For IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Reference: Garry Martinez, Chairperson, +639217229740
Ailyn Abdula, Media Officer, +639212708994
17 August 2009
The largest alliance of Filipino migrants organizations today raised concern over the arrest of some of the officers and members of Migrante-Kapatiran sa Gitnang Silangan (KGS) by Saudi Arabian authorities on August 14. Migrante International also called on the Philippine government to do everything it can for the release of the remaining detainees, including the runaway OFWs Migrante-KGS was counseling.
“The defense and protection of the rights of migrant Filipinos have been sorely lacking that our officers and members in Saudi Arabia have been forced to risk their lives and their safety so they are able to help OFW victims of maltreatment and abuse in Saudi Arabia,” Garry Martinez, Migrante International chairperson, declared. “While we appreciate the efforts that embassy officials have made to work for the release of the detainees, we would like to call on the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) and President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to ensure the release of all our officers and guarantee their safety.”
The KGS officers were arrested in a safehouse where the organization provided for OFW runaways. They were conducting their regular weekly case dialogs and counseling to OFW victims of maltreatment and abuses who ran away from their employers.
According to John Monterona, Migrante Middle East Coordinator, Migrante’s Saudi chapter has been receiving an average of five cases daily. The number of cases has significantly increased since the Philippine government intensified its labor export policy as its response to the global financial and economic crisis.
Martinez continued, “Our KGS chapter is a trailblazer in providing emergency assistance to OFWs in distress in Saudi Arabia. Since its inception, KGS has rescued or facilitated the rescue of thousands of our kababayans in Saudi Arabia. It has also been at the forefront of the campaign for the defense and protection of migrant areas in the region. Our officers and members deserve all the guarantees of protection and defense the Philippine government can offer.”
Migrante International together with its chapters abroad has its program in providing service through a very responsive move on the welfare needs of OFWs in distress. “If this kind of advocacy is a criminal act, who among our kababayans will give attention on the increasing numbers of distressed OFWs given the fact that the Philippine embassies are inutile most of the time in giving immediate action on the problems of OFWs?”, Martinez added.
Martinez called on the Philippine government to decisively address the problem of migrant rights violations in Saudi Arabia which are increasingly becoming more serious in number and in intensity.
“And to our kababayans, given the repressive situation we have, Migrante will not stop in giving attention on your issues to continuously promote the rights and welfare of OFWs”. “We must ensure our Filipino communities abroad to insist our rights to Philippine embassy officials to hear our clamors and demands”, Martinez ended.
On the other hand, Migrante Europe strongly condemns this assault on a sanctuary for Filipino migrants in distress. The assault by the Saudi authorities is another mockery of those whose rights have already been abused and violated. The Philippine government should strongly protest this assault.##
Monday, August 17, 2009
Friday, August 07, 2009
Cory, the People and People Power
Streetwise
By Carol Pagaduan-Araullo
The Business World 7 August 2009
In death as in life, former President Corazon “Cory” Aquino continues to be a political phenomenon. The Aquino family themselves had not anticipated the people’s outpouring of love, adulation and respect for their mother after she died last August 1. Tens of thousands lined up to view her remains and hundreds of thousands more accompanied her funeral cortege to the cemetery. It evoked a sense of déjà vu in people old enough to remember her slain husband Ninoy’s own mammoth funeral cortege more than 25 years ago.
It was also reminiscent of the huge crowds that Mrs. Aquino drew in her presidential campaign against the dictator Marcos; the gigantic rally in Rizal Park where she called for civil disobedience to force him to step down after the exposure of massive electoral fraud; culminating in the popular mass uprising, eventually dubbed “people power”, that finally ousted his hated dictatorship. Yellow was the color of the day; the air reverberated with shouts of “Cory, Cory”; and the hand sign for the letter “L” meaning “Laban!” sprung to life once more.
In stark contrast was the complete isolation of Mrs. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo in the week-long homage to Cory. The unspoken but powerful message from the people is that Mrs. Arroyo has no place in honoring and celebrating her predecessor’s life of selfless service, integrity, humility, simplicity and fortitude. Because these are qualities alien to her and which she has repeatedly and shamelessly trashed even as she laid claim to the highest office in the land.
The Aquino family’s rejection of Malacañang’s offer of a state funeral was an undisguised statement that they did not want Mrs. Arroyo to have anything to do with the funeral rites. Her early morning visit at the Manila Cathedral hours before Mrs. Aquino was laid to rest was marked by stealth (she had to go through a side door), stiffness and brevity. The absence of Mrs. Arroyo at the funeral itself was highlighted rather than made up for by the full honors that were given by the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Philippine National Police sans their de facto Commander-in-Chief.
The accolades for Mrs. Aquino’s singular role in bringing down strongman rule and ushering in the return of democratic processes and institutions; the Catholic Church’s rendering of burial rites until then reserved only for their own top hierarchy; and the tearful remembrances of grateful family members, friends and even ordinary staff members – all paled in comparison to the sea of humanity that braved the stifling heat then drenching rains and patiently waited for hours to catch a glimpse of Mrs. Aquino’s flower-bedecked coffin atop a flatbed truck winding slowly through the crowded thoroughfares.
How then do we begin to explain the massive turn-out that took place during the entire duration of the wake until Mrs. Aquino’s burial. Especially in light of the fact that her seeming ability to rouse people power to demand government accountability or to thwart succeeding administrations’ attempts to hold on to power and restore tyrannical rule appeared to be waning.
Let us recall how even after Mrs. Aquino had called for the resignation of Mrs. Arroyo from the presidency, marched to Congress to call for her impeachment, joined numerous protest actions to keep hammering home the point about the Arroyo regime’s illegitimacy, corruption and abuse of power – the people stopped short of pouring out into the streets to support her calls.
Both her admirers and, more so, her detractors came to the conclusion that the “Cory magic” was gone. Some opined that it was after all a “Sin-Cory magic” with Cardinal Sin providing the irreplaceable political astuteness and the moral and organizational clout of the Catholic Church in the partnership. Mrs. Arroyo’s drumbeaters have gleefully proclaimed that the people were “tired” of people power and not even Cory could summon it.
Until Cory, the icon of democracy, dies under conditions of severe political and economic crisis.
What takes place can not just have been nostalgia, a people grateful for Mrs. Aquino’s role in what New York Times writer Stanley Karnow described as “guid(ing) the transition from unscrupulous autocracy to dubious democracy”.
The people’s sense of loss in the passing of a highly respected and beloved leader underscores the fact that despite her shortcomings and limitations, people appreciate, to various degrees, Cory's good traits as essential to a worthy head of state or national leader.
The hankering of the people for the kind of sincere, honest and unadulterated public service that Cory Aquino personified and which is glaringly absent in today’s incumbent leader, Mrs. Arroyo, is palpable and unmistakable. In particular, compare Mrs. Aquino’s gracious and unambiguous readiness to relinquish power as her term ended and Mrs. Arroyo’s equivocation and vile machinations to cling to power far beyond her undeserved nine years in office.
More than Cory’s outstanding traits as a political leader and Mrs. Arroyo’s profound character flaws, the most plausible and inescapable explanation is that the spirit behind People Power 1 and 2 -- the longing for change and the courage, selflessness and determination to match that longing and turn it into reality -- is alive. As much as a collective expression of gratitude to and reverence for Cory, it was also a silent but unequivocal act of protest against the rule of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, who is generally perceived as Cory's diametrical opposite.
Why then has there been no People Power 3 despite Cory's calls for the people's unified actions against the perpetrators of plunder, fraud and the gross betrayal of public trust?
Perhaps it only indicates that an increasing number of people are becoming keenly aware that it will take more than a replacement of leaders -- more than even another Cory -- to effect genuine and lasting change in Philippine politics and society.
While the Aquino presidency certainly had its mistakes and shortcomings and ultimately failed to live up to expectations in effecting the thoroughgoing socio-economic reforms that would benefit the Filipino people, it was the unabated corruption, puppetry and tyranny of her successors, and most especially of the Arroyo regime, that has driven home this painful lesson.#
By Carol Pagaduan-Araullo
The Business World 7 August 2009
In death as in life, former President Corazon “Cory” Aquino continues to be a political phenomenon. The Aquino family themselves had not anticipated the people’s outpouring of love, adulation and respect for their mother after she died last August 1. Tens of thousands lined up to view her remains and hundreds of thousands more accompanied her funeral cortege to the cemetery. It evoked a sense of déjà vu in people old enough to remember her slain husband Ninoy’s own mammoth funeral cortege more than 25 years ago.
It was also reminiscent of the huge crowds that Mrs. Aquino drew in her presidential campaign against the dictator Marcos; the gigantic rally in Rizal Park where she called for civil disobedience to force him to step down after the exposure of massive electoral fraud; culminating in the popular mass uprising, eventually dubbed “people power”, that finally ousted his hated dictatorship. Yellow was the color of the day; the air reverberated with shouts of “Cory, Cory”; and the hand sign for the letter “L” meaning “Laban!” sprung to life once more.
In stark contrast was the complete isolation of Mrs. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo in the week-long homage to Cory. The unspoken but powerful message from the people is that Mrs. Arroyo has no place in honoring and celebrating her predecessor’s life of selfless service, integrity, humility, simplicity and fortitude. Because these are qualities alien to her and which she has repeatedly and shamelessly trashed even as she laid claim to the highest office in the land.
The Aquino family’s rejection of Malacañang’s offer of a state funeral was an undisguised statement that they did not want Mrs. Arroyo to have anything to do with the funeral rites. Her early morning visit at the Manila Cathedral hours before Mrs. Aquino was laid to rest was marked by stealth (she had to go through a side door), stiffness and brevity. The absence of Mrs. Arroyo at the funeral itself was highlighted rather than made up for by the full honors that were given by the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Philippine National Police sans their de facto Commander-in-Chief.
The accolades for Mrs. Aquino’s singular role in bringing down strongman rule and ushering in the return of democratic processes and institutions; the Catholic Church’s rendering of burial rites until then reserved only for their own top hierarchy; and the tearful remembrances of grateful family members, friends and even ordinary staff members – all paled in comparison to the sea of humanity that braved the stifling heat then drenching rains and patiently waited for hours to catch a glimpse of Mrs. Aquino’s flower-bedecked coffin atop a flatbed truck winding slowly through the crowded thoroughfares.
How then do we begin to explain the massive turn-out that took place during the entire duration of the wake until Mrs. Aquino’s burial. Especially in light of the fact that her seeming ability to rouse people power to demand government accountability or to thwart succeeding administrations’ attempts to hold on to power and restore tyrannical rule appeared to be waning.
Let us recall how even after Mrs. Aquino had called for the resignation of Mrs. Arroyo from the presidency, marched to Congress to call for her impeachment, joined numerous protest actions to keep hammering home the point about the Arroyo regime’s illegitimacy, corruption and abuse of power – the people stopped short of pouring out into the streets to support her calls.
Both her admirers and, more so, her detractors came to the conclusion that the “Cory magic” was gone. Some opined that it was after all a “Sin-Cory magic” with Cardinal Sin providing the irreplaceable political astuteness and the moral and organizational clout of the Catholic Church in the partnership. Mrs. Arroyo’s drumbeaters have gleefully proclaimed that the people were “tired” of people power and not even Cory could summon it.
Until Cory, the icon of democracy, dies under conditions of severe political and economic crisis.
What takes place can not just have been nostalgia, a people grateful for Mrs. Aquino’s role in what New York Times writer Stanley Karnow described as “guid(ing) the transition from unscrupulous autocracy to dubious democracy”.
The people’s sense of loss in the passing of a highly respected and beloved leader underscores the fact that despite her shortcomings and limitations, people appreciate, to various degrees, Cory's good traits as essential to a worthy head of state or national leader.
The hankering of the people for the kind of sincere, honest and unadulterated public service that Cory Aquino personified and which is glaringly absent in today’s incumbent leader, Mrs. Arroyo, is palpable and unmistakable. In particular, compare Mrs. Aquino’s gracious and unambiguous readiness to relinquish power as her term ended and Mrs. Arroyo’s equivocation and vile machinations to cling to power far beyond her undeserved nine years in office.
More than Cory’s outstanding traits as a political leader and Mrs. Arroyo’s profound character flaws, the most plausible and inescapable explanation is that the spirit behind People Power 1 and 2 -- the longing for change and the courage, selflessness and determination to match that longing and turn it into reality -- is alive. As much as a collective expression of gratitude to and reverence for Cory, it was also a silent but unequivocal act of protest against the rule of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, who is generally perceived as Cory's diametrical opposite.
Why then has there been no People Power 3 despite Cory's calls for the people's unified actions against the perpetrators of plunder, fraud and the gross betrayal of public trust?
Perhaps it only indicates that an increasing number of people are becoming keenly aware that it will take more than a replacement of leaders -- more than even another Cory -- to effect genuine and lasting change in Philippine politics and society.
While the Aquino presidency certainly had its mistakes and shortcomings and ultimately failed to live up to expectations in effecting the thoroughgoing socio-economic reforms that would benefit the Filipino people, it was the unabated corruption, puppetry and tyranny of her successors, and most especially of the Arroyo regime, that has driven home this painful lesson.#
Tuesday, August 04, 2009
Report of the Faculty Regent*
August 3, 2009
Greetings!
There have been three BOR meetings since my last report to you: the May 29 meeting in UPV Iloilo, a June 3 special meeting held at Quezon Hall, the regular BOR meeting on June 25, also held at Quezon Hall and the July 31 meeting at UP Manila . My backlog in reporting to you was due mainly to the opening of the semester and the demands of being a faculty member in my department and in my college.
Staff Regent Buboy Cabrera took his oath last May 29, 2009 in Iloilo . In the July 31 meeting, Charisse Bañez, Student Regent elected last April 14, was finally confirmed. In that same meeting, the new UP Alumni Association President Alfredo Pascual took his oath as the new Alumni Regent.
Below are important highlights of the meetings related to the following concerns: Faculty and personnel welfare, proposals deferred for further study, the issue of the six economics students found guilty of misconduct; programming and reprogramming of UP System and CU funds; and the reiteration of concern over the two missing students.
A. Faculty and personnel welfare
1. New Salary Standardization Law
The University of the Philippines is included in the new salary increase for government employees effective July 1, 2009 based on the Senate and House of Representatives Joint Resolution No. 4, series of 2009, Executive Order 811 and National Budget Circular 521. President Roman announced in the July meeting that DBM has transmitted to the University the funds to implement the increase for the first year.
I proposed to the BOR in the July 31 meeting an increase in lecturers’ rates based on the formula used in the March 26, 2009 BOR approval of adjustments in the rates of UP lecturers. This is to ensure that the university upholds the principle of equity and that its lecturers also benefit from the recent salary increase of all government personnel. President Roman said this is being studied by the UP administration.
2. Faculty and personnel benefits
- The Board approved the grant of a P5, 000 merit incentive to UP personnel last June 25, 2009. This is the first of two annual benefits given by the university. Lecturers are included in this benefit on a pro-rated basis. The new provision approved by the board is the encouragement to provide a similar benefit to project-hired personnel if funds are available.
- The first rice subsidy worth P1,500 was approved last May 29 and the second one was approved last July 31. This grant is in compliance with the Collective Negotiation Agreements between UP and the All UP Workers Union and between UP and the All UP Academic Employees Union. Project and contractual employees of units which have savings are encouraged to grant the same rice subsidy to these personnel.
- Increase in Annual Awards for Faculty Grants: Professorial Chairs: From P30,000 to a minimum of P50,000 and Faculty Grants: From P15,000 to P25,000
3. Promotions
- The 2008 promotions have been approved and will be in effect from April 1, 2009
- Sagad faculty will receive a one-time grant of P5,000 and Sagad REPS and administrative staff will receive a one-time grant of P3,000. The Staff Regent and I have proposed that this grant be increased by P3, 000 for both faculty and staff. President Roman said the UP Administration will reexamine the possibility of giving this at the end of the year depending on the university’s savings.
B. Proposals from the UP Administration deferred for further study
1. Construction of the IE-ME building
The proposal of UPD to allow the construction of the IE-ME building in the current site of the College of Engineering was approved in the June 2009 meeting. Former UPD Chancellor sought a reconsideration of the Board’s decision in the July 31, 2009. The Board formed a Regents’ Committee to look into the two main issues surrounding this concern: why the IE-ME building cannot be built in the new Engineering complex where the buildings of the other departments of the college have been built or will be built in the future; the possibility that the P300 million allocation for the building will be lost if the project is not started before December 2009
2. UP Naming Rights Policy
The UP Administration presented to the BOR in the July 31 meeting new and additional proposals on the existing “Guidelines for Naming Buildings, Structures, Streets, Parks and Other places in the university approved by the UP President on 27 July 2004 and noted by the BOR at its 1185th meeting on 26 of August 2004.
The present policy regarding naming of buildings, structures, streets, parks and other places in the University after living persons or juridical persons shall be allowed only when it is made a condition in a donation in favor of the University and for meritorious considerations.
The additional/new proposed provision (among others) is:
Buildings: A proposal for naming a building (or significant and identifiable section of a building) in honor of a person or organization may consider when that person or organization:
- is a major benefactor who makes a direct and substantial contribution to the capital cost of constructing the building (at least 50% of project cost) or
- has given extraordinarily distinguished service to the University that merits recognition in the University’s history (on special recommendation by the President to, and subsequent approval by, the Board of Regents.
My main criticism is that the new proposal gives naming rights to UP buildings based solely on financial considerations, in effect institutionalizing another form of “UP for Sale ”. Traditionally UP buildings have been named after heroes, dead statesmen and women or deceased outstanding academic and administrative leaders of the University. Recognition of financial donations to the university has been in the form of commemorative plaques and the naming of professorial and faculty chairs. I believe this tradition and practice should remain.
The Board decided to defer making a decision on this and on a related proposal of the Asian Studies to name the new Asian Center facilities donated by Toyota Motor Philippines to the University: entire 1 hectare property to be named GT-Toyota Asian cultural Center, The museum-library research institute building to be named GT-Toyota Hall of Wisdom and the auditorium be named GT-Toyota Asian Auditorium. (GT stands for George Ty)
3.UP Manila – PGH Faculty Medical Arts Building
The University and the Mercado General Hospital signed last June 18, 2009 a contract for the lease, conversion and development of a certain area of the PGH Dispensary Building situated at the PGH to be called the UP Manila-PGH Faculty Medical Arts Building .
When presented for approval in the June 25, 2009 meeting, the decision was deferred due to the following:
- The contract does not only provide clinic space for UP doctors to allow them to practice their profession instead of going to private hospitals (a provision not objected to by the Board) but also allows the Mercado General Hospital to put up a pharmacy, x-ray facilities and laboratories. These facilities are already found in PGH.
- The rental rate is P1,000,000 per month (net of all taxes) subject to a yearly increase or escalation at the rate of 10% per annum commencing on the 6th year of the term of the lease. ( I do not have the figures on the floor area being leased so as to compare the rental per square meter in this contract to the current per square meter rates of commercial buildings across PGH).
- The period of lease is 25 years exclusive of a rent-free period of 18 months from date of signing of contract within which the lessee must perform, comply with and complete all the works for the conversion, rehabilitation and development of FAB
- The contract may be renewed for a maximum period of five years.
