Ulat ni Staff Regent Jossel Ibit Ebesate sa katatapos na pulong ng U.P. Board of Regents (Nov. 24, 2011)

Update sa BOR Meeting ngayon (Nov 24, 2011)

Una sa agenda ang tatlong kaso (dalawang Dean kasama ang iba pa, at ang kaso ng dating Chapter President ng unyon sa UP Los Banos). Sa pangunguna ni Regent (dating Chief Justice) Puno, unang tinalakay ang sa dalawang Dean. Nag-usap-usap muna sa kapangyarihan ng BOR kung saan unang pinag-usapan ang isyu ng kapangyarihan ng BOR sa pagbago ng prescribed penalties sa mga administratibong kaso ng UP employees at nagkasundo na mayroon nga itong kapangyarihan.

Sumunod ay ang isyu sa tanong na kung ang kaparusahan ba ng isang faculty bilang Dean ay may kaukulang epekto din sa nasabing individual bilang faculty? Kahit ang sagot dito ni Regent Puno ay hindi malinaw, at wala rin halos maiambag ang UP VP for Legal. Sa isyu naman ng paghingi ng pag-inhibit sa partisipasyon kay Pres. Pascual, walang matibay na precedent at jurisprudence na mai-cite ang ating VP for Legal kaya nagkasundo na lang ang BOR na magreset sa isang espesyal na meeting sa Jan 18, 2012 sa diskusyon sa mga kaso upang mabigyan ng kaukulang panahon ang VP for Legal na mag-aral at makapagbigay ng depinidong mga sagot sa mga isyu bago magbotohan sa kung pagbibigyan ba o hindi ang mga apela sa desisyon ng Presidente, at kung tatanggapin o ibaba ang mga parusa.

Tungkol sa 10 days na Service Recognition Pay, ito ay pinag-usapan pagkatapos na imungkahi ko sa aking Sectoral Regents Report na i-adopt ng BOR and report ni VP for Administration Maragtas Amante (ayon na rin sa aking kahilingan na isama ito sa agenda) Nangako si Pres Pascual na ang initial na pagpapatupad ngayong taon (2011) ay bigyan na ng kaukulang kasagutan sa regular na meeting ng BOR sa Enero 2012, sa kadahilanang hindi pa nakapag-commit ang mga Chancellors ng iba't-ibang campus. Pinahayag natin na naiinip na ang ating mga kasmang kawani, lalo na ang mga retirees dahil sa sobrang tagal na ng paghihintay sa inisyal nitong implementasyon, simula ng bigyan ito ng "approval in principle" ng BOR noong Abril 2011. Ito ay sinang-ayunan rin ni Regent Puno, kaya tumulong rin siya sa pagtatanong kung ano ba talaga ang kakayanan ng UP na ipatupad ito sa taong 2011. Nagmungkahi pa siya na kung kaya na ngayon, ipatupad na ito kaagad, at hanapan na lang ng kaukulang pamamaraan ang pondo para sa susunod na mga taon.

Tinalakay din ang ating mungkahi para sa Comprehensive Health Benefit Program. Nagcommit naman si Pres Pascual at si VP Amante na sa mga programang hindi naman kailangan ang malaking pondo tulad ng Health Risk Assessment at Health Promotion/Disease Prevention ay kaagad nang ipatupad samantalang patuloy na mag-aaral ang unibersidad tungkol sa pagkaloob sa lahat na mga kawani (kasama ng mga faculty ng HMO-type na health benefit.

Inaprobahan din ang kahilingan ng ating unyon sa pagbibigay ng P1,000 Christmas Grocery Allowance bago magpasko ayon sa CNA.

Ang desisyon sa Revised Land Use Plan ng UP Diliman ay ipinagpaliban sa susunod na meeting at hiniling munang ito ay komprehensibong ipresenta (Anong mga pagbabago? Mga batayan? Etc?) sa BOR.

May report din ang Student at Faculty Regent, at marami pang mga pinag-usapan tulad ng mga kontrata, appointments, at iba pa.

Nag-adjourn ang meeting ng lagpas na akla-1:00 ng hapon, at saka nagtanghalian ang mga miyembro ng BOR at ng Executive Staff ng Presidente.

