Commentary: U.P. union members stage 2nd solidarity lunch at Quezon Hall in protest vs. discriminatory policies on benefits

(To enlarge the pictures, just click on them)

(Editor's note: The following is statement issued regarding the 2nd protest  lunch held at Quezon Hall, U.P. Diliman on October 15, 2010 in protest vs. discriminatory policies on benefits that were granted but no released to U.P. Employees. The protest was attended by U.P. union members, faculty, students, REPS and staff members. To read about the first protest lunch last October 12, 2010 please click on: http://diliman-diary.blogspot.com/2010/10/up-unions-stage-working-lunch-protest.html. The statement is from the Facebook page of U.P. Diliman Sociology Professor Sarah Raymundo. Pictures are from the Facebook page of Professor Raymundo and the Facebook page of the All U.P. Workers Union)


October 15, 2010

Sa pamumuno ng All U.P. Workers Union, naglunsad ng protesta ang mga unyonistang kawani, mananaliksik at guro ng UP upang wakasan ang diskriminasyon sa rank and file na empleyado ng Unibersidad. Dala-dala rin ng mga unyonista ang nakaambang pagsasara ng University Food Service, ang pagkakait ng pondo rito na dudulo sa pagsasara nito.

Dala ng komersalisasyon ang marketisadong relasyon ng mga miyembro ng komunidad ng UP. Kung ano ang halaga mo ayon sa merkado na siyang dinidikta ng lohika ng marketisasyon, yun din ang magiging estado mo sa unibersidad. Hindi kumikita ang UFS, pwes, isara. Serbisyo, hindi kita! Nakangangang tinitingala pa rin ng iba diyan ang paghihiwalay ng mental at manual labor-- anong petsa na, uy? hilig-hilig niyong sabihin ang mga katagang "towards the new millennium," UP in the 21st century, kuning-kuning, tapos ganyan kayo, discrimination lang di niyo matanggal sa balat niyo. ganyan ba ang liberal? naku ha.

Sa hanay ng mga unyonistang kawani, reps at guro, nananatiling buhay ang sama-samang pagkilos sa gitna ng nililikhang marketisadong relasyon ng mga polisiya ng UP. Hanggang sa muli...

Wakasan ang Diskrimasyon!

Tantanan ang Komersyalisasyon!

Ipagtanggol ang University Food Service!

PS: Sa solidarity message ni Prop Rodriguez, guro ng DFPP at gurong CONTEND, ipinahayag niya ang suporta ng aming organisasyon sa mga empleyado ng University Food Service at ang aming pagtutol sa pagsasara nito. Empleyado ng UFS ang nanay ni Omeng. Ayon sa kanya, alam niya ang hirap ng magpaaral ng isang empleyado sa UP, dahil siya mismo ang produkto ng pag-aaral at ng buhay na yun. Lumaki siya kasama ang mga kapatid sa UP Campus. Ilan sa kanila nakapag-aral sa UP dahil sa paglilingkod ng kanilang ina sa UFS. Noong isang araw, matagumpay na nakapagdepensa ng disertasyon si Omeng para sa kanyang doktoradong programa. Masaya ako at ang CONTEND para kay Omeng dahil hindi lamang niya iyon personal na tagumpay. Ang kwento ni Omeng bilang akademikong makabayan ay isa sa mga paborito kong kwento ng TAGUMPAY ng pampublikong serbisyo di lamang ng UP kundi ng gobyerno. Mali ang anumang dahilan na burahin ang ganyang naratibo't posibilidad sa ating Unibersidad.

U.P. PGH Crisis Deepens with resignation of Associate Dean of the U.P. College of Medicine and Planned Mass LOA of UPCM Faculty over the issue of Academic Freedom

By Chanda Shahani

The Associate Dean for Planning and Research of the University of the Philippines College of Medicine (UPCM), Dr. Abundio A. Balgos, has resigned.

The resignation, which took effect last March 23, 2010 was done “in protest of the death of academic freedom and BOR tyranny. President Roman and her BOR cronies hav been downplaying d U.P. Manila PGH protests re student regent and PGH Director (Jose) Gonzales ... After my resignation as UPCM associate dean to protest the death of academic freedom and BOR tyranny, 50 more UPCM faculty are sumbitting mass leave of absence on Monday (March 29, 2010) during the PGH flag ceremony protest rally to b joined by fac(ulty), students and all U.P. Workers Union,” Dr. Balgos said in a message posted in the website, U.P. Issues (http://upissues.wordpress.com//).

The UPCM Faculty are protesting the decision by the U.P. Board of Regents (BOR) to disregard their academic freedom as faculty which they formally expressed in a resolution of the College Council last March 2, 2010. In that resolution they said that the appointment of Dr. Jose C. Gonzales as Director of the Philippine General Hospital from January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2012 should be respected by the very same BOR that selected him on December 18, 2009 and then removed him on February 25, 2010.

