Department of Justice: U.P. Board of Regents cannot ignore U.P.'s own U.P. Charter of 2008 when it signed 2009 deal privatizing portions of PGH

(L to R: Faculty Regent Judy Taguiwalo, PGH Executive

Director Jose Gonzales and Student Regent Charisse Bañez)

By Chanda Shahani

 The Department of Justice (DOJ) has stated in a February 9, 2010 legal opinon released during a March 3, 2010 media briefing held at the College of Social Work at U.P. Diliman that a contract signed by University of the Philippines (U.P.) President Emerlinda R. Roman in 2009 to privatize portions of Philippine General Hospital (PGH) goes against U.P.'s own Charter of 2008 (Republic Act (RA) 9500).

 The DOJ opinion said RA 9500 requires that any such plan must protect U.P. "from undue influence and control of commercial interests" and that it should be "approved by the Board subject to a transparent and democratic process of consultation with the constituents of the national university."

By issuing such an opinon, the DOJ has practically sided with U.P. Philippine General Hospital (PGH) Executive Director, Dr. Jose Gonzales who was voted and selected by the BOR last December 18, 2009 but who has consistently opposed the privatization of portions of U.P. PGH; leading to what observers say is an attempt by disgruntled elements of the BOR to remove Gonzales last February 25, 2010 by engaging in legal acrobatics through the U.P. Legal Office in order to remove the validity of the swing vote of Student Regent Charisse Bañez.

The media briefing, was held to represent a coalition of groups including the Faculty Regent Judy Taguiwalo, Student Regent Charisse Bañez, Staff Regent Buboy Cabrera, Dr. Jose Gonzales of the PGH, concerned University of the Philippines (UP) faculty and students, and the All U.P. Workers Union.

During the media briefing, Dr. Gonzales said that the contract signed on June 18, 2009, for the UP PGH Faculty Medical Arts Building Project by President Roman and Dr. Edwin Mercado, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Daniel Mercado Medical Center (DMMC) and witnessed by UP Regents Abraham Sarmiento and Nelia Gonzalez, UP Manila Chancellor Ramon Arcadio, then U.P. PGH Director Carmelo Alfiler and other U.P. officials while beneficial in some respects, would nevertheless still hurt the essential constituents of U.P. PGH, who are the disadvantaged poor, by siphoning away much-needed income needed by PGH for its programs and benefitting DMMC instead.

The UP Board of Regents, during its 1239th meeting on December 17, 2008, confirmed the awarding of the Project to DMMC. The recommendation was submitted to the BOR by Dr. Yolanda Robles, Chair of the Special Bids and Awards Committee for the UP-PGH Faculty Medical Arts Building (FMAB) Project, after DMMC complied with all the requirements of the bidding process. The Notice of Award (NOA), was signed by President Roman last February 5.

The UP-PGH FMAB project is an activity of the University designed as a retention and incentive program for the faculty members of UP Manila (UPM), as a source of additional income for PGH’s budget, a venue for the geographic practice of profession among faculty members of UPM, an accessible and affordable ambulatory facility for private patients and to strengthen the distinction of UPM and PGH as the National Health Sciences Center and as the National University Hospital, respectively.

The contract entails the lease with conversion, rehabilitation, development and operation of the PGH Dispensary Building as the UP-PGH FMAB for a period of 25 years. DMMC is given an 18-month rent-free construction period starting from the time of contract signing. Under the Terms of Reference, DMMC shall lease the building from UP-PGH and sub-lease the clinic spaces to accredited PGH consultants. There is no need for the consultant to buy stocks to practice or buy/advance lease of clinic. DMMC is responsible for the fiscal and non-medical operations of FMAB and is allowed to manage and operate the concession areas which include the following: Laboratory, Radiology, Pharmacy among others.

 As originally envisioned, the FMAB would, among others, (1) generate additional resources to supplement PGH's budget allocation for hospital operations from the national government; (2) provide affordable, accessible high-quality, competent, comprehensive, integrated and humane health care services to ambulatory pay patient clientele of PGH; (3) provide a centralized teaching, training, and research-related facility for the faculty, trainees and relevant staff; (4) strengthen the geographic practice of profession among faculty members; (5) provide a faculty incentive package of affordable clinic spaces and income opportunities to UPM faculty in order to augment the faculty's regular compensation package from the University; (6) promote faculty retention and career development, (7) strengthen the distinction of UPM as the National Health Sciences Center, and; (8) serve as an essential component of a strong National University Hospital.