(Source: U.P. Kilos Na) 

U.P. Board of Regents Defuses Another Land Commercialization Landmine

By Oz Mendoza

The December 17, 2010 end-of-the-year meeting of the University of the Philippines (U.P.) Board of Regents (BOR) was a subdued affair in which the main topic of discussion involved the land-lease issues of U.P. Visayas.

However, the stands of the BOR's sectoral representatives -- Faculty Regent Judy M. Taguiwalo, Staff Regent Clodualdo "Buboy" Cabrera, and Student Regent Jacque Eroles was a familiar one, expressing concern over the commercialization of university-owned properties.

The BOR also discussed the fate of U.P. College of Law Dean Marvic Leonen, who has offered his resignation over an alleged instance of plagiarism. However, the BOR has deferred their resolution on the matter to January, 2011. Student Regent Jacque Eroles said that the BOR received so much documentation regarding the Leonen issue, they did not have enough time to go through all of it.

The UP Visayas issue under discussion revolved around the lease of land for use as an on-campus "love nature park." The UP sectoral representatives voiced several objections to the park project. First of all, they are concerned about the proposed park's potential impact on security, given that it would open the UP Visayas campus to a large number of visitors. They are also concerned about the environmental issues involved, and have asked to see an environmental impact report on the project.

Student Regent Jacque Eroles questioned whether the park would actually provide any benefits to U.P. Visayas students. She said that any revenue from the park appears more likely to be funneled to commercial interests, rather than to meeting the needs of the student body. The sectoral representatives agreed that the Visayas park project is another instance of the commercialization of U.P. land that may be in conflict with the spirit of the university charter.

Outgoing Faculty Regent Judy M. Taguiwalo called for greater accountability in the evaluation process of projects concerned with generating inconme from UP-owned land tracts. She noted that that the UP Charter provides for the implementation of land leases only under the conditions that the land use does not undermine the academic mission of UP, and that the area leased should be outside the academic core zone of the UP campuses. 

Taguiwalo emphasized that no uniform process exists for the review and approval of projects to lease out UP land. She says that any such process should examine how a project would affect UP's academic mission, and require consultation with the faculty, the student body, and the university community.

PCIJ.org: "THE PARE PRINCIPLE"

"THE PROBLEM REALLY is the presidential system itself, which is structured for such capricious use of power. The concentration of so much power in one person lends itself easily to both abuse and whimsy. As Joel Rocamora of the Institute for Popular Democracy writes, “The Philippine presidency is an extremely powerful position, even more powerful than its model, the American presidency. Because of the centrality of patronage for Philippine political parties, the most important powers of the president are his appointing powers and his control over the disbursement of government funds in a highly centralized form of government.”

"The misuse of the power to appoint is most obvious, because appointments are so public and the appointees are rarely shy about waving about their new credentials. If anything, Erap only brings this power to absurd heights. Corazon Aquino used it to appoint relatives and friends, including her dentist and her dermatologist who were named to the UP Board of Regents. Aquino also got carried away with the appointments, sometimes naming as many as seven undersecretaries for one department that Congress eventually passed a law limiting the number of usecs and asecs to only three each per department."

Read the rest here:

PCIJ.org: "THE PARE PRINCIPLE"

U.P. Regent and Retired Associate Justice Abraham F. Sarmiento, Sr. passes away in Prague, Czech Republic

(Photo source:  http://tinyurl.com/2v2yjm4)

University of the Philippines (U.P.) Regent and Retired Associate Justice Abraham F. Sarmiento, Sr. has passed away in Prague, Czech Republic on October 3, 2010. He had earlier suffered from septic shock and multiple organ failure. The exact cause of his death is still unknown. At the time of his passing, he was only a few days away from his 89th birthday. Regent Sarmiento was born on October 8, 1921.

Regent Sarmiento was visiting his daughter, Philippine Ambassador to the Czech Republic, Regina Irene P. Sarmiento when he passed away.

A comprehensive summary of the life and times of Regent Sarmiento may be found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Sarmiento

A statement posted on the U.P. website (http://up.edu.ph/features.php?i=232) said that: "Regent Sarmiento was President of the UP Alumni Association from 1973-1979 and was thus ex-officio member of the UP Board of Regents. He was appointed regular member of the Board on 24 August 2000. This appointment was regularly renewed until 30 September 2010. He chaired among others the BOR’s Committee on Legal Affairs, Committee for the Refinement of the Criteria for the Selection of the President in 2004, and the Committee on the Development of the UP North Science and Technology Park.