The Diliman Diary has extensively covered the intricate politics and the background behind the arbitrary removal of Dr. Gonzales by the BOR (please see Diliman Diary, March 22, 2010 (http://diliman-diary.blogspot.com/2010/03/alternative-copy1.html). The issue at hand that is being strongly emphasized by the UPCM Faculty, however is that the BOR, which is currently dominated by allies of U.P. President Emerlinda Roman should respect the academic freedom of the majority of the UPCM Faculty to determine that Dr. Gonzales, who is regarded as being more senior and experienced than his replacement, Dr. Enrique Domingo, complete his term of office.

Is President Roman contradicting President Roman?

For President Roman, the essential contradiction is that by tolerating the use of legal manuevers by U.P.'s legal department to justify the removal of Dr. Gonzales by the BOR, she is essentially riding roughshod over the UPCM faculty's much-cherished academic freedom to employ its collective judgement and expertise in determining that Dr. Gonzales should serve out his full term as PGH Director because of his performance and qualifications.

The resignation of Dr. Balgos as Associate Dean, and the planned mass leave of absence by such a large number of UPCM Faculty is seen by observers as a combined vote of confidence for Dr. Gonzales, and a vote of no-confidence in the BOR's decision to replace Dr. Gonzales with Dr. Domingo.

President Roman has said in the past that the BOR should not get involved in matters involving the academic freedom and expertise of a particular subset of faculty belonging to a particular discipline. For example, in a December 18, 2009 letter she wrote to U.P. Diliman Sociology Professor Sarah Raymundo denying her appeal to overturn the decision of U.P. Diliman Chancellor Sergio Cao denying her tenure, Roman said that:

“Our tradition in the university of upholding and maintaining sacrosanct departmental autonomy do not allow us – rightly – to make a decision simply on the basis of the number of people supporting a particular proposition.”

“Upholding the autonomy of the Department of Sociology in its determination that Professor Raymundo should not be granted tenure is vital to maintaining the institutional autonomy guaranted under the U.P. Charter. This is also what the Department and the CEB (College Executive Board) have been insisting throughout the entire process."

"The implication of asking the President and the Board of Regents, at every turn, to substitute their judgement for that of members of the faculty of a department, unit, college or university is fraught with danger as it may transform a purely academic function into a political exercise.”  (http://tenureforsarahraymundo.blogspot.com/)

Other points in the UPCM College Council resolution

Other points in the UPCM College Council resolution commenting further about Dr. Gonzales said that:

• He had already taken his oath of office as Director of Philippine General Hospital, University of the Philippines Manila before the BOR Chair on December 21, 2009 and before the UP Manila Chancellor on January 7, 2010;
• Served as PGH director and has performed responsibly since January 4, 2010 with honor , integrity and transparency;
• Under Civil Service Laws, Dr. Jose Gonzales can only be removed as PGH Director for due cause;
• His removal as PGH Director is unjust and arbitrary, he should therefore continue to perform his duties and functions as Director of PGH.

The Final Reality in the PGH case: the U.P. BOR also enjoys its own Academic Freedom

But no matter how vocal protests become against the decision to remove Dr. Gonzales, the Diliman Diary has concluded that the U.P. System still holds one trump card over the UPCM Faculty - the U.P. System's institutional academic freedom outweighs Dr. Gonzales' legal complaint against being unjustly removed - or at least that's how the courts see it.

The Diliman Diary's legal consultant, Atty. Noel C. Ducusin has analyzed the issue of how academic freedom always benefits the institution over the individual litigant in a court of law, no matter what the circumstances are. This means that a case in courts regarding Dr. Gonzales' tenure may have difficulty in succeeding if the U.P. Administration invokes its institutional academic freedom. In court cases, judges routinely defer to the U.P. Board of Regents' presumed expertise in academic matters. The U.S. case of the Garcia v. Faculty Admissions Committee which has been extensively referred to in Philippine jurisprudence, summarizes this reflexive bias in this manner:

"There is, as previously noted, the recognition in the Constitution of institutions of higher learning enjoying academic freedom ...  Justice Frankfurter, with his extensive background in legal education as a former Professor of the Harvard Law school, referred to what he called the business of a university and the four essential freedoms in the following language: "It is the business of a university to provide that atmosphere which is most conducive to speculation, experiment and creation. It is an atmosphere in which there prevail "the four essential freedoms" of a university - to determine for itself on academic grounds who may teach, what may be taught, how it shall be taught, and who may be admitted to study." (Garcia v. Faculty Admissions Committee, 68 SCRA 277, G.R. No. L-407779, November 28, 1975).

