamang ang nasa Quezon Hall. Tunay na ngang nasa ivory tower si Roman. Wala na itong interes na makinig, itinatatwa na niya ang radikal na tradisyon ng unibersidad na naghirang sa kanya bilang sentenaryong pangulo.
At hindi ito kataka-taka para sa “reyna ng komersyalisasyon.” Pinindeho ni Roman ang kasaysayan ng UP sa poder ng negosyo at reaksyonaryong estado. Hindi hiwalay ang kinikilos ni Roman sa neoliberalismo at fasismo ni Gloria Arroyo, ang napagtagumpayan niyang i-bypass dahil nakakolekta ng bilang ng boto si Roman mula sa mga rehenteng niluklok ni Arroyo.
Hindi naman pala sila magkaiba. Magkahalintulad ang kanilang bisyon sa isang sitwasyon limitado ang resources at may engrandeng bisyon na maging globally competitive ang kanilang pinaghaharian: papasukin ang negosyo, supilin ang demokratikong proseso, buwagin ang natitirang espasyo ng demokratikong karapatan. Ang resulta ay ang pamamayani ng kultura ng impunity.
Walang takot sa parusa si Roman o si Arroyo, walang remorse sa pinaggagagawa kahit natitiyak na natitinag din ito sa ilang beses na paghiyaw na “Roman resign!” ng mga nagproprotesta. Sino ang hindi? Dagdag pa ito sa kanyang makasaysayang panunungkulan: sentenaryong presidente, unang babaeng pangulo, at unang pinanawagan magbitiw na sa panunungkulan?
Na pati ang fasistang Chancellor ng UP Los Banos ay nahawahan na ng kulturang ito, walang takot na naghahari at nananakot sa kanyang kampus? Pati ang iba pang hinirang ni Roman na maging reservoir ng kapangyarihan niya, kasama na ang midnight appointments ng tatlong rehente ng Malacanang, ay namamayagpag sa kanilang kingdom come.
Tulad ni Arroyo, si Roman ay hindi rin natatakot maparusahan, hindi rin bibitiw sa kapangyarihan, kaya ang kasaysayan ang huhusga sa kanila. At tulad ng mga linya sa puntod, dito nakahimlay ang empire ni Roman, magarang monumento pero mabilis na naaagnas na, tulad ng maraming naghari nang may pag-iimbot, naglilingkod sa makauring interes ng negosyo at gobyerno.
Nabigwasan na ng progresibong kilusan sa unibersidad ang akala ay toreng pinagtitirikan ng kapangyarihan ng empire ni Roman. Mula sa kanyang posisyon, di na lamang alapaap ng sariling kapangyarihan ang natatanaw. Nasira na ang view ng mga graffiti at nagproprotestang komunidad.
* This article was written after a successful protest action today, participated by students, faculty and staff in front of Quezon Hall thereby preventing the holding of another Board of Regents meeting without the participation of a Student Regent
A Violative Verdict, A Denial of Justice
Health Alliance for Democracy (HEAD)
24 March 2010
Statement on the Court of Appeals Decision to Dismiss the Writ of
Habeas Corpus Petition of the 43 Illegally Detained Health Workers
When laws are used to subvert justice, what is left for the people to do?
The decision of the Court of Appeals Special Division of Five to dismiss the Writ of Habeas Corpus petition filed on behalf of the 43 health workers violates the most fundamental tenets of even the most token democracy.
The majority opinion, with its mechanical application of existing jurisprudence, has condoned the excesses of the State. Such act is erroneously predicated on the belief that “...the subsequent filing of criminal charges against the detainees cured whatever irregularities or infirmities were attendant to their arrest, even assuming arguendo that their warrantless arrest and detention were initially illegal.”
But since when does a “cure” cause more harm than good?
In contrast, the two dissenting opinions highlight what is at stake for Philippine society, particularly the attendant abuses that will reverberate due to the violative decision.
Justice Normandie Pizarro puts it succinctly as “in a habeas corpus as the one at bench, an inquiry to the legality of the proceedings...is necessarily called for as it is crucial in safeguarding the constitutional rights of the detainees...the paramount consideration...should be the respect for the majesty of the law, springing forth from our respect in the constitutionally-guaranteed rights of the people.”
Similarly, Justice Francisco Acosta waxes poetic with his ominous warning that “Allowing curative informations to justify illegal searches, arrests and detentions would definitely make every habeas corpus proceeding an exercise in futility, similar to a salt that has lost its taste. This is absolutely repugnant to the basic and primordial constitutional right to due process of law.”