Dr. Gonzales said that while he was for the FMAB, which addressed the needs of consultant doctors at PGH who were not given any compensation, the part of the contract which allowed DMMC to manage and operate the concession areas which include the following: Laboratory, Radiology, Pharmacy among others, removed a source of funds for PGH which they needed badly to help pursue their mission to serve thousands of indigent patients every year.

Dr. Gonzales said that diagnostics alone at PGH makes up to PhP 8 million a month that would be lost to DMMC. He said that the Commission on Audit (COA) has reported that while PGH's annual budget is PhP 1.3 billion a year, it actually needs up to PhP 3 billion a year if it is to operate effectively.

Dr. Gonzales and the All U.P. Workers Union supports the geographical/private practice/clinic of PGH Medical Consultants/UP Manila Faculty at the Faculty Medical Arts Building (FMAB). They also support the expanded and efficient operation of PGH laboratory pharmacy, radiologic, endoscopic, laparoscopic, arthroscopic and other diagnostic services to serve the needs of the FMAB, the PGH and of the Filipino people.

However, in the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) signed between Daniel Mercado Medical Center (DMMC) and the University of the Philippines last June 18, 2009, the University would allow the operation by the DMMC of privately run laboratory, pharmacy, radiologic, endoscopic, laparoscopic, arthroscopic and other diagnostic services at the FMAB. This is objectionable to Dr. Gonzales, because it imperils not only the long term viability of PGH services but the operation of the whole hospital itself. These services that are intended to be privatized at the FMAB are the heart and soul of hospital operations, and to alow allow the operation of private entities right inside its the PGH compound that will directly compete on its own laboratory, pharmacy and other services.

In a statement released to the media during the press briefing, the U.P. Democratization Movement said that President Roman “is turning the BOR into a highly politicized body by initiating the attack to remove the Student Regent, by conspiring to reverse a BOR selection of the PGH Director that she did not want, by acting as the President only of some segments of the university instead of the whole university. She is demonstrating all the weaknesses of her appointing authority which is to divide and confuse instead of leading and governing. The crisis of the University is really a gross failure of executive leadership of President Roman.”

Observers are saying that some segments of the BOR strategized to remove Executive Director Gonzales by first eliminating the validity of the swing vote of Student Regent Banez because of Gonzales' lack of all-out support for the privatization of PGH. The U.P. Democratization Movement is calling for the BOR, whom it voted to select Dr. Gonzales as U.P. PGH Executive to recognize Dr. Gonzales' term of office from January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2012.

The DOJ legal opinion, Opinion No. 8, S. 2010, dated February 9, 2010 was signed by DOJ Secretary Agnes VST Devanadera and was issued due to three (3) separate requests for opinion relating to the contract of lease by and between U.P. as lessor and the Mercado General Hospital, Inc. (DMMC) as the lessee. The opinion was issued at the request of Emmanuel Y. Angeles, Chairman of the Commission on Higher Education and Development (CHED). U.P.'s Vice President for Legal Affairs, Theodore Te, and the Manila Chapter of the All U.P. Workers Union.

The opinion sought to address the question of whether the new requirements provided in the U.P. Charter of 2008 or R.a. 9500, which took effect only in May of 2008, or three years after the approval of the FMAB project applied retroactively to the FMAB Contract which was signed in 2009.

The DOJ opinion said that the request originated from the claims of the All U.P. Workers Union that the BOR was ill-advised when they rushed for the confirmation of the Contract of Lease without conasidering the provisions of the new U.P. Charter of 2008.

The DOJ opinion said that U.P. is the owner of a historical three-story concrete building known as the PGH Dispensary Building, situated at the PGH Complex, Taft Avenue, Manila and that part of the area is being utilized as the PGH Main Pharmacy; that U.P. entered into a contract with DMMC for the lease, conversion and development of the remaining area as the UPM-PGH Faculty Medical Arts Building (FMAB) which was approved by the BOR on September 29, 2005, with the Terms of Reference for the lease with conversion, development and operation of the PGH Dispensary Building approved by the BOR on October 26, 2006.

Furthermore, bidding ensued with DMMC as the only pre-qualified bidder, but the bid was below the internal government estimate of a desired rental of PhP 1 million per month; therefore a second round of bidding was undertaken and was even extended to allow more bidders to participate but that a failure of bidding was declared on September 5, 2007. This failure paved the way for U.P. to enter into a negotiated contract for the UPM-PGH FMAB and recommend DMMC as the only remaining and potential bidder.

