Under the watchful eyes of sectors with numerous and contending interests, the 14th Congress’ bicameral conference committee met last January 28 to finalize the bill that would become the new Charter of the University of the Philippines (UP).

From UP President Emerlinda Roman to the members of the University-wide Democratization Movement 3 (UP WIDEM 3), various people lobbied for their vastly differing notions of an ideal UP Charter. One fact, however, did not have to be debated: the existing UP charter needed to be replaced.

Antiquated charter
The UP charter was written in 1908, when the newly founded UP consisted of a single campus in Manila. The university was “organized as a corporation,” following the pattern of the American educational system. Then, its highest governing body — the Board of Regents (BOR) — answered only to the American governor-general (see sidebar 1).

The charter has been amended several times since then, with the inclusion of a Faculty and a Student regent in the BOR as UP expanded to seven constituent units. The BOR, however, retained a voting bloc of Malacañang appointees, along with the power to implement policies in line with the government’s Long Term Higher Education Development Plan. The LTHEDP urges state universities and colleges to become “self-reliant” and less dependent on state subsidy.

Such policies include an increase in tuition and other fees (TOFI), and the collaboration of UP with Ayala Land Inc. to build a business process outsourcing site along Commonwealth Avenue.

These were met with strong opposition from sectors of the UP community which began to question, not only the actions of the BOR, but its very existence. According to UP WIDEM, “The BOR is the continuing testament of UP’s colonial past, where only a few privileged members decide on the policy direction of the UP.”

Such events highlight the necessity for a new charter to guide the future policies and actions of UP.

Legal maneuverings
The movement for a modern charter began in 1982, with the formation of a commission to review and revise the 1908 Charter. In the late 1980s, UP WIDEM was founded, composed of representatives of academic personnel, administrative staff, and students. Today’s UP-WIDEM 3 is the organization’s second revival.

Efforts to replace the existing charter spanned the terms of five UP Presidents. During the 11th Congress, neither the House of Representatives (HOR) nor the Senate managed to approve a charter bill.

The 12th Congress’ HOR passed a bill on the UP Charter, while Senator Francis Pangilinan sponsored a similar bill in the Senate.

The bill, however, was drafted under UP President Francisco Nemenzo without consulting major UP constituencies. The UP community remained unaware until then-Sen. John Osmeña publicly denounced and stalled the charter bill, calling the attention of sectors in UP which immediately mobilized in protest. The Senate would adjourn without the Pangilinan bill ever reaching a vote.

During the 13th Congress, UP WIDEM 2 drafted an alternative to the Nemenzo charter, which was passed by the HOR. However, a bicameral conference committee approved the Senate version, a revival of the Pangilinan Bill and supported by UP Pres. Emerlinda Roman. Due to quorum problems, Congress adjourned without ratifying the bicameral version.

The legal process began again with the 14th Congress. UP WIDEM 3 lobbied enough support in the HOR to pass House Bill 2845, a “watered-down” version of their original bill. In the senate, meanwhile, the 13th Congress Pangilinan bill was again revived and passed.

The two versions were supposedly “reconciled” in a bicameral session, yet the final UP Charter Act draws most of its provisions from the Pangilinan bill. Student Regent Terry Ridon called it “the single most pressing threat to the fundamental character of our university.”

Autocratic authorities
Indeed, the Pangilinan Bill contains provisions criticized by UP WIDEM 3 for reaffirming the undemocratic nature of the BOR. UP WIDEM itself called for “consultation and collective decision-making,” replacing the BOR with the UP System Assembly (UPSA). The UPSA would consist of at least 28 people, with representatives from various sectors and all UP constituent units.

Roman opposed the proposal, stating that the UPSA would threaten UP’s “academic hierarchy,” and would be “costly to implement.” Eventually, the UPSA was changed to “consultative assemblies,” which would make official but nonbinding recommendations to the BOR.