The irony here is that because it is Dr. Gonzales who has filed an individual suit - and not the majority of UPCM faculty who have filed a class action suit - then the U.P. BOR has the luxury of preempting the UPCM's academic freedom argument by invoking its own institutional academic freedom in its defense against charges of unjust treatment of Dr. Gonzales. The U.P. Administration can easily say that it has the necessary expertise to determine who may teach , assuming for the sake of discussion that PGH is not just a hospital but is also a learning environment for UPCM students and that the court should defer to its institutional expertise on the matter. Based on Attorney Ducusin's extensive study of Philippine jurisprudence, the courts will, in all probability, defer to the academic institution's arguments.

OP-ED: Rolando Tolentino: Hindi magiging mabuti ang kasaysayan

Ni Rolando Tolentino

Hindi magiging mabuti ang kasaysayan.

Hindi naman ito usaping personal. Mabuting makitungo si Emerlinda Roman, pangulo ng Unibersidad ng Pilipinas. Makwento ito, at kahit paulit-ulit ang kwento sa iba’t ibang pagkakataon, buhay na buhay pa rin ang kwento. Noong Chancellor pa ito ng UP Diliman, decisive ito kapag may itinanong o hiniling ang unit.

Kaya nakakalungkot isipin na ang sentenaryong pangulo ng UP, ang unang babaeng pangulo nito, ay hindi paborableng huhusgahan ng kasaysayan. Hindi kakatwa na sa dulo ng termino nito bumulwak ang mga isyu, pawang pahiwatig sa kalidad o kawalan nito ng demokratikong governance sa unibersidad.

Dati rati pa nga ay kasama si Roman sa pagtutol sa CPDP (Commonwealth Property Development Plan) ng nauna nang presidente Emil Javier. Gayon naman pala, ang pinakamalaking proyekto ng pribatisasyon, ang UP-Ayalaland Technohub ay maisasakatuparan sa termino ni Roman sa mismong sityo ng CPDP.

Ang walang dangal na pagpataw ng 300 porsyentong pagtaas ng matrikula ay naganap din sa watch ni Roman. Sa isang desisyong itinago sa mga nagproprotestang komunidad, naetsapwera ni Roman ang dakilang misyon ng UP na bigyan ng pinakakalidad na tertiaryong edukasyon ang pinaka-deserving at mahihirap na estudyante.

Dagdag pa sa tiwaling pamamalakad ni Roman, ang malawakang subkontraktuwalisasyon ng mga serbisyo, pagpasok ng unibersidad sa mga kwestiyonableng kasunduan sa pribadong entidad, pagpapalakad ng Board of Regents, ang pinakamataas na policy-making body ng UP, na expired na ang termino ng tatlong Malacanang appointees, at matapos madiskubre ito, nang walang konsultasyon sa kanyang constituency, nirekomendang magkaroon ng full term pa ang mga ito.

Dahil sa sistematikong kawalan ng konsultasyon ni Roman, bumuyanyang ang bigat ng kanyang plano’t aksyon. Tinanggal ang rehente ng mga estudyante, tinanggal ang nahirang nang direktor ng Philippine General Hospital (PGH), inuluklok muli ang Chancellor ng UP Mindanao nang hindi tinutugunan ang mga komento ng Commission ng Audit hinggil sa inagurasyon nito, at iba pa.

Marami nang presidente ang UP. Marami ang makasaysayang pamumuno dahil sa ginawang Filipinisasyon ng unibersidad at sa termino ni S.P. Lopez, ang demokratikong konsultasyon na nauwi sa pagproprotekta nito sa mga lumahok sa Diliman Commune laban sa militar ni Marcos.

Ang di-demokratikong pamamalakad ni Roman ay sarili niyang kagagawan. Sinasabi niyang maliit na pumpon ng nagproprotesta lamang ang nasa Quezon Hall. Tunay na ngang nasa ivory tower si Roman. Wala na itong interes na makinig, itinatatwa na niya ang radikal na tradisyon ng unibersidad na naghirang sa kanya bilang sentenaryong pangulo.

At hindi ito kataka-taka para sa “reyna ng komersyalisasyon.” Pinindeho ni Roman ang kasaysayan ng UP sa poder ng negosyo at reaksyonaryong estado. Hindi hiwalay ang kinikilos ni Roman sa neoliberalismo at fasismo ni Gloria Arroyo, ang napagtagumpayan niyang i-bypass dahil nakakolekta ng bilang ng boto si Roman mula sa mga rehenteng niluklok ni Arroyo.

Hindi naman pala sila magkaiba. Magkahalintulad ang kanilang bisyon sa isang sitwasyon limitado ang resources at may engrandeng bisyon na maging globally competitive ang kanilang pinaghaharian: papasukin ang negosyo, supilin ang demokratikong proseso, buwagin ang natitirang espasyo ng demokratikong karapatan. Ang resulta ay ang pamamayani ng kultura ng impunity.