The DOJ said that RA 9500 became effective on May 2008 and that Section 23 prescribed the procedure for the lease of assets for more than 5 years which included:

•  The transactions must be based on a mukti year comprehensive development plan undertaken by qualified urban planning professionals;
• In the case of two failed biddings and negotiated transactions, the BOR must secure a fairness opinion from respected third party bodies;
• If the contract amount exceeds more than PhP 50 million, then 3/4 of the BOR and not a simple majority must approve the contract and breaking up the contract into smaller parts will not be allowed.

The All U.P. Workers Union said none of the above conditions existed as part of the due diligence required prior to the signing of the contract by President Roman, as required by R.A. 9500 and that the contract is grossly disadvantageous to ther U.P. community.

U.P. insists that Section 23 does not apply to the FMAB contract and that to apply it would be to give retroactive effect to a provision that was not yet existent when the parties negotiated the terms of the contract of lease in 2007 and 2008, thus violating the non-impairment of contracts clause of the 1987 Constitution.

However, the DOJ opinion said that U.P.'s arguments did not appear to be sustainable.

It said that the parties were still at the negotiation stage at the time the U.P. Charter was passed. "No contract was entered into, no agreement was yet in effect. It (U.P.) approved the renegotiated terms fo the contract months after the effectivity of the U.P. Charter of 2008. It was only at that time that the contract was prefected between the parties. Hence the non-impairment clause, as claimed by U.P., would not apply."

The DOJ opinion said that all parties should be guided accordingly by its legal opinion.

(Chanda Shahani is the Editor of the Diliman Diary).

OP-ED: The Day of the Long Knives (Part 4): The U.P. Administration's latest choice of Executive Director of U.P PGH may be procedurally flawed and their motives are questionable. But why?

By Chanda Shahani

In what is now known as the Day of the Long Knives in U.P. Diliman, or on February 25, 2010, the U.P. Board of Regents (BOR) turned on its own Student Regent, Charisse Bañez, and University of the Philippines Philippine General Hospital (U.P. PGH) Executive Director Jose Gonzales, finishing them off quickly by removing them from their posts in an act that essentially punished Banez for casting the swing vote that resulted in the selection of Dr. Jose Gonzales as the new Executive Director of PGH in a very close fight with outgoing Executive Director, Dr. Carlos Alfiler. Dr. Gonzales was not the preferred choice of the U.P. Administration, but their motives will become clearer later on.

Last January 22, 2010 however, in an attempt to fight back, Bañez filed an Injunction with prayer for issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order (TRO) in the Quezon City Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch # 215, attempting, in part to have the court bar the BOR from deciding on her case. But Bañez's case opened a can of worms. She claims in her pleadings before the court that at least three “Acting” regents have expired terms, citing a provision of the law that says the term of office is one year for the “Acting” regents. This is disputed by no less than U.P. President Emerlinda R. Roman, who said in an email to Dr. Silvestre Cabellon, the Chairman if the U.P. Medical Society of America (UPMASA), on March 10, 2010 that the term of office for an Acting regent is two years.

There is therefore now a dispute on the interpretation on the word “Acting” as to whether this term of office for an “Acting” regent refers to one year or two years. Perhaps the court itself will make this final determination.

Citing EO 292 (Administrative Code of 1987) the Student Regent states in her complaint that:

“SEC. 16. Power of Appointment. — The President shall exercise the power to appoint such officials as provided for in the Constitution and laws.

SEC. 17. Power to Issue Temporary Designation. — (1) The President may temporarily designate an officer already in the government service or any other competent person to perform the functions of an office in the executive branch, appointment to which is vested in him by law, when: (a) the officer regularly appointed to the office is unable to perform his duties by reason of illness, absence or any other cause; or (b) there exists a vacancy;

and

(3) In no case shall a temporary designation exceed one (1) year.”

The U.P. Legal Department is possibly prepared to back up its claim (in court) that “Acting” means two years, and not one year in the case of a U.P. Regent

What is indisputable, however, is that Dr. Roman herself says that the term of office of “Acting” regents is two years and not a day longer than that.

If we assume the correctness of the claim of the Student Regent in her complaint that:

1) Regent Sarmiento was appointed by President Arroyo as an “ACTING MEMBER, BOARD OF REGENTS, UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES SYSTEM” on September 29, 2008.

