The Triumph of Malice

Rare are the occasions when a community’s sense of outrage is fully captured by a single document such as the one reprinted here with the author’s consent. The struggle for self-respect of academics in UP has a long history and it is one that has been characterized by far too many setbacks, perhaps even some betrayals and, in the present instance, by the momentary triumph not simply of mindless mischief but, quite possibly, of relentless malice.

This columnist believes that a document of this sort needs to be part of the public record, not merely as archival material one might access if one had a computer and an internet account but as a testimonial readily available to a wider public, those who read newspapers. Even as it is formally described as "A Report to the UP Community and Alumni" by UP President Francisco Nemenzo, the nation no less ought to be this report’s wider audience.

After all, much like the UP and perhaps for much longer than this community of hard-pressed scholars, the nation has also suffered malicious treatment from the hands of those who claim to be its guardians and ruling authorities.

(Since the material is fairly long and cannot be accommodated in a single column, only its first part is reproduced here with the concluding part to follow next Tuesday, March 2, 2004.)

The Triumph of Malice A Report to the UP Community and Alumni By Francisco Nemenzo President, University of the Philippines

When the Senate adjourned last February 6, we saw eight months of intensive lobbying for a new UP Charter gone to waste. It was not the opposition of a loud minority that brought this about, but the masterful filibustering of a single senator and the ineffectual Senate leadership. Politicking of the most despicable type shelved what could have been the legislature’s singular gift to the University of the Philippines. Malice triumphed over reason.

Senate Bill 2587 – an act amending the Charter of the University of the Philippines – was the culmination of over a decade of efforts by successive UP administrations to introduce long-overdue revisions to the UP Charter. The initial consultations started near the end of the term of President Abueva. President Javier continued the process. I merely inherited the bill my predecessor had drafted and submitted to both houses of Congress. SB 2587 is substantively the bill drafted by the committee of President Javier, minus the provisions that provoked much controversy during the consultations, such as my proposal for a University Senate.

Our Charter, framed in 1908, is badly in need of an overhaul to recognize our status as a national university–distinguished from the 110 other state universities and colleges by the level and quality of our teaching and research–and accord us the level of support a national university deserves. I specified these revisions and the reasons behind them in an earlier document, "A Charter for Our Times," a copy of which you can still read on our website at www.up.edu.ph.

Improving our capabilities

The most significant provision of SB 2587 exempts UP from the Salary Standardization Law (SSL), which inhibits UP from using its earnings and savings to improve the salaries of faculty and employees. Our inability to do so has resulted in the exodus of many of our best and brightest people, and in demoralization among those left behind. We sought tax exemptions for imports of materials we need for teaching and research, and greater institutional autonomy to enhance our ability to compete with the best universities in the region.

SB 2587 also aimed to improve University governance by providing for a Staff Regent and for a better selection process for appointive members of the Board of Regents.

An earlier and similar form of the bill had passed the House of Representatives unanimously, and we had every good reason to expect that it would – with some minor amendments – pass the Senate as well. Senator Francis Pangilinan, the bill’s chief sponsor, took pains to conduct many consultations with the UP community and with his fellow senators to ensure that all points of view were represented and considered.

We received resounding support for the bill not only from our own constituents, but also from UP alumni here and abroad. The bill was certified as urgent by the Administration. Some questions were raised by some students and senators about our plans to make commercial use of our assets for our needs, but we answered these questions squarely.

Today, however, I must inform you that our campaign to get SB 2587 passed has, in this particular Congress, failed. The Senate adjourned its session without passing the bill or even bringing it to a vote, and we gravely doubt if it will be taken up again when the Senate meets briefly to canvass votes after the May 10 elections.

I say this with great sadness, as I had hoped that a new UP Charter would have been one of my administration’s worthiest legacies to the University. But I must also express my anger and dismay over the cavalier manner by which our bill was doomed to die on the Senate floor, largely on account of one senator’s utterly unreasonable objections and demands.

Between June 2003 and February 2004, UP’s chancellors, vice presidents, other University officials, and I dutifully attended the Senate sessions, ready to assist Senator Pangilinan in fielding questions on UP’s programs and plans. These sessions started in mid-afternoon and often went into the evenings, without any absolute assurance that our bill would be taken up.

At every interpellation, we performed well, providing the needed answers and prepared to cooperate with the Senate in crafting more mutually acceptable provisions without compromising our fundamental positions. We made reasonable concessions, introducing more safeguards against any possible abuse or misuse of power by the Board of Regents, but we held our ground on our designation as a national university, because this was our premise for requiring more support from government.

Publicly and privately, senators from both the administration and opposition parties expressed their support for the bill. We had the votes, to put it plainly, without even having to presume or to depend solely on the allegiance of the nine UP alumni among the senators.

One man’s intransigence

But Senator Pangilinan’s efforts to move the bill forward were conssistently thwarted by Senator John Osmeña, who would either suddenly disappear when it was his turn to interpellate, or otherwise make demands and claims so outrageous that it took every ounce of forbearance on the part of our University officials to suffer them in the hope that our bill would pass, regardless.

John Osmeña claimed, for example, that UP had become a rich man’s school, catering only to the needs of Metro Manila. This is an old canard easily disproved by all the facts–which we presented, but which the senator blithely dismissed.

But this was the least of our worries. John Osmeña reserved his worst diatribes for my person, privately calling me a communist, blaming my relatives in Cebu for his political misfortunes, and vowing to make UP pay for "demonizing" him during the bases debate more than a decade ago. Once, he informed UP officials that only my immediate resignation from the UP presidency could secure his support for the Charter bill. When he realized that I was resolved to serve UP to the end of my term, he proceeded to do his best to achieve the same end and to maim SB 2587 in the process by demanding, for example, that the UP President’s age be limited to 65. Over a period of almost eight months, he maintained this peevish and puerile posture, managing to delay substantive discussion of our Charter to the end.

I relish intellectual debate, and am used to the insults of the ignorant and the desperate. But this is not an argument between John Osmeña and myself. This is not even an argument, but petty tyranny at its worst, with brute political power prevailing over any possibility of reason. It is patently unjust to hold the future of the country’s leading university hostage over some personal differences, no matter how deep they may be. I would have no hesitation leaving office for the right reasons–but humoring John Osmeña is hardly one of them. I have a university to lead, to manage, and to defend–and I will do so to the end of my lawful term to the best of my ability.