Maligayang Pasko sa Inyong Lahat at Masaganang Bagong Taon sa 2010!

(Source: http://www.youtube.com)

(Coming soon in the Diliman Diary: More questions regarding the University of the Philippines Foundation and the U.P. Business Research Foundation)

Fun Page from Diliman Diary Print Edition (Vol. 1 No. 2)

                                                              (Artwork by: Rodel Tagos)

Notice of Full Disclosure

Dear Reader,

This is to inform the readers of the Diliman Diary about the full extent of my involvement with U.P. Diliman, which is a very large and component part of the greater Diliman area. I do so because it is an accepted journalistic practice to duly inform the readers about a topic or organization the writer is writing about within the context of if that writer has had any prior involvement or history with that topic or organization that may affect or compromise his or her fairness in coverage.

In a larger journalistic organization, such as the Philippine STAR (I used to work for this publication) or in other news organizations I have had involvement with (I have interned with United Press International, Mesa (Ariz.) Tribune and the Phoenix (Ariz.) Gazette), a writer such as myself, who was also a former student at the MBA program of the University of the Philippines and had filed a civil case for PhP 5000.00 in civil damages against top officials of the University of the Philippines (U.P.), including Professor Gerardo Agulto and then Chancellor Emerlinda Roman for their collective inability to provide the basis in awarding failing grades in a comprehensive examination; would have been ordered to stand down from covering (U.P.), and that journalistic organization would have assigned another reporter to cover the story. I recognize that ethos in a large news organization and respect it. No contest.

But to begin with, the Diliman Diary is not a news organization. Neither does it have the resources of a news organization to assign other reporters to cover U.P. events or other events in the greater Diliman area. The Diliman Diary is a weblog, and I am its founder, photographer, editor, proofreader and even chief messenger. I am trying to build up the Diliman Diary's long-term capability to field other writers, but that takes time and resources. In the meantime, there's just little ol' me, but I'm grateful for the privilege to be writing again after a sabbatical of so many years. As a weblog, we cannot provide the kind of journalistic scoops or reportage (although we may already have had a few shining moments)that national news organizations such as the Philippine STAR or the Philippine Daily Inquirer can. We cannot provide other writers consistently. If I have to cover U.P. Diliman, its Board of Regents, or even the actions of its President, Emerlinda Roman, my one-time professor whom I also included in the dismissed suit (because of her actions against my case as then U.P. Diliman Chancellor, in support of her colleague at the ), then the buck necessarily stops with me. For the record, however, I drew the line back then at filing suit against the U.P. Board of Regents because I considered them to be part-time bureaucrats dependent on the U.P. President's recommendation who were only involved in policy-making and could not possibly have a proper appreciation of my case and so I left them out of it. For those who may wonder why I did not include former President Francisco Nemenzo in my suit; my chief consideration was that a reading of the pesonalities involved in the BOR at that time indicated that he was highly dependent on the recommendation of his chosen successor, Chancellor Emerlinda Roman for her advice. In other words, one files suit against the dog, and not against its wagging tail.

Because the Diliman Diary has positioned itself as an alternative community weblog that comes out about three times a month (or even more frequently) and is in fact a bilingual tri-monthly online weblog that features trends in the Diliman area in Filipino and English. It features technology, business, the arts, music, literature, theatre, film, politics and other trends which impact the Diliman area and its netizens who may be located anywhere and in any time zone.

I have many happy memories of being a U.P. student. I graduated from U.P. Diliman in 1987 (A.B. Comparative Literature), and was taught by some of the greatest luminaries there were in the field: Anton Juan, Concepcion Dadulfalza, Amelia Lapena Bonifacio, Franz Arcellana, to name a few. I stayed in Kalayaan and Molave Residence Halls and made many friends from all over the country. Though not a student activist per se, I joined several sit-ins and marches to Welcome Rotonda and Mendiola. I participated in the EDSA revolution when I was a junior in U.P. Diliman. One did not have to be an activist in U.P. Diliman during that period to be involved in a growing outcry for change. The whole country was practically clamouring for it back then. Let me be categorical about this: I love U.P., and many of the things it has taught me to value: to dissent, to be independent, to analyze, to question, to be critical - and yes - to have an opinion - and not to be ashamed of it.