2) Regent Gonzalez was appointed by President Arroyo as an “ACTING MEMBER, BOARD OF REGENTS, UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES SYSTEM” on March 18, 2008.

and

3) Regent Chua was appointed by President Arroyo as an “ACTING MEMBER, BOARD OF REGENTS, UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES SYSTEM” on January 1, 2008,

Then, assuming all of the above dates of appointment by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo are factually correct, and assuming for the sake of discussion that President Roman's assertion that “Acting” Regents have two year terms is correct or even ruled upon favourably by the courts, then:

1) Regent Chua's term of office as an Acting Regent expired last January 1, 2010, since he was appointed on January 1, 2008;

2) Regent Gonzales' term of office as an Acting Regent will expire a few days from now, or on March 18, 2010, since she was appointed on March 18, 2008;

3) Regent Sarmiento's term of office as an Acting Regent will expire on September 29, 2010, since he was appointed on September 29, 2010

If the next BOR meeting takes place on March 29, 2010, as has been scheduled, then both Regents Gonzales and Chua will be former Regents, alongside Student Regent Banez, because they would have all been casualties of having expired credentials. This is a cause for concern, unless President Arroyo reappoints them before the two month election ban for the President to appoint officials kicks in on March 10, 2010, which then solves the problem for the U.P. Administration. It being March 1, 2010 as I write this, the U.P. Administration has exactly six working days to get Presdient Arroyo to sign the papers of the Regents.

On the other hand, if the Student Regent's assertion that the one year rule is correct, and if the Court decides in her favour (next Court hearing is March 17), then it would be kind of academic already, if President Arroyo already signed the papers. Given the fact that the average court case in this country takes eight years to be resolved. Its already almost academic already, given the fact that the natural term of the Student Regent would expire this April, assuming she was enrolled.

However, if the Student Regent is legally correct in her assertion that the one year rule applies to all three Regents, then even Regent Sarmiento will join his colleagues in terms of having expired credentials. The argument applied to the case of the Student Regent – that is, that her vote was null and void due to her expired credentials may equally be applied to that of the three “Acting” Regents who may also have had expired credentials when they voted for Dr. Alfiler on December 18, 2009, and when they claim to have had a quorum on January 29, 2010.

Equally, when they state that six Regents voted for Dr. Enrique Domingo, on February 25, 2010 with three abstaining; it may be interpreted that three Regents voted for Dr. Domingo, three abstained and three “Acting” Regents with expired terms should have been shown the door, to join the Student Regent. This is assuming, of course that the one year rule applied in this case. If the one year rule applied in this case, then we cannot see how Dr. Domingo is the duly selected Executive Director of PGH when he only got three votes out of a possible total of ten votes.

A protest could be lodged by some Regents before the March 29 BOR meeting to ensure that consistent treatment applies to all, and not just the Student Regent. It's entirely up to them to do so.

What is is absolutely necessary and critical that a legitimate round of voting amongst the BOR take place where all concerned have the proper credentials and right to be there to prevent endless litigation that will only serve to tie the hands and feet of our premier government hospital, where there is already an existing disruption of programs and plans, and a revolving door of executive directors, as is starting to be the case. The hard-working and heroic doctors and medical staff of PGH, and the thousands of disadvantaged people they serve deserve the best possible democratic and principled decision in the U.P. Board of Regents' choice of an Executive Director. The U.P. BOR must defend the integrity of the University of the Philippines and show that it is made of the right stuff, with the People's welfare in mind, and show that it does not only excel in corporate-style board room manuevers and legal technicalities to get its way in the end and at our expense – the taxpayer's expense.

Side by side with the need to ensure that all decisions made by the BOR are in the interests of the people, especially the disadvantaged patients who still come from a delographic that constitutes the majority of our population; a closer look must really be made on the claim of members of the Laban UP-PGH Movement who said that Executive Director Jose Gonzales was ousted since he was not clear about where his loyalties lay in the “disadvantageous deal made between UP's BOR and the Daniel Mercado Medical Center that would soon operate a private laboratory, diagnostics, pharmacy and outpatient clinic within PGH itself.”

"He (Gonzales) has been singled out as the main stumbling block to the estimated hundreds of millions of pesos in profit that is grossly slanted to favor only a non-PGH entity," said Laban UP-PGH.

If only to protect the U.P.'s reputation, then the BOR needs to show that the charges of Laban UP-PGH are unfounded and that there is absolutely no causality or correlation between what Laban UP-PGH claims or what the U.P. Diliman Student Council calls “the micro-privatization of PGH” and the removal of Student Regent Charisse Banez because of her “inconvenient” vote in favour of Dr. Gonzales who was himself not clearly in favour of the U.P. BOR-backed deal with the Daniel Mercado Medical Center. It can only do this by ensuring that there was a truly democratic vote by a quorum of regents who have the proper credentials, backed up by the courts, so that busy bodies like the Diliman Diary will not ask so many questions. We truly wonder: Why is the U.P. Administration is moving heaven and earth to remove Dr. Gonzales, given his professional qualifications and the fact that so many of his medical colleagues were prepared to demonstrate against his removal today, March 1, 2010 at the U.P. PGH?