Also cast into light is the abhorrent behavior of certain state prosecutors that reflect how the institution that should be a gatekeeper of justice has degenerated into the Department of Injustice under the current dispensation. Again, quoting Justice Pizarro, “Clearly, what the inquest officer should have done was to recommend to the Chief Prosecutor the immediate release of the persons who were arrested.”
Thus, it is not just a re-examination of the Ilagan doctrine that is required. We must likewise review the attitude of the courts, its officers, and the magistrates, upon whom much is expected when neither the executive nor the legislative branches of government are doing enough to protect the people.
That the Courts put more emphasis on process than on substance, on the letter of the law rather than on the spirit of the law, removes whatever real remedies are left for the people.
Worse, magistrates who perfunctorily perform their duties without weighing the issues at bar are no mere Pilates washing their hands. They become witting instruments of the fascist Arroyo regime. They perpetuate as legacy the vestiges, the abuses, and the violence of Marcos’ martial rule, all of which have been embraced by Mrs. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.
It is therefore now that the system, rather than just its processes, that the people must judge. It is now more than ever that the people should seek and strive for meaningful change. A system that denounces its own sanctified rights and diminishes to naught all remedial measures is a system that will fester at the expense of its people.
This cannot be allowed to continue. Together, we must reclaim this nation and attain genuine freedom and democracy. We must build a society where there is equity, where rights are enjoyed, and where laws serve the rendering of justice.
We must begin now. Free the 43 health workers!
Dr. Geneve E. Rivera
Secretary-General, 0920 460 3712
Dr. Gene Alzona Nisperos
Vice-Chair, 0927 483 2325
Dr. Darby S. Santiago
Chair, 0927 473 7700
24 March 2010
Statement on the Court of Appeals Decision to Dismiss the Writ of
Habeas Corpus Petition of the 43 Illegally Detained Health Workers
When laws are used to subvert justice, what is left for the people to do?
The decision of the Court of Appeals Special Division of Five to dismiss the Writ of Habeas Corpus petition filed on behalf of the 43 health workers violates the most fundamental tenets of even the most token democracy.
The majority opinion, with its mechanical application of existing jurisprudence, has condoned the excesses of the State. Such act is erroneously predicated on the belief that “...the subsequent filing of criminal charges against the detainees cured whatever irregularities or infirmities were attendant to their arrest, even assuming arguendo that their warrantless arrest and detention were initially illegal.”
But since when does a “cure” cause more harm than good?
In contrast, the two dissenting opinions highlight what is at stake for Philippine society, particularly the attendant abuses that will reverberate due to the violative decision.
Justice Normandie Pizarro puts it succinctly as “in a habeas corpus as the one at bench, an inquiry to the legality of the proceedings...is necessarily called for as it is crucial in safeguarding the constitutional rights of the detainees...the paramount consideration...should be the respect for the majesty of the law, springing forth from our respect in the constitutionally-guaranteed rights of the people.”
Similarly, Justice Francisco Acosta waxes poetic with his ominous warning that “Allowing curative informations to justify illegal searches, arrests and detentions would definitely make every habeas corpus proceeding an exercise in futility, similar to a salt that has lost its taste. This is absolutely repugnant to the basic and primordial constitutional right to due process of law.”
Also cast into light is the abhorrent behavior of certain state prosecutors that reflect how the institution that should be a gatekeeper of justice has degenerated into the Department of Injustice under the current dispensation. Again, quoting Justice Pizarro, “Clearly, what the inquest officer should have done was to recommend to the Chief Prosecutor the immediate release of the persons who were arrested.”
Thus, it is not just a re-examination of the Ilagan doctrine that is required. We must likewise review the attitude of the courts, its officers, and the magistrates, upon whom much is expected when neither the executive nor the legislative branches of government are doing enough to protect the people.
That the Courts put more emphasis on process than on substance, on the letter of the law rather than on the spirit of the law, removes whatever real remedies are left for the people.
Worse, magistrates who perfunctorily perform their duties without weighing the issues at bar are no mere Pilates washing their hands. They become witting instruments of the fascist Arroyo regime. They perpetuate as legacy the vestiges, the abuses, and the violence of Marcos’ martial rule, all of which have been embraced by Mrs. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.
It is therefore now that the system, rather than just its processes, that the people must judge. It is now more than ever that the people should seek and strive for meaningful change. A system that denounces its own sanctified rights and diminishes to naught all remedial measures is a system that will fester at the expense of its people.