Regent Sarmiento will be sorely missed by the UP community."

The Facebook page of the Alpha Phi Beta fraternity of the University of the Philippines said the following of Regent Sarmiento, one of their most distinguished fraternity brothers: "Lord Chancellor Emeritus Abraham "Abe" F. Sarmiento, Alpha Phi Beta' 41, LC'48, University of the Philippines Regent, former Supreme Court Justice, Father, Brother, Alphan true and through, You will be missed, Brod."

We are embedding below the following picture of Regent Sarmiento as a U.P. student which was reproduced from the Facebook page of the Alpha Phi Beta fraternity:

(To enlarge the picture, just click on it. Source: http://www.facebook.com/alphaphibeta.org#!/photo.php?pid=5210614&fbid=448949222560&id=74718922560)

U.P. Diliman Sociology Professor Sarah Raymundo is finally granted tenure by the U.P. Board of Regents, ending two years of waiting

U.P. Diliman Professor Sarah Raymundo 

(Source: http://tenureforsarahraymundo.blogspot.com/)

The University of the Philippines (U.P.) Board of Regents (BOR) voted today by a vote of 5 in favor, 2 against and one abstention, granting U.P. Diliman Sociology Professor Sarah Raymundo tenure, ending two years of waiting for the professor, when her department initially recommended her for tenure in February of 2008, and whose latest appeal, dated January 15, 2010 finally reached the BOR. Professor Raymundo's case has gained widespread sympathy, both inside U.P. and internationally.

BOR Chairman Emmanuel Y. Angeles, who was present in the meeting, did not vote. The new Student Regent, Cori Alessa Co, who took her oath of office today, and  replaced outgoing Student Regent Charisse Bañez was able to vote; thus restoring student representation to the BOR, as Ms. Bañez was disallowed by the U.P. Administration from voting ever since December 18, 2009 (See Diliman Diary, February 25, 2010: http://tinyurl.com/36gxb9b)

The Diliman Diary observed Regent Abraham Sarmiento and Regent Nelia Gonzales exiting Quezon Hall in U.P. Diliman after the meeting. The total number of regents present in the May 27, 2010 BOR meeting were nine (9) regents, including  U.P. President Emerlinda Roman and BOR Chairman Emmanuel Angeles. There are eleven (11) regents in the BOR. However, Regent Francis Chua left before the voting began, while Rep. Cynthia Villar, representing the House of Representatives sent in a written vote, and Senator Mar Roxas, representing the Senate, did not attend or send in any vote at all.

(Faculty Regent Taguiwalo. Source: 

Facebook page of Laban PGH Movement)

The basis of the BOR decision was a motion made last January 29, 2010 by Faculty Regent Taguiwalo which was tagged by her to the Diliman Diary and which we are reproducing below in full:

"On the appeal for tenure of Prof. Sarah Raymundo

Judy M. Taguiwalo
Faculty Regent
January 29, 2010

As the Faculty Regent my mandate is to represent the faculty, both tenured and untenured, of the University at the Board of Regents.

Prof. Raymundo’s appeal has ramifications vis a vis the parameters of the right of tenured faculty to make judgment on tenure application and the right of untenured faculty members to expect fairness and justice in the tenure process and decisions. In studying the appeal for tenure of Prof. Sarah Raymundo, I am guided by the existing policies approved by the University at various levels and previous decisions made by the Board.

According to the document "Shaping Our Institutional Future: A Statement on Faculty Tenure, Rank and Promotion" (OVPAA, 2004), there are two rights at stake in considering appeals regarding the non-award of tenure, to wit, "the right of tenured colleagues to make a qualitative judgment on the candidate's performance and record and the right of temporary faculty to expect fairness, both in the process by which the tenure decision is reached and in the substance of that decision. The appeal procedure should take into account both these rights." The same document states that the consideration of tenure should be made "solely on academic grounds" and that the use of any other criteria may lead to a "violation of academic freedom" (I.F.4.a).

The UP Diliman University Council in December 15, 2008 upheld the right of all untenured faculty to be informed upon employment of the criteria for their evaluation and to be evaluated on the basis of these criteria. The UPD UC also spelled out the elements of transparency in the tenure process.