We may never know the answers.

What we do know, however, is stated in the website itself of the Daniel Mercado Medical Center at:
http://www.dmmcinc.com/uppgh.html which admits that:

“After three (3) years and nine (9) months of bidding and negotiations, the UP-PGH Faculty Medical Arts Building (FMAB) Project finally became a reality. On June 18, 2009, in celebration of the 101st anniversary of the University of the Philippines (UP), the contract for the UP-PGH FMAB Project was signed by UP President Emerlinda Roman and Dr. Edwin Mercado, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Daniel Mercado Medical Center (DMMC). The historic ceremony was witnessed by UP Regents Abraham Sarmiento and Nelia Gonzalez, UP Manila Chancellor Ramon Arcadio, PGH Director Carmelo Alfiler and other System-Wide, UP Manila and PGH officials. The DMMC Board of Directors was also in attendance led by its Chairman, Mr. Zosimo Malabanan, as well as top management officials from DMMC.”

“The UP Board of Regents, during its 1239th meeting on December 17, 2008, confirmed the awarding of the Project to DMMC. The recommendation was submitted to the BOR by Dr. Yolanda Robles, Chair of the Special Bids and Awards Committee for the UP-PGH FMAB Project, after DMMC complied with all the requirements of the bidding process. The Notice of Award (NOA), signed by UP President Emerlinda Roman last February 5, was received by Dr. Mercado on February 17, 2009.”

“The UP-PGH FMAB project is a pioneering activity of the University designed as a retention and incentive program for the faculty members of UP Manila (UPM), as a source of additional income for PGH’s budget, a venue for the geographic practice of profession among faculty members of UPM, an accessible and affordable ambulatory facility for private patients and to strengthen the distinction of UPM and PGH as the National Health Sciences Center and as the National University Hospital, respectively.”

“The contract entails the lease with conversion, rehabilitation, development and operation of the PGH Dispensary Building as the UP-PGH FMAB for a period of 25 years. DMMC is given an 18-month rent-free construction period starting from the time of contract signing. Under the Terms of Reference, DMMC shall lease the building from UP-PGH and sub-lease the clinic spaces to accredited PGH consultants. There is no need for the consultant to buy stocks to practice or buy/advance lease of clinic. DMMC is responsible for the fiscal and non-medical operations of FMAB and is allowed to manage and operate the concession areas which include the following: Laboratory, Radiology, Pharmacy among others.”

We do not know what correlation there was – if any – between the action that occurred on the infamous Day of the Long Knives on January 25, 2010 when the U.P. Board of Regents turned on its own Student Regent, and removed her, on an easily correctible technicality, after she cast a critical swing vote on December 18, 2009 (By 6 to 5) giving Dr. Gonzales the nod as Executive Director of PGH over Dr. Alfiler, who would have served two three-year terms by December 31, 2009.

With the Student Regent out of the way, we also do not know what correlation there was – if any – between the removal of the Student Regent on that infamous Day of the Long Knives on January 25, 2010 when the U.P. Board of Regents turned on its own duly selected Executive Director, Dr. Carlos Gonzales whose short term from January 4, 2010 to February 25, 2010 never straddled the signing of the contract between the PGH and the Daniel Mercado Medical Center. We may never know.

Even with millions of pesos worth of a lucrative multi-year contract at stake; we still do not know if there was any correlation between the high stakes money involved and the amount of effort expended by the U.P. Administration to remove a sitting Student Regent with expired papers; reverse a decision selecting a preeminently qualified doctor to head the PGH who has had more experience and replacing him with somebody who may be good, but with much less experience; and oh – yeah – after figuratively disemboweling the Student Regent; expends even more effort in justifying the retention of three “Acting” regents, with credentials whose shelf lives have either expired or are about to expire, depending on how you look at it.

We do not know if all or any of these seemingly random acts have anything to do with the bottom line.

We leave it up to you, dear reader.

To connect the dots.

OP-ED: The Day of the Long Knives (Part 3): Quezon Hall Narrates its Version of Events leading to Feb. 25 ouster of U.P. PGH Executive Director Jose Gonzales

Editor's note: This is the original and unaltered official statement of the U.P. Administration justifying the events leading to the ouster of U.P. PGH Executive Director Jose Gonzales

UP BOARD OF REGENTS APPOINTS NEW PGH DIRECTOR

Monday, March 1, 2010

The University of the Philippines Board of Regents, the highest policy-making and governing body of the national university, appointed during its 1254th Meeting on February 25, 2010, a new Director for the Philippine General Hospital in the person of Dr. Rolando Enrique Domingo.