Walang takot sa parusa si Roman o si Arroyo, walang remorse sa pinaggagagawa kahit natitiyak na natitinag din ito sa ilang beses na paghiyaw na “Roman resign!” ng mga nagproprotesta. Sino ang hindi? Dagdag pa ito sa kanyang makasaysayang panunungkulan: sentenaryong presidente, unang babaeng pangulo, at unang pinanawagan magbitiw na sa panunungkulan?

Na pati ang fasistang Chancellor ng UP Los Banos ay nahawahan na ng kulturang ito, walang takot na naghahari at nananakot sa kanyang kampus? Pati ang iba pang hinirang ni Roman na maging reservoir ng kapangyarihan niya, kasama na ang midnight appointments ng tatlong rehente ng Malacanang, ay namamayagpag sa kanilang kingdom come.

Tulad ni Arroyo, si Roman ay hindi rin natatakot maparusahan, hindi rin bibitiw sa kapangyarihan, kaya ang kasaysayan ang huhusga sa kanila. At tulad ng mga linya sa puntod, dito nakahimlay ang empire ni Roman, magarang monumento pero mabilis na naaagnas na, tulad ng maraming naghari nang may pag-iimbot, naglilingkod sa makauring interes ng negosyo at gobyerno.

Nabigwasan na ng progresibong kilusan sa unibersidad ang akala ay toreng pinagtitirikan ng kapangyarihan ng empire ni Roman. Mula sa kanyang posisyon, di na lamang alapaap ng sariling kapangyarihan ang natatanaw. Nasira na ang view ng mga graffiti at nagproprotestang komunidad.

(Prof. Rolando Tolentino is Chair of CONTEND-UP (Congress of Teachers and Educators for Nationalism and Democracy); and a Faculty member of the UP Film Institute)

(Source: http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=377938957884&id=649247642&ref=nf)

(Graphic courtesy of Karl Castro and CONTEND-UP)

(Photos by Mykel Andrada)

OP-ED: The Day After the Disrupted March 24 U.P. Board of Regents Meeting - An Apology - of sorts

Editor's Note: the following apology and the embedded video and graphic above were posted (author unknown) in a Facebook site entitled, a Public Apology from the U.P. Community (http://www.facebook.com/publicapology#!/publicapology?v=app_2347471856). To get the side of the U.P. Administration which is posted on the U.P. System website, please click on: http://up.edu.ph/features.php?i=195

A Public Apology from the UP Community Regarding the Events of March 24, 2010

We are from the University of the Philippines (UP), and on behalf of our dear Board of Regents (BOR), especially the esteemed President Emerlinda Roman, we apologize. Contrary to what the whole nation witnessed on March 24, 2010, not all members of the University are rude, uncouth and disrespectful.

Contrary to what the whole nation witnessed on March 24, 2010, there are some of us who still believe in defending our constitutional rights, in democratic governance, in a leader's polite and steadfast service to her constitutents.

We are sorry that our BOR has acted with such vulgarity as to sow disillusionment, disgust and disunity within the University. We are sorry that this kind of confrontational violence has had to happen, but the actions of the UP administration have left us no choice. It is our greatest shame that UP, the "National University," has set the chilling trend among state universities of railroading unjust tuition increases through the blatant disregard of democratic principles. No carefully-worded statement, no polite dialogue, no humble request has been heeded by President Roman and her colleagues. Instead, they have chosen to rudely disenfranchise the UP community, including its sectoral regents, in order to have their way with the University's policies, leadership and overall thrust. These are embarrassing actions which are highly unbecoming of an Iskolar ng Bayan, and on their behalf, we apologize.

We apologize further for the apathy of those in our ranks who seem to be more concerned with civil gestures rather than the welfare of the people. We are sorry that this culture of misplaced priorities has been allowed to spread among the community, no thanks to President Roman being in the vanguard of such an obscene mindset. We do not apologize, however, for our militant actions; again, we wish to emphasize that the inconsiderate leadership of the Roman administration has left us with no other choice but to confront it head-on.

We are sorry to have sullied a national architectural treasure like Juan Nakpil's Quezon Hall, but the damage is not something a coat of paint and a good scrubbing cannot remedy. The damage President Roman and the BOR have caused to the University, to education, and to the people, however, cannot be so easily repaired. For that, we are truly sorry.

Former U.P. PGH Executive Director Robustly defends Financial Record, while 2008 COA Report reveals more details

By Chanda Shahani

The administration of former University of the Philippines (U.P.) Philippine General Hospital (PGH) Executive Director Dr. Carmelo A. Alfiler which began in January 2004 and ended in December 2009 was able to turn over a budget surplus to its sucessor, despite numerous problems, Dr. Alfiler said in a statement uploaded in March 5, 2010 on the website of the University of the Philippines at: http://www.up.edu.ph/

But Dr. Alfiler's remarks, and the entire contents of U.P.'s website, which are all uploaded by the Office of the Vice President for Public Affairs, Dr. Cristina Pantoja-Hidalgo, who reports to U.P. President Emerlinda Roman, continue to remain silent on other important issues regarding PGH raised by the Commission on Audit (COA) in its 2008 Consolidated Audited Annual (CAAR) report of the entire U.P. System (http://www.coa.gov.ph/) , which includes PGH, and was transmitted to President Roman in a cover letter by COA Director Villaflor S. Fernandez and received on September 23, 2009 by President Roman's office.