The primacy of academic standards as basis for the grant of tenure is affirmed by the Board of Regents’ decision on the case of Lorraine Carlos Salazar. In the BOR meeting of January 27, 2005 the Board reviewed the case of Prof. Salazar and decided that:

Taking note of the department’s definition of collegiality as explained by Prof Noel Morada, Department Chair, in his letter to President Nemenzo, the Board asked about the weight given to collegiality vis-à-vis Prof. Salazar’s academic credentials (e.g. PhD, international publications). The Board was not satisfied with the department’s argument that the best, though, implicit, measure of collegiality is the confidence vote of two-thirds of the tenured faculty. Since the basis of the vote is not explained in the letter, the Board could only conclude that collegiality outweighed academic credentials. The Board maintained that academic credentials should not be ignored.

Why should the BOR intervene on this matter?

As a young UP faculty member, Prof. Raymundo has spent the past nine years serving the university well and has worked hard to fulfill all the requirements for tenure . The justification provided by the Department of Sociology in April 2008 recognizes Prof. Raymundo’s academic qualifications and in fact, the Department approved her promotion from Assistant Professor 1 to Assistant Professor 2 in June 2008.

After initially providing strong justification for the recommendation to grant tenure to Prof. Raymundo, the majority of the tenured faculty of the Department of Sociology then decided to deny the grant of tenure without providing any reason. In a past case, the BOR had overruled a similar refusal by the Political Science department to grant tenure because the Board deemed the reason given (in that case "lack of collegiality") unacceptable as basis for withholding tenure to one who is otherwise duly qualified. If the BOR can pass upon the acceptability of a reason given to withhold tenure, it must pass upon the unacceptability of no reason being given for a similar act. Otherwise, the BOR is telling departments that the way to avoid BOR oversight and intervention is to simply decide without any declared reason. This gives permission for departments to become whimsical and arbitrary in their decisions on the grant of tenure to faculty.

In pursuit of the appeals process, Prof. Raymundo appeals to the University President who denies her appeal by simply asking the department to vote again and to treat the negative vote result as basis for denying the appeal, again without seeking to determine the substantive reasons for the vote. If the appeal process does nothing to determine and weigh the substantive basis for the action being appealed and instead simply repeats the action, for what purpose do we have an appeals process? Is it merely to torture the affected party with the repetition of the act being appealed?

I am thus requesting my colleagues in the Board of Regents to support the following:

• Declare as a matter of policy that the absence of any reason to deny tenure from a temporary faculty who has otherwise met the declared requirements for tenure is not an acceptable exercise of departmental autonomy that should be uncritically respected.

• Given the lack of any substantive reason declared to deny tenure in this case from the original process as well as from the appeals process and given that Prof. Raymundo met the requirements for tenure, grant the appeal for tenure of Prof. Raymundo."

However, Faculty Regent Taguiwalo told the Diliman Diary that dissenting members of the Sociology Department are expected to file a motion for reconsideration to the BOR pleading that Professor Raymundo not be granted tenure. The next meeting of the BOR is scheduled for June 2, 2010.

Outgoing Student Regent Charisse B. Bañez

(Source: Facebook page of Laban PGH Movement)

The new Student Regent Cori Alessa Co

takes her oath of office before Regent

Sarmiento, President Roman and her mother.

 (Source: Faculty Regent  Taguiwalo)

U.P. Medical Alumni Society on the PGH Director controversy to the U.P. Board of Regents: "Wake up and Smell the coffee."

In what perhaps amounts to one of the strongest messages sent yet to the University of the Philippines (U.P.) Board of Regents (BOR), the University of the Philippines Medical Alumni Society (UPMAS) is asking the BOR to wake up and smell the coffee on the growing public clamor to review and reverse its decision to remove Dr. Jose C. Gonzales as the Director of the Philippine General Hospital (PGH) and to resolve the issue speedily; in the interest of service to the public, including some 500,000 estimated indigent patients who seek treatment at PGH every year.

The Diliman Diary is posting below the actual verbatim statement of UPMAS including the embedded scans of the message (embedded above and below):

University of the Philippines Medical Alumni Society

Message of Concern for the Attention of the Board of Regents of the University of the Philippines from the Board of Directors of the UP Medical Alumni Society (UPMAS)

I. We, the Officers and members of the UP Medical Alumni Society (UPMAS) having carefully studied the circumstances surrounding the election of the Director of the Philippine General Hospital issue this Message of Concern for the following reasons:

A. The effective implementation of the programs of the Philippine General Hospital has been seriously compromised.

B. The confusion generated by the series of questionable election processes carried out by the Board of Regents, since its meeting on December 18, 2009 has not only divided the UP-PGH community, it has hampered the delivery of quality care to the patients as well as the excellent education and training in PGH that have been committed to the students and trainees in all the health professions, now enrolled in UP Manila.