Dr. Domingo’s appointment was unanimous, with six regents voting in favor and none against. Three regents abstained. His appointment took effect immediately.

The election of Dr. Domingo came after the Board of Regents voted to consider and, thereafter, grant a protest made by Regent Abraham F. Sarmiento against its earlier vote, during its 1252nd Meeting on December 18, 2009, electing Dr. Jose Gonzales as Director of the PGH replacing Dr. Carmelo Alfiler, whose second term as Director expired on December 31, 2009.

Regent Sarmiento’s protest was anchored on the disqualification of the former Student Regent Charisse Bernadine Bañez, as of the December 18 Board meeting, due to her having failed to enroll as a student. This disqualifed her from sitting as a Student Regent.

The protest was made verbally almost immediately after the vote on Dr. Gonzales and before the meeting ended. The vote on Dr. Gonzales was a 6-5 vote, thus making the former Student Regent’s vote decisive. Regent Sarmiento subsequently followed up the verbal protest with a formal protest in writing, submitted to the Board of Regents in time for its 1253rd Meeting on January 29, 2010.

In granting the protest, the Board first reconsidered its December 2009 decision to allow the former Student Regent to vote. Thereafter, the Board decided on the validity or nullity of the December 2009 elections which resulted in the selection of Dr. Gonzales as PGH Director; the Board voted, by a majority, to declare the December 2009 election void. After this, the Board elected from the three original nominees, namely, Dr. Carmelo Alfiler, Dr. Jose Gonzales and Dr. Rolando Enrique Domingo.

The appointment of Dr. Domingo was met with protest from supporters of Dr. Gonzales who, in text messages, called for a barricade of PGH on Monday, March 1, 2010.

Dr. Ramon Arcadio, Chancellor of UP Manila, when reached for comment, said in text messages forwarded to constituents of UP Manila and PGH, that the BOR resolution appointing Dr. Domingo is executory, but that he recognizes the right of Dr. Gonzales to appeal or protest. He expressed the hope, however, that everyone would be reminded that there are more things that unite rather than divide them. He appealed for sobriety for the sake of the patients, students and the public which PGH serves.

(Source: http://www.up.edu.ph/)

OP-ED: The Day of the Long Knives (Part 2): U.P. Faculty Regent Narrates Events leading to Feb. 25 ouster of U.P. PGH Executive Director Jose Gonzales

By Faculty Regent Judy M. Taguiwalo

My Report on the 25 February 2010 UP Board of Regents Meeting
Judy M. Taguiwalo, Faculty Regent
March 1, 2010

1) The 25 February 2010 meeting of the Board of Regents was attended by the following: CHED Chair Emmanuel Angeles, President Emerlinda R. Roman, Regent Cynthia Villar, Justice Abraham Sarmiento, Regent Nelia Gonzales, Regent Francis Chua, Alumni Regent Alfredo Pascual, Student Regent Charisse Bernadine Bañez, Staff Regent Clodualdo Cabrera and myself. Only Regent Mar Roxas was absent.

2) When the Chair moved for the approval of the agenda, I made a point of order and moved that the Board first discuss immediate but non-contentious items in the Agenda prior to approving the minutes of the previous meeting and discussing matters arising from the meeting. I explained that there were issues regarding the qualifications of four of the sitting members of the Board which may require thorough deliberations and leave little time for approving urgent but non-contentious items in the agenda. There was an initial objection to my motion but eventually I was asked to withdraw my motion to be replaced by the motion of the UP President to discuss all items in the agenda except for contentious issues which were then enumerated.

3) The following were immediately approved: Policy matters for the approval of the board (except for the UP Policy Paper on Awards); Appointments of University Officials (Chancellor of Open U, Dean of College of Education, Dean of Institute of Small Scale Industries, both of UP Diliman); Confirmation of appointments of UP artists, appointments of faculty and staff, graduation of students (except those with pending cases), establishment of professorial chairs/grants, memoranda of agreement.

4) After the approval of the above, the minutes of the January 29 BOR meeting was approved with the correction made by Alumni Regent Alfredo Pascual that he was in the comfort room, and was not physically present when the motion of Pres. Roman “that the student not be allowed to participate in the meeting given that she has not complied with the qualifications to continue as a Student Regent” was voted upon. By that time, only the Chair, the 3 Malacanang appointees and President Roman were seated around the meeting table. I had left the meeting earlier, followed by the Staff Regent and the Student Regent. Hence the voting occurred with only five (5) regents actually participating.