“As a result of the problems, PGH was compelled to secure a Resructuring Agreement with Meralco on September 12, 2007 to cover the period October 2006 – December 2009. It must be emphasized that since January 2004, PGH never had any disconnection; on the contrary, Meralco prioritized resumption of power to PGH in cases of wide outages due to whatever cause,” Dr. Alfiler said.

“Our administration has endorsed sufficient funds for hospital operations in 2010 to the next administration. Together with the projected 2010 Internal Operating Budget (IOB) of some PhP2,000,000,000, the new PGH leadership is assured of a very sound financial status at the start of the 2010-2012 term,” he added.

(To see more details of Dr. Alfiler's official clarificationn, please click on: http://tinyurl.com/yzbma4y)

However, Dr. Alfiler's statement uploaded on U.P.'s website, and therefore, a component part of the U.P. Administration's official position on PGH, did not cover other critical issues pointed out by COA which arose during his term of office, and are documented by the 2008 CAAR. Neither does the U.P. website even refer to the commercial contract signed on June 18, 2009 between U.P. President Emerlinda R. Roman and Dr. Edwin Mercado, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Daniel Mercado Medical Center (DMMC) for the UP PGH Faculty Medical Arts Building Project witnessed by Director Alfiler and UP Regents Abraham Sarmiento, Nelia Gonzalez and UP Manila Chancellor Ramon Arcadio.

The deal between U.P. and DMMC agrees to allow DMMC to private portions of U.P. PGH after the Department of Justice opposed the deal, saying it was contrary to law in a legal opinion (See Diliman Diary, March 3, 2010). The Manila Chapter of the All-U.P. Worker's Union and other groups have submitted the official DOJ position to COA for analysis and investigation but no findings have yet been released by COA and the 2009 CAAR has not yet been released.
DISAPPROVED OR DISALLOWED PHILHEALTH CLAIMS REACH PhP 8.7 MILLION

The 2008 CAAR criticized the U.P. PGH for losses in revenues amounting to P 8.7 million for disapproved/disallowed Philhealth hospital claims from CY 2004 up to May 2008 due to insufficient compliance of Philhealth documentary and timeline requirements, as well as erroneous data provided by the patients.

Citing Rule VII of the Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations of the National Health Insurance (NHI) Act of 1995, COA said that Philhealth may deny or reduce any benefit when the claims are attended by any of the following circumstances: over- utilization and under-utilization of services; unnecessary diagnostic and therapeutic procedures and intervention; irrational medication and prescriptions; fraud; gross unjustified deviations from currently accepted standards of practice and/or treatment protocols; inappropriate referral practices; use of fake adulterated or misbranded pharmaceuticals, or unregistered drugs; or use of drugs other than those recognized in the latest Philippine National Drug Formulary (PNDF) and those for which exemptions were granted by the Board.

The 2008 COA Report said that a verification of the PGH’s Accounts Receivable from Philhealth showed a balance of P29,374,556.92 from CY 2004 up to May 2008 and that, 30 percent or P8,714,571.64 were disallowed/disapproved claims due to the inability of PGH's Billing Section to comply with pertinent Philhealth policies. This prevented the hospital from recovering the full cost of medical services rendered.

COA CRITIQUES PGH'S PHILHEALTH CLAIM PROCEDURES BUT PGH ANSWERS BACK

COA recommended that UP PGH revisit its existing procedures on Philhealth claims to minimize receivables in particular:

• Request for reconsideration for those cases wherein the hospital was aggrieved by Philhealth decision/disallowance;
• Send bill with demand letters regularly to patients with denied claims due to erroneous information provided for, or those who have exceeded the allowable claim limits;
• Coordinate with Philhealth for the establishment of an on-line system wherein the Hospital could verify member patients’ confinement records;
• Require the Billing section to strictly observe and comply with all the requirements of Philhealth in filing hospital claims including the deadline set for filing and appeals to ensure full recovery of the claimed reimbursements; and
• Require the Accounting Division to up-date the subsidiary ledgers for Philhealth claims.

