March 24, 2010
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Reference:
Vencer Crisostomo, 0917-4416739/Gerg Anrol Cahiles, 0927-3670948

PUP and UP Iskolars ng Bayan unite vs. tuition hikes
Emergency budget allocation for SUCs sought

Students from the University of the Philippines (UP) and the Polytechnic University of the Philippines (PUP) today merged their protest actions to seek emergency allocation from the government for state colleges and universities.

UP students from the Diliman, Los Banos, Baguio and Manila campuses held a rally this morning to block the UP Board of Regents from approving additional fees in the university, including a P100 hike in PE fees and P1,000 to P2,500 per unit hike in graduate classes.

The students were able to successfully block two UP regents from entering Quezon Hall resulting in a lack of quorum for the BOR meeting.

According to Rain Sindayen, Chairperson-elect of the UP Diliman University Student Council, “This is an initial victory for UP students. The main issue here is that the BOR has no right to table or vote on the proposed fees in the absence of a student representative in the BOR.” The UP BOR unjustly ousted UP Student Regent Charice Banez last month on trumped up technicalities. As a result, students have been stripped of representation in the BOR.

By lunchtime, the UP students welcomed the contingent from 21 PUP campuses nationwide in a rally in front of the Commission on Higher Education office inside the UP campus to protest the 1,700 percent tuition hike proposal in PUP.

Sindayen said, “They have done it in UP but we will not allow the passing of the absurd tuition hike in PUP. We call on all Iskolars ng Bayan to unite.” The UP BOR had already increased tuition in UP in 2006 from P300 to P1,000 per unit.

Emergency budget allocation

“We demand an emergency budget allocation for state colleges and universities to prevent these tuition increases from being implemented. Poor budget allocation for state colleges and universities has resulted in school administrations’ passing on the burden to students,” said Vencer Crisostomo, Kabataan Partylist Secretary-General.

Crisostomo said that the past ten years saw a consistent decrease in the budget allocation for SUCs in line with the state policy of privatization and commercialization of education. “The government has been gradually washing its hands off of the responsibility to subsidize public education. As a result, SUCs are resorting to income-generating schemes and commercial ventures with private entities at the expense of students,” Crisostomo said.

“UP, for instance, requested for P18 billion in the 2010 budget but was granted barely P6 billion. PUP, on the other hand, suffered another budget slash from its 2009 budget at P704 million to P661 million in 2010,” Crisostomo said.

All major SUCs, he added, have zero budgets for capital outlay which is supposed to be earmarked for their operational expenses. “To compensate for these losses, school administrations are hiking tuitions. An emergency allocation for SUCs is imperative to stop tuition hikes,” he said.

Meanwhile, almost 250 private schools have also submitted their proposal to the CHED for tuition hikes as high as 20 percent.

A nationwide protest against tuition increases is set on March 29, coinciding with the PUP BOR meeting scheduled to approve the PUP tuition hike. ###

--
Office of Rep. Raymond ‘Mong’ Palatino
Temporary Office at 3rd Floor, Main Building
House of Representatives, Batasan Complex, Quezon City

Reference:
Kabataan Party-list Rep. Mong Palatino
Mobile: 09085927099
Email: cong.mongpalatino@gmail.com

Gerg Anrol Cahiles, Media Officer
Mobile: 09273670948
 

Vandalismo, Pasintabi Column

Pinoyweekly.org
Rolando Tolentino

Ito ang tugon ng mga estudyante ng PUP at UP. Sa binabalak na 2000 porsyentong pagtaas ng matrikula sa PUP, aligaga ang administrasyon nito na pagdiinan ang naging rekurso ng mga nagproprotestang estudyante, sinunog ang mga bulok na silya. Sa UP naman, dahil ayaw bumaba ng presidente nito at ang rehenteng kaka-renew lang ang appointment ng Malacanang gayong boto nang boto kahit temporary lang ang naunang appointment nito, nagpinta ng graffiti ang nagproprotestang estudyante.

Sa “Unang Hirit,” kinapanayam ni Arnold Clavio ang estudyante nang may pasakalye, na galing din siya sa public school at alam niyang limitado ang resources nito, bakit naman nagsunog pa ng silya? Sa UP, ang administrative staff sa Quezon Hall ay bumulyaw sa estudyanteng nagpipinta ng “Gloria, Roman taksil sa pamantasan!” na wala na ngang pera ang unibersidad ay gagastos pa ito nang paglilinis.