This cannot be allowed to continue. Together, we must reclaim this nation and attain genuine freedom and democracy. We must build a society where there is equity, where rights are enjoyed, and where laws serve the rendering of justice.
We must begin now. Free the 43 health workers!
Dr. Geneve E. Rivera
Secretary-General, 0920 460 3712
Dr. Gene Alzona Nisperos
Vice-Chair, 0927 483 2325
Dr. Darby S. Santiago
Chair, 0927 473 7700
Monday, March 22, 2010
Faculty Regent's Report for 2009 (Part 1)*
JUDY M. TAGUIWALO
Faculty Regent
January 29, 2010
Contexts
I have completed my first year as your Faculty Regent, and I have another year to serve as your faculty representative to the highest policy-making body of the University of the Philippines. The 2008 UP Charter had set a two-year term for the Faculty Regent, and I have had the privilege of being the first Faculty Regent elected to serve under this new charter.
My report on the past year is in line with the platform of accountability and representation that I promised as Faculty Regent. I have, as best as I could, upheld my accountability to the faculty through regular consultations, reports circulated via email and the solicitation of feedback on issues, concerns, and decisions taken up in the Board of Regents (BOR). My effort at ensuring representation and accountability is now facilitated by the BOR’s adoption of my proposal to post the UP Gazette online. This may be accessed at http://www.officeofthesecretary.webs.com/gazette.htm
Revisiting My Plan of Action and
What I Have Done So Far to Implement It
1. To contribute to ongoing efforts at assessing and revising current university policies and practices on recruitment, renewal, tenure and promotion of faculty. This includes ensuring that scholarly requirements are balanced with enabling conditions for faculty development, and that provisions for transparency in the processes involved are in place.
I believe that at present, policies on recruitment, renewal, tenure and promotion are in place. In the past year, publication requirements for tenure (a major concern brought to the attention of previous Faculty Regents), was not raised as an issue at all. Faculty members intent on being tenured appear to have become aware of the need to publish in refereed journals.
The BOR has also approved the recommendation of a number of constituent universities (CUs) to waive the tenure rule for specific faculty members for at least one semester. This is to give these faculty members whose papers have been accepted for publication, some leeway for the publication to come out.
The main concern brought to my attention with regard to faculty tenure has been the denial of tenure for three faculty members in Diliman, all of whom have fulfilled all requirements for tenure. Unproved allegations of unethical behaviour as basis for the denial of tenure have been raised as unjust and unfair to untenured faculty members. The slow response of some administration officials on the appeals of the faculty has also been brought up.
Another concern raised is the inclusion of the year(s) of service of substitute faculty members in counting the five-year “up or out” rule for Instructors and the three-year “in or up rule” for Assistant or Associate Professors. As the substitute appointees are not on tenure track, there are suggestions that service as substitute faculty member should not be included in counting the number of years served by untenured faculty.
2. To initiate the review of existing rules on the process of Faculty Regent selection based on past experiences, and to propose necessary amendments to the University Councils (UCs).
The President of the University has issued a memorandum instructing the University Councils (UCs) of the seven constituent universities to submit proposals to amend the selection process of the Faculty Regent. The University Councils were mandated by the 2008 UP Charter to determine the qualifications and rules related to Faculty Regent Selection.
While the Offices of the Student Regent and the Staff Regent take charge of the selection processes for their successors, the Office of the Vice President for Academic Affairs (OVPAA) has taken charge of the Faculty Regent selection process.
Two questions need to be clarified:
The Office of the Faculty Regent, together with the Office of the Staff Regent and the Office of the Student Regent (collectively called the UP Sectoral Regents), sponsored two Sectoral Regents’ fora in Diliman.
On September 4, 2009, a forum entitled The UP 2010 Budget: Content, Process and Prospects was held. The main speakers were Former DBM Secretary Emilia Boncodin and Budget Director Jose Florendo. Meanwhile, a forum on the Back-COLA issue was held on October 15, 2009 with a message from Former Supreme Court Justice Artemio V. Panganiban.
These fora were well attended by faculty, staff and students.
4. To support proposed policies and initiatives that will enhance the promotion of women and gender studies and the adoption of more-gender responsive policies in the University.
Republic Act 9710 or The Magna Carta of Women became a law on August 14, 2009. RA 9710 is a “comprehensive women’s human rights law that seeks to eliminate discrimination against women by recognizing, protecting, fulfilling and promoting the rights of Filipino women, especially those in the marginalized sectors.”
In my September 25, 2009 report to the BOR, I proposed that the university initiate a process towards coming up with recommendations on how the University can ensure the implementation of the relevant provisions of RA 9710.