The BOR has also formed a Regents’ Committee to examine further the concerns raised by the All UP Workers Union of UP Manila-PGH and concerns raised by the BOR Chair, the Faculty Regent and the Staff Regent.
4. UP Manila Campus Development Master Plan and UP Diliman’s Comprehensive Land Use, Zoning and Master Plans
Decisions on the two above proposals presented to the July 31, 2009 BOR meeting were deferred to enable the board to further study them.
5. Expanding the search for a new Director of UPPEP
The term of the Director of the UP Pampanga Extension Program ended last May 31, 2009. Two names were nominated: the current Director, a UPPEP professor and a professor from UP Diliman. The latter did not accept the nomination.
The BOR decided to expand the search for a director as there were strong reservations about the two nominees. The current director has already served three terms and her selection would mean a fourth term or a total of 12 continuous years as academic and administrative leader of UP Pampanga. The other nominee has very limited support from the faculty of the unit.
C. The UPD University Council and the BOR on the 6 Economics Students accused of cheating during an examination and found guilty of “other forms of misconduct”
The UPD UC on April 2008 approved the graduation of several School of Economics students accused of cheating during an examination. As their case was still being heard by the Student Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT), the UC decided, on the principle of “presumption of innocence” voted to allow them to graduate “without prejudice to the final determination of the disciplinary cases and without prejudice to the appropriate corrective measures to be undertaken by the University should the decision be against them.”
On April 2009, the UC once again discussed the case as six of the students were found by the SDT guilty of misconduct and imposed a penalty 45 days suspension. The students did not appeal the decision. The UC deliberated on how this penalty would be served and after over two hours of discussion voted 126 for, 73 against and 13 abstain, that the graduation be withdrawn so that the students could enroll for residency and serve their suspension.
In the June 3, 2009 special BOR meeting to discuss the decision of the UPD UC, the BOR by a vote of 5 for, 3 against and 1 abstain approved the motion to confirm the graduation of the six students…without need of serving the penalty of 45 days suspension imposed by the SDT because the same is deemed to be served.”
In the June 25 regular BOR meeting, I submitted a motion for reconsideration of this decision and also requested for the Board to provide an explanation of this decision. The Chair broke the 4-4 vote in favor of denying the reconsideration.
In the July 31, 2009 meeting the Board rejected two resolutions passed by the University Council in its July 20, 2009 meeting. One resolution protested the June 3 decision of the BOR and requested for reconsideration . The other resolution was for withdrawing the honors of students found guilty of misconduct. In response to the UC's reiteration of the need for transparency regarding the bases for the BOR decisions, the Chair instructed the Office of the Secretary of the University to release to the UPD UC the record of the deliberations of the BOR meetings (June 3, June 25 and July 31) related to this case.
D. Programming and Reprogramming of Funds of the System and CUs
· May 29, 2009:
- Open U: P9, 525,636.25
- UP System: P55, 486,855.22
· June 25, 2009
- UP Visayas: (Programming of Income): P1, 289, 746.21
- UP Manila : (Reprogramming of unexpended balances: P40, 876,409.57
- UP Diliman: (Reprogramming of Unexpended Obligations under the GAA): P35, 216,137.85
· July 31, 2009
- UP System (Reprogramming of unexpended balances): P20, 655,073.38
- UP Diliman (Programming of income): P13, 771, 429, 21
E. Reiteration of UP’s concern over missing UP Students
As the June 25, 2009 meeting was just a day before the third anniversary of the abduction of UP students Karen Empeño and Sherlyn Cadapan, who disappeared on June 26, 2006, I shared with the board the UPD University Council resolution dated July 26, 2006.
_________
* The 2009-2010 Faculty Regent is Dr. Judy Taguiwalo. She is presently a professor from the College of Social Work and Community Development and a former National President of the All U.P. Academic Employees Union
Greetings!
There have been three BOR meetings since my last report to you: the May 29 meeting in UPV Iloilo, a June 3 special meeting held at Quezon Hall, the regular BOR meeting on June 25, also held at Quezon Hall and the July 31 meeting at UP Manila . My backlog in reporting to you was due mainly to the opening of the semester and the demands of being a faculty member in my department and in my college.
Staff Regent Buboy Cabrera took his oath last May 29, 2009 in Iloilo . In the July 31 meeting, Charisse Bañez, Student Regent elected last April 14, was finally confirmed. In that same meeting, the new UP Alumni Association President Alfredo Pascual took his oath as the new Alumni Regent.
Below are important highlights of the meetings related to the following concerns: Faculty and personnel welfare, proposals deferred for further study, the issue of the six economics students found guilty of misconduct; programming and reprogramming of UP System and CU funds; and the reiteration of concern over the two missing students.
A. Faculty and personnel welfare
1. New Salary Standardization Law
The University of the Philippines is included in the new salary increase for government employees effective July 1, 2009 based on the Senate and House of Representatives Joint Resolution No. 4, series of 2009, Executive Order 811 and National Budget Circular 521. President Roman announced in the July meeting that DBM has transmitted to the University the funds to implement the increase for the first year.
I proposed to the BOR in the July 31 meeting an increase in lecturers’ rates based on the formula used in the March 26, 2009 BOR approval of adjustments in the rates of UP lecturers. This is to ensure that the university upholds the principle of equity and that its lecturers also benefit from the recent salary increase of all government personnel. President Roman said this is being studied by the UP administration.
2. Faculty and personnel benefits
- The Board approved the grant of a P5, 000 merit incentive to UP personnel last June 25, 2009. This is the first of two annual benefits given by the university. Lecturers are included in this benefit on a pro-rated basis. The new provision approved by the board is the encouragement to provide a similar benefit to project-hired personnel if funds are available.
- The first rice subsidy worth P1,500 was approved last May 29 and the second one was approved last July 31. This grant is in compliance with the Collective Negotiation Agreements between UP and the All UP Workers Union and between UP and the All UP Academic Employees Union. Project and contractual employees of units which have savings are encouraged to grant the same rice subsidy to these personnel.
- Increase in Annual Awards for Faculty Grants: Professorial Chairs: From P30,000 to a minimum of P50,000 and Faculty Grants: From P15,000 to P25,000
3. Promotions
- The 2008 promotions have been approved and will be in effect from April 1, 2009
- Sagad faculty will receive a one-time grant of P5,000 and Sagad REPS and administrative staff will receive a one-time grant of P3,000. The Staff Regent and I have proposed that this grant be increased by P3, 000 for both faculty and staff. President Roman said the UP Administration will reexamine the possibility of giving this at the end of the year depending on the university’s savings.
B. Proposals from the UP Administration deferred for further study
1. Construction of the IE-ME building
The proposal of UPD to allow the construction of the IE-ME building in the current site of the College of Engineering was approved in the June 2009 meeting. Former UPD Chancellor sought a reconsideration of the Board’s decision in the July 31, 2009. The Board formed a Regents’ Committee to look into the two main issues surrounding this concern: why the IE-ME building cannot be built in the new Engineering complex where the buildings of the other departments of the college have been built or will be built in the future; the possibility that the P300 million allocation for the building will be lost if the project is not started before December 2009
2. UP Naming Rights Policy
The UP Administration presented to the BOR in the July 31 meeting new and additional proposals on the existing “Guidelines for Naming Buildings, Structures, Streets, Parks and Other places in the university approved by the UP President on 27 July 2004 and noted by the BOR at its 1185th meeting on 26 of August 2004.
The present policy regarding naming of buildings, structures, streets, parks and other places in the University after living persons or juridical persons shall be allowed only when it is made a condition in a donation in favor of the University and for meritorious considerations.
The additional/new proposed provision (among others) is:
Buildings: A proposal for naming a building (or significant and identifiable section of a building) in honor of a person or organization may consider when that person or organization:
- is a major benefactor who makes a direct and substantial contribution to the capital cost of constructing the building (at least 50% of project cost) or
- has given extraordinarily distinguished service to the University that merits recognition in the University’s history (on special recommendation by the President to, and subsequent approval by, the Board of Regents.
My main criticism is that the new proposal gives naming rights to UP buildings based solely on financial considerations, in effect institutionalizing another form of “UP for Sale ”. Traditionally UP buildings have been named after heroes, dead statesmen and women or deceased outstanding academic and administrative leaders of the University. Recognition of financial donations to the university has been in the form of commemorative plaques and the naming of professorial and faculty chairs. I believe this tradition and practice should remain.
The Board decided to defer making a decision on this and on a related proposal of the Asian Studies to name the new Asian Center facilities donated by Toyota Motor Philippines to the University: entire 1 hectare property to be named GT-Toyota Asian cultural Center, The museum-library research institute building to be named GT-Toyota Hall of Wisdom and the auditorium be named GT-Toyota Asian Auditorium. (GT stands for George Ty)
3.UP Manila – PGH Faculty Medical Arts Building
The University and the Mercado General Hospital signed last June 18, 2009 a contract for the lease, conversion and development of a certain area of the PGH Dispensary Building situated at the PGH to be called the UP Manila-PGH Faculty Medical Arts Building .
When presented for approval in the June 25, 2009 meeting, the decision was deferred due to the following:
- The contract does not only provide clinic space for UP doctors to allow them to practice their profession instead of going to private hospitals (a provision not objected to by the Board) but also allows the Mercado General Hospital to put up a pharmacy, x-ray facilities and laboratories. These facilities are already found in PGH.
- The rental rate is P1,000,000 per month (net of all taxes) subject to a yearly increase or escalation at the rate of 10% per annum commencing on the 6th year of the term of the lease. ( I do not have the figures on the floor area being leased so as to compare the rental per square meter in this contract to the current per square meter rates of commercial buildings across PGH).
- The period of lease is 25 years exclusive of a rent-free period of 18 months from date of signing of contract within which the lessee must perform, comply with and complete all the works for the conversion, rehabilitation and development of FAB
- The contract may be renewed for a maximum period of five years.
The BOR has also formed a Regents’ Committee to examine further the concerns raised by the All UP Workers Union of UP Manila-PGH and concerns raised by the BOR Chair, the Faculty Regent and the Staff Regent.
4. UP Manila Campus Development Master Plan and UP Diliman’s Comprehensive Land Use, Zoning and Master Plans
Decisions on the two above proposals presented to the July 31, 2009 BOR meeting were deferred to enable the board to further study them.
5. Expanding the search for a new Director of UPPEP
The term of the Director of the UP Pampanga Extension Program ended last May 31, 2009. Two names were nominated: the current Director, a UPPEP professor and a professor from UP Diliman. The latter did not accept the nomination.
The BOR decided to expand the search for a director as there were strong reservations about the two nominees. The current director has already served three terms and her selection would mean a fourth term or a total of 12 continuous years as academic and administrative leader of UP Pampanga. The other nominee has very limited support from the faculty of the unit.
C. The UPD University Council and the BOR on the 6 Economics Students accused of cheating during an examination and found guilty of “other forms of misconduct”
The UPD UC on April 2008 approved the graduation of several School of Economics students accused of cheating during an examination. As their case was still being heard by the Student Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT), the UC decided, on the principle of “presumption of innocence” voted to allow them to graduate “without prejudice to the final determination of the disciplinary cases and without prejudice to the appropriate corrective measures to be undertaken by the University should the decision be against them.”
On April 2009, the UC once again discussed the case as six of the students were found by the SDT guilty of misconduct and imposed a penalty 45 days suspension. The students did not appeal the decision. The UC deliberated on how this penalty would be served and after over two hours of discussion voted 126 for, 73 against and 13 abstain, that the graduation be withdrawn so that the students could enroll for residency and serve their suspension.
In the June 3, 2009 special BOR meeting to discuss the decision of the UPD UC, the BOR by a vote of 5 for, 3 against and 1 abstain approved the motion to confirm the graduation of the six students…without need of serving the penalty of 45 days suspension imposed by the SDT because the same is deemed to be served.”
In the June 25 regular BOR meeting, I submitted a motion for reconsideration of this decision and also requested for the Board to provide an explanation of this decision. The Chair broke the 4-4 vote in favor of denying the reconsideration.
In the July 31, 2009 meeting the Board rejected two resolutions passed by the University Council in its July 20, 2009 meeting. One resolution protested the June 3 decision of the BOR and requested for reconsideration . The other resolution was for withdrawing the honors of students found guilty of misconduct. In response to the UC's reiteration of the need for transparency regarding the bases for the BOR decisions, the Chair instructed the Office of the Secretary of the University to release to the UPD UC the record of the deliberations of the BOR meetings (June 3, June 25 and July 31) related to this case.
D. Programming and Reprogramming of Funds of the System and CUs
· May 29, 2009:
- Open U: P9, 525,636.25
- UP System: P55, 486,855.22
· June 25, 2009
- UP Visayas: (Programming of Income): P1, 289, 746.21
- UP Manila : (Reprogramming of unexpended balances: P40, 876,409.57
- UP Diliman: (Reprogramming of Unexpended Obligations under the GAA): P35, 216,137.85
· July 31, 2009
- UP System (Reprogramming of unexpended balances): P20, 655,073.38
- UP Diliman (Programming of income): P13, 771, 429, 21
E. Reiteration of UP’s concern over missing UP Students
As the June 25, 2009 meeting was just a day before the third anniversary of the abduction of UP students Karen Empeño and Sherlyn Cadapan, who disappeared on June 26, 2006, I shared with the board the UPD University Council resolution dated July 26, 2006.
_________
* The 2009-2010 Faculty Regent is Dr. Judy Taguiwalo. She is presently a professor from the College of Social Work and Community Development and a former National President of the All U.P. Academic Employees Union
To Those Who Mourn for Tita Cory....
A Letter from the NY Committee from Human Rights in the Philippines
Reference: Peter Arvin Jabido, NY Committee for Human Rights in the Philippines, email: nychrp@gmail.com
The NY Committee for Human Rights in the Philippines sends its condolences to the Cojuanco-Aquino family and joins the Filipino people in mourning the death of former Philippine President Corazon "Cory" Aquino last weekend after a long and brave battle against cancer.
During the three-year exile of the late Senator Benigno "Ninoy" Aquino in the United States to seek medical treatment, the Aquino family settled in Boston and traveled frequently to New York City, where there still remains the legacy of an anti-fascist, anti-dictatorship, pro-democracy movement of overseas Filipino professionals. Many from New York City supported the Aquino family as the movement to oppose the Martial Law under Ferdinand Marcos can also be attributed to uniting broad ranks of Filipinos overseas as well as in Manila and throughout the Philippines.
By now, Cory Aquino's story is well-known. From the shadow of her murdered husband, this "mere housewife"-- as described by Marcos-- rose to become the first woman president of the Philippines and in Asia. The combination of Ninoy's tragedy and Cory's victory not only fast-tracked the toppling of a 20-year old dictatorship, it brought various Filipinos from different social standings together and was a wake-up call to the possibility of collective action and nationwide unity in order to make it happen. It also led to the release of hundreds of government critics who had been imprisoned and tortured by the Marcos government for political beliefs, as well as the exploration of peace prospects through negotiations between the Government of the Republic of the Philippines and the National Democratic Front of the Philippines, who have been in engaged in a 40 year old civil war.
These, perhaps, should be the most-remembered and lasting contributions of "Tita Cory", as she was fondly known.
Though Tita Cory's presidency had its notable shortcomings-- including a fraudulent land reform program that led to the shooting of indignant farmers calling for genuine land reform along Mendiola Bridge in 1987, as well as human rights violations committed by the same Armed Forces of the Philippines responsible for Martial Law-- these cannot deny its strong pursuit of reforms in the name of restoring democracy after Marcos. These include the formal closing of the former permanent US military bases after nearly a century of establishment, the restoring of the Philippine Congress as a pillar of democracy that had been dismantled under Marcos, and the creation of the 1987 Philippine Constitution to include specific provisions that limit foreign intervention and promote Philippine sovereignty as well as safeguard against executive abuse of power in the form of martial rule.
Though moral conviction against tyranny and corruption made Tita Cory stand apart from previous Philippine administrations and earned her the support of the Catholic Church, it also subjected her to the wrath of destabilizers within her own government and military that sought to bring her down. In the end, Tita Cory's popularity withstood several attempts at military coup d'etat to overthrow her.
Even after retiring from the presidency, Tita Cory publicly stood up against gross government corruption traced to both the administrations of Joseph Estrada and most recently with Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.
Now the pro-sovereignty provisions to the Philippine Constitution that Cory's administration introduced stand to be erased due to a relentless campaign for greed and power under Arroyo, as exemplified through Arroyo's Charter Change. Though many have compared these two women presidents of the Philippines and pointed out their incidental similarities, let us focus on what makes them starkly different.
While Cory's administration saw the formal closing of the permanent US military bases, Gloria's administration seeks to formally restore them.
While Cory publicly opposed corruption, Gloria is guilty of committing and promoting it.
While Cory framed the 1987 Philippine Constitution seeking restore democracy, Gloria wants threatens democracy by seeking to change it.
While Cory freed political prisoners who were illegally detained and tortured, Gloria continues to illegally detain and torture critics of her regime.
While Cory stood up against Marcos, Gloria is emulating Marcos.
While Cory proved her moral credibility with the people, the church and international community, Gloria has lost all moral credibility with the people, the church and the international community.
In her final years, Tita Cory was one of the few from the Philippine political elite who asked Arroyo to step down from the presidency. She remained firm to this position to her deathbed.
The fight inspired by Tita Cory in 1986 is far from over. Genuine democracy in the Philippines has yet to be restored and realized.
Let the movement that Tita Cory inspired not be in vain. In the midst of another tyrannical government, let us again unite from Manila, to New York City, to the far-flung provinces of the Philippines against corruption, rising fascism, and dictatorship.
As millions now gather to mourn, let us mourn as Tita Cory would want us to-- not just by tying yellow ribbons or flashing the "L" hand signs, but by continuing the people's movement in aspiration for genuine sovereignty, democracy, and peace.
Towards Unity & Nationhood,
The NY Committee for Human Rights in the Philippines
--
New York Committee for Human Rights in the Philippines
www.nychrp.org
email: nychrp@gmail.com
Thursday, July 30, 2009
DMMC-FMAB Salot sa Kalusugan ng Mamamayan: Tutulan! Labanan!
Pagkatapos magpalabas ng kalatas ang unyon para tutulan ang pagsasapribado ng PGH Faculty Medical Arts Building (FMAB) noong ika-18 ng Hunyo 2009 ay may pahayag mula sa isang opisyal ng UP College of Medicine at consultant din ng ospital na: “Bakit ba kayo sa unyon ay tumututol pa sa posibleeng kikitain ng PGH mula sa FMAB? Saan nyo ba nais kumuha ng pondo ang ospital para ipandagdag sa kakapusan ng ibinibigay ng gobyerno?”
Samakatuwid, marami ang nasa Administrasyon ngayon ng mahal nating ospital na ang utak ay hindi na serbisyo kungdi ang kumita. Sa halip ang atupagin ay ipaglaban ang karapatan ng mamamayan sa abot-kayang serbisyong pangkalusugan at igiit ang kaukulang pondo mula sa gobyerno para dito; ang pinagka-abalahan ay ang pag-paplano at pagpapatupad kung papaano pa mahuthutan ang naghihirap nang Sambayanan.