C. The divisiveness that has since prevailed in the hospital community as well as in UP Manila, has created an unhealthy work environment that has caused serious demoralization among all sectors in the Philippine General Hospital, as well as the entire campus.

II. Our study and careful review of the events since December 18, 2009 that has generated for us the above reasons to issue this Message of Concern leads us now to call on the Board of Regents to rectify its actions and reverse its decision of Feb 25, 2010. In doing so, it will clearly show to all sectors of the University and the rest of the country that it truly upholds what the University holds dear: the dignity and self-respect of any individual and this individual's right to due process of the law.

• We therefore support calls on the University officials to expedite the resolution of the PGH Directorship issue, in a manner that is speedy and just.

III. We are concerned that the inconsistency in the manner by which the Board of Regents has conducted the election of the Director of the Philippine General Hospital this year has put the integrity of the selection process for PGH Director in serious question. In three years' time we will face another PGH Directorship selection process. We do not want a similarly contentious situation to arise which would again polarize the UP-PGH-UPCM and the entire UP Manila community.

• We support calls for a thorough review of all UP BOR processes to ensure that they are in compliance with existing policies of the University and the country.
• We support calls for the Board of regents (BOR) to clarify and observe the policies governing the selection of the PGH Director now, and uphold these in the future.
• We support calls for the BOR to follow the prescribed mechanisms for choosing the Director of the PGH regardless of personalities and pressures from within or outside the University.
• We support demands for increased transparency in all the transactions of the BOR.
• We support calls on the BOR to be more participatory, and to truly reflect the sentiments and aspirations of the various sectors of the UP community, who are represented in the BOR, consistent with the University's ideal of excellence and honorable service to the nation.
• Above all, we would like to continually expect that the BOR express, in all its decisions and actions, what the University holds dear, which is, the recognition and respect of an individual's right to his dignity as a human being and his right to due process.

We, the 2010 Officers and Members of the Board of directors of UPMAS, along with UPCM Alumni, the entire UP Manila - especially the Philippine General Hospital community, are confident that a positive outcome will emerge from this unfortunate situation. We enjoin everyone to continue rendering the superior service Filipinos expect and deserve. We enjoin everyone that as they move forward and continue to be highly competent and compassionate physicians, to also be vigilant, having learned from the lessons gained from this experience.

Signed:

The 2010 Members of the Board of Directors of UPMAS

(Editors note: To se the actual signatories of this Message of Concern, please click on the third and fourth embedded scans below):

"SHUT UP, THAT'S WHY!!!" U.P. and PGH Administration moves to silence mounting PGH Faculty, Staff discontent vs. removal of PGH Director Dr. Jose Gonzales

By Chanda Shahani

The University of the Philippines (U.P.) Administration and the U.P. Philippine General Hospital (PGH) Administration are now moving to silence the PGH Faculty and Staff regarding the removal as PGH Director of Dr. Jose Gonzales by the Board of Regents (BOR) by limiting their ability to strike and assemble; but the list of discontented doctors just keeps on growing anyway.

But ominously, the recent actions of the both the U.P. Administration and the PGH Administration towards the common faculty members of the PGH and the U.P. College of Medicine (UPCM) appear to be guided and best summed up by the West African proverb which advises a warrior approaching a wild, raging dangerous animal in the African bush to "Speak softly, but carry a Big Stick."

And what a Big Stick is now being wielded by U.P. and PGH against the equivalent of a raging beast which are hundreds of angry PGH doctors and medical personnel who oppose the removal of Dr. Gonzales and his replacement with Dr. Enrique Domingo. The threat of the loss of job security may be on the line for these doctors - who have gone on mass leave of absence to protest the removal of Dr. Gonzales - as well as  the use of state-sanctioned violence and intimidation through the use of PGH security guards to limit the doctors' right to assemble - may also be in the offing.