5) After the approval of the minutes, I raised a motion for reconsideration of the January 29 decision disqualifying the Student Regent on the grounds that her appeal for late filing of residency remains with UPLB and that there is documentary evidence that a UPLB student who enrolled for residency in the middle of February 2010 was allowed to do so.

The motion was denied after VP for Legal Affairs Theodore Te said that the case of the SR was sub judice (i.e. currently being deliberated in court) as she has a pending complaint in the RTC against her disqualification and that the SR’s request for a temporary restraining order vis-à-vis the Board’s decision to disallow her to sit as a regular member of the Board in the February 25 meeting was denied by the court. The BOR Chair then recalled his written invitation to the SR to attend as observer and asked her to leave the room. I still cannot understand why UPLB Chancellor Rey Velasco continues to deny the appeal of the Student Regent for late filing of residency as it had been granted to other students of UPLB similarly situated. Neither has President Roman advised the UPLB Chancellor to grant the appeal as it would ensure continued student representation in the BOR and allow the process of the selection of the next Student Regent to start. The next SR is supposed to be selected by April 2010, meaning the current SR has only two more BOR meetings to attend before her term ends.

6) I also raised the issue of the legitimacy of the three Malacanang-appointed regents, Abraham Sarmiento, Nelia Gonzales and Francis Chua. They were appointed as “acting regents by Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo on September 2008, March 2008 and January 1, 2008, respectively. According to Section 16 and 17 of Chapter 5, Title I, Book III of the Administrative Code of 1987 (EO 292), the President of the Philippines has the power to “issue temporary designations” but “(i)n no case shall a temporary designation exceed one (1) year.”).

VP Te explained that this issue could not be tackled by the BOR because the status of the three is included in the court case of the SR and any discussion would be considered as sub judice. Furthermore he averred that “temporary designation” is different from an acting appointment based on Supreme Court rulings. (After the meeting, a lawyer whom I consulted sent to me the following excerpt from Pimentel vs. Ermita (GR 164978, 13 October 2005), that “acting appointments cannot exceed one year as expressly provided in Section 17(3), Chapter 5, Title I, Book III of EO 292”. This decision clearly does not differentiate temporary and acting appointments.) The Chair then denied my motion. So during the whole process of deliberations made by the BOR, the three Malacanang Regents with expired appointments remained as regular voting members. I made sure that prior to any voting I put on record my objection to the participation of the three Regents on the grounds that their appointments have already expired.

7) Chairman Angeles then stated that the Board should recommend to Malacanang that the three regents be given regular appointments. It was President Roman who made the motion to do so. The Alumni and Staff Regents asked that such recommendation be deferred until the next meeting to allow time for consulting the various university constituents to forward other names for the positions. The motion of President Roman was passed with Regent Villar, the three Malacanang appointees and herself voting for the motion. The Alumni, Staff and Faculty Regents voted against the motion.

8) The main highlight of the February 25 BOR meeting, after the Student Regent was disqualified, was the matter arising from the minutes of the January 29 meeting titled “Interpretation of the Decision of the Board to act on the Protest of Regent Abraham Sarmiento”. “Regent” Gonzales moved that the Board revisit the decision appointing Dr. Jose Gonzales as PGH Director, on the grounds that the voting in December was limited only to two nominees (Dr. Alfiler and Dr. Gonzales) when there was a third nominee, Dr. Enrique Domingo. When I stated that what I recalled was that Pres. Roman and Chancellor Arcadio at the December 18 meeting said that Dr. Domingo was not qualified as he did not have tenure, President Roman denied saying such and said non-tenured personnel can be appointed as Director of PGH. Since there was no transcript of that portion of the Dec 18 BOR meeting which was declared an executive session, there was no way of verifying what was actually said during that meeting.

I objected to the motion of “Regent” Gonzales, stating that the board cannot remove an official who has taken his oath of office, except for cause. The Staff Regent and Alumni Regent supported my objection. When the motion was put to a vote, Pres. Roman, “Regents” Sarmiento, Gonzales and Chua voted in favor of the motion, the Alumni, Staff and Faculty Regents voted against and Regent Villar abstained.

With the motion carried, the Regents were then asked to vote from among Dr. Alfiler, Domingo and Gonzales for PGH Director. The Chair ruled that the voting be done in secret in spite of my proposal that it should be done viva voce in the interest of transparency. The Chair ruled that secret voting be done. The Alumni, Staff and Faculty Regents abstained from voting. The six written votes handed in by Chairman Angeles, President Roman, Regent Villar, “Regents” Sarmiento, Gonzales and Chua all went to Dr. Domingo. At this point, Staff Regent Cabrera asked the University Secretary if this was the first case in the history of the board that an appointed official was removed from office based on a revote. The Secretary answered yes.