Sa harap ng papalaking bilang ng nawawalan ng trabaho at mga pamilyang nagugutom at siyang bumubuo ng may halos nobenta porsiyento (90%) ng mga pasyente ng ospital ay may sikmura pa silang magpapatupad ng dagdag singil sa mga serbsiyong ibinibigay ng ospital.
Inuulit po natin, ang unyon ay hindi tumututol sa geographical private practice ng ating mga medical consultant, ang ayaw natin ay ang pagtatatayo pa ng mga pribadong pasilidad sa loob ng PGH para kumpetensiyahan ang mga serbisyong ibinibigay ng ospital tulad ng Pharmacy, Laboratory, Radiology, Diagnostic/endoscopic Examinations at iba pa. May mga karanasan na tayo kung saan nagsimula lamang sa paunti-unti partisipasyon ng pribadong mamumuhunan sa mga serbisyong ipinagkaloob ng ospital subalit sa kalaunan sa pamamagitan ng polisiyang ipinatupad ng PGH Administration mismo, pinatay na rin nito ang sariling serbisyo at buong-buo nang ipinaupaya sa pribado, tulad halimbawa ng mga Mechanical Ventilator/Respirator. Sa ngayon ay hindi na nagpopondo ang ospital sa pambili ng sariling respirator dahil nandidiyan naman daw ang mga private respirator leasing companies para magpa-upa (kahit sa charity) sa mga pasyenteng gagamit nito. Tipid na raw sa ”maintenance,” kumikita pa ang ospital mula sa porsiyento ng upa.
Kung atin pa ring matandaan noong dekada nubenta (’90s), may isang mataas na opisyal ng ospital ang may-ari din ng parmasya sa harap ng PGH kaya’t ang nangyari, madalas na walang gamot ang parmasya ng ospital, at ang lahat halos na wala sa parmasya ng PGH ay mabibili mo sa parmasya sa harapan ng ospital.
Ang tawag sa isyung ito ay malinaw na ”conflict of interest.” Tayo ay pumasok sa PGH para magbigay serbisyo sa mamamayan, hindi para pagkakakitaan kahit pa yaong mga kapos-palad nating mga kababayan.
Mula sa mga karanasang ito, maaring sa malapit na hinaharap, kung matuloy ang “private” FMAB, ang madalas na kulang sa gamot o reagent o, pagkasira ng mga gamit ay gawing dahilan ng mga utak negosyong nasa Administrasyon ng PGH upang tuluyan ng isara nito ang PGH Pharmacy, Laboratory, Radiology at iba pa at ipaubaya na lang sa mga private companies ang mga pangangailangan ng ospital sa mga nabanggit na pasilidad. - lantay at tahasan nang pribatisasyon at pagtalikod ng estado sa responsibilidad nitong ipagkaloob sa mamamayan ang abot-kayang serbisyong pangkalusugan.
Tutulan ang pribatisasyon sa PGH! Tutulan ang pagratipika ng Board of Regents sa Memorandum of Agreement sa pagitan ng PGH at Daniel Mercado Medical Center kaugnay sa FMAB.
Singilin ang gobyernong GMA sa responsibilidad nito sa Sambayanang Pilipino!
Ipaglaban ang karapatan ng mamamayan sa serbisyong pangkalusugan!
Samakatuwid, marami ang nasa Administrasyon ngayon ng mahal nating ospital na ang utak ay hindi na serbisyo kungdi ang kumita. Sa halip ang atupagin ay ipaglaban ang karapatan ng mamamayan sa abot-kayang serbisyong pangkalusugan at igiit ang kaukulang pondo mula sa gobyerno para dito; ang pinagka-abalahan ay ang pag-paplano at pagpapatupad kung papaano pa mahuthutan ang naghihirap nang Sambayanan.
Sa harap ng papalaking bilang ng nawawalan ng trabaho at mga pamilyang nagugutom at siyang bumubuo ng may halos nobenta porsiyento (90%) ng mga pasyente ng ospital ay may sikmura pa silang magpapatupad ng dagdag singil sa mga serbsiyong ibinibigay ng ospital.
Inuulit po natin, ang unyon ay hindi tumututol sa geographical private practice ng ating mga medical consultant, ang ayaw natin ay ang pagtatatayo pa ng mga pribadong pasilidad sa loob ng PGH para kumpetensiyahan ang mga serbisyong ibinibigay ng ospital tulad ng Pharmacy, Laboratory, Radiology, Diagnostic/endoscopic Examinations at iba pa. May mga karanasan na tayo kung saan nagsimula lamang sa paunti-unti partisipasyon ng pribadong mamumuhunan sa mga serbisyong ipinagkaloob ng ospital subalit sa kalaunan sa pamamagitan ng polisiyang ipinatupad ng PGH Administration mismo, pinatay na rin nito ang sariling serbisyo at buong-buo nang ipinaupaya sa pribado, tulad halimbawa ng mga Mechanical Ventilator/Respirator. Sa ngayon ay hindi na nagpopondo ang ospital sa pambili ng sariling respirator dahil nandidiyan naman daw ang mga private respirator leasing companies para magpa-upa (kahit sa charity) sa mga pasyenteng gagamit nito. Tipid na raw sa ”maintenance,” kumikita pa ang ospital mula sa porsiyento ng upa.
Kung atin pa ring matandaan noong dekada nubenta (’90s), may isang mataas na opisyal ng ospital ang may-ari din ng parmasya sa harap ng PGH kaya’t ang nangyari, madalas na walang gamot ang parmasya ng ospital, at ang lahat halos na wala sa parmasya ng PGH ay mabibili mo sa parmasya sa harapan ng ospital.
Ang tawag sa isyung ito ay malinaw na ”conflict of interest.” Tayo ay pumasok sa PGH para magbigay serbisyo sa mamamayan, hindi para pagkakakitaan kahit pa yaong mga kapos-palad nating mga kababayan.
Mula sa mga karanasang ito, maaring sa malapit na hinaharap, kung matuloy ang “private” FMAB, ang madalas na kulang sa gamot o reagent o, pagkasira ng mga gamit ay gawing dahilan ng mga utak negosyong nasa Administrasyon ng PGH upang tuluyan ng isara nito ang PGH Pharmacy, Laboratory, Radiology at iba pa at ipaubaya na lang sa mga private companies ang mga pangangailangan ng ospital sa mga nabanggit na pasilidad. - lantay at tahasan nang pribatisasyon at pagtalikod ng estado sa responsibilidad nitong ipagkaloob sa mamamayan ang abot-kayang serbisyong pangkalusugan.
Tutulan ang pribatisasyon sa PGH! Tutulan ang pagratipika ng Board of Regents sa Memorandum of Agreement sa pagitan ng PGH at Daniel Mercado Medical Center kaugnay sa FMAB.
Singilin ang gobyernong GMA sa responsibilidad nito sa Sambayanang Pilipino!
Ipaglaban ang karapatan ng mamamayan sa serbisyong pangkalusugan!
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Pahayag ng Pagtutol sa Komersiyalisasyon sa PGH*
Sa pagpasok ng PGH sa leasing agreement sa Faculty Medical Arts Building (FMAB) (ang dating PGH Infirmary) sa Daniel Mercado Medical Center (DMMC) ay lumalabas na ang tunay na tunguhin sa modernization program ng kasalukuyang PGH Administration ay lantay na commercialization.
Ayon sa kasunduan, bukod sa pagpapa-upa sa mga PGH consultants para sa kanilang private clinics; papayagan din ang DMMC na mag-operate sa FMAB ng sariling ambulatory operating room, pharmacy, laboratory, radiology, iba pang mga diagnostic facilities, at mga kaakibat na pasilidad.
Ang ibig sabihin, lantaran ng magkakaroon ng mga pribadong pasilidad sa loob mismo ng PGH na eksklusibong magbibigay serbisyo sa mga pribadong pasyente o yaong may kakayanang magbayad. Isang esensiyang karakter ng microprivatization/co-location, kung saan habang minamantini na publiko pa rin ang isang institusyon subalit ang mga serbisyong ipinagkakaloob nito ay nasa pribadong kompanya na, o may kaalinsabayang pribadong serbisyo sa loob mismo ng institusyon upang direktang kinukumpetensiya at unti-unting pinapatay ang pampublikong serbisyo.
Samakatuwid, kung ito ay lumawak pa, isang araw ay magising na lang tayong ang lahat na ng serbisyo ng PGH ay pribado na - may bayad na kasing taas o higit pa sa pribadong ospital.
Ang microprivatization/co-location ay mapanlinlang na tipo ng polisiyang pribatisasyon ng pambansang pamahalaan sa dikta ng International Monetary Fund-World Bank (IMF-WB) para ibigay sa pribadong sektor at pagkakakitaan ang mga serbisyong bayan kasama na ang serbisyong pangkalusugan para masegurong makabayad sa mga kautangan nito. Ang mga serbisyong panlipunan tulad ng kalusugan ay pangunahing batayan ng pagkakaroon ng pamahalaan at sinisiguro ng ating Saligang Batas na dapat ipagkaloob ng estado. Subalit maging ito ay tinatalikuran na rin ng ating pamahalaan.
Ang All U.P. Workers Union ay naninindigan na ang PGH ay ospital ng bayan. Sa panahon ng pandaigdigang krisis pang-ekonomiya at pandaigdigang pananalanta ng Influenza A (H1N1), ngayon natin dapat pagyamanin pa ang mahusay na serbisyong pangkalusugan na de-kalidad, abot-kaya at laan sa mamamayan, at hindi ang kabaliktaran nito.
Hinahamon natin ang Administrasyong Alfiler, kung kayo ay totoo ayon sa inyong ibinabandila na magaling at talentado, paghusayin natin ang ating serbisyo sa bayan sa paraang hindi na pinapatindi ang panghuhuthot sa ating mga kababayan na hilahod na sa hirap. Huwag nating gawing dahilan na kesyo kulang ang pondo mula sa pambansang pamahalaan. Katunayan mahigit trilyong piso na ang pambansang budget at kung saan halos 90% nito ay napupunta lamang sa pambayad utang, pondong pandigma at terorismo ng estado at kurupsiyon. Huwag kayong tumulad sa inyong among nasa Malakanyang na sa harap ng malawakang akusasyon ng korupsiyon at paglabag sa karapatang pantao ay kapit-tuko sa pwesto at naglalatag pa ng mga mapanlinlang na mga pamamaraan tulad ng Senate-less Con-Ass upang manatili sa posisyon ng lagpas pa ng 2010.
Sa ating mga kapwa kawani, tayo ay pumasok sa PGH upang magsilbi sa sambayanan, huwag tayong pagagamit sa makasariling ambisyon ng mga namumuno sa atin. Tayo ay may sagradong papel upang labanan ang mga patakarang higit pang nagpapahirap sa Sambayanan. Ilantad at labanan ang komersiyalisasyon at pribatisasyon ng PGH. Ipaglaban ang karapatan ng Sambayanan sa batayang serbisyong pangkalusugan.
Mabuhay ang mga kawani ng PGH na taus puso at may pagmamalasakit na nagsisilbi sa ating mamamayan!
_______________
* Pahayag ng All U.P. Workers Union Manila kaugnay sa Signing Ceremonies ng Memorandum of Agreement sa pagitan ng UP-PGH at Daniel Mercado Medical Center (DMMC) ngayong ika-18 ng Hunyo 2009. Ayon sa kasunduan ang planong Faculty and Medical Arts Building (ang dating PGH Infirmary) ay pangangasiwaan ng DMMC sa loob ng dalawamput-limang (25) taon kapalit ng renta sa PGH.
Ayon sa kasunduan, bukod sa pagpapa-upa sa mga PGH consultants para sa kanilang private clinics; papayagan din ang DMMC na mag-operate sa FMAB ng sariling ambulatory operating room, pharmacy, laboratory, radiology, iba pang mga diagnostic facilities, at mga kaakibat na pasilidad.
Ang ibig sabihin, lantaran ng magkakaroon ng mga pribadong pasilidad sa loob mismo ng PGH na eksklusibong magbibigay serbisyo sa mga pribadong pasyente o yaong may kakayanang magbayad. Isang esensiyang karakter ng microprivatization/co-location, kung saan habang minamantini na publiko pa rin ang isang institusyon subalit ang mga serbisyong ipinagkakaloob nito ay nasa pribadong kompanya na, o may kaalinsabayang pribadong serbisyo sa loob mismo ng institusyon upang direktang kinukumpetensiya at unti-unting pinapatay ang pampublikong serbisyo.
Samakatuwid, kung ito ay lumawak pa, isang araw ay magising na lang tayong ang lahat na ng serbisyo ng PGH ay pribado na - may bayad na kasing taas o higit pa sa pribadong ospital.
Ang microprivatization/co-location ay mapanlinlang na tipo ng polisiyang pribatisasyon ng pambansang pamahalaan sa dikta ng International Monetary Fund-World Bank (IMF-WB) para ibigay sa pribadong sektor at pagkakakitaan ang mga serbisyong bayan kasama na ang serbisyong pangkalusugan para masegurong makabayad sa mga kautangan nito. Ang mga serbisyong panlipunan tulad ng kalusugan ay pangunahing batayan ng pagkakaroon ng pamahalaan at sinisiguro ng ating Saligang Batas na dapat ipagkaloob ng estado. Subalit maging ito ay tinatalikuran na rin ng ating pamahalaan.
Ang All U.P. Workers Union ay naninindigan na ang PGH ay ospital ng bayan. Sa panahon ng pandaigdigang krisis pang-ekonomiya at pandaigdigang pananalanta ng Influenza A (H1N1), ngayon natin dapat pagyamanin pa ang mahusay na serbisyong pangkalusugan na de-kalidad, abot-kaya at laan sa mamamayan, at hindi ang kabaliktaran nito.
Hinahamon natin ang Administrasyong Alfiler, kung kayo ay totoo ayon sa inyong ibinabandila na magaling at talentado, paghusayin natin ang ating serbisyo sa bayan sa paraang hindi na pinapatindi ang panghuhuthot sa ating mga kababayan na hilahod na sa hirap. Huwag nating gawing dahilan na kesyo kulang ang pondo mula sa pambansang pamahalaan. Katunayan mahigit trilyong piso na ang pambansang budget at kung saan halos 90% nito ay napupunta lamang sa pambayad utang, pondong pandigma at terorismo ng estado at kurupsiyon. Huwag kayong tumulad sa inyong among nasa Malakanyang na sa harap ng malawakang akusasyon ng korupsiyon at paglabag sa karapatang pantao ay kapit-tuko sa pwesto at naglalatag pa ng mga mapanlinlang na mga pamamaraan tulad ng Senate-less Con-Ass upang manatili sa posisyon ng lagpas pa ng 2010.
Sa ating mga kapwa kawani, tayo ay pumasok sa PGH upang magsilbi sa sambayanan, huwag tayong pagagamit sa makasariling ambisyon ng mga namumuno sa atin. Tayo ay may sagradong papel upang labanan ang mga patakarang higit pang nagpapahirap sa Sambayanan. Ilantad at labanan ang komersiyalisasyon at pribatisasyon ng PGH. Ipaglaban ang karapatan ng Sambayanan sa batayang serbisyong pangkalusugan.
Mabuhay ang mga kawani ng PGH na taus puso at may pagmamalasakit na nagsisilbi sa ating mamamayan!
_______________
* Pahayag ng All U.P. Workers Union Manila kaugnay sa Signing Ceremonies ng Memorandum of Agreement sa pagitan ng UP-PGH at Daniel Mercado Medical Center (DMMC) ngayong ika-18 ng Hunyo 2009. Ayon sa kasunduan ang planong Faculty and Medical Arts Building (ang dating PGH Infirmary) ay pangangasiwaan ng DMMC sa loob ng dalawamput-limang (25) taon kapalit ng renta sa PGH.
Con-Ass” and the People’s Wrath
PUBLISHED ON June 16, 2009 AT 5:33 PM
By CAROL PAGADUAN-ARAULLO
Streetwise / Business World
Posted by Bulatlat
The anti-Charter change (Chacha) and anti-Arroyo forces had barely a week to mount the muscle-flexing protest action yesterday in Ayala Avenue, Makati City and in major urban centers nationwide. They achieved a big measure of success by gathering thousands in Makati and hundreds if not thousands more in various cities and big towns nationwide. They displayed broad participation by the organizations of the basic sectors among the working people, the civic, professional and artist groups, the Catholic religious congregations and some bishops, the protestant churches, the opposition leaders and parties, and government officials and military/police officers critical of the Arroyo regime.
Earlier mini-protests erupted in various parts of Metro Manila and “viral” protest spread as well in the virtual world of the internet giving a foretaste of what could lie ahead for the Arroyo clique as it schemes, manipulates and buys its ways to staying in power beyond 2010, the Constitutionally-mandated end of GMA’s term in office.
There is no denying that a vast majority of the people have had enough of Mrs.Arroyo and her ilk. The crimes of her regime just keep mounting despite the many times that she has been caught red-handed. She has willfully ignored calls for accountability by the people, by the political opposition, religious and business leaders and even by the international community appalled at rampant human rights violations.
Shamelessly, Mrs. Arroyo has clung to power; she has refused to resign. She has used emergency rule and various other draconian measures including extrajudicial killings, militarization of rural and urban poor communities, illegal arrest and detention and the filing of trumped-up criminal charges against her perceived enemies, to prevent her ouster through popular uprising.
Mrs. Arroyo and her clique have come up against Constitutional term limits that makes her stepping down from power a given. She could appoint a loyal and pliant presidential candidate for the national elections in 2010 and utilize all the dirty tricks in the books (and some she has invented) to make that candidate “win” in order to buy political insurance for herself and her cohorts. The same way she preempted every impeachment move by buying off the “honorable” members of the HOR; the way she squelched every investigation into anomalies of her administration by appointing a subservient Ombudsman; and the way she stopped every attempt to pry open inquiry into the most scandalous of corrupt government deals by her hold on the Supreme Court, majority of whom are her appointees.
But obviously that isn’t enough to ensure protection from being haled to court once she loses her presidential immunity. Similarly, she cannot predict where the political winds may blow once out of power; political debts can be easily forgotten or overtaken by the pressing concerns of the new administration whose own interests may no longer coincide with that of Mrs. Arroyo.
This is the real reason for the desperate, despicable and brazenly unconstitutional move called “Con-Ass”, recently railroaded by Mrs. Arroyo’s allies in the House of Representatives (HOR), by the mere expedient of a majority vote on House Resolution 1109 sponsored by no less than Speaker Prospero Nograles. H.R. 1109 empowers Congress to convene as a constituent assembly in order to revise the Philippine Constitution by two thirds of all congressmen and senators voting jointly. And since the more than 200 members of the Lower House vastly outnumber the 24 members of the Senate, this bogus Constituent Assembly can be convened and make revisions in the Charter even without a single senator participating.
The illegal and fake Constituent Assembly, packed by Arroyo allies whose compliance to her marching orders are ensured by millions-worth of incentives, will undertake the shift to a parliamentary system from the current presidential system. In this way, Mrs. Arroyo can run as a representative in her congressional district and manipulate her way into becoming prime minister later on by simply buying off the majority of members of parliament.
