"A Solution Must First-of-All Socially Just"

Patients Kin, Health Workers Decry Low Health Budget

PRESENTATION TO THE SENATE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED CHARTER OF THE UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES

Prof. Judy M. Taguiwalo
President, All-UP Academic Employees Union
September 16, 2004


Ladies and Gentlemen of the Senate Committee on Education, Arts and Culture and fellow guests of the Committee,

On behalf of the All-UP Academic Employees Union, we would like to thank Senator Flavier and members of the Senate Committee on Education, Arts and Culture for inviting us to make this presentation regarding the proposed charter of the University of the Philippines.

The All-UP Academic Employees Union is the union of academic personnel (faculty and research, extension and professional staff or REPS) of the UP System with Certificate of Registration No. 1167 from the Department of Labor and Employment and the Civil Service Commission. We are in the process of working for recognition as the sole and exclusive negotiating agent of rank-and-file faculty and REPS with the UP administration.

While UP faculty and REPS were originally part of the All-UP Workers Union when it was established in 1987, a July 1992 Supreme Court Decision (G.R. No. 96819) necessitated the formation of two separate bargaining units for UP employees: one for the rank-and-file non-academic personnel and the other the rank-and-file academic employees. Hence in December 2001, the General Assembly of the All-UP Workers Union voted for the separation of academic and non-academic members and the All-UP Academic Employees Union was established. However, the two unions work closely together on common issues and concerns as UP and public sector employees.

Our stand on the need for a new UP Charter:

We are one with the sponsors of the various Senate Bills and with the UP Administration on the need for a new UP Charter. The present UP Charter enacted in 1908 needs to be replaced by a new Charter which will embody the changes that the University has undergone after almost 100 years and make the University more responsive to the times.

However, we differ with regards to two substantive aspects of SBN 226, SBN 566, SBN 1066 of Senators Osmena, Villar Jr., and Angara respectively: the retention of the Board of Regents as the governance body of the university and the section on land grants and other real properties; to wit:

“The Board of Regents may plan, design, approve and/or cause the implementation of contracts, mechanisms and financial instruments, such as joint ventures, long-term leases, fully-owned subsidiaries, securitization and outright sale, to give the University the flexibility to generate revenues and other resources from land grants and other properties.”

A Governance Body Which is Democratically Selected, Representative and Transparent

The issue of democratization is very much at the heart of our support for a governance body composed of elected representatives from the faculty, REPS, administrative staff, students and alumni from the seven constituent universities of the UP System together with the Chairs of the CHED, of the Senate Committee on Education, of the House Committee on Higher Education and the President of the UP Alumni Association. We believe that the Board of Regents, a creation during the American colonial period, has retained its colonial character as a small body not accountable to the principal university constituencies. After almost 100 years, isn’t it about time to democratize the governance system of our premier state university?

The creation of a System University Council (Section 12 of SB 1106, Section 13 of SB 221) is not the answer to our call for the democratization of the governance structure of the University. In fact when we had consultations on our proposal for a UP Charter, a section on a University Senate with powers similar to that of System University Council was dropped after discussions revealed that many of the powers of a University Senate are already exercised by the University Councils of the different constituent universities. Instead the consultation agreed that the formulation of academic policies with system-wide implications such as the University’s Admission Policies or a General Education Program can be done by convening, as the need arises, a special body composed of representatives from the different University Councils rather than creating another layer of bureaucracy in the University structure.

No to Commercialization

Members of the Committee who were part of the 12th Congress, may be aware of the opposition raised by organizations of students, faculty, REPS and administrative staff regarding then SB 2587 or the Pangilinan Bill. That history of opposition included the violent dispersal of our September 9, 2003 rally and the arrest and detention of 10 UP students and three young faculty members. The major locus of that opposition then concerned the same provision on Land Grants quoted above.

While SB 1106 sponsored by Sen. Drilon basically retains the Board of Regents as the governing body of the University, we note that the bill does not contain the explicit subsection on the Board of Regents’ power to commercialize UP mentioned above which the three other bills have. Instead, the bill contains Section 10 (q) which gives the BOR the power “(t)o organize and finance a corporation under the Corporation Code to assist the University in the discharge of its functions”. Is this another way of saying the same thing or does Senator Drilon share our view that the University of the Philippines as the premier state university in the country should not be involved directly in commercial ventures which are not the purview of a state university?

We hold to the belief that the University of the Philippines is the country’s premier state university and that for it to be able to fulfill its role in providing quality but affordable education to our youth, it must focus on its role as an academic institution. However, the trend has been towards the freezing or reduction of government budget allocation for social services including education and a demand from the government for the state universities and colleges to raise their own funds.