The Administration of Dr. Alfiler replied to COA, as documented in the 2008 CAAR report that:

• They will review the reported figure of P8,714,571.64.
• Management is only dependent on the information provided by patients and doctors. The doctors are constantly reminded of Philhealth guidelines. For the patients, the difficulty occurs when they rush their forms shortly before discharge.
• Concerning incomplete documentation, these are likely with respect to patients who file their claims directly to Philhealth and NOT through the hospital. PGH is unable to countercheck the supporting documents which will only be required if the Member’s Data Record (MDR) from Philhealth has not been retrieved. Claims are carefully reviewed if the required documents are complete before such are accepted by the accounting department. So the PGH staff gets surprised when claims are returned by Philippine Health Insurance Commission with a note for incomplete documents. Because the PGH staff claims otherwise, they have begun putting an inventory checklist per claim so that PHIC is aware of the submitted documents that may be lost while in their possession. If a refiling needs to be done, patients are informed of this requirement, but oftentimes the patient does not supply the necessary documents. Efforts by PGH's Philhealth assessors are documented.
• Many patients overlook, either intentionally or unintentionally, a previously filed claim. PGH's accounting office has no way of verifying recent claims that have been partially or fully consumed.
• PGH has previously proposed an on-line system to help hospitals check on the status of patients’ Philhealth, but PHIC has been so far unable to grant the request.
• As for medicines not listed in the PNDF, PGH staff is always being reminded agasint prescribing such drugs.
• The data of disapproved/disallowed claims are a mix of reimbursements of patients with fully paid bills and charity patient claims. Currently, the hospital is making all efforts to communicate with the concerned claimants. A request was previously transmitted to Philhealth regarding this matter, which response, as “they will see what they can do”. Henec, we shall send another formal request regarding the issue. This is doable for Philhealth claims beginning 2004.
• Patients who filed their claims directly to Philhealth are not included in the receivables of the Hospital from PHIC.

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).

UP College of Medicine Alumni write President Roman on Student Regent Charisse B. Bañez's eligibility to vote for UP PGH Executive Director selection and other issues

The Diliman Diary is posting below a copy of an email sent to U.P. President Emerlinda R. Roman on Sunday, January 31, 2010 by Dr. Silverio Cabellon, Jr., Chairman of The University of the Philippines Medical Alumni Society of America (UPMASA) on the issue of the eligibility of the U.P. Student Regent Charisse B. Bañez to vote last December 18, 2009 in the U.P. Board of Regents meeting and subsequent BOR meetings thereafter.

Copies of this email were also furnished by Dr. Cabellon to the Diliman Diary, Senator Mar Roxas, Alumni Regent Fred Pascual, Faculty Regent Judy Taguiwalo, and Student Regent Charisse B. Bañez, among others.

To highlight or even dramatize the importance of the presence of the Student Regent in the affairs of the U.P. Board of Regents, we are also embedding below a video from http://www.youtube.com made in 2009:



THE LETTER TO PRESIDENT ROMAN DATED JANUARY 31, 2010


Honorable Emerlinda R. Roman
President
University of the Philippines

Dear President Roman,

May I share the following observations regarding the "Statement on the Status of the Student Regent published in the University of the Philippines Website dated Friday, January 29, 2010. http://www.up.edu.ph/features.php?i=171

I believe that Ms. Charisse Bernadine Bañez is qualified and is the bonafide Student Regent at this time. Her leave of absence status still needs to be determined. Before I put forth my argument that her leave status needs still to be determined may I observe that there are two sentences in the "Status Statement" that are inconsistent. These statements are:

Statement 1 - "No application for leave of absence was actually filed by Ms. Banez, pursuant to University rules.

Statement 2 - "On 21 January 2010, the Dean of the UPLB CAS wrote to the lawyer of Ms. Banez disapproving the application for LOA of Ms. Banez because:

• it was filed well beyond the period for such applications, which ended on November 17, 2009;
• it was not accompanied by the approval of her adviser or parents, nor by clearance from her College;
• the reason for LOA was not clear nor adequately explained. "

The second statement is inconsistent with the first statement because if there is no application for a leave of absence how can the Dean of the UPLB CAS write the lawyer of Ms. Banez disapproving an "application". Is there or is there no "application". We need a clarification on this point.

Say that there was an application filed after the 17th of November, what rule or policy of the University promulgates that such a leave of absence should be filed strictly on or before the 17th of November. To stick to a 17th of November deadline is contrary to the statement in the website states and I quote"

"Article IX, section 7 provides for grounds to consider the position of SR-elect or the incumbent SR vacant, to wit:

• permanent disqualification from the university;
• incapacity to enroll or file an LOA the following semester;
• death, illness or any other cause which prevents him/her from discharging functions.

The "following semester" is still extant because on the current UP academic calendar the "following semester" ends March 2010. Student Regent Banez has all the time to file a leave of absence until March 2010 and does not have to meet a 17th of November deadline.