President Roman has since created a committee to make recommendations on how the University can best implement the Magna Carta of Women.
5. To work closely with university organizations advocating for the payment of Back-COLA to qualified UP personnel.
As mentioned above, the issue of Back-COLA still remains relevant and is now with the Supreme Court. Together with the Staff Regent and university organizations of faculty, REPS and staff, we need to work out a plan to resolve this issue.
6. To work closely with the Staff Regent in advocating for higher compensation and additional benefits for faculty, REPS and non-academic personnel, and to promote the democratic participation of UP personnel in the formulation of policies that concern our terms and conditions of work, and which affect the governance of the University.
Together with the Staff Regent, I have worked closely with university units and organizations in Diliman and Baguio to respond to the call for relief assistance in the aftermath of typhoons Ondoy and Pepeng.
We have also come out with statements condemning the Ampatuan massacre, the 57 victims of which included journalists, lawyers and women, and participated in protest actions inside and outside the University.
I have also participated in lobbying for a higher budget allocation for UP and for all state universities and colleges in the 2010 Budget deliberations in Congress.
* Notes from the Faculty Regent:
I submitted this to the Board of Regents last January 29, 2010. This was supposed to be part 1 of a two-part report with part 2 covering some policy matters approved by the Board which I opposed. I haven't had the time to write the second part because of pressing current concerns in the BOR.
Faculty Regent
January 29, 2010
Contexts
I have completed my first year as your Faculty Regent, and I have another year to serve as your faculty representative to the highest policy-making body of the University of the Philippines. The 2008 UP Charter had set a two-year term for the Faculty Regent, and I have had the privilege of being the first Faculty Regent elected to serve under this new charter.
My report on the past year is in line with the platform of accountability and representation that I promised as Faculty Regent. I have, as best as I could, upheld my accountability to the faculty through regular consultations, reports circulated via email and the solicitation of feedback on issues, concerns, and decisions taken up in the Board of Regents (BOR). My effort at ensuring representation and accountability is now facilitated by the BOR’s adoption of my proposal to post the UP Gazette online. This may be accessed at http://www.officeofthesecretary.webs.com/gazette.htm
Revisiting My Plan of Action and
What I Have Done So Far to Implement It
1. To contribute to ongoing efforts at assessing and revising current university policies and practices on recruitment, renewal, tenure and promotion of faculty. This includes ensuring that scholarly requirements are balanced with enabling conditions for faculty development, and that provisions for transparency in the processes involved are in place.
I believe that at present, policies on recruitment, renewal, tenure and promotion are in place. In the past year, publication requirements for tenure (a major concern brought to the attention of previous Faculty Regents), was not raised as an issue at all. Faculty members intent on being tenured appear to have become aware of the need to publish in refereed journals.
The BOR has also approved the recommendation of a number of constituent universities (CUs) to waive the tenure rule for specific faculty members for at least one semester. This is to give these faculty members whose papers have been accepted for publication, some leeway for the publication to come out.
The main concern brought to my attention with regard to faculty tenure has been the denial of tenure for three faculty members in Diliman, all of whom have fulfilled all requirements for tenure. Unproved allegations of unethical behaviour as basis for the denial of tenure have been raised as unjust and unfair to untenured faculty members. The slow response of some administration officials on the appeals of the faculty has also been brought up.
Another concern raised is the inclusion of the year(s) of service of substitute faculty members in counting the five-year “up or out” rule for Instructors and the three-year “in or up rule” for Assistant or Associate Professors. As the substitute appointees are not on tenure track, there are suggestions that service as substitute faculty member should not be included in counting the number of years served by untenured faculty.
2. To initiate the review of existing rules on the process of Faculty Regent selection based on past experiences, and to propose necessary amendments to the University Councils (UCs).
The President of the University has issued a memorandum instructing the University Councils (UCs) of the seven constituent universities to submit proposals to amend the selection process of the Faculty Regent. The University Councils were mandated by the 2008 UP Charter to determine the qualifications and rules related to Faculty Regent Selection.
While the Offices of the Student Regent and the Staff Regent take charge of the selection processes for their successors, the Office of the Vice President for Academic Affairs (OVPAA) has taken charge of the Faculty Regent selection process.
Two questions need to be clarified:
a. Which office will consolidate the proposals coming from the seven University Councils?3. To continue to advocate for democratization in the governance of the University by working towards setting up a mechanism to implement Section 3, (h) of the UP Charter: "...promote the holding of fora for students, faculty, research, extension and professional staff (REPS), and alumni to discuss non-academic issues affecting the University."
b. In relation to the above, should the administration of the selection process for Faculty Regent remain with the OVPAA or should it be transferred to the Office of the Faculty Regent?