Minsan nang ginipit ang UP Faculty Regent Judy Taguiwalo ng kanyang kahanay na guro sa University Council. Nang mag-propose ito ng resolusyon hinggil sa karahasan sa mga estudyante dini-disperse sa pagbubukas ng Toyota-GT Center ay nabaligtad ang akusasyon. Bahagi ng proposal ang pagdawit sa Chancellor ng UP Diliman dahil sa quotation ng mga opisyal ng pulis na ang Chancellor ang nagpatawag sa pulis para protektahan ang venue.

Bakit daw hinuhusgahan ni Taguiwalo at nang iba pang pumirma sa statement ang isang colleague nila? Ito raw ba ang kultura sa UP, ang magtiwala sa tagalabas at magtiwalag ng tagaloob, na hindi man lang tumawag sa Chancellor para i-verify kung tama nga ba ang pagdadawit sa kanya ng pulisya?

Ang ganitong pangangatwiran ay bahagi ng diskurso ng natitinag na burgesya. Binabaligtad ang sitwasyon, ginagawang personal sa makauring individualidad at imahinaryong komunidad sa lohika ng pangangatwiran, ang nabiktima ang nagiging mambibiktima.

Hindi kakatwa na si Clavio ay sumipi sa sariling uring pinagmulan, pero iba na ang uring identifikasyon niya ngayon. Ang staff ay mayroon nang mentalidad ng administrasyon. At ang faculty sa konseho ay nag-aastang parang di inaapi ng estado kundi ng isang kapwa nila. Ang alipin ay nag-aastang amo, dinadaot ang kahanay na uri.

At ito ang tunay na karahasan, ayon sa kritikong si Slavoj Zizek. Ang wika ng panunumbat ay hindi aktwal na tumutugon sa obhetibong karahasan. Totoong may reaksyon ang mga nagproprotestang estudyante, faculty at kawani ng SUCs (state colleges and universities). Marahas dahil hindi umaakma sa inaasahang regularisasyon ng pagtanggap: deadma lamang kundi man mabaon sa limot sa dami ng pinagkakaabalahan, o hayagang pag-aproba.

Ang hindi pagpapalampas sa di makatarungang polisiya at pamamalakad ay historikal na pangyayari. Makakalampas pero hindi pinalalampas, iginuguhit ang tunggalian, prinoprotesta ang katiwalian. Mapusok ang damdamin dahil sa mas deadma na mukha ng kapangyarihan: hindi nakikinig, dinudugyot ang may ayaw. Mukhang galit si Pangulong Dante Guevarra sa panayam ni Clavio, si Roman naman ay baka may biro pa ngang binibitawan habang tinatalakay ang insidente sa nag-iisang rehenteng nakapasok sa regents room.

Ang obhetibong karahasan ay dulot ng kawalan-konsultasyon at kultura ng impunity nina Guevarra at Roman. Nilulusot ang nais, pinagpipilitan ang magustuhan, niyuyurakan ang demokratikong proseso sa pamamagitan ng pag-iwas sa mismong mga naitaguyod na proseso, kundi man ang mapanupil na gamit sa retorika ng batas (lalo na kapag nailagay sa kamay ng mga abugado bilang representante ng makauring posisyonalidad kaysa sa paglilingkod sa komunidad) o ito ngang pagbabaligtad ng posisyonalidad.

Malaki ang apila ng indictment sa vandalismo. Nakasentro ito, kakatwa, sa konsepto ng pribadong pag-aari. May identifikasyon ang mga naantig ang damdamin na mababang uri sa gitnang uring panuntunan ng pag-aari: pribado ito (kahit pa estado ang may-ari nito), kaya hindi dapat dinudungisan o sinisira kahit pa sa tindi ng damdaming kaakibat ng mas maigting na karahasan: ang karahasan mismo nina Guevarra at Roman na yumurak naman sa orihinaryong karapatan ng mga nagproprotesta—ang karapatang makonsulta at mapakinggan.

Ang vandalismo ay tunay na “writing on the wall,” ang napipilitang lumitaw dahil sa ordinaryong pagkakataon ng estadong kapangyarihan ay binubura sa estetika ng normal at walang dungis (o bahid ng dugo) ng institusyon. Hindi ba’t ang pagtaas ng matrikula ay disenfranchisement ng malaking bilang ng mababang uring mamamayang hindi na makakapasok sa poder ng institusyong ito, at kung gayon, ang posibilidad na makaahon sa historikal na kahirapan?

Kaya ang sinumang nagnanais na maging mukha at representante ng pang-estadong kapangyarihan ay dapat maging handa sa vandalismo. Bumaba si Chancellor Rey Luis Velasco ng UP Los Banos para hamunin na tapunan siya ng paint bag. At tinatupan nga siya, at sa ulat sa balita, nanghingi siya ng paumanhin sa publiko sa inasal ng mga estudyante. Kailangan lang i-google ang pangalan nito at malaman ang mga marami at malalim na akusasyon ng estudyante sa kanyang pamamalakad sa inaakalang kaharian sa paanan ng bundok Makiling.