On the statement that "it was not accompanied by the approval of her adviser or parents, nor by clearance from her College; " Article 400 of the University of the Philippines Code (2006) states that "Leave of absence shall be applied in writing. The application, indicating the reason for the leave and the period which must not exceed one academic year, shall be presented to the faculty member concerned for appropriate action and shall be subject to approval by the Dean. The Dean shall notify the University Registrar and the parents or guardian of every student granted leave of absence.

There was no need to present it to a faculty member as she was not attending classes and it is the Dean who needs to approve or disapprove it.

There is no requirement per Article 400 that the student regent's request for a leave of absence be accompanied by the approval of her adviser or parents, nor by clearance from her College. The requirement is "The Dean shall notify the University Registrar and the parents or guardian of every student granted leave of absence." according to Article 400 of the University Code.

As to the issue of reason for leave, let me cite the obvious reason why she needs to go on a leave of absence. They are found in Codified Rules for Student Regent Selection

"ARTICLE IX. General Provisions

Section 1. The Student Regent-select must resign from any position of responsibility in any student or community organization and/or student council and student publication.


Section 2. The Student Regent-select must not be permanently disqualified from the University. However, the Student Regent-select is advised to file a leave of absence (LOA) to devote his/her time in the fulfillment of his/her duties and responsibilities.

The above considerations, for the sake of fairness, need to be considered in determining the status of the student regent.

Therefore her leave of absence status still needs to be determined and that she is the bona fide occupant of the position of Student Regent of the University of the Philippines.


Yours Respectfully ,


Silverio Cabellon, Jr., M.D.
Class 72A, UP College of Medicine
Chair, Board of Governors
UPMASA

U.P. President Roman appoints Philippine General Hospital OIC Director amidst BOR voting controversy

By Chanda Shahani

The President of the University of the Philippines, Emerlinda Roman, is facing pressure from several quarters to rescind a January 5, 2010 memorandum she issued effectively reversing a Board of Regents (BOR) decision approving the appointment of Dr. Jose C. Gonzales who was elected the new Director of the Philippine General Hospital (PGH) over the incumbent director, Dr. Carmelo Alifiler, who was going for a third term.

According to Faculty Regent Judy Taguiwalo, Gonzales received 6 votes while Dr. Alfiler, who has already served two terms, received 5 votes. The BOR met during its regular meeting on December 18, 2009 at Quezon Hall, U.P. Diliman.

Sources informed the Diliman Diary that one of the key issues considered was whether to extend the term of Dr. Alfiler, as University policy limits the appointment of directors, deans and chancellors to a maximum of two consecutive 3-year terms, except in highly exceptional cases. But the majority of regents, numbering 6, did not think there was a basis for considering an exception for the incumbent and Dr. Gonzales got the majority of the vote.

Regent Abraham Sarmiento, a former Supreme Court justice, who did not vote for Dr. Gonzales voiced a protest and questioned the election because the Student Regent, Ms. Charisse B. Bañez who voted for Dr. Gonzales was not enrolled at the time, putting into question her status as a regent as well as her right to vote. Bañez admitted she was not enrolled at the time of voting, on December 18 and registration ended mid November.

Sarmiento, who protested Bañez' vote for Dr. Gonzales at the tail-end of the December 18 meeting nevertheless participated and voted in the entire proceedings of the BOR, according to reliable sources. It has not been confirmed by the Diliman Diary if Sarmiento has also questioned Bañez's eligibility to vote on the other issues deliberated upon by the BOR on December 18, or is only challenging her right to vote in favour of Dr. Gonzales.

In a January 10, 2010 email to Mina Datoc, a member of the Board of Governors of The University of the Philippines Medical Alumni Society of America, Roman sided with Regent Sarmiento's stand that Bañez ceases to be a regent if she fails to enroll. The next possible period for enrollment for Bañez, a U.P. Los Baños student, will be during summer enrollment. Additionally, Roman claimed in her email that U.P. BOR Chairman Emmanuel Y. Angeles (who voted for Gonzales) asked her to withold the appointment of Dr. Gonzales as U.P. PGH Director. Roman issued Memorandum No. PERR-2010-001, dated January 5, 2010, appointing Chancellor Ramon L. Arcadio as Officer-in-Charge of PGH.

In her email to Datoc, Roman said  that, "I was ready to issue the appointment of JoeGon (Dr. Gonzales) on January 4, the first working day of the year. The Chairman of the Board (who incidentally voted for him) asked that I withhold the issuance of the appointment and also asked that Mon Arcadio (Dr. Mon Arcadio, Chancellor of U.P. Manila) be designated as OIC. This I did. But a day later after the Chairman and I talked, together with Mon and Dean Bert Roxas (Dr. Alberto B. Roxas, Dean of the U.P. College of Medicine), we decided to issue his appointment. We also agreed that JoeGon be formally informed about the protest. JoeGon knew about the protest even as early as after the December Board meeting. Mon informed him about the protest. The Board will discuss this matter during our January meeting."