Time and so many legal impediments seem to make this scenario untenable. Still, all the moves of Mrs. Arroyo and her allies constitute an undeniable trail of deception, lies, maneuvers, buy-offs and quid-pro-quos that point the way to this as the major ploy of the Arroyo clique.
Despite Mrs. Arroyo’s posturing that the merger of the two political parties loyal to her, the Lakas-CMD and Kampi, is proof positive that the 2010 presidential elections are pushing through as scheduled, the truth is such a merger party is precisely what Mrs. Arroyo will use to bamboozle the opposition once she moves to get the prime minister position in a new Parliament.
For someone supposedly so focused on the business of running the country, Mrs. Arroyo has noticeably gone on frequent sorties into her hometown and adjoining towns, part of the Congressional district in Pampanga where she will likely run for congressperson. Now why should a former president of the country be interested in running for the lowly post of a congressperson if this isn’t the stepping stone to the most powerful post in a parliamentary form of government?
Will the fear of the people’s wrath give pause to Mrs. Arroyo and her evil cabal of plotters? At this point it is clear that this hardly is the case. The Arroyo clique has taken an important lesson from the Marcos Dictatorship on what are crucial to achieve their Machiavellian designs. First is to secure the backing of the United States government (it will give the “democratic” imprimatur to the recycled Arroyo regime via Con-Ass and shift to parliamentary system). Then ensure the loyalty of the military and police generals; the blessings of enough voices among the church hierarchy and big business community; and the chorus of servile “ayes” from so-called parliamentarians and local government officials fattened by pork barrel and other perks.
The Arroyo clique is betting that the elite classes who rule this country and the lone Super Power, the US of A, can be enticed to see things its way; that is, the Arroyo clique’s narrow interests as key to protecting and upholding their own immediate and strategic interests. For example, apart from changing the Charter in order to make possible Mrs. Arroyo’s continuing hold on the reigns of power in this country, Mrs. Arroyo uses as bait constitutional amendments that will allow foreign investors to acquire ownership and control over all natural resources and economic enterprises to the extent of 100 per cent and to sell out the economic sovereignty and national patrimony of the Filipino people.
US and other foreign military forces are to be allowed unrestricted stay and operations in the Philippines not just by means of the RP-US Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) but by Constitutional fiat. Many of the constitutional provisions against the basing of foreign military forces and nuclear, chemical, biological and other weapons of mass destruction on Philippine soil are under threat of being excised from the basic law of the land. The Arroyo regime also wants to remove the constitutional restraints on martial law, emergency rule and violations of human rights. It seeks to undermine formal guarantees of civil and political liberties in the bill of rights achieved in the wake of the people’s victory over the US- backed Marcos dictatorship.
One lesson that the Arroyo clique has obviously failed to learn is that the inevitable ending for dictators and would-be dictators in this country and elsewhere in the world is the dust-bin of history. The people’s wrath and courageous, persistent mass struggles will definitely see to that. (Bulatlat.com)
By CAROL PAGADUAN-ARAULLO
Streetwise / Business World
Posted by Bulatlat
The anti-Charter change (Chacha) and anti-Arroyo forces had barely a week to mount the muscle-flexing protest action yesterday in Ayala Avenue, Makati City and in major urban centers nationwide. They achieved a big measure of success by gathering thousands in Makati and hundreds if not thousands more in various cities and big towns nationwide. They displayed broad participation by the organizations of the basic sectors among the working people, the civic, professional and artist groups, the Catholic religious congregations and some bishops, the protestant churches, the opposition leaders and parties, and government officials and military/police officers critical of the Arroyo regime.
Earlier mini-protests erupted in various parts of Metro Manila and “viral” protest spread as well in the virtual world of the internet giving a foretaste of what could lie ahead for the Arroyo clique as it schemes, manipulates and buys its ways to staying in power beyond 2010, the Constitutionally-mandated end of GMA’s term in office.
There is no denying that a vast majority of the people have had enough of Mrs.Arroyo and her ilk. The crimes of her regime just keep mounting despite the many times that she has been caught red-handed. She has willfully ignored calls for accountability by the people, by the political opposition, religious and business leaders and even by the international community appalled at rampant human rights violations.
Shamelessly, Mrs. Arroyo has clung to power; she has refused to resign. She has used emergency rule and various other draconian measures including extrajudicial killings, militarization of rural and urban poor communities, illegal arrest and detention and the filing of trumped-up criminal charges against her perceived enemies, to prevent her ouster through popular uprising.
Mrs. Arroyo and her clique have come up against Constitutional term limits that makes her stepping down from power a given. She could appoint a loyal and pliant presidential candidate for the national elections in 2010 and utilize all the dirty tricks in the books (and some she has invented) to make that candidate “win” in order to buy political insurance for herself and her cohorts. The same way she preempted every impeachment move by buying off the “honorable” members of the HOR; the way she squelched every investigation into anomalies of her administration by appointing a subservient Ombudsman; and the way she stopped every attempt to pry open inquiry into the most scandalous of corrupt government deals by her hold on the Supreme Court, majority of whom are her appointees.
But obviously that isn’t enough to ensure protection from being haled to court once she loses her presidential immunity. Similarly, she cannot predict where the political winds may blow once out of power; political debts can be easily forgotten or overtaken by the pressing concerns of the new administration whose own interests may no longer coincide with that of Mrs. Arroyo.
This is the real reason for the desperate, despicable and brazenly unconstitutional move called “Con-Ass”, recently railroaded by Mrs. Arroyo’s allies in the House of Representatives (HOR), by the mere expedient of a majority vote on House Resolution 1109 sponsored by no less than Speaker Prospero Nograles. H.R. 1109 empowers Congress to convene as a constituent assembly in order to revise the Philippine Constitution by two thirds of all congressmen and senators voting jointly. And since the more than 200 members of the Lower House vastly outnumber the 24 members of the Senate, this bogus Constituent Assembly can be convened and make revisions in the Charter even without a single senator participating.
The illegal and fake Constituent Assembly, packed by Arroyo allies whose compliance to her marching orders are ensured by millions-worth of incentives, will undertake the shift to a parliamentary system from the current presidential system. In this way, Mrs. Arroyo can run as a representative in her congressional district and manipulate her way into becoming prime minister later on by simply buying off the majority of members of parliament.
Time and so many legal impediments seem to make this scenario untenable. Still, all the moves of Mrs. Arroyo and her allies constitute an undeniable trail of deception, lies, maneuvers, buy-offs and quid-pro-quos that point the way to this as the major ploy of the Arroyo clique.
Despite Mrs. Arroyo’s posturing that the merger of the two political parties loyal to her, the Lakas-CMD and Kampi, is proof positive that the 2010 presidential elections are pushing through as scheduled, the truth is such a merger party is precisely what Mrs. Arroyo will use to bamboozle the opposition once she moves to get the prime minister position in a new Parliament.
For someone supposedly so focused on the business of running the country, Mrs. Arroyo has noticeably gone on frequent sorties into her hometown and adjoining towns, part of the Congressional district in Pampanga where she will likely run for congressperson. Now why should a former president of the country be interested in running for the lowly post of a congressperson if this isn’t the stepping stone to the most powerful post in a parliamentary form of government?
Will the fear of the people’s wrath give pause to Mrs. Arroyo and her evil cabal of plotters? At this point it is clear that this hardly is the case. The Arroyo clique has taken an important lesson from the Marcos Dictatorship on what are crucial to achieve their Machiavellian designs. First is to secure the backing of the United States government (it will give the “democratic” imprimatur to the recycled Arroyo regime via Con-Ass and shift to parliamentary system). Then ensure the loyalty of the military and police generals; the blessings of enough voices among the church hierarchy and big business community; and the chorus of servile “ayes” from so-called parliamentarians and local government officials fattened by pork barrel and other perks.
The Arroyo clique is betting that the elite classes who rule this country and the lone Super Power, the US of A, can be enticed to see things its way; that is, the Arroyo clique’s narrow interests as key to protecting and upholding their own immediate and strategic interests. For example, apart from changing the Charter in order to make possible Mrs. Arroyo’s continuing hold on the reigns of power in this country, Mrs. Arroyo uses as bait constitutional amendments that will allow foreign investors to acquire ownership and control over all natural resources and economic enterprises to the extent of 100 per cent and to sell out the economic sovereignty and national patrimony of the Filipino people.
US and other foreign military forces are to be allowed unrestricted stay and operations in the Philippines not just by means of the RP-US Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) but by Constitutional fiat. Many of the constitutional provisions against the basing of foreign military forces and nuclear, chemical, biological and other weapons of mass destruction on Philippine soil are under threat of being excised from the basic law of the land. The Arroyo regime also wants to remove the constitutional restraints on martial law, emergency rule and violations of human rights. It seeks to undermine formal guarantees of civil and political liberties in the bill of rights achieved in the wake of the people’s victory over the US- backed Marcos dictatorship.
One lesson that the Arroyo clique has obviously failed to learn is that the inevitable ending for dictators and would-be dictators in this country and elsewhere in the world is the dust-bin of history. The people’s wrath and courageous, persistent mass struggles will definitely see to that. (Bulatlat.com)
Wednesday, June 03, 2009
Nurses Decry Lower Salaries in New Law
Health workers say DoH 'insensitive' to salary law
By Anna Valmero
INQUIRER.net
Posted date: June 03, 2009
MANILA, Philippines— Public health workers on Wednesday staged a rally outside the office of the health secretary slamming the Department of Health’s silence on the approval of the Salary Standardization Law (SSL) in Congress earlier this week.
Emma Manuel, national president of the Alliance of Health Workers Inc., said members of her organization are disappointed with the passage of the salary standardization scheme which disregards the Nursing Act of 2002 and threatens their benefits under the Magna Carta of Public Health Workers.
The new law is “worse than the A/H1N1 virus, instantly killing the Nursing Act provision on Salary Grade 15 for nurses and putting the benefits of public health workers in jeopardy,” Manuel said.
Under the new law, new nurses are at Salary Grade 11 getting a monthly salary of P12,000. The law provides for P6,000 worth of increases spread over four years.
But under another law, the Nursing Act or Republic Act 9173, which was enacted seven years ago but still not implemented until now, new nurses should be at Salary Grade 15, getting a monthly salary of P25,000.
“In the last seven years, the government deprived the Filipino nurses of their right to Salary Grade 15,” said Manuel.
Teresita Barcelo, national president of the Philippine Nurses Association Inc., said the signing of SSL into law killed the Nursing Law and “denied Filipino nurses of their right to humane salaries.”
“We help take care of life but we are deprived of our rights. We are fighting for our legitimate right—the implementation of RA 9173,” she said in Filipino.
Barcelo said nurses in the Philippines are overworked, with a nurse to patient ratio of one is to 50. She said this situation makes it hard for nurses here to perform their health duties and to sustain their families’ financial needs.
Manuel also lamented the silence of the Department of Health in the issue. She said it smacks of “utmost insensitivity to the plight of nurses and health workers. While health workers tirelessly lobbied in the House and Senate, the DoH washed its hands, literally and figuratively.”
Ernie Espinosa, president of National Center for Mental Health Workers Association, agreed. “Neither the DoH secretary nor any director from the department joined us in our fight for our salaries and rights. We are health workers who serve the people and the government,” he said.
Health Assistant Secretary Luna Fernandez told the group that the DoH will be open for dialog with the health workers.
By Anna Valmero
INQUIRER.net
Posted date: June 03, 2009
MANILA, Philippines— Public health workers on Wednesday staged a rally outside the office of the health secretary slamming the Department of Health’s silence on the approval of the Salary Standardization Law (SSL) in Congress earlier this week.
Emma Manuel, national president of the Alliance of Health Workers Inc., said members of her organization are disappointed with the passage of the salary standardization scheme which disregards the Nursing Act of 2002 and threatens their benefits under the Magna Carta of Public Health Workers.
The new law is “worse than the A/H1N1 virus, instantly killing the Nursing Act provision on Salary Grade 15 for nurses and putting the benefits of public health workers in jeopardy,” Manuel said.
Under the new law, new nurses are at Salary Grade 11 getting a monthly salary of P12,000. The law provides for P6,000 worth of increases spread over four years.
But under another law, the Nursing Act or Republic Act 9173, which was enacted seven years ago but still not implemented until now, new nurses should be at Salary Grade 15, getting a monthly salary of P25,000.
“In the last seven years, the government deprived the Filipino nurses of their right to Salary Grade 15,” said Manuel.
Teresita Barcelo, national president of the Philippine Nurses Association Inc., said the signing of SSL into law killed the Nursing Law and “denied Filipino nurses of their right to humane salaries.”
“We help take care of life but we are deprived of our rights. We are fighting for our legitimate right—the implementation of RA 9173,” she said in Filipino.
Barcelo said nurses in the Philippines are overworked, with a nurse to patient ratio of one is to 50. She said this situation makes it hard for nurses here to perform their health duties and to sustain their families’ financial needs.
Manuel also lamented the silence of the Department of Health in the issue. She said it smacks of “utmost insensitivity to the plight of nurses and health workers. While health workers tirelessly lobbied in the House and Senate, the DoH washed its hands, literally and figuratively.”
Ernie Espinosa, president of National Center for Mental Health Workers Association, agreed. “Neither the DoH secretary nor any director from the department joined us in our fight for our salaries and rights. We are health workers who serve the people and the government,” he said.
Health Assistant Secretary Luna Fernandez told the group that the DoH will be open for dialog with the health workers.
Saturday, May 09, 2009
Health Workers Brave Storm to Mark National Health Workers’ Day with Protest
By CHARMAINE P. LIRIO AND GLAIZA MAY G. MUZONES
Bulatlat - http://www.bulatlat.com
MANILA — Heavy rains on Thursday May 7 did not stop health workers from celebrating the National Day for Health Workers with a protest on the wet and almost flooded streets of Morayta.
With their umbrellas and white coats, public health workers protested for salary and benefits increase in their sector. They also condemned the privatization of public hospitals and the dire state of health services in the country.
“We nurses, doctors, and other health workers who have chosen to stay in the country amidst crisis, poverty, sickness and corruption decry the willful neglect and disregard of the Arroyo government of the health workers and Filipino peoples’ plight,” the Alliance of Health Workers (AHW) said in a statement.
Led by AHW, the alliance of public health workers’ organizations, the protesters held a motorcade from the Lung Center of the Philippines and intended to have their program in Mendiola when they were blocked by the police.
Against privatization, corporatization
The health workers also expressed opposition to the government’s plan to privatize health services through House Bill (HB) 3287.
“Instead of ensuring the right to people’s health, the Department of Health revenue enhancement programs are giving heyday to private entities while making poor patients pay for every piece of cotton used,” AHW said.
HB 3287 was filed by by Rep. Roque Ablan, Jr. as part of Arroyo’s emergency resiliency package early this year. The bill seeks to corporatize public hospitals in the country.
Aside from this, some public hospitals now have Revenue Enhancement Programs (REP).
According to Remi Ysmael, President of Tondo Medical Center Employees Association, their hospital implements REP by requiring patients to pay for services that were previously offered for free.
Salary increase?
Dr. Geneve Rivera, Secretary General of the Health Alliance for Democracy (HEAD), said the government is deceiving public health workers through Joint Resolution 24.
”Tumaas ang ating sahod, binawasan naman ang ating benepisyo at papalittin pa nito ang mga matatanggap na kakarampot ng ating mga manggagawang pangkalusugan sa mga pribado at pampublikong ospital,” she said. (”Our salaries increased but our benefits were reduced, this will further lessen the already meager income of our health workers in public and private hospitals.”)
Joint Resolution No. 24 legalizes the abolition of economic and non-economic benefits gained through the Magna Carta of Public Health Workers or Republic Act 7305 of 1999.
RA 7305 includes in its provision the benefits and incentives of health workers such as subsistence allowance, hazard pay, and one-grade increase for compulsory retirees.
Under the HJR 24, Salary Grades 1 to 9 employees will receive a 30.1 percent increase in wage, which will be divided in four years as compared with the 100-142 percent increase of those in higher positions.
According to the health groups, even if this increase in wage would be implemented now, they will remain below the poverty line because of the reduction in their benefits and the inadequate raise. Also, with the current global economic crisis, the increase is negligible.
Leni Nolasco of the Philippine Nurses Association, meanwhile, said the provisions under the Nursing Act of 2002 are not recognized by hospitals until now.
Nursing Act of 2002 emphasizes the expansion of the nurses’ role to include comprehensive specialty programs, establishes a minimum pay for nurses working in the government and abroad, and expands the Board of Nursing membership.
“Hindi naman nila talaga tinutugunan yung mga pangangailangan ng mga nurses. Karamihan sa mga nurses, naghahanap na lang sila ng trabaho sa labas ng bansa, imbis na nagsisilbi sila sa ating kapwa mamamayan, sila ay natutulak upang pumunta sa ibang bansa”, she said. (The government does not really address the needs of our nurses. Most of our nurses look for jobs outside the country instead of serving their own countrymen; they are forced to go out of the country.)
Celebration
Alongside the celebration of the National Health Workers’ Day, AHW celebrated its 25th year anniversary.
A program was held at the Philippine General Hospital (PGH) where Senator Loren Legarda, Chairperson of the Senate Committee on Health, said the country invests less than one percent of its GDP on health while the United Nations investment benchmark should be five percent.
“There is hardly money for basic health care, for the maintenance and operations of public health centers and hospitals,” Legarda said.
Also present in the event were members of the All UP Workers Union, Council for Health and Development, Health Students’ Action, and unions and employees association from the Lung Center of the Philippines, Center for Mental Health, Heart Center, San Lazaro Hospital, and other city and provincial hospitals.
Former President Corazon Aquino proclaimed May 7 as National Health Workers’ Day in 1987 as recognition for the contribution of health workers in the country. (Bulatlat.com)
Bulatlat - http://www.bulatlat.com
MANILA — Heavy rains on Thursday May 7 did not stop health workers from celebrating the National Day for Health Workers with a protest on the wet and almost flooded streets of Morayta.
With their umbrellas and white coats, public health workers protested for salary and benefits increase in their sector. They also condemned the privatization of public hospitals and the dire state of health services in the country.
“We nurses, doctors, and other health workers who have chosen to stay in the country amidst crisis, poverty, sickness and corruption decry the willful neglect and disregard of the Arroyo government of the health workers and Filipino peoples’ plight,” the Alliance of Health Workers (AHW) said in a statement.
Led by AHW, the alliance of public health workers’ organizations, the protesters held a motorcade from the Lung Center of the Philippines and intended to have their program in Mendiola when they were blocked by the police.
Against privatization, corporatization
The health workers also expressed opposition to the government’s plan to privatize health services through House Bill (HB) 3287.
“Instead of ensuring the right to people’s health, the Department of Health revenue enhancement programs are giving heyday to private entities while making poor patients pay for every piece of cotton used,” AHW said.
HB 3287 was filed by by Rep. Roque Ablan, Jr. as part of Arroyo’s emergency resiliency package early this year. The bill seeks to corporatize public hospitals in the country.
Aside from this, some public hospitals now have Revenue Enhancement Programs (REP).