But the U.P. of the 1980s (I finished my A.B. in 1987) had changed when I reenrolled in U.P. Diliman in the MBA program in 1999. U.P. had deteriorated, and had become much more politicized. My professor in my comprehensive examination, Gerardo Agulto, invoked Academic Freedom in stating that I had failed a successive three times. Asked for a basis or in other words, how he exercised his Academic Freedom, I was met with a series of administrative stonewalls that resulted in a much-publicized court case that reached the Supreme Court and was dismissed on a pure technicality.

This experience taught me to empathize with other victims of bureaucratic bungling and bad intentions, inside and outside U.P., and for this reason, the Diliman Diary makes no bones about being an advocate and interventionist weblog that just doesn't report the news, but also analyzes it and creates it (at least sometimes). It is for this reason that we have initiated our own inquiries into bureaucratic malfeasance in our community, and are currently cooperating with several administrative authorities to ferret out the truth. We do not believe in apathy, and since we count ourselves as affected members of a larger community, we will continue to make our voice heard.

For those who are interested in knowing the background of my case, please refer to:

1. My supporting affidavit submitted to Philippine courts and dated August 14, 2006 at:
http://academicfreedomfiles.wordpress.com/2009/12/13/chanda-shahani-supporting-affidavit-2/

2. The Final Letter I wrote to the U.P. Diliman University Council on December 13, 2009 about my case: http://tinyurl.com/2f29cze

Other documents will follow over time.

In the meantime, I would like to disclose that I have thought through very carefully the ethical implications of having sued the top officials of U.P. (albeit for PhP 5000.00 in damages only) and later covering the actions of these same top officials. As a community weblog, the Diliman Diary is part of the Diliman and including the U.P. community. I categorically reject being excluded from commenting or covering U.P., simply because I was the casualty of an unfortunate affair, and stood up for my rights in a court of law (win or lose). Like everybody else in this great country, I also enjoy freedom of speech. Additionally, we in the Diliman Diary position ourselves as being well-written, opinionated but also going out of our way to include fair coverage by trying to include the other side (if they will comment at all, but that's another story) There is no such thing as objective reporting in a monthly that essentially does features. Objective reporting in an opinionated alternative tri-monthly weblog is an oxymoron. But to those whom we write about, we have one promise: trying our best to give their side of the story will always be part of our permanent ethos. That's a promise.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Chanda R. Shahani
Editor

2008 COA report opens maze of questions on University of the Philippines foundations

By Chanda Shahani

The administration of the government-owned University of the Philippines (U.P.) System may be tolerating conflicts of interest by university officials who could be exploiting government resources to potentially benefit themselves financially; through privately-run foundations affiliated with the University, while refusing to reveal their financial records to the government-run Commission on Audit (COA) a check into government records shows.

A check into the annual audit reports of the government-run Commission on Audit (COA) posted on the COA website at http://www.coa.gov.ph shows that “there is an inadequate supervision of projects implemented by private foundations” at U.P. Diliman. Portions of the Consolidated COA Annual Report dated 2008, but transmitted to U.P. President Emerlinda R. Roman by COA in a covering letter dated August 17, 2009 state that:

* A COA verification of projects implemented by the U.P. Diliman’s National College of Public Administration and Governance (NCPAG) disclosed that The United Nation Development Program (UNDP) contracted NCPAG as an implementing partner for the project, “Fostering Democratic Governance” (FDG) under ATLAS Award ID No. 00041065 during the lifecycle of its Country Programme Action Plan of 2005-2009 with the National Government. However, the UNDP checks totaling P5,269,000 for projects implemented from CY 2007-2008 was not recorded and accounted for in the books of UP Diliman as the funds were acknowledged thru official receipts issued by the UP Public Administration Foundation (UPPAF), a private foundation. The checks were deposited by NCPAG officials to its private account No.244830225-6 maintained with the Philippine National Bank (PNB), MWSS Branch. The said amounts at the PNB were withdrawn by the UPPAF Accountant and deposited to UPPAF’s bank account as evidenced by the PNB Bank Statement, deposit slips and General Journal (GJ) duly signed by the accountant and NCPAG Dean, the COA report said.

* The Consolidated COA Annual Report for 2008 also said that the UP Diliman School of Labor and Industrial Relations (SOLAIR) and the Center for Labor Education, Advocacy, Research and Development (CLEARED) foundation entered into a MOA of to “assist the UP SOLAIR in the realization of its two-fold mission – the promotion of labor empowerment and an enlightened industrial relations system – through the conduct of relevant and timely research training, community service and other related programs.” A COA Audit of the documents relative to MOA disclosed the following that there was a variance of PhP 10,646,159 and PhP 9,449,992.66 for the years 2006 and 2007 respectively, between seminar fees collected and reported in the CLEARED Courtesy Report, and in its Financial Statements (FS) submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

COA audit observations and recommendations since 2006 for U.P. Foundations to enter into specific MOAs with their concerned units remain unacted upon, the report said.