But state universities and colleges, based on May 2003 data from the Commission on Higher Education, comprise only 7.51% of the total number of tertiary level educational institutions. Even if we include the local universities/colleges (LUCs) and other state managed tertiary level schools, the percentage share of these is only 10%. Moreover, of the three million students at the tertiary level for AY 2004-2005, only 26% can be accommodated by state universities and colleges. (Bulletin, June 6, 2004)

In sum, tertiary education in the Philippines is in the main already privatized. The pressure on UP and other state universities and colleges to raise their own funds and to go into commercial ventures is another indication of the abandonment of the state and is essentially in consonance with the recommendations of the 1999 World Bank and Asian Development Bank report, Philippine Education for the 21st Century: The 1998 Philippine Education Sector Study (PESS) The ideal system of education, according to PESS, is a “privately provided system, selectively supported with public funding”. It recommends that the “central government should limit its activities to those that cannot be covered well by the private sector” and criticizes the budget increase for secondary and tertiary education during the 80s. According to the study, such increase “has had the predictable effect of undermining the private sector’s share of the education market. Indeed, the sheer size of the private sector is an indication that the private market was satisfying quite well the demand for education at these levels, at least in urban areas.”

Hence our opposition to the section on giving the power to the Board of Regents to enter into securitization, joint ventures and outright sale is an opposition to the continuing trend of the state abandonment of its obligation to provide affordable and quality services to the people, including education.

Special Attention to the Research, Extension and Professional Staff or REPS

There are over 1000 research, extension and professional staff in the University. They are librarians, research personnel, extension personnel with many having master degrees and PhDs. Previously called the academic non-teaching staff or ANTS, the REPS as non-teaching academic personnel have academic eligibilities which are in many cases at par with the faculty. The section on Appointment Requisites (Section 20 of SB 221, Section 18 of SB 1066 and Section 21 of SB 1106) of three of the four bills gives recognition to the REPS by exempting them, together with the faculty from any Civil Service examination or regulation as requisite to their appointment.

However, this same recognition of REPS as a distinct sector of the University is not accorded even in the limited addition to the composition of the Board of Regents in all the proposed bills. The REPS have no separate Regent as the proposed Staff Regent represents both the administrative (non-academic personnel) and the academic non-teaching personnel.
Finally, we would like to put on record that the two substantive content of SB 221, SB 566, SB 1066 and SB 1106 : the retention of the Board of Regents and the provision on giving the BOR the power to enter into commercial ventures which we oppose are intertwined. It would be easier for a small body such as the Board of Regents to accelerate the commercialization and privatization of the University of the Philippines.

Thank you.

Senate Starts Public Hearing on the New UP Charter

The Committee on Education of the Senate led by Senator Juan Flavier have started yesterday its public hearing on the new UP Charter. As of 9:30 AM yesterday there were a total of 6 bills filed by individual Senators to revise the UP Charter. Almost all bills filed have similar features primarily on the the highest governing body (Board of Regents), utilization of UP assets (geared towards commercialization. Our version (UP Widem II) of the revised UP Charter was not yet filed in the Senate

The hearing started at around 9:30 AM with all the twelve members of the committee attending. Our set of speakers were the first to state their positions. Our speakers (in order of acknowedlement by the Committee Chair) Prof. Judy Taguiwalo of AUPAEU, Dr. Ed Villegas and Dr. Delen Dela Paz of AUPEAU, Manila, Mr. Noli Anoos, AUPWU, representative from from the Office of Student Regent and Mr. Ken Ramos from the UP Manila's University Student Council. After all our speakers have finished delivering their respective pieces, the UP Administration's set for spekers follows. The Administration's side (of course favoring all the bills filed) was headed by Vice President Mariz Diokno, representatives from the UP Diliman's University Student Council ad the Medical Student Council, and one other Professor from UP Diliman. The Vice Chancellor of UP Manila Prof. Roland Simbulan also spoke but have a vague position on the issue.

After all speakers for and against the filed bills have finished, each of the Senators present have commented, made some clarificatory questions and their views on the issues raised. In winding up, the chair ruled that considering that the previous committee on education of the 12th Congress had already came up with a report, such report will be adopted and be part of the materials that will be tackled by the Technical Working Group (TWG) that will consolidate all reported bills on the subject. He further ruled that no more public hearings will be called, instead all interested gruops shall be consulted by the TWG while in the process of consolidation.

N.B. Our version of the UP Charter will be filed by the Office of Senator Bong Revilla this week or at most next week.