According to Remi Ysmael, President of Tondo Medical Center Employees Association, their hospital implements REP by requiring patients to pay for services that were previously offered for free.
Salary increase?
Dr. Geneve Rivera, Secretary General of the Health Alliance for Democracy (HEAD), said the government is deceiving public health workers through Joint Resolution 24.
”Tumaas ang ating sahod, binawasan naman ang ating benepisyo at papalittin pa nito ang mga matatanggap na kakarampot ng ating mga manggagawang pangkalusugan sa mga pribado at pampublikong ospital,” she said. (”Our salaries increased but our benefits were reduced, this will further lessen the already meager income of our health workers in public and private hospitals.”)
Joint Resolution No. 24 legalizes the abolition of economic and non-economic benefits gained through the Magna Carta of Public Health Workers or Republic Act 7305 of 1999.
RA 7305 includes in its provision the benefits and incentives of health workers such as subsistence allowance, hazard pay, and one-grade increase for compulsory retirees.
Under the HJR 24, Salary Grades 1 to 9 employees will receive a 30.1 percent increase in wage, which will be divided in four years as compared with the 100-142 percent increase of those in higher positions.
According to the health groups, even if this increase in wage would be implemented now, they will remain below the poverty line because of the reduction in their benefits and the inadequate raise. Also, with the current global economic crisis, the increase is negligible.
Leni Nolasco of the Philippine Nurses Association, meanwhile, said the provisions under the Nursing Act of 2002 are not recognized by hospitals until now.
Nursing Act of 2002 emphasizes the expansion of the nurses’ role to include comprehensive specialty programs, establishes a minimum pay for nurses working in the government and abroad, and expands the Board of Nursing membership.
“Hindi naman nila talaga tinutugunan yung mga pangangailangan ng mga nurses. Karamihan sa mga nurses, naghahanap na lang sila ng trabaho sa labas ng bansa, imbis na nagsisilbi sila sa ating kapwa mamamayan, sila ay natutulak upang pumunta sa ibang bansa”, she said. (The government does not really address the needs of our nurses. Most of our nurses look for jobs outside the country instead of serving their own countrymen; they are forced to go out of the country.)
Celebration
Alongside the celebration of the National Health Workers’ Day, AHW celebrated its 25th year anniversary.
A program was held at the Philippine General Hospital (PGH) where Senator Loren Legarda, Chairperson of the Senate Committee on Health, said the country invests less than one percent of its GDP on health while the United Nations investment benchmark should be five percent.
“There is hardly money for basic health care, for the maintenance and operations of public health centers and hospitals,” Legarda said.
Also present in the event were members of the All UP Workers Union, Council for Health and Development, Health Students’ Action, and unions and employees association from the Lung Center of the Philippines, Center for Mental Health, Heart Center, San Lazaro Hospital, and other city and provincial hospitals.
Former President Corazon Aquino proclaimed May 7 as National Health Workers’ Day in 1987 as recognition for the contribution of health workers in the country. (Bulatlat.com)
Saturday, May 02, 2009
Historic High Joblessness Should Be Addressed Beyond Token Measures
Press Statement / 1 May 2009
IBON Foundation
Tel. (632) 9277060 to 62
Fax (632) 9292496
The situation of Filipino workers is seen to be at its worst today due to
record high joblessness and widespread lay-offs amid the global crisis,
and more radical reforms are needed beyond token government measures.
The average real employment rate of over 11% from 2001 up to the first
quarter of 2009 is the worst in Philippine history and is seen to even
worsen due to the crisis. Workers in the manufacturing sector are
apparently the hardest hit, as the Philippine exports industry is more
vulnerable due to its dependence on the US markets. Job losses seem most
severe in this sector, which reduced 122,000 jobs from 2008 on top of the
137,000 manufacturing jobs already from the year before.
The severe jobs crisis in the country cannot be addressed squarely by the
so-called Comprehensive Livelihood and Emergency Employment Program
(CLEEP) of the Arroyo administration, which does not veer away from
government’s approach in generating jobs. Part of the emergency package is
still providing assistance of re-deployment to affected overseas Filipino
workers (OFWs) and additional trainings for skills upgrading and
retooling. Moreover, even if the program does create the projected 800,000
jobs this year, it still cannot absorb the more than 900,000 new labor
force entrants, on top of the roughly 11,600 permanently retrenched and
38,800 temporarily laid off workers plus the 12,000 displaced OFWs since
October 2008 when the global crisis imploded.
While government’s response is grossly inadequate, IBON moreover decries
the efforts of government and big businesses to pass the burden of
adjusting to the crisis on workers through wage and benefit cuts and
layoffs. Under the administration’ s Economic Resiliency Plan (ERP), the
Department of Labor is insidiously pushing for flexible work schemes like
rotated force leaves and shortened work shifts supposedly as a response to
the global crisis.
In the face of inadequate solutions to address the crisis, the labor
sector and the economy urgently need aggressive reforms and programs.
Measures that would yield immediate benefits include increasing public
spending for social services, removing the VAT on oil products, freeing
public resources by discontinuing debt payments, among others.
Government should also be in the forefront of defending Filipinos’ jobs,
which should involve implementing programs that will stop flexibility
schemes and other work measures that threaten job security. Filipino
producers should also be given a wide range of government support,
including greater and cheaper access to financing, technology, raw
materials and infrastructure. The domestic market can be oriented towards
giving greater opportunities for Filipino industries even as foreign
markets are actively sought. The government can also improve its
procedures, tax benefits and other incentives for Filipino businesses.
Government’s elite-biased and free-market oriented policies, which have
kept the Philippine economy backward, should be also be drastically
reformed. At the minimum, there should be an overhaul of reckless trade
and investment liberalization policies that have worked against local
industries and the welfare of Filipino workers. (end)
IBON Foundation
Tel. (632) 9277060 to 62
Fax (632) 9292496
The situation of Filipino workers is seen to be at its worst today due to
record high joblessness and widespread lay-offs amid the global crisis,
and more radical reforms are needed beyond token government measures.
The average real employment rate of over 11% from 2001 up to the first
quarter of 2009 is the worst in Philippine history and is seen to even
worsen due to the crisis. Workers in the manufacturing sector are
apparently the hardest hit, as the Philippine exports industry is more
vulnerable due to its dependence on the US markets. Job losses seem most
severe in this sector, which reduced 122,000 jobs from 2008 on top of the
137,000 manufacturing jobs already from the year before.
The severe jobs crisis in the country cannot be addressed squarely by the
so-called Comprehensive Livelihood and Emergency Employment Program
(CLEEP) of the Arroyo administration, which does not veer away from
government’s approach in generating jobs. Part of the emergency package is
still providing assistance of re-deployment to affected overseas Filipino
workers (OFWs) and additional trainings for skills upgrading and
retooling. Moreover, even if the program does create the projected 800,000
jobs this year, it still cannot absorb the more than 900,000 new labor
force entrants, on top of the roughly 11,600 permanently retrenched and
38,800 temporarily laid off workers plus the 12,000 displaced OFWs since
October 2008 when the global crisis imploded.
While government’s response is grossly inadequate, IBON moreover decries
the efforts of government and big businesses to pass the burden of
adjusting to the crisis on workers through wage and benefit cuts and
layoffs. Under the administration’ s Economic Resiliency Plan (ERP), the
Department of Labor is insidiously pushing for flexible work schemes like
rotated force leaves and shortened work shifts supposedly as a response to
the global crisis.
In the face of inadequate solutions to address the crisis, the labor
sector and the economy urgently need aggressive reforms and programs.
Measures that would yield immediate benefits include increasing public
spending for social services, removing the VAT on oil products, freeing
public resources by discontinuing debt payments, among others.
Government should also be in the forefront of defending Filipinos’ jobs,
which should involve implementing programs that will stop flexibility
schemes and other work measures that threaten job security. Filipino
producers should also be given a wide range of government support,
including greater and cheaper access to financing, technology, raw
materials and infrastructure. The domestic market can be oriented towards
giving greater opportunities for Filipino industries even as foreign
markets are actively sought. The government can also improve its
procedures, tax benefits and other incentives for Filipino businesses.
Government’s elite-biased and free-market oriented policies, which have
kept the Philippine economy backward, should be also be drastically
reformed. At the minimum, there should be an overhaul of reckless trade
and investment liberalization policies that have worked against local
industries and the welfare of Filipino workers. (end)
Friday, May 01, 2009
Lozada - More Than An Accidental Hero
Streetwise
By Carol Pagaduan-Araullo
Engineer Rodolfo “Jun” Lozada is an accidental hero but a hero nonetheless to a people starved for real-life, modern-day heroes. As star witness in the Senate probe on the highly anomalous, $329 NBN-ZTE broadband deal, he exposed the shenanigans of then Comelec Commissioner Abalos, First Gentleman Mike Arroyo, all the way up to de facto President Gloria Arroyo, in inking the contract with a Chinese government-owed corporation to the detriment of public interest. He also exposed the use of government forces to kidnap him and hold him against his will while presidential operators alternately threatened and attempted to bribe him to keep his mouth shut.
Jun Lozada is a hero for (1) deciding to tell the truth and not be a party to a massive cover-up; (2) being steadfast and not caving in to enticements and pressures for him to recant; (3) and for fighting back against political persecution, his own and indirectly, that of others targeted by the Arroyo regime.
In particular, he has taken his cause against the corrupt GMA regime one step further in this latest episode of the continuing saga - Lozada and the Filipino people vs Malacañang - by his refusal to file bail in the perjury case filed against him by Mr. Mike Defensor. Instead he has chosen to go to jail to assert legally and politically that there are absolutely no grounds for his arrest. Rather, he is a victim of Malacanang’s political vendetta and its desperate attempts to deodorize the stink of the NBN-ZTE and other corrupt deals.
Too bad for Malacanang, Mr. Lozada’s story was much more believable; his body language, more spontaneous and sincere; and the dramatic circumstances surrounding his decision to testify in the Senate and state the truth as he knew it, not only added to his credibility but was so gripping, the usually boring Senate investigations became material for prime time TV.
Overwhelming public opinion at the time was that Mr. Lozada told the truth while FG’s and Mrs. Arroyo’s cohorts like Mr. Abalos, and her lapdogs like Mr. Defensor, lied through their teeth. What with the Arroyo regime’s moves to keep then NEDA Secretary Romulo Neri from giving damaging testimony by invoking “executive privilege”, the Arroyo regime’s legal acrobatics was exposed as its way to maintain a humongous lie and get off the hook, the way it did with the “Hello Garci” election fraud scandal and later, the Jocjoc Bolante fertilizer scam.
At first blush, it would appear that Mr. Lozada is trying to be some kind of martyr, if not trying to get public sympathy as an underdog. But what he has done is embark on a determined campaign for justice: first, in the court of public opinion; and secondly, but no less importantly, in the judge’s court.
By refusing to post bail, he has squarely taken on the gross injustice of the court’s finding of probable cause (that he had lied in his sworn testimony) and its issuance of a warrant for his arrest. Had he immediately filed bail to avoid detention, it would have meant accepting the court’s findings and submitting himself to it. The news would have merited a small spot in the inside pages of the newspapers and thereafter been consigned to oblivion. Malacañang would have won Round 1 of the fight.
Mr. Defensor stated in a press conference - while Mr. Lozada was being arrested and just before he flew off on a vacation to the USA with his entire family in tow - that he had sought relief from the courts because he wanted to preserve the honor of his name. Of course, no one really believes the guy considering he has allowed himself to be used repeatedly by his Great Patroness, Mrs. Arroyo, for all sorts of missions impossible, doing political damage control. He only ended up with egg on his face and his name and reputation damaged further each time.
Mr. Lozada has repeatedly stated that this is not just about him and the seemingly peevish Mr. Defensor. He had initially thought of resuming a normal life, going back home with his family and putting up some kind of business so that he would no longer have to depend on the sanctuary program of the Association of Major Religious Superiors in the Philippines. Then this reversal of the court ruling that he had not perjured himself and the order for his arrest.
He could have chosen to go down quietly, i.e. not fight this latest legal setback and just hope that his tormentors get tired of playing games with him and for things to blow over. Like other whistleblowers before him who picked up the pieces of their life after courageously testifying in the Senate or in court and then finding themselves hung out high and dry with no legal and physical protection against the powerful people they dared expose.
Instead Mr. Lozada has chosen passive resistance: to go to jail yet still do battle albeit within the confines of the judicial processes that have been shown highly stacked against him.
His move has taken Malacañang by surprise and is likely causing Mrs. Arroyo and her political advisers sleepless nights. It has landed in print and broadcast media headlines. And it has the potential to capture people’s imaginations and get them on their feet, raging against the injustice of this regime and its manipulation of the flawed judicial system.
But on the part of those who support him - the truth seekers, the social and political activists and those who are just plain fed up with the exploitative and oppressive system - resistance must be active.
Jun Lozada deserves our support. His recent actions are showing him to be an essentially upright and courageous man with an intense sense of patriotism and an unflagging confidence his fellow Filipinos will see the truth and embrace it. His fight is also our fight. And it can be the occasion to further the struggle against systemic corruption and elite politics that is almost universally abhorred except by those who gain from it and wish to maintain the status quo.
Jun Lozada is a leading member of Pagbabago! People’s Movement for Change, a new movement that gathers concerned citizens desirous of a more meaningful change in our society; not just a change of leadership in government but a decisive break from the poverty-ridden, unjust and corrupt social system that grew worse even after two EDSA uprisings. His active participation in Pagbabago! shows he has gone a long, long way from being an accidental hero.
Would it not be an irony of the most triumphant kind if this latest attempt to silence Jun Lozada, to break his will and to isolate him, should in fact turn into an outpouring of support for him and a denunciation of this lying, plundering, and murderous regime?
Let it be so.#
By Carol Pagaduan-Araullo
Engineer Rodolfo “Jun” Lozada is an accidental hero but a hero nonetheless to a people starved for real-life, modern-day heroes. As star witness in the Senate probe on the highly anomalous, $329 NBN-ZTE broadband deal, he exposed the shenanigans of then Comelec Commissioner Abalos, First Gentleman Mike Arroyo, all the way up to de facto President Gloria Arroyo, in inking the contract with a Chinese government-owed corporation to the detriment of public interest. He also exposed the use of government forces to kidnap him and hold him against his will while presidential operators alternately threatened and attempted to bribe him to keep his mouth shut.
Jun Lozada is a hero for (1) deciding to tell the truth and not be a party to a massive cover-up; (2) being steadfast and not caving in to enticements and pressures for him to recant; (3) and for fighting back against political persecution, his own and indirectly, that of others targeted by the Arroyo regime.
In particular, he has taken his cause against the corrupt GMA regime one step further in this latest episode of the continuing saga - Lozada and the Filipino people vs Malacañang - by his refusal to file bail in the perjury case filed against him by Mr. Mike Defensor. Instead he has chosen to go to jail to assert legally and politically that there are absolutely no grounds for his arrest. Rather, he is a victim of Malacanang’s political vendetta and its desperate attempts to deodorize the stink of the NBN-ZTE and other corrupt deals.
Too bad for Malacanang, Mr. Lozada’s story was much more believable; his body language, more spontaneous and sincere; and the dramatic circumstances surrounding his decision to testify in the Senate and state the truth as he knew it, not only added to his credibility but was so gripping, the usually boring Senate investigations became material for prime time TV.
Overwhelming public opinion at the time was that Mr. Lozada told the truth while FG’s and Mrs. Arroyo’s cohorts like Mr. Abalos, and her lapdogs like Mr. Defensor, lied through their teeth. What with the Arroyo regime’s moves to keep then NEDA Secretary Romulo Neri from giving damaging testimony by invoking “executive privilege”, the Arroyo regime’s legal acrobatics was exposed as its way to maintain a humongous lie and get off the hook, the way it did with the “Hello Garci” election fraud scandal and later, the Jocjoc Bolante fertilizer scam.
At first blush, it would appear that Mr. Lozada is trying to be some kind of martyr, if not trying to get public sympathy as an underdog. But what he has done is embark on a determined campaign for justice: first, in the court of public opinion; and secondly, but no less importantly, in the judge’s court.
By refusing to post bail, he has squarely taken on the gross injustice of the court’s finding of probable cause (that he had lied in his sworn testimony) and its issuance of a warrant for his arrest. Had he immediately filed bail to avoid detention, it would have meant accepting the court’s findings and submitting himself to it. The news would have merited a small spot in the inside pages of the newspapers and thereafter been consigned to oblivion. Malacañang would have won Round 1 of the fight.
Mr. Defensor stated in a press conference - while Mr. Lozada was being arrested and just before he flew off on a vacation to the USA with his entire family in tow - that he had sought relief from the courts because he wanted to preserve the honor of his name. Of course, no one really believes the guy considering he has allowed himself to be used repeatedly by his Great Patroness, Mrs. Arroyo, for all sorts of missions impossible, doing political damage control. He only ended up with egg on his face and his name and reputation damaged further each time.
Mr. Lozada has repeatedly stated that this is not just about him and the seemingly peevish Mr. Defensor. He had initially thought of resuming a normal life, going back home with his family and putting up some kind of business so that he would no longer have to depend on the sanctuary program of the Association of Major Religious Superiors in the Philippines. Then this reversal of the court ruling that he had not perjured himself and the order for his arrest.
He could have chosen to go down quietly, i.e. not fight this latest legal setback and just hope that his tormentors get tired of playing games with him and for things to blow over. Like other whistleblowers before him who picked up the pieces of their life after courageously testifying in the Senate or in court and then finding themselves hung out high and dry with no legal and physical protection against the powerful people they dared expose.
Instead Mr. Lozada has chosen passive resistance: to go to jail yet still do battle albeit within the confines of the judicial processes that have been shown highly stacked against him.
His move has taken Malacañang by surprise and is likely causing Mrs. Arroyo and her political advisers sleepless nights. It has landed in print and broadcast media headlines. And it has the potential to capture people’s imaginations and get them on their feet, raging against the injustice of this regime and its manipulation of the flawed judicial system.
But on the part of those who support him - the truth seekers, the social and political activists and those who are just plain fed up with the exploitative and oppressive system - resistance must be active.
Jun Lozada deserves our support. His recent actions are showing him to be an essentially upright and courageous man with an intense sense of patriotism and an unflagging confidence his fellow Filipinos will see the truth and embrace it. His fight is also our fight. And it can be the occasion to further the struggle against systemic corruption and elite politics that is almost universally abhorred except by those who gain from it and wish to maintain the status quo.
Jun Lozada is a leading member of Pagbabago! People’s Movement for Change, a new movement that gathers concerned citizens desirous of a more meaningful change in our society; not just a change of leadership in government but a decisive break from the poverty-ridden, unjust and corrupt social system that grew worse even after two EDSA uprisings. His active participation in Pagbabago! shows he has gone a long, long way from being an accidental hero.
Would it not be an irony of the most triumphant kind if this latest attempt to silence Jun Lozada, to break his will and to isolate him, should in fact turn into an outpouring of support for him and a denunciation of this lying, plundering, and murderous regime?
Let it be so.#
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Unionism in the University of the Philippines: A post-Marcos dictatorship gain
by: Judy M. Taguiwalo, Ph.D.