"The protest from the complaining regent has been received and this will be taken up. The issue is not about one's qualifications. It is about a regent and her status."

Here is what happened next, according to Faculty Regent Judy Taguiwalo, who wrote in the blog of the All U.P. Workers Union (http://aupwu.blogspot.com/) that all of this happened despite the fact that on January 4, the University Secretary, Dr. Lourdes Abadingo, issued the announcement of new BOR appointments which included Dr. Gonzales' designation as PGH Director. Taguiwalo wrote that UP Manila Chancellor Ramon Arcadio then informed Dr. Gonzales and the appointed Dean of the College of Dentistry, Dr. Vicente O. Medina III, that they wouldl be sworn into office on the afternoon of January 4:

• Another text message from the Chancellor soon followed informing Dr. Gonzales that "President Roman is calling for an urgent meet tomoro, Jan 4. Ur oath taking is postponsed for Tue, Jan. 5 at 2 pm."
  
• Around noontime on January 5, President Roman issued a memo, her first memo for 2010 with the subject "Appointment of Officer-in Charge of the Philippine General" supposedly on the basis of a letter of protest from Regent Sarmiento.

An official statement signed by three of the regents, Faculty Regent Judy M. Taguiwalo, Staff Regent Clodualdo “Buboy” Cabrera and Student Regent Charisse Bernadine Bañez stated that although one regent “has expressed his intention to protest the election of Dr. Gonzales. The presence of such protest, however, cannot overturn the decision already made by the BOR. By refusing to implement a duly approved decision of the BOR, President Roman has prejudged by herself alone an issue that should also be decided by the BOR as a body at its regular meeting. She has no legal or practical justification to withhold implementation of a BOR decision as the term of the previous PGH Director has already expired.”

“We regard President Roman’s January 5 memorandum refusing to implement a BOR decision to appoint Dr. Gonzales as PGH Director as a very dangerous precedent. Here is one individual member of the Board, by the mere issuance of a memorandum, exercising a power that effectively frustrates the implementation of a duly authorized decision by the BOR.”

“We should not allow such autocratic actions to be exercised without resistance. We call for the immediate withdrawal of said memorandum and for the recognition of Dr. Jose C. Gonzales as the duly elected PGH Director starting January 1, 2010.”

Roman's memo is unfortunate, because “it is to everyone's interest that PGH is run independently of political interests,” said William H.E. Romero, M.D. in an email to the Diliman Diary. Romero, a U.P. graduate (B.S. Zoology 1977, Medicine 1981) who practices medicine in the United States, authored an online petition, The INSTALL DR. JOSE GONZALES NOW! Petition to ALL FILIPINOS (http://www.petitiononline.com/JOEGON72/petition.html) that was formed by U.P. College of Medicine Alumni and PGH personnel, asked Roman “to protect the welfare of its underpaid and overworked personnel and strengthen the education of our future doctors, by immediately implementing the decision of the Board of Regents to appoint Dr. Jose C. Gonzales as the new PGH Director and rescind the above mentioned memorandum.”

The petition says that given the fact that Regent Sarmiento protested the eligibility of Student Regent Bañez to vote after voting had already taken place on December 18 and at the very end of the meeting; and that Bañez's eligibility to vote had already been discussed prior to voting, but that she was allowed to vote anyway; that Sarmiento's protest, formalized through an official letter dated December 23, 2009 was scheduled to be taken up in the next BOR meeting scheduled on January 29 in Los Baños; Roman's memo “unilaterally decided the outcome of the protest of a single Regent, before this protest could be acted upon by the full Board”

“The question is why is Dr. Gonzales being removed even before the protest of Regent Sarmiento is discussed in the next BOR meeting?” Romero asked the Diliman Diary.

The petition also points out that before the vote, the eligibility of the Student Regent, Ms. Charisse B. Bañez, to vote on Dr. Gonzales' appointment was deliberated by the Board in her absence and the decision was to allow her to vote. “This very issue is being protested by Regent Abraham Sarmiento, after the fact,” said the petition.

Roman's decision comes at the heels of another controversial decision involving Roman at U.P. Diliman where U.P. Diliman Sociology Professor Sarah Raymundo appealed to Roman to overturn a decision by U.P. Diliman Chancelor Sergio Cao denying her tenure due to a minority protest vote (Please see Diliman Diary, December 10, 2009) despite the fact that the majority of faculty in her department had voted to grant her tenure.

Raymundo's appeal for tenure was denied by Roman in a copy of a resolution of Roman she received last January 4, 2010, according to Raymundo, writing in an update she posted on an online website, Tenure for Prof. Sarah Raymundo (http://tenureforsarahraymundo.blogspot.com/).

On January 15, 2010 Raymundo submitted an appeal to the BOR, asking them to overturn Roman's decision. There has been no decision yet by the BOR.

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