Here's what we know so far about the U.P. Administration and the U.P. PGH Administration's official pronouncements:

• On March 29, 2010 the U.P. Administration posted an announcement on its own website that was billed as a joint statement from PGH and UPCM (http://www.up.edu.ph/features.php?i=196) stating that: "Consistent with the University’s policy of respecting our constituents’ right to express their views, the reported leave of absence will be properly evaluated and approved upon submission, subject to existing University rules and regulations." This statement means that the U.P. Administration has the right to disapprove any LOAs and to impose sanctions for pesonnel who embark on unapproved leaves of absence.
• On March 31, right before the start of the Holy Week celebrations, Dr. Domingo issued a memo, Memorandum 2010-44 addressed to all department and unit heads, Memorandum Circular No. 6 of 1987 of the Civil ServiceCommission "which reminds all concerned of the prohibition for government officials and employees from staging strikes demonstrations, mass leaves walk-outs and other forms of mass action which will result in temporary stoppage or disruption of public service." However, while the concerned Memorandum Circular No. 6 prohibits government employees from effectively engaging in a strike by staging a mass walk-out, a mass leave is nothing but the sum total of several individuals filing their formal leaves of absence. As of March 31, 92 doctors had already signified their intention to go on mass LOA in the near future.
• On March 29, 2010 Dr. Domingo issued Memorandum 2010-39 which stated that "The Flag Raising Ceremony is a solemn activity honoring our flag and country at the start of every working week. To avoid any disrespect to the Philippine flag all programs following the flag raising are hereby suspended until further notice. The flag shall be raised every Monday at 6:00 am with full honor guard by the UP Manila Security Office and all those present at that time are invited to witness and attend." Since flag ceremonies in all government institutions, including U.P. are usually held at 8:00 a.m., this move is widely seen by observers as a tactic by Dr. Domingo to circumvent the kind of mass gathering that could take place at a later time when more doctors and medical personnel are around. The presence of armed security guards at that hour also ensures that all other programs remain suspended and creates a "chilling effect" against mass gatherings protesting the removal of Dr. Gonzales.

Dr. Domingo's and the U.P. Administration's tactics could be driving a bigger wedge between themselves and the UPCM faculty some of whom are also PGH medical staff and doctors. Memorandum Circular No. 6 of 1987 of the Civil ServiceCommission specifies the preferred alternative to a mass walkout or work stoppage in any given scenario is a series of dialogues between the bureaucratic administration and employees. In the case of the U.P. and PGH Administration and their colleagues in the faculty and the PGH, there have been none so far ever since Dr. Gonzales was removed by a new vote in the BOR, the legitimacy of which is openly being questioned, due to some regents having expired papers when they voted.

The U.P. Administration and the BOR has failed to intelligently explain to its own faculty and the public why Dr. Gonzales, who is more senior and experienced than Dr. Domingo was removed and replaced by Dr. Domingo beyond the legal arguments being peddled by the U.P. Legal Office. The majority of the faculty of the UPCM have voted to retain Dr. Gonzales and are insisting that their Academic Freedom be respected. But Dr. Domingo's administration seems determined to pursue a mailed fist policy against his own colleagues, including the cutting off of the electricity to Dr. Gonzales's office despite the U.P. Administration's unwillingness to to credibly answer questions about the legitimate right to vote of several regents who voted to remove Dr. Gonzales and replace him with Dr. Domingo when they had expired papers during those periods of time (See Diliman Diary, March 23, 2010: http://diliman-diary.blogspot.com/2010/03/success-diliman-diary-finally-gets.html).

Mu Sigma Phi Fraternity asked to join Phi Kappa Mu Fraternity in mass LOA to help UP-PGH

Meantime, Dr.  Iggy Agbayani, one of the organizers of the LABAN UPPGH Movement wrote today in his Facebook account that there was no correlation between the calls to protest the removal of Dr. Gonzales and the fact that Dr. Domingo was a member of the Mu Sigma Phi Fraternity. The only other medical fraternity in UPCM is the Phi Kappa Mu Fraternity.

He said therre were "those who have created a fake fraternity war between the Phi Kappa Mu and the Mu Sigma Phi fraternity to keep members of the Mu Sigma Phi from joining the protest activities against the oppressive and undemocratic governance of President Roman and BOR. Even if it is clear that no member of the BOR nor Roman herself is a member of the Mu Sigma Phi this mindset of Phi vs Mu abounds.”

“During the short period of Dr. Gonzales' directorship he even appointed five members of the Mu Sigma Phi to be chairmen of the various PGH Departments because he believes that what is good for PGH transcends the rivalry of fraternities. There exists a strong rivalry between these two organizations but I think the excuse of not joining a cause to help PGH because of affiliation or friendship has long expired.”