The UP Forum
Volume 10, Number 2, March-April 2009
Introduction
Unions are established where an employer-employee relationship exists. The basic concerns of unions are the protection of the rights of employees, the advancement of their economic welfare and improvements in their terms and conditions of work.
Public sector unionism in the Philippines is a relatively recent reclaimed right by government personnel in the country. The reclaiming of such a right cannot be divorced from the gains won by the Filipino people in ending the 20-year martial rule when through presidential edict the right of public sector employees to form unions was removed.
Prior to the 1987 Philippine Constitution, unionism in the public sector except in government-owned and controlled-corporations was prohibited by Presidential Decree No. 442 or “The Labor Code of the Philippines.”1
The rights of Filipino government employees to form unions were recognized only after the overthrow of the Marcos dictatorship. These rights are enshrined in the 1987 Philippine Constitution:
Article III, Sec. 8. The right of the people, including those employed in the public and private sectors, to form unions, associations, or societies for purposes not contrary to law shall not be abridged;
Article IX-B, Sec. 2 (5). The right to self organization shall not be denied to government employees; and
Article XIII, Sec. 3. The State shall afford full protection to labor, local and overseas, organized and unorganized, and promote full employment and equality of employment opportunities for all.
The State shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self-organization, collective bargaining and negotiations, and peaceful concerted activities, including the right to strike in accordance with law. They shall be entitled to security of tenure, humane conditions of work, and a living wage. They shall also participate in policy and decision-making processes affecting their rights and benefits as may be provided by law.
Executive Order No. 180, issued on June 1, 1987 by then President Corazon Aquino spelled out the scope and limits of public sector unionism.2
Unionism in the University of the Philippines: Beginnings
In the University of the Philippines, a number of UP faculty members, administrative staff and research, extension and professional staff banded together in 1987 to exercise the newly recognized right to form a union and established the All-UP Workers Union. Another union composed solely of administrative staff, the Organization of Non-Academic Personnel of UP (ONAPUP) was registered in 1987.
There has been no controversy regarding the need for a union of administrative staff of the university. But questions have been raised about the composition of a faculty union in the university.
In 1990, the UP Administration, through its General Counsel, objected to the inclusion of all teaching personnel as “rank-and-file” and therefore eligible to become union members. It averred that “only those holding appointments at the instructor level may be so considered, because those holding appointments from Assistant Professor to Associate Professor to full Professor take part, as members of the University Council, a policy making body, in the initiation of policies and rules with respect to faculty tenure and promotions.” 3
The Supreme Court in its July 14, 1992 decision ruled that in light “of Executive Order No. 180 and its implementing rules, as well as the University’s charter and relevant regulations, the professors, associate professors and assistant professors (hereafter simply referred to as professors) cannot be considered as exercising such managerial or highly confidential functions as would justify their being categorized as ‘high-level’ employees of the institution.”4 The court also ruled that membership of professors in the University Council is not sufficient to consider them as “policy-determining” since decisions of the University Council are subject to review, evaluation and final approval of the Board of Regents. The Supreme Court further clarified that whatever policy determining functions the University Council has are in the realm of “academic matters, those governing the relationship between the University and its students, and not the University as an employer and the professors as employees”. The same 1992 Supreme Court decision’s final paragraph stated that academic employees of the institution – i.e., full professors, associate professors, assistant professors, instructors and the research, extension and professional staff, “may, if so minded, organize themselves into a separate (from the administrative staff) collective bargaining unit”.
In conformity with this Supreme Court decision, the All-UP Academic Employees Union, as the union of academic teaching and non-teaching personnel, was formed in December 2001 and the All-UP Workers Union transformed itself to become an all-administrative staff union. The All-UP Workers Alliance provides the mechanism for the two UP unions to work together to advance common interests.
Gains made by the UP-accredited unions
The All UP Workers Union and the All UP Academic Employees Union basically adhere to the same basic principles and aims which are reflected in the preamble of their Constitutions:
We are aware of our role in the pursuit of the mission of the University as a sacred trust of the Filipino people. We are also conscious of the need to consolidate our collective strength as a means towards effective participation in decision making on matters affecting our interests and welfare.
We commit ourselves to protect our rights and to advance our interests towards decent work, under conditions which enhance creativity, excellence, freedom, justice, dignity, security and equity without discrimination for all academic/administrative employees in the University.
We fully realize that our effort to enhance the quality of our life forms part of the general movement to achieve a just and democratic social order, and a better standard of living for the Filipino people. We affirm our responsibility to contribute to the unity and well-being of all employees of the University of the Philippines and all disadvantaged members of Philippine society.
To more effectively advance the rights and welfare of rank-and-file personnel of the University which they represent, unions have to win the right to negotiate with the university administration and thus have to be accredited.
Registration and accreditation of a union are two different things. Registration means the formation of a public sector union and registering such with the Department of Labor and Employment and the Civil Service Commission. Registration does not automatically give the union the right to negotiate with the employer. Accreditation or the right to be the sole-and-exclusive representative of the rank-and-file personnel of a negotiating unit requires proof that the union has gained the majority support of such personnel. This is achieved through a certification election (CE) where members of the negotiating unit vote for their union of choice (or in the absence of more than one union, to vote for no union representation) or through the automatic recognition of a union attained by garnering the signatures of the majority of the rank-and-file personnel.
The All-UP Workers Union has twice been accredited by winning the certification elections in 2001 and 2007. The All-UP Academic Employees Union won accreditation in 2006 through the automatic recognition given to it by the Civil Service Commission after the latter verified that the union has garnered the support of the majority of the rank-and-file faculty and REPS of the university.
Through the dual thrusts of negotiations and collective actions, the All UP Workers Union and the All UP Academic Employees Union have won numerous economic and non-economic benefits for the administrative staff and even prior to the accreditation of the academic union, for the academic personnel on the basis of equity. These economic benefits include yearend incentive allowances of P69,000 in the past seven years, the grant of rice subsidy for personnel starting 2003, the first time in the history of the University that personnel received such subsidy; the increase in loyalty pay award from P2,500 to P5,000 for every five years of service; P1,000 annual grocery allowance since 2006, among others. 5
During UPs centennial year, the unions advocated and won the P20,000 centennial bonus for every regular UP employee still employed as of June 2008.* The unions actively and successfully lobbied for the inclusion of the UP personnel in the 10% salary increase automatically granted to other government employees in July 2008 after the Department of Budget and Management initially excluded UP on account of the 2008 UP Charter. A Collective Negotiation Agreement (CNA) incentive of P10, 000 each was awarded early this year to all UP employees after the approval of the CNAs between the two unions and the UP Administration.
The unions have also won non-monetary benefits for the rank-and-file administrative and academic personnel through the grant of additional three-day special leave privileges and additional three-day job-related sickness leave, among others.
Beyond the economic benefits, the unions’ CNAs expanded rank-and-file participation in the university’s governance. The CNAs recognize union representation in key university committees especially those committees involving “terms and conditions of work.” This ensures that representatives of the rank-and-file chosen by them are involved in drafting proposals, in implementing and in reviewing university policies related to their welfare.
The two unions have also facilitated information dissemination on decisions and policies related to UP personnel welfare whether these emanate from the national government or from the University administration. They have worked toward ensuring that transparency and due process are upheld in administrative decisions involving renewal, tenure, promotions or disciplinary actions against UP personnel. In a number of cases, the unions have assisted individual UP personnel with grievance issues raised in the agency or unit levels. And they have proposed enabling conditions for faculty and REPS to fulfill new academic requirements for tenure and promotion.
Consistent with the declarations in their Constitution and by-laws that the All-UP Workers Union and the All-UP Academic Employees Union are part of the “general movement to achieve a just and democratic social order and a better standard of living for the Filipino people.” the two unions have participated in advocacies against corruption in government, against electoral fraud, against human rights violation in the country and against policies which diminish Philippine sovereignty.
Challenges
Conditions internal and external to the University demand that the university unions persist in its advocacy for the rights and welfare of UP personnel and to link this advocacy with national and international issues.
The university unions need to make sure that the following purposes of the university embodied in the 2008 UP Charter and which directly affect them are attained:6
Protect and promote the professional and economic rights and welfare of its academic and non-academic personnel;
Provide democratic governance in the University based on collegiality, representation, accountability, transparency and active participation of its constituents, and promote the holding of fora for students, faculty, research, extension and professional staff (REPS), staff, and alumni to discuss non-academic issues affecting the University
At the same time, the unions need to continue to advocate that UP as a state university should “promote, foster, nurture and protect the right of all citizens to accessible quality education.”7 They have to persist in opposing university policies which “corporatize” university governance and financial management as these erode the public and democratic character of the university and emphasize a market or profit orientation while diminishing the service character of the institution. Aware of the link between national policies and the University’s and its personnel’s welfare, the unions must work for national economic and education policies which give priority to financing education and other social services and an educational direction that would put emphasis on national development and service to the Filipino people instead of education for meeting the needs of the global market through the export of labor.
__________
Dr. Judy Taguiwalo is professor at the College of Social Work and Community Development, University of the Philippines Diliman, and founding National President of the All-UP Academic Employees Union (December 2001-April 2008). She also served as National Secretary of the All-UP Workers Union from 1998-2001.
Notes:
1 Article 244 of PD 442, “Right of employees in the public service. - Employees of government corporations established under the Corporation Code shall have the right to organize and to bargain collectively with their respective employers. All other employees in the civil service shall have the right to form associations for purposes not contrary to law.”
2 Executive Order No. 180 June 1, 1987, Providing Guidelines for the Exercise of the Right to Organize Government Employees. http://www.lawphil.net/executive/execord/eo1987/eo_180_1987.html, accessed August 12, 2007
3 As cited in the Supreme Court decision, G.R. No. 96189, July 14, 1992. p. 4
4 ibid. p. 6.
5 Clodualdo Cabrera, “ Ang Maikling Kasaysayan ng All UP Workers Union”, Serve the People, Ang Kasaysayan ng Radikal na Kilusan sa Unibersidad ng Pilipinas, edited by Bienvenido Lumbera et al. (Quezon City: Ibon Foundation, Inc., 2008).
6 SEC. 3. Purpose of the University; (e) and (h). Republic Act 9500 or the 2008 UP Charter
7 SEC. 2. Declaration of Policy. Republic Act 9500 or the 2008 UP Charter.
Additional Notes:
* Appealed to for clarification, the Office of the UP President provided this information: In response to urgent requests from different sectors of the UP community for a Centennial bonus, President Emerlinda R. Roman began meeting as early as February 2008 with the different chancellors, to determine if funds for this could be sourced. When they were able to identify such sources, the request was submitted to DBM, and subsequently to President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. Final approval came only on UPs Centennial Day, June 18.
While unionism in state universities and colleges in the Philippines is relatively new, academic unions in the United States have gained ground in the past thirty yeas.
An historical example from the United States illustrates the intimate connection between the founding of faculty unions and the pursuit of academic freedom.
The historian of ideas Arthur O. Lovejoy and the philosopher John Dewey initiated the formation of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP)(Unions of Faculty and other Members of the Academic Community in the United States) in 1915 when they saw how easily the noted economist, Edward Ross was unjustly deprived of his job at Stanford University because the owner didn’t like his views on immigrant labor and railroad monopolies.1
Much more recently, in a November 2005 document entitled “Unionism: Principles and Goals”2 the AAUP noted that:
Over the past thirty years, faculty and other members of the academic community have increasingly turned to unions to protect their individual rights, their shared role in institutional governance, and the standards and practices that guarantee the quality of American higher education. Unions have proven effective in struggles to defend tenure, protect academic freedom, and secure “a sufficient degree of economic security to make the profession attractive to men and women of ability.
In that same AAUP document, the association enumerated a number of benefits that academic unions provide:
(1) Unions enable faculty and other members of the academic community, who would be powerless alone, to safeguard their teaching and working conditions by pooling their strengths.
(2) Unions make it possible for different sectors of the academic community to secure contractual, legally enforceable claims on college administrations, at a time when reliance on traditional advice and consent has proved inadequate.
(3) Unions provide members with critical institutional analyses—of budget figures, enrollment trends, and policy formulations—that would be unavailable without the resources provided by member dues and national experts.
(4) Unions increase the legislative influence and political impact of the academic community as a whole by maintaining regular relations with state and federal governments and collaborating with affiliated labor organizations.
(5) Unions reinforce the collegiality necessary to preserve the vitality of academic life under such threats as deprofessionalization and fractionalization of the faculty, rivatization of public services, and the expanding claims of managerial primacy in governance.
Notes
1 “History of AAUP”. http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/about/history/ , accessed March 28, 2009
2 “Unionism: Principles and Goals”. http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/protect/bargaining/aaup-unionism.htm, accessed April 22, 2008.
The UP Forum
Volume 10, Number 2, March-April 2009
Introduction
Unions are established where an employer-employee relationship exists. The basic concerns of unions are the protection of the rights of employees, the advancement of their economic welfare and improvements in their terms and conditions of work.
Public sector unionism in the Philippines is a relatively recent reclaimed right by government personnel in the country. The reclaiming of such a right cannot be divorced from the gains won by the Filipino people in ending the 20-year martial rule when through presidential edict the right of public sector employees to form unions was removed.
Prior to the 1987 Philippine Constitution, unionism in the public sector except in government-owned and controlled-corporations was prohibited by Presidential Decree No. 442 or “The Labor Code of the Philippines.”1
The rights of Filipino government employees to form unions were recognized only after the overthrow of the Marcos dictatorship. These rights are enshrined in the 1987 Philippine Constitution:
Article III, Sec. 8. The right of the people, including those employed in the public and private sectors, to form unions, associations, or societies for purposes not contrary to law shall not be abridged;
Article IX-B, Sec. 2 (5). The right to self organization shall not be denied to government employees; and
Article XIII, Sec. 3. The State shall afford full protection to labor, local and overseas, organized and unorganized, and promote full employment and equality of employment opportunities for all.
The State shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self-organization, collective bargaining and negotiations, and peaceful concerted activities, including the right to strike in accordance with law. They shall be entitled to security of tenure, humane conditions of work, and a living wage. They shall also participate in policy and decision-making processes affecting their rights and benefits as may be provided by law.
Executive Order No. 180, issued on June 1, 1987 by then President Corazon Aquino spelled out the scope and limits of public sector unionism.2
Unionism in the University of the Philippines: Beginnings
In the University of the Philippines, a number of UP faculty members, administrative staff and research, extension and professional staff banded together in 1987 to exercise the newly recognized right to form a union and established the All-UP Workers Union. Another union composed solely of administrative staff, the Organization of Non-Academic Personnel of UP (ONAPUP) was registered in 1987.
There has been no controversy regarding the need for a union of administrative staff of the university. But questions have been raised about the composition of a faculty union in the university.
In 1990, the UP Administration, through its General Counsel, objected to the inclusion of all teaching personnel as “rank-and-file” and therefore eligible to become union members. It averred that “only those holding appointments at the instructor level may be so considered, because those holding appointments from Assistant Professor to Associate Professor to full Professor take part, as members of the University Council, a policy making body, in the initiation of policies and rules with respect to faculty tenure and promotions.” 3
The Supreme Court in its July 14, 1992 decision ruled that in light “of Executive Order No. 180 and its implementing rules, as well as the University’s charter and relevant regulations, the professors, associate professors and assistant professors (hereafter simply referred to as professors) cannot be considered as exercising such managerial or highly confidential functions as would justify their being categorized as ‘high-level’ employees of the institution.”4 The court also ruled that membership of professors in the University Council is not sufficient to consider them as “policy-determining” since decisions of the University Council are subject to review, evaluation and final approval of the Board of Regents. The Supreme Court further clarified that whatever policy determining functions the University Council has are in the realm of “academic matters, those governing the relationship between the University and its students, and not the University as an employer and the professors as employees”. The same 1992 Supreme Court decision’s final paragraph stated that academic employees of the institution – i.e., full professors, associate professors, assistant professors, instructors and the research, extension and professional staff, “may, if so minded, organize themselves into a separate (from the administrative staff) collective bargaining unit”.
In conformity with this Supreme Court decision, the All-UP Academic Employees Union, as the union of academic teaching and non-teaching personnel, was formed in December 2001 and the All-UP Workers Union transformed itself to become an all-administrative staff union. The All-UP Workers Alliance provides the mechanism for the two UP unions to work together to advance common interests.
Gains made by the UP-accredited unions
The All UP Workers Union and the All UP Academic Employees Union basically adhere to the same basic principles and aims which are reflected in the preamble of their Constitutions:
We are aware of our role in the pursuit of the mission of the University as a sacred trust of the Filipino people. We are also conscious of the need to consolidate our collective strength as a means towards effective participation in decision making on matters affecting our interests and welfare.
We commit ourselves to protect our rights and to advance our interests towards decent work, under conditions which enhance creativity, excellence, freedom, justice, dignity, security and equity without discrimination for all academic/administrative employees in the University.
We fully realize that our effort to enhance the quality of our life forms part of the general movement to achieve a just and democratic social order, and a better standard of living for the Filipino people. We affirm our responsibility to contribute to the unity and well-being of all employees of the University of the Philippines and all disadvantaged members of Philippine society.
To more effectively advance the rights and welfare of rank-and-file personnel of the University which they represent, unions have to win the right to negotiate with the university administration and thus have to be accredited.
Registration and accreditation of a union are two different things. Registration means the formation of a public sector union and registering such with the Department of Labor and Employment and the Civil Service Commission. Registration does not automatically give the union the right to negotiate with the employer. Accreditation or the right to be the sole-and-exclusive representative of the rank-and-file personnel of a negotiating unit requires proof that the union has gained the majority support of such personnel. This is achieved through a certification election (CE) where members of the negotiating unit vote for their union of choice (or in the absence of more than one union, to vote for no union representation) or through the automatic recognition of a union attained by garnering the signatures of the majority of the rank-and-file personnel.
The All-UP Workers Union has twice been accredited by winning the certification elections in 2001 and 2007. The All-UP Academic Employees Union won accreditation in 2006 through the automatic recognition given to it by the Civil Service Commission after the latter verified that the union has garnered the support of the majority of the rank-and-file faculty and REPS of the university.
Through the dual thrusts of negotiations and collective actions, the All UP Workers Union and the All UP Academic Employees Union have won numerous economic and non-economic benefits for the administrative staff and even prior to the accreditation of the academic union, for the academic personnel on the basis of equity. These economic benefits include yearend incentive allowances of P69,000 in the past seven years, the grant of rice subsidy for personnel starting 2003, the first time in the history of the University that personnel received such subsidy; the increase in loyalty pay award from P2,500 to P5,000 for every five years of service; P1,000 annual grocery allowance since 2006, among others. 5
During UPs centennial year, the unions advocated and won the P20,000 centennial bonus for every regular UP employee still employed as of June 2008.* The unions actively and successfully lobbied for the inclusion of the UP personnel in the 10% salary increase automatically granted to other government employees in July 2008 after the Department of Budget and Management initially excluded UP on account of the 2008 UP Charter. A Collective Negotiation Agreement (CNA) incentive of P10, 000 each was awarded early this year to all UP employees after the approval of the CNAs between the two unions and the UP Administration.