The Office of the Faculty Regent, together with the Office of the Staff Regent and the Office of the Student Regent (collectively called the UP Sectoral Regents), sponsored two Sectoral Regents’ fora in Diliman.
On September 4, 2009, a forum entitled The UP 2010 Budget: Content, Process and Prospects was held. The main speakers were Former DBM Secretary Emilia Boncodin and Budget Director Jose Florendo. Meanwhile, a forum on the Back-COLA issue was held on October 15, 2009 with a message from Former Supreme Court Justice Artemio V. Panganiban.
These fora were well attended by faculty, staff and students.
4. To support proposed policies and initiatives that will enhance the promotion of women and gender studies and the adoption of more-gender responsive policies in the University.
Republic Act 9710 or The Magna Carta of Women became a law on August 14, 2009. RA 9710 is a “comprehensive women’s human rights law that seeks to eliminate discrimination against women by recognizing, protecting, fulfilling and promoting the rights of Filipino women, especially those in the marginalized sectors.”
In my September 25, 2009 report to the BOR, I proposed that the university initiate a process towards coming up with recommendations on how the University can ensure the implementation of the relevant provisions of RA 9710.
President Roman has since created a committee to make recommendations on how the University can best implement the Magna Carta of Women.
5. To work closely with university organizations advocating for the payment of Back-COLA to qualified UP personnel.
As mentioned above, the issue of Back-COLA still remains relevant and is now with the Supreme Court. Together with the Staff Regent and university organizations of faculty, REPS and staff, we need to work out a plan to resolve this issue.
6. To work closely with the Staff Regent in advocating for higher compensation and additional benefits for faculty, REPS and non-academic personnel, and to promote the democratic participation of UP personnel in the formulation of policies that concern our terms and conditions of work, and which affect the governance of the University.
a. Advocating for higher compensation and additional benefits for UP personnel.7. To advocate for a University that is more responsive to national issues, supports science and technology for national industrialization and development, and which advances Filipino cultural identities especially under conditions of domestic and global crises.
Extending study leave privileges for children of faculty and staff with temporary appointments.
Proposal to increase “sagad” awards for “sagad” personnel. This is currently pending.
Proposal to adjust lecturers’ honoraria after the new salary standardization law (popularly known as SSL3) was made effective on July 1 2009. The proposal is based on the September 28 1995 BOR decision that “lecturers’ rates shall be adjusted at par with the adjustment of the salary of the equivalent faculty ranks, subject to availability of funds.” While it is true that the BOR approved adjustments in the rates of UP lecturers on March 26 2009, this was based on four previous salary increases for government employees in 2001, 2007 and 2008. With the implementation on July 1 2009 of the Senate and House of Representatives Joint Resolution No. 4, series of 2009, Executive Order 811 and National Budget Circular 521, an adjustment in lecturers’ rates should be forthcoming. This is currently pending.
Proposal to increase the 2009 Christmas grocery allowance from P1,500 to P3,000. This proposal was denied.
b. Promoting democratic participation of UP personnel.
Holding Sectoral Regents’ fora on UP budget formulation.
Continuing efforts of consulting and getting feedback from Faculty Regent’s constituency.
Involvement in the process of appointing University officials. In general, I have supported the recommended appointees to various administrative positions made by University officials who have had the support of faculty members. But I have been consistent in upholding the BOR policy limiting Deans, Directors and Chancellors to a maximum of two terms in the aggregate, and opposed appointments for a third or even fourth term. I believe that other faculty members who are qualified, who have been nominated and who are willing should be given the chance to serve the University. There were also several instances in which I voted against the nominee endorsed by UP administrators, based on verified information shared by faculty members.
Together with the Staff Regent, I have worked closely with university units and organizations in Diliman and Baguio to respond to the call for relief assistance in the aftermath of typhoons Ondoy and Pepeng.
We have also come out with statements condemning the Ampatuan massacre, the 57 victims of which included journalists, lawyers and women, and participated in protest actions inside and outside the University.
I have also participated in lobbying for a higher budget allocation for UP and for all state universities and colleges in the 2010 Budget deliberations in Congress.
* Notes from the Faculty Regent:
I submitted this to the Board of Regents last January 29, 2010. This was supposed to be part 1 of a two-part report with part 2 covering some policy matters approved by the Board which I opposed. I haven't had the time to write the second part because of pressing current concerns in the BOR.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