Government Nurses Shortchanged by 114,000.00 Each

NEWS RELEASE/14 September 2004

For Reference: REP. LIZA LARGOZA MAZA <lizamaza@tri-isys.com>
0920-9134540Tels: 9316268, 9315001 loc7230;
Jang Monte (Public Information Officer) 0917-8226635

GABRIELA Women's Partylist Liza Largoza Maza sought today the investigation of the national government's non-implementation of a salary hike due government nurses since the implementation of the RA 9173 or the Nursing Act of 2002. This, as government nurses, health workers and employees intensified their call for the immediate legislation of a P3,000 across the board salary hike.

According to Maza, "The Nursing Act of 2002 provides for an increase in the basic pay of government nurses from P8,000 or Salary Grade 10 to P14,000 or Salary Grade 15. This means that government nurses have been shortchanged by P6,000 monthly by the national government for almost two years now."The lady solon said, "President Arroyo signed the Nursing Act into law last October 2002. This means that an increase in the government nurses' salaries should have been incorporated in the 2003 budget. At the minimum, nurses should have enjoyed this increase in wages since 2003. Thus, the national government now owes every single nurse in government service since January 2003 as much as P114,000."

Maza is set to file today a resolution calling on the House of Representatives to investigate the non-implementation of the nurses' salary adjustment as provided for in the Nursing Act of 2002. "We cannot just legislate and fall short on implementation to the detriment of our nurses and the delivery of health services."

The Philippine Nurses Association earlier said they have been lobbying for the longest time at the Department of Budget and Management as well as Congress and the Senate for the salary adjustment. But Maza notes, "they shouldn't have had to lobby because it is already provided for in the law."Maza further said, "Our nurses work hard to give patients quality health care and services. They most certainly deserve an increase in their basic pay. Moreover, their present salaries are simply not enough to cope with the skyrocketing prices. It is not surprising that over 13,000 nurses leave the country annually to serve either as nurses or even caregivers and domestic helpers abroad."

"If the national government wants to avert a health crisis of epidemic proportions resulting from the lack of government health workers, then this adjustment in wages is most urgent and necessary," Maza concluded. #

PGH Nurses Go Bald, Demands Pay Hike

WHAT SHOULD A U.P. PRESIDENT BE?

Statement ON THE 2004 SELECTION OF A NEW UP PRESIDENT

ALL UP WORKERS UNION and ALL UP ACADEMIC EMPLOYEES UNION

September 14, 2004

The University of the Philippines is now in the midst of a selection process for a new President. There are 11 nominees to the UP Presidency new UP President will preside in the commemoration of the centennial of UP in 2008.

In 1999, the All UP Workers Union issued the following statement during the search for the UP President who would replace President Emil Javier:

“Officers and members of the All-UP Workers Union have been asked to support this or that candidate. As an organization, the All UP Workers Union does not support any particular candidate. This is due to several reasons.

The selection process remains undemocratic. Under a process of selection which leaves to the Board of Regents the final decision on who would serve as the president of the university in the coming six years, the direct participation of the All UP Workers Union and other sectors of the university is at best only a form of tokenism. We have witnessed in the past selection of the UP president that even with a semblance of participation of the faculty, REPS, administrative employees and students in the form of straw polls, balloting, or show of hands, the popular choice, if he or she was not the choice of Malacanang, was easily disregarded by justifications that the leadership of an academic institution is not a popularity contest. Even this concession to a show of participation has been removed with the elimination of the straw polls, balloting or show of hands, as a key consideration for the selection. It is not surprising then, that the efforts of generating “popular support” for a particular candidate is aimed at influencing members of the Board of Regents or the President of the Philippines, who eventually has the final say in the selection. In the end, the UP President is accountable not to the majority of the university’s constituency but to a handful of people, and especially to the President of the Philippines who has the power to appoint the majority of the members of the Board of Regents. Therefore, the direct participation of the All-UP Workers Union as an organization, would merely mean an exercise in futility or worse, a means to provide legitimacy to a flawed and basically undemocratic process.

The All-UP Workers Union remains consistent in its criteria for the selection of officers of the university. The union as an organization of faculty, REPS, and administrative staff of the university, is committed to advancing the welfare and democratic rights of all employees of the UP and in supporting the just demands of the students and community residents of the university. The union recognizes that the situation and problems of UP employees cannot be divorced from the situation and problems of other government employees and identifies itself with the struggle of the rest of the citizens of the country. It takes to heart the vision of a university that is truly in the service of the Filipino people. Consequently, the union, in previous selection processes of university officials, whether they be chancellors, faculty regents or deans of academic units, has opted to come out with a set of criteria by which candidates for the position may be evaluated prior and even after their selection.