The COA Report criticizes the U.P. administration for failure to provide an environment that complies with the 1987 Administrative Code which states in Section 42 1 (B) that “except as may otherwise be specifically provided by law or competent authority, all money and property officially received by a public officer in any capacity or upon any occasion must be accounted for as government fund and government property. Government property shall be taken up in the books of the agency concerned at acquisition cost or at appraised value.”

The COA report also cited and underscored Section 122 of the Government Accounting and Auditing Manual which that “Receipts from non-tax sources authorized by law for specific purposes, which are collected/ received by a government office or agency acting as trustee, agent guaranty for the fulfillment of an obligation, and all other collections classified by law or regulations as trust receipts shall be treated as a trust liability of the agency concerned.”

The COA report on U.P., buried deep inside the COA website under the Cluster entitled State Colleges and Universities detail findings and audit observations about University-based foundations that the U.P. administration has failed to resolve to COA's satisfaction over the years.

In the case of NCPAG, however, the United Nation Development Program (UNDP) contracted UP NCPAG as an implementing partner for the project Fostering Democratic Governance (FDG) under ATLAS Award ID No. 00041065 during the lifecycle of its Country Programme Action Plan of 2005-2009 with the Philippine Government.

However, the UNDP checks totaling P5,269,000 for projects implemented from CY 2007-2008 were not recorded and accounted for in the books of UP Diliman even as the funds were acknowledged thru official receipts issued by the UP Public Administration Foundation (UPPAF), a private foundation. The checks were deposited by NCPAG officials to its private account No.244830225-6 maintained with the Philippine National Bank (PNB), MWSS Branch. The said amounts at the PNB were withdrawn by the UPPAF Accountant and deposited to UPPAF’s bank account as evidenced by the PNB Bank Statement, deposit slips and General Journal (GJ) duly signed by the accountant and NCPAG Dean.

In its answer, the NCPAG Dean justified that the use of UPPAF official receipts to acknowledge UNDPs checks instead of remitting the same to the University Cashier for appropriate recording is only logical since UPPAF is the foundation of NCPAG. More so, UNDP did not find anything wrong with the receipt(s) issued by UPPAF and any irregularity thereon should have been immediately brought to their attention. To the contrary, UNDP released funds several times during the lifespan of the project.

While the COA report commented that while the NCPAG Dean is at the same time the UPPAF President, it appeared that a conflict of interest existed as it favored the interest of the UPPAF over the University in allowing the UPPAF to manage UNDP funds.

However, the COA report said that the Dean further explained that “it is only normal for the undersigned to be the head of the Implementing Partner of the UNDP contracted projects since being Dean necessitates being able to represent the College in numerous capacities –both as an academician and as an administrator. Moreover, Deans serving as Presidents of their respective units’ foundations is the standard practice in the University. It is to safeguard the interest of the unit concerned.”

While COA acknowledged the Dean's position, it nevertheless maintained its position in the report that, the NCPAG represented only UP Diliman as the party to the UNDP contract therefore the UNDP funds for project’s implementation were government funds to be accounted for as required under the Administrative Code and the Government Auditing and Accounting Manual.

The COA report also claimed that in the absence of any contract with UP Diliman thru NCPAG, UPPAF being a private entity has no legal personality to receive any payment and implement the project for and in behalf of NCPAG. It stated that this kind of arrangement was a recurring audit finding in the CY 2006 and 2008 UNDP audit exercises for the Fostering Governance projects with UP NCPAG.

The COA report also pointed out that being the President of UPPAF and at the same time the Dean of NCPAG though a standard operating practice in the University as admitted, there is a possibility that undue advantage may be given to the foundation and to its members in the guise of protecting the interest of the unit or NCPAG for that matter.

In the case of the U.P. School of Labour and Industrial Relations (SOLAIR) UP SOLAIR and the Center for Labor Education, Advocacy, Research and Development (CLEARED) foundation entered into a MOA of which the latter will “assist the UP SOLAIR in the realization of its two-fold mission – the promotion of labor empowerment and an enlightened industrial relations system – through the conduct of relevant and timely research training, community service and other related programs.”