Still, Roman objected. “We have unions,” she said, opining that not only were consultative assemblies an impediment to BOR autonomy, they were also redundant, because sectors voice out their opinions to the BOR despite the absence of a formal forum.

In reality, however, the lack of democratic representation allows an imbalance of power within the BOR. Last year, the student and faculty regent — representatives of the university’s largest sectors — opposed TOFI. Yet they were outvoted by the rest of the BOR.

More recently, UP WIDEM 3, led by the two largest unions of UP — the All-UP Workers Union and the All-UP Academic Union — pointed out seven major provisions (see sidebar 2) to be included in the bicameral version. Only two made it to the final UP Charter Act. The proposal for consultative assemblies was not one of them.

“The business of education”
Further revealing her disassociation from the interests of the UP community, Roman lauded the new charter for giving UP “flexibility” to generate revenues on its own. She declared, “We are in the business of education.”

This blatantly reaffirms what the change of UP from a “state” to a “national” university indicates — the deterioration, according to UP WIDEM 3, of “UP’s character as a state-funded tertiary institution.”

Despite the decrease in Malacañang appointees and the addition of a staff regent, the composition of BOR remains undemocratic, with no real multi-sectoral representation. Yet the new charter vests the BOR with almost limitless powers to generate funds. Barring outright sale, the BOR can legalize long-term leases and joint ventures between UP and private corporations. Following the logic of “self-reliance,” the new charter also institutionalizes an independent, third-person body in charge of advising the university in the management and investment of UP funds.

While Ridon calls it a “charter of commercialization,” Congress and Roman tout it as a victory.

Yet, after a century of waiting and over two decades of effort, what UP has “won” is a charter that puts academic hierarchy above democratic governance, a charter that sanctions state abandonment by patently encouraging the university to become “self-sufficient.” Thus, with the signing of the UP Charter Act into law, the struggle for a more democratic and accessible university does not end, but is passed on to a new generation.# Philippine Collegian

<< back to home

The foreign grass is not always greener.

Hoping for a better future abroad, medical board exam topnotcher Elmer Jacinto left his homeland to work as a nurse in the United States.

Upon arriving in New York, however, Jacinto discovered that his contract was breached by the Sentosa Recruitment Agency (SRA). He was assigned to a different nursing facility and did not receive the agreed salary of 21 to 35 dollars an hour. Aside from being underpaid, he was also required to attend to 35 patients round the clock-- a far cry from the agreed ratio of six patients per nurse.

Thus, Jacinto, along with nine other Filipino nurses, resigned from their work at the Avalon Gardens in Long Island, a nursing facility for terminally-ill children and disabled persons. A few weeks after their resignation, they were indicted by Sentosa Care LLC and its owner Brent Philipson, for conspiracy and gross neclect of duty. The nurses now face criminal charges for “patient endangerment,” and subsequently, a possible one year detention, cancellation of nursing license and deportation.

Prior to their resignation, the Avalon nurses, together with 17 other Fiipinos from other Sentosa-owned facilities, filed discrimination charges against Philipson for unfair labor practices. Atty. Felix Vinluan, the nurses’ lawyer, denied Philipson’s allegations saying that the nurses “finished their shifts before submitting their resignation letters.” The filed criminal charges, Vinluan adds, is Philipson’s retaliation against the nurses for filing the now-dismissed discrimination complaints.

Meanwhile, the Avalon nurses’ trial was moved from January 28 to March 10. According to Maita Santiago, secretary general of migrant workers alliance Migrante International, these are delaying tactics by Sentosa to “demoralize the nurses.” Migrante also expressed concern over the alleged intervention of US Senator Charles Schummer in the nurses’ case. Schummer, said to be allied with Philipson, earlier wrote letters to President Arroyo that led to the lifting of the suspension order against SRA.