The All-UP Workers Union seeks a UP president who:

• Is committed to improving the welfare of university employees.
• Believes in the democratization of the university and supports efforts of the university constituency to exercise their democratic rights including the right of the faculty, REPS and administrative employees to form and maintain their unions and associations.
• Opposes the commercialization and privatization of the university in whatever forms and guises as these violate the basic character of the UP as a safe university.
• Resists all forms of foreign intervention, whether in the curriculum or in national affairs, that put at risk the autonomy of the university and the sovereignty of the country.”

The selection process for the search of a UP President for 2005-2011 has not essentially changed from the one conducted in 1999. However, in the present context of the continuing attack against state support for social services including education and health; the faster pace of commercialization of the University; the ongoing reign of an anti-democratic chancellor in UP Los Banos; the obstacles to the implementation of salient provisions of the Collective Negotiation Agreement and the struggle for a new UP Charter in Congress, the All UP Workers Union and the All UP Academic Employees Union forward the following specific and additional criteria for the UP President we would support:

1. A UP President who will support a democratic governance structure for the University and explicitly oppose the commercialization and privatization of UP as contained in HB 2327 or the UP Charter of 2004
2. A UP President who will fight for a bigger budget for education and health and for a moratorium in the automatic appropriations for debt payments in the national budget
3. A UP President who will implement the provisions on additional economic benefits contained in the Collective Negotiation Agreement between the UP Administration and the All UP Workers Union signed in April 2002;
4. A UP President who will support the payment of the back COLA of UP employees
5. A UP President who will not tolerate, oppose anti-democratic actions of university officials, and will seriously investigate charges against high ranking UP Officials; such as the charges against the current UP Los Banos Chancellor

===================

UP Presidency Selection

The eleven who accepted the nominations for UP President are:

1. Dr. Consolacion Alaras, former Chair of the Department of English and Comparative Literature,College of Arts and Letters, UP Diliman
2. Dr. Soledad Cagampang-De Castro, former faculty, UP College of Law
3. Dr. Ernesto De Castro, Acting Chancellor, UE Caloocan Campus
4. Dr. Georgina Encanto, former Dean, College of Mass Communication, UP Diliman
5. Ambassador Edgardo Espiritu, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Republic of Ireland and Iceland, and former member, UP Board of Regents
6. Dr. Ester Garcia, former Chair, Commission on Higher Education and former Professor of Chemistry, UP Diliman
7. Dr. Federico Macaranas, Executive Director, Asian Institute of Management-World Bank Development Resource Center
8. Prof. Solita Monsod, Professor of Economics, UP Diliman andformer Philippine Socio-Economic Planning Minister (later Secretary)
9. Dr. Emerlinda Roman, Chancellor, UP Diliman
10. Regent Abraham Sarmiento, former Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the Philippines, currently member of the UP Board of Regents
11. Dr. Eduardo Sison, Chairman of the MADECOR Group, a consulting firm based in the Philippines and former faculty, UPLB Institute of Food Science and Technology

Revised Schedule

• UP Baguio, Friday, September 10, 2004; 10 am
• UP Visayas (Iloilo), Wednesday, September 15, 2004; 10 am
• UP Cebu, Thursday, September 16, 2004; 9 am
• UP Mindanao, Friday, September 17, 2004; 10 am
• UP Manila, Monday, September 20, 2004; 9 am
• UP Los Baños and UP Open University, Thursday, September 23, 2004; 1 pm
• UP Diliman, Monday, September 27, 2004; 2 pm

Attendance of the nominees in the public fora is optional; non-appearance in the fora shall not disqualify a nominee. Members of the UP community who will attend a public forum shall be requested to submit written questions before the start of the public forum. The Board has requested the Chancellors to help solicit questions from different sectors. The source of the question shall not be identified during the forum. Only written questions shall be entertained by a panel consisting of the regents present, the Chancellor or his/her representative and the ALL-UP Workers' Union representative. One of the Regents shall chair the panel during the forum.

The criteria for the selection of the UP President (see Update #1) are repeated below to help you think of questions to ask.

1. Stature in the academic profession, administrative capability, national and international reputation as a scholar, probity and moral integrity;
2. Possesses the political will and the political skills to defend and promote academic freedom and institutional autonomy, commitment to academic excellence, a clear and inspiring vision of UP's role in the 21st century;
3. Ability to raise funds without compromising the traditional values and ideals of academia, capacity to manage available resources to sustain the UP modernization program, fairness in dealing with all constituents; does not persecute or dispense special favors; does not engage in factionalism;
4. Preserves the secular and non-sectarian character of UP, maintains and enriches intellectual diversity; does not promote a particular religion or school of thought, keeps UP above politics, but respects the rights of faculty members and students to participate in political debates and campaign for their beliefs within the limits of law.

The BOR is scheduled to interview the nominees during the period October 11-15, 2004.