An audit by COA of the documents relative to MOA disclosed the following: a variance of P10,646,159 and P9,449,992.66 existed for CYs 2006 and 2007 respectively, between the seminar fees collected and reported in the CLEARED Courtesy Report, and in its Financial Statements (FS) submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

Moreover, the non-disclosure of all CLEARED income from seminars in collaboration with UP SOLAIR resulted to the under-remittance of P2,256,025 as 10 percent administrative cost to the University, for the use of resources like utilities and venue computed as follows.

The COA report also pointed out other issues concerning SOLAIR and CLEARED:

The absence of the names of faculty and staff members in the budget estimates of SOLAIR and the amount of time that was to be utilized for the training program as the basis for evaluation and approval by the University Chancellor prior to the start of any specific project to be undertaken as required in the MOA;
No separate bank account was opened for specific projects under the MOA;
The absence of official documents authorizing CLEARED the exclusive use of a donated vehicle (plate No. SEW 471) to UP SOLAIR. The repair, gasoline and other expenses incurred were charged against the funds of the Foundation as certified by the school dean, however, the cost of wear and tear or depreciation thereof was charged to the University.
The absence of specific guidelines, inadequate supervision and monitoring of compliance with existing agreements with these foundations resulted to the undeposited NCPAG funds and the under-remittance of training/seminar fees collected by CLEARED in behalf of UP SOLAIR.

The COA report stressed that there is a need to monitor the proceeds of the training programs/projects conducted by colleges and units such as in the case of NCPAG and SOLAIR as they are shared and accounted for as government funds and utilized by the contracting parties for the intended purpose/s.

The U.P. Administration's response, acording to the COA report, was that as a remedial measure, NCPAG cannot implement the 2nd phase of UNDP contract without a MOA and funds to be channeled to the UP Diliman Trust account. While SOLAIR opened a trust account for its institutional programs but will no longer course funds to CLEARED.

COA also pointed out in its 2008 Consolidated COA Annual Report that the U.P. Administration had only partially implemented recommendations regarding the U.P. Administration's absence of policy regarding U.P. affiliated foundations in the 2007 Consolidated COA Annual Report. It said that the absence of a policy raised doubts on funds accountability over an estimated PhP 55 million and $ 95,968.32 received by these foundations from 2003 to 2007 on behalf of U.P. since these funds were not fully disclosed or reported to the University or covered by contract or agreement, given that members and officers of the foundations are at the same time incumbent faculty members and officers of the University.

COA has been recommending since 2007 that University-affiliated foundations programs and projects, their activities and fund sources be reported to the University for monitoring and transparency purposes. It also asked the U.P. System Administration to issue guidelines for UP-affiliated foundations' accreditation and in response the U.P. System Administration did in fact submit on April 23, 2008 a copy of the “Guidelines for Recognition of UP-Affiliated Donor Organizations” which provides the basis for U.P.'s recognition of foundations as private institutions in support of U.P.'s academic functions.

Despite the submission of the guidelines, however, COA is still pointing out that the U.P. Administration still did not address the issue of monitoring and transparency of U.P. Foundation's programs, projects, activities and fund sources that should be reported to the University for monitoring and transparency purposes, as these are regarded as government funds by COA. However, draft or actual MOA's and other important documents required as part of standards for recognition of U.P. affiliated foundations were not yet submitted yet, according to the COA website at the time this dispatch was published.

COA said that existing agreements between U.P. Diliman and university-based accredited do not clearly delineate their respective relationship and functions related to financial and operational arangements particularly on the collection of fees for various seminars, training, research and other activities.

Next: More questions regarding the University of the Philippines Foundation and the U.P. Business Research Foundation

The Case of Professor Sarah Raymundo

By Chanda Shahani

The famous statue as seen in the picture above, is known as the Oblation and stands at the entrance to the University of the Philippines at Diliman. It symbolizes Academic Freedom. It also stands as a stark reminder that within the University of the Philippines itself; Academic Freedom is a growing and dynamic concept that is in perpetual danger of being abused or even extinguished by some of those who are its very proponents.

Take the case of U.P. Diliman Sociology Professor Sarah Raymundo. A bunch of online petitions are now coming out in Facebook, blogger.com and other online fora, including even the Manila Times online (http://www.manilatimes.net/index.php/opinion/6790-injustice-in-up-diliman) regarding the arbitrary non-granting of tenure by the top management of the University of the Philippines at Diliman for Sociology Professor Sarah Raymundo. One can even see posters plastered on U.P. Diliman faculty offices by U.P. faculty sympathetic to the plight of Professor Raymundo. A massive international email campaign is even being waged by friends and supporters of Raymundo to embarrass the U.P. Diliman administration which is headed by College of Business Administration (CBA) professor and now Chancellor Gerry Cao.