9) There were two nominees for the UP Mindanao Chancellorship: the incumbent Chancellor Gilda Rivero and Prof. Benjamin Bagadion. The President endorsed Chancellor Rivero for a second term. The Staff Regent and I requested for a deferment of the selection as there was strong written opposition from faculty, students and staff to giving the current Chancellor another term. And that the Chancellor has still to answer the 19 February 2010 COA Audit Observation Memo (attachment B) that she spent a total of P643,800.67 for her 30 July 2007 investiture rites when the approved budget was only P372,216.00 thus exceeding by 72% the approved budget. The rest of the Board did not find this reason sufficient to defer the selection. President Roman, Regent Villar, “Regents” Sarmiento, Gonzales, Chua and the Alumni Regent voted for Dr. Rivero. The Staff Regent and I voted against her.

10) The items on “Other matters” were deferred for the 25 March 2010 BOR meeting. These items include the appeal for tenure of Prof. Sarah Raymundo, the appeal of UPLB faculty and students to hold in abeyance the full implementation of the large class policy, appeals of several staff, students and faculty related to disciplinary actions meted out to them and the endorsement of the Staff Regent of the petition of administrative staff and REPS for equity to the additional 10-day sick leave benefits granted to faculty.

Some clarifications:

1. The denial by the Quezon City Regional Trial Court of the request of the Student Regent for a temporary restraining order (TRO) applies to the implementation of the Board’s January 29 decision that she “not be allowed to participate in the meeting given that she has not complied with the qualification to continue as Student Regent”. This was the reason used by the “majority” of the Board when the SR was not allowed to participate in the February 25 BOR meeting or even sit as observer. The denial of the SR’s request for a TRO does not pass judgment on the decisions made in 18 December 2009 BOR meeting.

2. The question of the legitimacy of the status of the three Malacanang-appointed regents whose acting appointments have expired remains. The motion of President Roman to endorse the three to Malacanang for regular appointments as Regent only two weeks before the March 10 election prohibition on appointments smacks of the much-criticized practice of “midnight appointments” by Malacanang.

Postscript:

1. The day after the BOR meeting, President Roman went to UP Mindanao . She was met by protesting students, faculty and staff calling for an “end to the Roman empire”.

2. The day after the BOR meeting, UP Manila Chancellor Arcadio administered the oath of office to Dr. Enrique Domingo as PGH Director. The lawyer of Dr. Jose Gonzales then sent a letter to the Chancellor that a legal case will be filed against UP for declaring vacant a position filled by a qualified personnel and appointing another person to such position. The speed by which the Office of the Secretary of the University issued the notification of appointment of Dr. Domingo and the administration of his oath is in stark contrast to delay in the release of Dr. Gonzales’ appointment and the administration of his oath after the December 18 meeting.

Editor's note: Professor Taguiwalo's narrative has also been posted on:
http://upissues.wordpress.com/2010/03/01/up-faculty-regents-report-on-the-february-25-2010-bor-meeting/

(Judy M. Taguiwalo is the Faculty Regent and represents the University of the Philippines (U.P.) System Faculty at the U.P. Board of Regents. She is concurrently a professor at the College of Social Work and Community Development at U.P. Diliman).

Dr. Enrique Domingo is now new U.P. Philippine General Hospital Executive Director

(Source: Mu Sigma Phi)

It's now confirmed. Dr. Rolando Enrique D. Domingo, U.P. College of Medicine,  is now the new Executive Director of the University of the Philippines General Hospital (U.P. PGH).

This was confirmed today, February 26, 2010, by the Office of the Secretary of the University, a day after the U.P. Board of Regents (BOR) met on February 25, 2010 to discuss the issue of who would man the helm of U.P. PGH, the status of Student Regent Charisse Banez, and other issues.

Dr. Domingo replaces Dr. Jose Gonzales, who served as U.P. PGH Executive Director from January 4, 2010 to February 25, 2010.

According to the website of Mu Sigma Phi, a medical fraternity, based at the U.P. College of Medicine, which Dr. Domingo is a member of (http://www.musigmaphi.com/), Dr. Domingo is an accomplished ophthalmologist and a past Deparment of Health Assistant Secretary and was also Deputy Director for Administration under former PGH Director Dr. Carmelo Alfiler.

Dr. Domingo was voted into position at the UP Board of Regents (BOR) meeting held on February 25, 2010. The BOR is the highest policy-making body in the UP System.