Fifty-fifty
While the government is espousing the myth of a better life abroad, particularly in the United States, health workers actually face discrimination and unfair labor conditions in other countries. The Health Alliance for Democracy (HEAD), an alliance of health professionals, estimates that 85 percent of employed Filipino nurses are working outside of the country, making the Philippines the top exporter of health workers.

The massive exportation of human labor started in 1974 when President Ferdinand Marcos revised the Labor Code and created the Overseas Employment Development Board to address rising unemployment rates, seek dollars for the ballooning foreign debt, and suppress the rising social unrest. Through state exactions (see sidebar 1) and remittances (see sidebar 2), dollar reserves were provided for debt servicing. Currently, up to 50 percent of the national budget is used for the debt service burden.

Amidst this backdrop, the Marcos regime became heavily dependent on foreign aid and OFW remittances to prop up the economy. Although the Migrant Workers and Overseas Act of 1995 states that “the State does not promote overseas employment as a means to sustain economic growth and achieve national development,” succeeding administrations also adhered to a labor export policy (LEP), making the government the “biggest recruitment agency” in the country. The $15 billion OFW contributions in 2007 already comprise 9.8 percent of the GDP, accounting for what Gloria Arroyo called a “strong economy.”

Since health workers constitute a huge percent in the total OFW population and receive relatively higher wages, they constitute at least 30 percent of OFW remittances since 2004, making them the biggest source of remittances.

Although the Migrant Workers and Overseas Act of 1995 states that “the State does not promote overseas employment as a means to sustain economic growth and achieve national development,” current trends testify to the rampant emigration of Filipino health workers in order to compensate the weakening and dependent economy of the Philippines.

Systematic syndrome
HEAD Deputy Secretary General Dr. Geneve Rivera says “First world countries have old populations and so the demand for nurses and caregivers are understandably high.” In Japan’s case, only a few enter the nursing profession since it is “physically and emotionally draining,” Rivera adds. People from developed countries also tend to gear towards the establishment of businesses instead of joining the service sector.

Thus, the role of the Philippines is to satisfy the demand for service workers, including nurses. In the international division of labor, the Philippines provide the global market with cheap labor by exporting skilled and semi-skilled workers. Santiago says that under the “scheme of the neoliberal globalization... there is a design to keep the Philippines underdeveloped and backward because it will always be a source of cheap labor.”

The very structure of our labor department promotes cheap labor export since five of its agencies focus on overseas employment (see sidebar 3). Rivera says that “there is a need to have [various] agencies to handle the burden of overseas employment work.” Such agencies function to regulate the workforce to be exported. The Technical Education and Skills Development Authority, for instance, regularly releases a Labor Market Intelligence Report, indicating the type of workers needed by particular countries.

Deteriorating Conditions
Meanwhile, in the domestic scene, 200 hospitals have already closed down since 2003 and eight hundred have partially closed due to shortage of health employees. The nurse-to-patient ratio in provincial and district hospitals now stands between 1:40-1:60 as opposed to the ideal international standard of 1:4.

Despite domestic shortage, the government remains preoccupied with satisfying global demand. According to Rivera, the Commission on Higher Education reduced its standards for the creation of learning centers, which triggered the mushrooming of nursing schools. “If you have a dean, a faculty, an infrastructure, and fifteen enrollees, you can already apply for a permit to operate,” she said.

However, Santiago says the exportation of cheap human labor itself is a faulty scheme. “The LEP doesn’t and will never develop the country to attain what Arroyo says as the First World status. It is never going to fundamentally improve the long term conditions of the people.”

Despite the economy’s instability, it is the workers who are responsible for sustaining it this long. Yet, instead of upholding their rights, the government perpetuates the eschewed labor policy. So long as the conditions remain the same, the nation’s brightest will be lured abroad only to experience further exploitation. # Philippine Collegian

References:
Philippine Legislators’ Committee on Population and Development Foundation, Inc. From Brain Drain to National Hemorrhage: A Primer on the Migration of Health Workers. January 2007.

<< back to home