“Even rivals can agree and see if real oppression has been done or when true democracy has been thwarted. I know that my many friends and colleagues in the Mu Sigma Phi are just as passionate and as keen to fight what is wrong and to bring back what is right. In this spirit I would like to call on the Mu doctors and faculty of PGH and even the students and alumni of my rival fraternity to join our protest. Signify your intention to join the mass LOA before it is too late. Sumama na kayo sa Laban para sa UP-PGH upang Ibalik ang Tama.”

(Chanda Shahani is the Editor of the Diliman Diary. He finished A.B. Comparative Literature from U.P. Diliman)

Sources:

1) The embedded video is from: http://www.youtube.com/

2) Picture of the Oblation at the U.P. College of Medicine is reproduced with permission: http://www.flickr.com/photos/ggermar/4174819993/)

Quezon Hall keeps its lips zipped all week on U.P. regents Malacañang appointments - But on the seventh day, the Diliman Diary is told: write a letter of request

The University of the Philippines (U.P.) Administration continues to neither confirm nor deny that Malacañang has appointed the three (3) regents with expired appointments before the March 10, 2010 constitutional ban on such appointments by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo kicked in despite a Diliman Diary story confirming that these appointments had indeed taken place.

As of the afternoon of March 22, 2010 or seven (7) working days after March 11, 2010 when the Diliman Diary had originally  confirmed over the telephone with the Office of the Executive Secretary that President Arroyo had reappointed Regents Francis Chua, Nelia Gonzales and Abraham Sarmiento to fresh terms of office, the staff of the Office of the University Secretary refused to even confirm or deny anything on the telephone, apparently in response to a Diliman Diary interpretative story dated March 19, 2010 saying that the terms of office of several of the regents had potential problems (http://diliman-diary.blogspot.com/2010/03/have-they-all-gone-underground-or-what_19.html).

"Write a letter of request," were the extremely delayed instructions given to the Diliman Diary on the seventh day, and only after six days of calling up to find out any developments in view of the great interest by our readers on the topic.

The Diliman Diary has corespondingly written a letter of request which we have also sent via registered mail as well as scanned (please see embedded scan above) and emailed to the Facebook account of University Secretary Dr. Lourdes Abadingo (please see embedded scan below). Under new international standards, a Facebook message sent to a recipient may be considered the electronic equivalent of sending a letter and having it received (http://www.switched.com/2008/12/17/aussie-couple-get-legally-served-via-facebook-lose-house/).

The Diliman Diary is hoping that the U.P. Administration will keep the public interest in mind and exercise due transparency in acknowledging the appointments by providing copies of the documents despite the potentially problematic nature of its contents as documented by the Diliman Diary in several of its stories. The tax-paying public deserves nothing less.

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).

Correction regarding the Student Regent

February 26, 2010 - This is to correct a previous dispatch of the Diliman Diary made on February 25, 2010 which stated in part that: "However, the Office of the Student Regent, located in Vinzon's Hall, U.P. Diliman confirmed that (Student Regent Charisse) Bañez's application for an injunction with prayer for issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction and TRO (temporary restraining order) was denied. She therefore attended today's BOR (Board of Regents)  meeting as an observer, and not as a full voting regent."

The Diliman Diary received an email today from the University of the Philippines (U.P.) Alumni Regent, Alfredo E. Pascual, which said in part that: "As you may know by now, the incumbent Student Regent was not allowed to participate as a voting member nor sit in as an observer at yesterday’s meeting of the BOR. We will now have to wait for the court to rule on the status of the SR based on the case she filed. While a TRO was denied, I understand the main case is still subject to adjudication."

The Diliman Diary's previous dispatch was based on Student Regent Charisse Bañez's February 22, 2010 application for an injunction with prayer for issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order (TRO), filed with the Quezon City Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch # 215; restraining the University of the Philippines (U.P.) Board of Regents (BOR) from approving and implementing a draft BOR resolution seeking Banez's disbarment as a voting Regent, wherein she stated that she had been invited on February 14, 2010 by the Secretary of the University, Dr. Lourdes Abadingo, to sit in the February 25, 2010 BOR meeting as an observer. However, this has been superseded by events, as per the email clarification of the Alumni Regent, Alfredo E. Pascual.

The Diliman Diary regrets the error.