With both sides of the debate respectively waving aloft the banner of Academic Freedom, it is pretty difficult for an independent observer to fully appreciate the facts and to find out what's the truth and what's the spin.

At the heart of the issue is whether or not Raymundo, who has satisfied all the academic qualifications for tenure, was charged with being unethical by a minority of faculty within her own department in failing to disclose complete information about the enrollement status of disappeared graduating U.P. Sociology Student Karen Empeno during a press conference held on the matter. However, under the University's own rules, a student's complete connection with the University can only be considered severed, when the Secretary of the College takes formal actions to drop that student from the rolls. This means that Raymundo would have been correct, after all, in stating that Empeno was still connected with the University, despite the claims of the minority faculty that she was misleading the University by claiming Empeno was still connected with the University when in fact she wasn't

Even the faculty from Raymundo's own department are themselves divided on the issue. However, if Raymundo's tenure is denied (at least this time around) on the basis of Academic Freedom of the Institution, then at the very least she and her fellow professors, students and other allies supporting her deserve to know HOW Academic Freedom itself was exercised; and whether in the exercise of such Academic Freedom, sufficient rigor was exercised by U.P.'s decision makers who are supposed to be the vanguard of academic excellence.

If the whole idea of Academic Freedom is to create an atmosphere where robust dissent is encouraged by and between scholars in a spirit of inquiry utilizing rigirous academic standards to arrive at a conclusion that bears a semblance to the truth without fear of intimidation or reprisal; then from the very start, Professor Raymundo deserves a professional decision arrived at in a scholarly manner in why she was not granted tenure thus far. But Chancellor Cao, by all indications, has sided with a minority dissenting opinion with powerful connections to the University decision making structure and refused to grant Raymundo tenure.

Professor Raymundo, who has served the University as a scholar and teacher for more than ten years, deserves something better than to have her tenure denied on the grounds of Academic Freedom -- if Academic Freedom itself hijacked by a small cabal of professors protecting each other in an interlocking series of decisions -- without utilizing rigid academic criteria in making an evaluation.

The misuse of Academic Freedom by the University Administration and a small minority of professors allied with this administration in order to settle grudges, exercise political discrimination, remove troublemakers, or otherwise revise or totally erase inconvenient truths is to twist and distort Academic Freedom itself. Academic Freedom after all is defined as “the freedom of inquiry by students and faculty members is essential to the mission of the academy. They argue that academic communities are repeatedly targeted for repression due to their ability to shape and control the flow of information. When scholars attempt to teach or communicate ideas or facts that are inconvenient to external political groups or to authorities, they may find themselves targeted for public vilification, job loss, imprisonment, or even death.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_freedom)

By all indications, Professor Raymundo is being singled out for her political views. She is, after all, well-known forher progressive affiliations, as she is currently the Secretary-General of CONTEND-UP and is an national officer of the Alliance of Concerned Teachers of the Philippines (ACT).

CONTEND-UP has challenged Chancellor Cao, Prof. David and the sociology department to uphold the principles of academic freedom, transparency, and fairness in the tenure case of Prof. Sarah Raymundo, according to: the website supporting Raymundo's granting of tenure (http://tenureforsarahraymundo.blogspot.com)

But most importantly, now that this case has reached U.P. Emerlinda R. Roman's desk for decision, upon appeal by Professor Raymundo herself, is to see whether Roman, U.P.'s first female President, has the balls to go up against her own Chancellor in U.P. Diliman, and exercise Academic Freedom wisely. The fear is that she may not, as Roman and Cao are both from the same College of Business Administration in U.P. Diliman. The U.P. President is defined under Republic Act 9500, or the U.P. Charter, as the chief academic officer of the university, but she may end up deferring to the Academic Freedom of what essedntially constitutes a minority opinion backed up by powerful connections within the University. However, the buck itself doesn't completely stop at Roman's desk, as R.A. 9500 grants the power to the U.P. Board of Regents itself to appoint faculty members and to appoint a position classification for its faculty; and therein may lie Raymundos final fate – for the U.P. BOR may opt to grant her tenure or disapprove it, or even throw it back to the Department for a new vote; which would leave Professor Raymundo in academic limbo within the University.

(Next: 2008 COA report raises questions on several University of the Philippines foundations)