The unions have also won non-monetary benefits for the rank-and-file administrative and academic personnel through the grant of additional three-day special leave privileges and additional three-day job-related sickness leave, among others.
Beyond the economic benefits, the unions’ CNAs expanded rank-and-file participation in the university’s governance. The CNAs recognize union representation in key university committees especially those committees involving “terms and conditions of work.” This ensures that representatives of the rank-and-file chosen by them are involved in drafting proposals, in implementing and in reviewing university policies related to their welfare.
The two unions have also facilitated information dissemination on decisions and policies related to UP personnel welfare whether these emanate from the national government or from the University administration. They have worked toward ensuring that transparency and due process are upheld in administrative decisions involving renewal, tenure, promotions or disciplinary actions against UP personnel. In a number of cases, the unions have assisted individual UP personnel with grievance issues raised in the agency or unit levels. And they have proposed enabling conditions for faculty and REPS to fulfill new academic requirements for tenure and promotion.
Consistent with the declarations in their Constitution and by-laws that the All-UP Workers Union and the All-UP Academic Employees Union are part of the “general movement to achieve a just and democratic social order and a better standard of living for the Filipino people.” the two unions have participated in advocacies against corruption in government, against electoral fraud, against human rights violation in the country and against policies which diminish Philippine sovereignty.
Challenges
Conditions internal and external to the University demand that the university unions persist in its advocacy for the rights and welfare of UP personnel and to link this advocacy with national and international issues.
The university unions need to make sure that the following purposes of the university embodied in the 2008 UP Charter and which directly affect them are attained:6
Protect and promote the professional and economic rights and welfare of its academic and non-academic personnel;
Provide democratic governance in the University based on collegiality, representation, accountability, transparency and active participation of its constituents, and promote the holding of fora for students, faculty, research, extension and professional staff (REPS), staff, and alumni to discuss non-academic issues affecting the University
At the same time, the unions need to continue to advocate that UP as a state university should “promote, foster, nurture and protect the right of all citizens to accessible quality education.”7 They have to persist in opposing university policies which “corporatize” university governance and financial management as these erode the public and democratic character of the university and emphasize a market or profit orientation while diminishing the service character of the institution. Aware of the link between national policies and the University’s and its personnel’s welfare, the unions must work for national economic and education policies which give priority to financing education and other social services and an educational direction that would put emphasis on national development and service to the Filipino people instead of education for meeting the needs of the global market through the export of labor.
__________
Dr. Judy Taguiwalo is professor at the College of Social Work and Community Development, University of the Philippines Diliman, and founding National President of the All-UP Academic Employees Union (December 2001-April 2008). She also served as National Secretary of the All-UP Workers Union from 1998-2001.
Notes:
1 Article 244 of PD 442, “Right of employees in the public service. - Employees of government corporations established under the Corporation Code shall have the right to organize and to bargain collectively with their respective employers. All other employees in the civil service shall have the right to form associations for purposes not contrary to law.”
2 Executive Order No. 180 June 1, 1987, Providing Guidelines for the Exercise of the Right to Organize Government Employees. http://www.lawphil.net/executive/execord/eo1987/eo_180_1987.html, accessed August 12, 2007
3 As cited in the Supreme Court decision, G.R. No. 96189, July 14, 1992. p. 4
4 ibid. p. 6.
5 Clodualdo Cabrera, “ Ang Maikling Kasaysayan ng All UP Workers Union”, Serve the People, Ang Kasaysayan ng Radikal na Kilusan sa Unibersidad ng Pilipinas, edited by Bienvenido Lumbera et al. (Quezon City: Ibon Foundation, Inc., 2008).
6 SEC. 3. Purpose of the University; (e) and (h). Republic Act 9500 or the 2008 UP Charter
7 SEC. 2. Declaration of Policy. Republic Act 9500 or the 2008 UP Charter.
Additional Notes:
* Appealed to for clarification, the Office of the UP President provided this information: In response to urgent requests from different sectors of the UP community for a Centennial bonus, President Emerlinda R. Roman began meeting as early as February 2008 with the different chancellors, to determine if funds for this could be sourced. When they were able to identify such sources, the request was submitted to DBM, and subsequently to President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. Final approval came only on UPs Centennial Day, June 18.
While unionism in state universities and colleges in the Philippines is relatively new, academic unions in the United States have gained ground in the past thirty yeas.
An historical example from the United States illustrates the intimate connection between the founding of faculty unions and the pursuit of academic freedom.
The historian of ideas Arthur O. Lovejoy and the philosopher John Dewey initiated the formation of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP)(Unions of Faculty and other Members of the Academic Community in the United States) in 1915 when they saw how easily the noted economist, Edward Ross was unjustly deprived of his job at Stanford University because the owner didn’t like his views on immigrant labor and railroad monopolies.1
Much more recently, in a November 2005 document entitled “Unionism: Principles and Goals”2 the AAUP noted that:
Over the past thirty years, faculty and other members of the academic community have increasingly turned to unions to protect their individual rights, their shared role in institutional governance, and the standards and practices that guarantee the quality of American higher education. Unions have proven effective in struggles to defend tenure, protect academic freedom, and secure “a sufficient degree of economic security to make the profession attractive to men and women of ability.
In that same AAUP document, the association enumerated a number of benefits that academic unions provide:
(1) Unions enable faculty and other members of the academic community, who would be powerless alone, to safeguard their teaching and working conditions by pooling their strengths.
(2) Unions make it possible for different sectors of the academic community to secure contractual, legally enforceable claims on college administrations, at a time when reliance on traditional advice and consent has proved inadequate.
(3) Unions provide members with critical institutional analyses—of budget figures, enrollment trends, and policy formulations—that would be unavailable without the resources provided by member dues and national experts.
(4) Unions increase the legislative influence and political impact of the academic community as a whole by maintaining regular relations with state and federal governments and collaborating with affiliated labor organizations.
(5) Unions reinforce the collegiality necessary to preserve the vitality of academic life under such threats as deprofessionalization and fractionalization of the faculty, rivatization of public services, and the expanding claims of managerial primacy in governance.
Notes
1 “History of AAUP”. http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/about/history/ , accessed March 28, 2009
2 “Unionism: Principles and Goals”. http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/protect/bargaining/aaup-unionism.htm, accessed April 22, 2008.
Friday, April 24, 2009
The Failon syndrome
Streetwise
by Carol Pagaduan-Araullo
In this country, the name Failon has instantly become associated with police brutality and abuse of authority. The untimely death of Trinidad Etong, the wife of popular radio and television news anchor Ted Failon, likely by her own hand, has resulted in a series of tragic events for her family. What would otherwise be a personal cross to bear for Mr. Failon and his children has become a highly publicized spectacle of the police venting their ire and their incompetence on the hapless members of Mr. Failon’s household, including his wife’s siblings, who just happened to be there.
This is not just a case of police overzealousness, nor of police brutality. All the elements that should have stayed the hand of the police were present. At the outset the case was an apparent suicide attempt; the commission of a felony was not self-evident although it could not be ruled out. Mr. Failon is a high- profile media personality, a former Congressman, a man of some means and with connections in high places, as high up as Vice President Noli de Castro, who rushed to Mr. Failon’s side after the incident.
Prudence and judiciousness were clearly the way to go for any responsible police investigator but the police authorities did the exact opposite.
Very early on the investigators drew the conclusion that they were dealing with a parricide case; i.e. Mr. Failon had attempted to kill his wife. Even while Ms. Etong was fighting for her life in the hospital, the police were engaged, not in investigating the circumstances of the shooting, but in building up a case against her husband.
They were quick to speculate that the wife had been shot in Mr. Failon’s car and then transferred to the bathroom. This despite the testimony of all the household help, Ms. Etong’s sister and Mr. Failon that they found her in the bathroom bathed in a pool of her own blood, with a gun at her side, and that she was subsequently rushed by Mr. Failon to the hospital in his car.
The police initially stated that there was no evidence of the spent bullet ricocheting in the bathroom (they later found it); that the husband had scratches on his back indicating that the “victim” had fought off her “assailant” (there were none); and that there were solid indications of an attempted cover-up by cleaning the scene of the crime, both the bloodied bathroom and the vehicle.
The “law enforcers” were uncharacteristicall y swift in hauling off Mr. Failon for questioning; they took forever to process his sworn statement; and it was only through the intervention of the Chief of the Public Attorney’s Office that he was temporarily released. Whereupon police officials peremptorily declared that he was the object of a manhunt for illegally removing himself from their custody.
They manhandled, summarily arrested and arbitrarily detained Mr. Failon’s house help, driver, and in-laws on the groundless charge of “obstruction of justice” when they had not even established if a crime had been committed.
Their brash and excessive actions indicate confidence that they had the approval, if not the direct orders of “higher ups” in the Philippine National Police (PNP) and perhaps even in the higher reaches of government.
The immediate and unwavering support for the police by the Justice Secretary compared to the slow response to complaints of police abuse by those directly supervising the PNP, strongly suggest that powerful quarters are at work here. They have an axe to grind against Mr. Failon. Perhaps they want to put an end to his hard-hitting commentaries against the Arroyo regime, erring public officials and their criminal cohorts. Could it be that they are out to cut Mr. Failon and other critical media practitioners like him down to size?
So much so that police brutality and highhandedness, extensively covered by the mass media, were allowed to go on unimpeded for several days after the incident. This was only stopped by overwhelming public sympathy for Mr. Failon, his family and household members and almost universal condemnation of the actuations of the police. For if the police could do this to Mr. Failon, how much more ordinary citizens without the means, the connection, and the clout with the media? What about those who have consistently been in their crosshairs like activists, critics of government and others in opposition to it.
The Arroyo government has been forced to suspend six of the police officers involved and to shift the investigation from the police to the National Bureau of Investigation, an agency under the control of the notoriously biased Justice Secretary. It is clearly in damage control mode. The incident will be dismissed as an isolated case. A few will be “punished” and thereafter investigation into their culpabilities and liabilities will be conveniently forgotten. Involved higher-ups and the system that breeds these kinds of abuse will be firewalled.
It remains to be seen whether the victims will find the steps taken by government to redress their grievances satisfactory. Otherwise they risk being dismissed as unreasonable, incorrigible critics or even allowing themselves to be used by Mrs. Arroyo’s political enemies what with the upcoming 2010 presidential elections.
Unfortunately, if the underlying reasons for such an incident are not probed and exposed and if the government is allowed once more to sweep this atrocity under the rug, impunity for such crimes, by those in authority, will again reign supreme.
The message still for many is that one must not “run afoul of the law” meaning, do not criticize much less oppose government authorities, from the policeman on the beat to the untouchables in and around Malacañang. In this country, crime does pay especially if you have the power and the means to crush your opponents including paying off the police, the military and corrupt fiscals and judges to do your bidding. #
by Carol Pagaduan-Araullo
In this country, the name Failon has instantly become associated with police brutality and abuse of authority. The untimely death of Trinidad Etong, the wife of popular radio and television news anchor Ted Failon, likely by her own hand, has resulted in a series of tragic events for her family. What would otherwise be a personal cross to bear for Mr. Failon and his children has become a highly publicized spectacle of the police venting their ire and their incompetence on the hapless members of Mr. Failon’s household, including his wife’s siblings, who just happened to be there.
This is not just a case of police overzealousness, nor of police brutality. All the elements that should have stayed the hand of the police were present. At the outset the case was an apparent suicide attempt; the commission of a felony was not self-evident although it could not be ruled out. Mr. Failon is a high- profile media personality, a former Congressman, a man of some means and with connections in high places, as high up as Vice President Noli de Castro, who rushed to Mr. Failon’s side after the incident.
Prudence and judiciousness were clearly the way to go for any responsible police investigator but the police authorities did the exact opposite.
Very early on the investigators drew the conclusion that they were dealing with a parricide case; i.e. Mr. Failon had attempted to kill his wife. Even while Ms. Etong was fighting for her life in the hospital, the police were engaged, not in investigating the circumstances of the shooting, but in building up a case against her husband.
They were quick to speculate that the wife had been shot in Mr. Failon’s car and then transferred to the bathroom. This despite the testimony of all the household help, Ms. Etong’s sister and Mr. Failon that they found her in the bathroom bathed in a pool of her own blood, with a gun at her side, and that she was subsequently rushed by Mr. Failon to the hospital in his car.
The police initially stated that there was no evidence of the spent bullet ricocheting in the bathroom (they later found it); that the husband had scratches on his back indicating that the “victim” had fought off her “assailant” (there were none); and that there were solid indications of an attempted cover-up by cleaning the scene of the crime, both the bloodied bathroom and the vehicle.
The “law enforcers” were uncharacteristicall y swift in hauling off Mr. Failon for questioning; they took forever to process his sworn statement; and it was only through the intervention of the Chief of the Public Attorney’s Office that he was temporarily released. Whereupon police officials peremptorily declared that he was the object of a manhunt for illegally removing himself from their custody.
They manhandled, summarily arrested and arbitrarily detained Mr. Failon’s house help, driver, and in-laws on the groundless charge of “obstruction of justice” when they had not even established if a crime had been committed.
Their brash and excessive actions indicate confidence that they had the approval, if not the direct orders of “higher ups” in the Philippine National Police (PNP) and perhaps even in the higher reaches of government.
The immediate and unwavering support for the police by the Justice Secretary compared to the slow response to complaints of police abuse by those directly supervising the PNP, strongly suggest that powerful quarters are at work here. They have an axe to grind against Mr. Failon. Perhaps they want to put an end to his hard-hitting commentaries against the Arroyo regime, erring public officials and their criminal cohorts. Could it be that they are out to cut Mr. Failon and other critical media practitioners like him down to size?
So much so that police brutality and highhandedness, extensively covered by the mass media, were allowed to go on unimpeded for several days after the incident. This was only stopped by overwhelming public sympathy for Mr. Failon, his family and household members and almost universal condemnation of the actuations of the police. For if the police could do this to Mr. Failon, how much more ordinary citizens without the means, the connection, and the clout with the media? What about those who have consistently been in their crosshairs like activists, critics of government and others in opposition to it.
The Arroyo government has been forced to suspend six of the police officers involved and to shift the investigation from the police to the National Bureau of Investigation, an agency under the control of the notoriously biased Justice Secretary. It is clearly in damage control mode. The incident will be dismissed as an isolated case. A few will be “punished” and thereafter investigation into their culpabilities and liabilities will be conveniently forgotten. Involved higher-ups and the system that breeds these kinds of abuse will be firewalled.
It remains to be seen whether the victims will find the steps taken by government to redress their grievances satisfactory. Otherwise they risk being dismissed as unreasonable, incorrigible critics or even allowing themselves to be used by Mrs. Arroyo’s political enemies what with the upcoming 2010 presidential elections.
Unfortunately, if the underlying reasons for such an incident are not probed and exposed and if the government is allowed once more to sweep this atrocity under the rug, impunity for such crimes, by those in authority, will again reign supreme.
The message still for many is that one must not “run afoul of the law” meaning, do not criticize much less oppose government authorities, from the policeman on the beat to the untouchables in and around Malacañang. In this country, crime does pay especially if you have the power and the means to crush your opponents including paying off the police, the military and corrupt fiscals and judges to do your bidding. #
Thursday, April 16, 2009
'Wang-wang'
Philippine Daily Inquirer
Editorial
First Posted 03:07:00 04/16/2009
Call her Jackie S. The “interim first lady” of East Timor, Jacqueline Aquino Siapno, is a Filipina political scientist married to Fernando de Araujo, president of the new country’s National Parliament. She was back in the Philippines recently, for what she called a private visit. It was not the determinedly private nature of her visit that caught the attention of the Philippine Daily Inquirer; it was the resolutely modest way she went a-visiting.
The best way to capture this exemplary modesty is to quote at some length the report written by Inquirer correspondent Gabriel Cardinoza. “After exchanging greetings [at the Manila airport] they [Jackie S. and her mother] took a cab and headed to a bus terminal in Pasay City where they boarded a bus bound for her native Dagupan. The Friday night trip took five hours. At the station, they hailed a tricycle and asked to be taken to their house in Barangay Bonuan Gueset.”
This isn’t merely a charming anecdote: it is an indirect indictment of the way most public officials or political personalities in the Philippines conduct themselves, when travelling. It makes for a good story because it reminds us of the inexhaustibly surprising quality of human nature. But it makes for a front-page story because it offers a contrast to the “wang-wang” culture our political VIPs, both high and petty, take for granted.
Ms Siapno may not know the meaning of “wang-wang”—she has lived abroad for most of her adult life, earning (among other distinctions) a Ph.D. from the University of California in Berkeley—but she should recognize the self-importance her old country’s politicians attach to themselves. Wang-wang is the siren that “very important people” acquire, whether they ride unescorted or as part of a convoy; the sound is a sign that the usual (traffic) rules do not apply to VIPs. They are, obviously, too important.
Already, we can anticipate the objections, the clarifications, that officials who feel alluded to will issue. Her visit, they would say, was a private affair. There is no comparison with their official travel.
Yes, but they would miss the point. Jackie S. could have used or borrowed a private vehicle. That she did not consider herself too good for an ordinary bus or—Que barbaridad!—a rickety tricycle tells us more about the dignity of public office than flashing lights and wailing sirens ever can.
But East Timor is a small, impoverished country, other politicians or their hired spokesmen might say. There is no comparison.
Again, they would miss the point. Substantial government resources are spent every year to provide public officials with the illusion that we are already a rich country. How many hundreds of soldiers, how many thousands of policemen, are assigned to public officials as personal security? How many vehicles must be deployed to ferry a VIP and his security retinue from venue to venue? Does a vice mayor of a second-class municipality really need a close-in bodyguard? Does a congressman back in her district really need a motorcycle escort? Does a Cabinet secretary making the rounds in Metro Manila really need two beige-colored, red-plated AUVs to shadow his gas-guzzling SUV?
You get the point. Or at least we ordinary citizens do. We are not asking our public officials to use public transportation to go to and from work—although that would amount to a moral revolution. We are only asking them to reconsider the sense of entitlement, the sense of inflated dignity they display because of their complicity in the wang-wang culture.
But the “interim first lady” of East Timor is not even an official, nor does she hold a permanent position, still other officials would say. There is no comparison.
They would, again, be missing the point. All public office is temporary. And too many of our own officeholders use their office to aggrandize not only themselves but their families. Who has not seen police bodyguards deployed to secure an official’s child, or a convoy of government vehicles to accompany an official’s spouse?
In her simplicity, in her sure sense of self, Jackie S. reminds us how spoiled, how self-indulgent, how corrupt, many of our high-riding officials have become.
Editorial
First Posted 03:07:00 04/16/2009
Call her Jackie S. The “interim first lady” of East Timor, Jacqueline Aquino Siapno, is a Filipina political scientist married to Fernando de Araujo, president of the new country’s National Parliament. She was back in the Philippines recently, for what she called a private visit. It was not the determinedly private nature of her visit that caught the attention of the Philippine Daily Inquirer; it was the resolutely modest way she went a-visiting.
The best way to capture this exemplary modesty is to quote at some length the report written by Inquirer correspondent Gabriel Cardinoza. “After exchanging greetings [at the Manila airport] they [Jackie S. and her mother] took a cab and headed to a bus terminal in Pasay City where they boarded a bus bound for her native Dagupan. The Friday night trip took five hours. At the station, they hailed a tricycle and asked to be taken to their house in Barangay Bonuan Gueset.”
This isn’t merely a charming anecdote: it is an indirect indictment of the way most public officials or political personalities in the Philippines conduct themselves, when travelling. It makes for a good story because it reminds us of the inexhaustibly surprising quality of human nature. But it makes for a front-page story because it offers a contrast to the “wang-wang” culture our political VIPs, both high and petty, take for granted.
Ms Siapno may not know the meaning of “wang-wang”—she has lived abroad for most of her adult life, earning (among other distinctions) a Ph.D. from the University of California in Berkeley—but she should recognize the self-importance her old country’s politicians attach to themselves. Wang-wang is the siren that “very important people” acquire, whether they ride unescorted or as part of a convoy; the sound is a sign that the usual (traffic) rules do not apply to VIPs. They are, obviously, too important.
Already, we can anticipate the objections, the clarifications, that officials who feel alluded to will issue. Her visit, they would say, was a private affair. There is no comparison with their official travel.
Yes, but they would miss the point. Jackie S. could have used or borrowed a private vehicle. That she did not consider herself too good for an ordinary bus or—Que barbaridad!—a rickety tricycle tells us more about the dignity of public office than flashing lights and wailing sirens ever can.
But East Timor is a small, impoverished country, other politicians or their hired spokesmen might say. There is no comparison.
Again, they would miss the point. Substantial government resources are spent every year to provide public officials with the illusion that we are already a rich country. How many hundreds of soldiers, how many thousands of policemen, are assigned to public officials as personal security? How many vehicles must be deployed to ferry a VIP and his security retinue from venue to venue? Does a vice mayor of a second-class municipality really need a close-in bodyguard? Does a congressman back in her district really need a motorcycle escort? Does a Cabinet secretary making the rounds in Metro Manila really need two beige-colored, red-plated AUVs to shadow his gas-guzzling SUV?
You get the point. Or at least we ordinary citizens do. We are not asking our public officials to use public transportation to go to and from work—although that would amount to a moral revolution. We are only asking them to reconsider the sense of entitlement, the sense of inflated dignity they display because of their complicity in the wang-wang culture.
But the “interim first lady” of East Timor is not even an official, nor does she hold a permanent position, still other officials would say. There is no comparison.
They would, again, be missing the point. All public office is temporary. And too many of our own officeholders use their office to aggrandize not only themselves but their families. Who has not seen police bodyguards deployed to secure an official’s child, or a convoy of government vehicles to accompany an official’s spouse?
In her simplicity, in her sure sense of self, Jackie S. reminds us how spoiled, how self-indulgent, how corrupt, many of our high-riding officials have become.
Wednesday, April 01, 2009
Writer's 'Racist Slur’ Offends Filipinos
By Danilo Reyes
Column: Point of Action
UPI Asia Online, March 31, 2009
Hong Kong, China — A journalist in Hong Kong who described the Philippines as a “nation of servants” in his column may have written his article as a satire, and perhaps his insults were “not intentional,” but the Filipinos’ reaction demonstrates they could not take it lightly. Such comments are deeply hurtful, satirical or otherwise.
The article entitled “The War At Home,” written by Chip Tsao, was published in HK Magazine on March 27, but the publishing company, the Asia City Publishing Group, had to pull it from their website three days later. Massive condemnation of the article in both Hong Kong and the Philippines forced the company to make an apology on Monday.
Before Chip Tsao’s article came to light, another local newspaper, The Standard, had published a report on Feb. 25 claiming that Filipinos were carriers of an infectious disease, a “superbug,” quoting an expert from the Center for Health Protection. Considering this a serious issue, I personally wrote to the CHP asking for clarification, only to find out the report did not “express the views of the CHP.”
But unlike HK Magazine, The Standard did not apologize, nor did its editor, Ivan Tong, reply to my letter or email. The journalist who wrote the article, Patsy Moy, stands by her story despite the disclaimer in the CHP’s letter to me.
In searching for a remedy to the problem of articles that misrepresent the Filipino community, I was told that the newly passed Racial Discrimination Ordinance in Hong Kong, though it has provisions to protect ethnic minorities from discrimination, applies only in the workplace. There is no redress for an ethnic group that is offended by published articles or reports.
Thus Filipinos in Hong Kong, for lack of other options, must resort to issuing statements and press releases to protest against discrimination or offensive and false comments. The Filipinos’ reaction to Chip Tsao’s supposedly “satirical” column is not the first time, nor will it be the last, that Filipinos collectively protested against comments they thought offensive.
I recall a controversy over Hollywood actress Claire Danes, who was declared “persona non grata” in the Philippines and whose movies were banned in the country after she commented, following filming in the city, that Manila was infested with cockroaches and rats. She later apologized. There was another case of a Canadian mentor who was condemned over her offensive comments about a Filipino toddler for not being able to use spoon and fork at a primary school.
The Filipinos may be fragmented and divided in some ways – by social class, ethnic group, dialect and ideology – but if their identity as Filipinos is shaken, if they are humiliated or offended, they come together. Perhaps this is a byproduct of their historical colonial past and oppressive regimes.
Let’s take Chip Tsao’s column as an example. He may argue that his article was intended as a satire; however, he touches upon the very reasons Filipinos have to come to Hong Kong to work as domestic helpers. They come not by their own choice, but are forced to do so by the lack of opportunities at home. This is due to both the abject failure of the Philippines government to develop the country’s economy and to the policy of exporting labor set up during the Marcos regime in the 1970s.
Therefore, it is not the Filipinos’ choice as citizens that pushes them to serve foreign households as “modern slaves.” This is the product of a policy, crafted by a dictatorial and oppressive regime, that has lasted to this day. It impacts the whole range of Filipinos, which actually includes different ethnic minorities scattered in more than 7,000 islands in the archipelago.
Writings and literary articles that are satirical in nature are not a monopoly of any group of people. This approach is nothing new to Filipinos. In fact, satire was widely used in works by Filipino nationalists like Jose Rizal in his novels, and others who inspired the Philippine revolution against colonial Spain in the 1800s. Thus, to argue that the Filipinos, in reading Chip Tsao, could not “read between the lines” is not accurate.
Filipino domestic workers are often better English speakers and writers than their employers, as English has been their medium of instruction from grade school through college – once again a product of a colonial American past imposed in the 1900s that continues in the education system to this day. It is not accurate to say they cannot grasp subtle meanings.
But in Rizal’s writings, in his politically charged satirical novel “Noli Me Tangere,” he used as his objects of ridicule the Spanish friars, the oppressors and plunderers – not those who were suffering due to oppression, the Filipinos. This is what makes Chip Tsao’s approach condemnable. His objects of satire were the domestic workers who are already suffering, forced to separate from their families and to serve foreign households.
The problem with some writers is that they know full well what is offensive but they nevertheless test the waters. Journalism also entails responsibility. When U.S. President Barack Obama was elected, a Filipino-owned newspaper headline read: “Black in White House,” and not “Negro in White House.” In our modern times, not only Filipinos, but everyone knows how deeply it hurts for blacks to be described as Negroes.
In conclusion, I would like to borrow the late Filipino nationalist Jose “Pepe” Diokno’s words from an essay written in 1984, in which he described the Philippines as “a nation for our children,” not a nation of servants as Tsao described it. Building a nation for our children has long been the aspiration of all Filipinos, including me.
--
(Danilo Reyes is a staff member of the Asian Human Rights Commission, a regional human rights NGO in Hong Kong. He is responsible for the organization’s work on the Philippines. Previously, he worked as a human rights activist and journalist in the Philippines.)
Column: Point of Action
UPI Asia Online, March 31, 2009
Hong Kong, China — A journalist in Hong Kong who described the Philippines as a “nation of servants” in his column may have written his article as a satire, and perhaps his insults were “not intentional,” but the Filipinos’ reaction demonstrates they could not take it lightly. Such comments are deeply hurtful, satirical or otherwise.
The article entitled “The War At Home,” written by Chip Tsao, was published in HK Magazine on March 27, but the publishing company, the Asia City Publishing Group, had to pull it from their website three days later. Massive condemnation of the article in both Hong Kong and the Philippines forced the company to make an apology on Monday.
Before Chip Tsao’s article came to light, another local newspaper, The Standard, had published a report on Feb. 25 claiming that Filipinos were carriers of an infectious disease, a “superbug,” quoting an expert from the Center for Health Protection. Considering this a serious issue, I personally wrote to the CHP asking for clarification, only to find out the report did not “express the views of the CHP.”
But unlike HK Magazine, The Standard did not apologize, nor did its editor, Ivan Tong, reply to my letter or email. The journalist who wrote the article, Patsy Moy, stands by her story despite the disclaimer in the CHP’s letter to me.
In searching for a remedy to the problem of articles that misrepresent the Filipino community, I was told that the newly passed Racial Discrimination Ordinance in Hong Kong, though it has provisions to protect ethnic minorities from discrimination, applies only in the workplace. There is no redress for an ethnic group that is offended by published articles or reports.
Thus Filipinos in Hong Kong, for lack of other options, must resort to issuing statements and press releases to protest against discrimination or offensive and false comments. The Filipinos’ reaction to Chip Tsao’s supposedly “satirical” column is not the first time, nor will it be the last, that Filipinos collectively protested against comments they thought offensive.
I recall a controversy over Hollywood actress Claire Danes, who was declared “persona non grata” in the Philippines and whose movies were banned in the country after she commented, following filming in the city, that Manila was infested with cockroaches and rats. She later apologized. There was another case of a Canadian mentor who was condemned over her offensive comments about a Filipino toddler for not being able to use spoon and fork at a primary school.
The Filipinos may be fragmented and divided in some ways – by social class, ethnic group, dialect and ideology – but if their identity as Filipinos is shaken, if they are humiliated or offended, they come together. Perhaps this is a byproduct of their historical colonial past and oppressive regimes.
Let’s take Chip Tsao’s column as an example. He may argue that his article was intended as a satire; however, he touches upon the very reasons Filipinos have to come to Hong Kong to work as domestic helpers. They come not by their own choice, but are forced to do so by the lack of opportunities at home. This is due to both the abject failure of the Philippines government to develop the country’s economy and to the policy of exporting labor set up during the Marcos regime in the 1970s.
Therefore, it is not the Filipinos’ choice as citizens that pushes them to serve foreign households as “modern slaves.” This is the product of a policy, crafted by a dictatorial and oppressive regime, that has lasted to this day. It impacts the whole range of Filipinos, which actually includes different ethnic minorities scattered in more than 7,000 islands in the archipelago.
Writings and literary articles that are satirical in nature are not a monopoly of any group of people. This approach is nothing new to Filipinos. In fact, satire was widely used in works by Filipino nationalists like Jose Rizal in his novels, and others who inspired the Philippine revolution against colonial Spain in the 1800s. Thus, to argue that the Filipinos, in reading Chip Tsao, could not “read between the lines” is not accurate.
Filipino domestic workers are often better English speakers and writers than their employers, as English has been their medium of instruction from grade school through college – once again a product of a colonial American past imposed in the 1900s that continues in the education system to this day. It is not accurate to say they cannot grasp subtle meanings.
But in Rizal’s writings, in his politically charged satirical novel “Noli Me Tangere,” he used as his objects of ridicule the Spanish friars, the oppressors and plunderers – not those who were suffering due to oppression, the Filipinos. This is what makes Chip Tsao’s approach condemnable. His objects of satire were the domestic workers who are already suffering, forced to separate from their families and to serve foreign households.
The problem with some writers is that they know full well what is offensive but they nevertheless test the waters. Journalism also entails responsibility. When U.S. President Barack Obama was elected, a Filipino-owned newspaper headline read: “Black in White House,” and not “Negro in White House.” In our modern times, not only Filipinos, but everyone knows how deeply it hurts for blacks to be described as Negroes.
In conclusion, I would like to borrow the late Filipino nationalist Jose “Pepe” Diokno’s words from an essay written in 1984, in which he described the Philippines as “a nation for our children,” not a nation of servants as Tsao described it. Building a nation for our children has long been the aspiration of all Filipinos, including me.
--
(Danilo Reyes is a staff member of the Asian Human Rights Commission, a regional human rights NGO in Hong Kong. He is responsible for the organization’s work on the Philippines. Previously, he worked as a human rights activist and journalist in the Philippines.)
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Modernisayon ng Philippine General Hospital: Para saan?… Para kanino?
Sa araw ng Lunes, ika 30 ng Marso, 2009 ay inaasahan na darating si GMA upang pasinayaan ang bagong PABX/Paging System ng PGH (Philippine General Hospital). Isang okasyon kung saan maaari nating iparating ang ating saloobin para sa hinaharap ng Ospital ng Bayan – ang PGH nating mahal!
Para saan at para kanino nga ba ang mga kosmetikong pagbabago at pagpapaunlad ng mga inprastraktura, equipment at iba pang kagamitan?
Layunin nga ba nito na magbigay ng dagdag na serbisyo... o dagdag na bayarin sa mga taong lumalapit sa ating tanggapan? Ano ang silbi ng mga bagong equipments na bigay ng mga donors (Presidente, mga Senador at Congresssman at iba pa na karamihan ay galing rin naman sa buwis ng taumbayan) kung ang kapalit nito ay mas mataas na singilin para sa ating mga kliyente? Bakit pinahihintulutan ang pagpasok ng mga pribadong equipment/apparatus sa likod ng mga MOA na ang bunga ay hindi makakuha ng libre o discount sa serbisyo ng ospital and ating mga mamamayan at maging ang sarili mismong mga kawani nito? Dahil talaga bang ang matingkad na tunguhin ng pagpapatakbo ng ating ospital ay kita, kita at kumita pa rin?
Bilang isa sa mga abanteng organisasyon sa loob ng U.P. ang ating Unyon ay naninindigan na ang PGH, bilang Ospital ng Bayan ay itinatag upang magbigay ng laan at abot kayang serbisyong pangkalusugan at hindi maging behikulo sa pagpapasulpot ng mga dagdag kita na mamamayan din ang magpapasan. Hindi totoo na wala o kulang ang pondo ng gobyerno para tustusan ang pangangailangan ng mamamayan para sa mga panlipunang serbisyo katulad ng edukasyon at kalusugan. Tayong lahat ay saksi sa malawakan at bilyon-bilyong Pisong korupsiyon na kinasasangkutan hanggang ng mga sa kataas-taasang mga opisyal gobyerno na siyang umuubos sa kaban ng bayan, bukod pa sa pambayad utang na karamihan sa mga utang na ito ay sa bulso rin ng iilan pumupunta.
Kasama rin sa ating matagal ng kahilingan ay ang pagdaragdag ng badyet ng U.P. at PGH para mapunuan ang kakulangan sa bilang ng mga kawani, maibigay ang mga nararapat na mga benepisyo at upang makapaglingkod ng laan at abot-kayang serbisyong pangkalusugan sa ating mamamayan.
Sa totoo lang, sa ilalim ng pamunuan ng Administrasyong Alfiler, walang nadagdag na pondo ng PGH mula sa pambansang pamahalaan lalong-lalo ang sa MOOE (Maintenance, Operating and Other Expenses). Sa halip na igiit ang dagdag pondo, patong-patong na bayarin sa mga diagnostic exams at treatment procedures ang ipinapatupad na lalong nagpapahirap at siyang pumapatay sa ating mga pasyente.
ANG ATING MGA PANAWAGAN:
• Badyet ng Edukasyon at Kalusugan, Dagdagan!
• Joint Resolution No. 24 (Salary Standardization Law Part 3) – Anti-Health Workers, Mapanlinlang! Pondohan at Ipatupad ang mga Benepisyo ng mga Manggagawang Pangkalusugan, Huwag Tanggalin!
• Korporatisasyon/Privatization ng mga Pampublikong Ospital, Tutulan, Labanan!
• PGH – Ospital ng Bayan, Todo Serbisyo sa Mamamayan, Hindi Negosyo!
Para saan at para kanino nga ba ang mga kosmetikong pagbabago at pagpapaunlad ng mga inprastraktura, equipment at iba pang kagamitan?
Layunin nga ba nito na magbigay ng dagdag na serbisyo... o dagdag na bayarin sa mga taong lumalapit sa ating tanggapan? Ano ang silbi ng mga bagong equipments na bigay ng mga donors (Presidente, mga Senador at Congresssman at iba pa na karamihan ay galing rin naman sa buwis ng taumbayan) kung ang kapalit nito ay mas mataas na singilin para sa ating mga kliyente? Bakit pinahihintulutan ang pagpasok ng mga pribadong equipment/apparatus sa likod ng mga MOA na ang bunga ay hindi makakuha ng libre o discount sa serbisyo ng ospital and ating mga mamamayan at maging ang sarili mismong mga kawani nito? Dahil talaga bang ang matingkad na tunguhin ng pagpapatakbo ng ating ospital ay kita, kita at kumita pa rin?
Bilang isa sa mga abanteng organisasyon sa loob ng U.P. ang ating Unyon ay naninindigan na ang PGH, bilang Ospital ng Bayan ay itinatag upang magbigay ng laan at abot kayang serbisyong pangkalusugan at hindi maging behikulo sa pagpapasulpot ng mga dagdag kita na mamamayan din ang magpapasan. Hindi totoo na wala o kulang ang pondo ng gobyerno para tustusan ang pangangailangan ng mamamayan para sa mga panlipunang serbisyo katulad ng edukasyon at kalusugan. Tayong lahat ay saksi sa malawakan at bilyon-bilyong Pisong korupsiyon na kinasasangkutan hanggang ng mga sa kataas-taasang mga opisyal gobyerno na siyang umuubos sa kaban ng bayan, bukod pa sa pambayad utang na karamihan sa mga utang na ito ay sa bulso rin ng iilan pumupunta.
Kasama rin sa ating matagal ng kahilingan ay ang pagdaragdag ng badyet ng U.P. at PGH para mapunuan ang kakulangan sa bilang ng mga kawani, maibigay ang mga nararapat na mga benepisyo at upang makapaglingkod ng laan at abot-kayang serbisyong pangkalusugan sa ating mamamayan.
Sa totoo lang, sa ilalim ng pamunuan ng Administrasyong Alfiler, walang nadagdag na pondo ng PGH mula sa pambansang pamahalaan lalong-lalo ang sa MOOE (Maintenance, Operating and Other Expenses). Sa halip na igiit ang dagdag pondo, patong-patong na bayarin sa mga diagnostic exams at treatment procedures ang ipinapatupad na lalong nagpapahirap at siyang pumapatay sa ating mga pasyente.
ANG ATING MGA PANAWAGAN:
• Badyet ng Edukasyon at Kalusugan, Dagdagan!
• Joint Resolution No. 24 (Salary Standardization Law Part 3) – Anti-Health Workers, Mapanlinlang! Pondohan at Ipatupad ang mga Benepisyo ng mga Manggagawang Pangkalusugan, Huwag Tanggalin!
• Korporatisasyon/Privatization ng mga Pampublikong Ospital, Tutulan, Labanan!
• PGH – Ospital ng Bayan, Todo Serbisyo sa Mamamayan, Hindi Negosyo!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