Hindi na nakakasapat ang protesta lamang, kailangan ng direktang aksyon tungo sa pagpapalitaw ng kontra-diskurso sa estado, lalo na sa mga representante nito sa mga institusyon, espasyo at poder sa pang-araw-araw. Mabuhay ang mga nagproprotestang estudyante, sa pagkilos na naglalantad ng krisis ng institusyon at estado. Sa isang saglit, magbibiyahe silang literal at figuratibong nabahiran ng kulay, slogan, abo at labi ng sidhi ng protesta. Na uuwi sila at babalik kinabukasan na hindi na sigurado sa inaakalang di-matitinag na posisyon.

Campus protests at PUP and UP, a portent of bigger mass unrest
Communist Party of the Philippines
March 27, 2010

The intense student protest actions at the Polytechnic University of the Philippines (PUP) and the University of the Philippines (UP) last week are a portent of bigger and more vigorous students and people's mass protest actions. The university students have once again demonstrated the need to wage militant struggle to defend their rights and advance their interests. They have inspired the Filipino people to step up mass struggles in the face of widespread poverty, hunger, unemployment and the overall deterioration of economic and social conditions.

Through their protest actions, the PUP students have succeeded in drawing national attention to their problems and in gaining a tactical victory as the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) ordered a stop to the planned tuition fee hikes not only at the PUP but also in all other state colleges and universities.

The PUP had planned an exhorbitant 2,000% increase in tuition fees for the incoming batch of students. Such a plan would have unjustly jacked up tuition fees from P12/unit to P200/unit and would have made university education in PUP less accessible to the working classes. PUP students are greatly affected by such tuition fee increases as most of them come from poor worker, peasant and semiproletarian families.

In striking against unjust tuition fee increases, the protesting students dramatically exposed the ruling regime's abandonment of state education which for years has caused the worsening conditions at PUP and other state universities and public schools. At the same time, the ruling regime has been giving free rein to the commercial interests and profit motive of private schools which have been amassing huge profits due to exhorbitant increases in tuition fees and other charges.

The intensity and vehemence of the student protests at the PUP were further precipitated by the university officials' mailed-fist policy of repression.

Student councils in all 21 PUP campuses and branches all over the country have united to gear up simultaneous protest actions to oppose the state school's tuition fee hikes. With their protest actions, the students have been able to galvanize not only the PUP studentry, but also a wider, more massive student movement and broad inter-school alliances to protest the US-Arroyo regime's contempt of the right to education of an increasing number of the youth.

Students are also up in arms against increased repression and commercialization schemes in other state schools. Students in the UP System have conducted simultaneous protest actions to oppose the suspension of the student council in Los Baños, the removal of the student representative in the UP Board of Regents and the interference of Malacañang to ensure the installation of an Arroyo-favored, pro-privatization director at the UP's Philippine General Hospital.

 

With their protest actions, the UP students, as well as teachers and other personnel, have succeeded in further building opposition to the US-Arroyo regime's creeping privatization agenda for state schools and hospitals. Through the past several years, instead of appropriately increasing government support for state schools, the ruling regime has been pushing UP and other state schools to plug its deficits through numerous privatization schemes. Government budgets for education and other social needs are sacrificed in favor of debt servicing and the military.

The outspoken and uncompromising stance of the students in their fight has won for them widespread admiration and support nationwide, to the chagrin of the US-Arroyo regime's officials.

But while the students have won some tactical battles in defense of their campus rights and the people's right to education, their struggle is far from over. University and state officials are preparing criminal charges against student leaders in hopes of dissuading more mass protests in the future. However, in doing so, they can only succeed in further stoking the students' and people's ire.

The Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) and the entire revolutionary movement salute the students of PUP and UP for their militant struggles and congratulate them for the tactical victories they have won. At the same time, the CPP enjoins the students to further build up their organizations and mobilize in greater numbers to sustain a long-drawn struggle for their democratic rights and the people's right to education and to advance the student protest movement to a new and higher level.

Students from other universities should learn and be inspired by the struggle and victories won by the students of PUP and UP. The acute socio-economic crisis is driving the working people and their children to protest the rising costs of education as well as other social services in the face of their worsening poverty. Planned tuition fee increases in the coming school year are sure to be met with more massive and intense student protest actions nationwide.

Students should also link up and join ranks with workers, urban poor, peasants, national minorities and other oppressed sectors in advancing the struggle of the working classes and the mass of the Filipino people in the face of widespread unemployment, rising costs of living, worsening poverty and hunger, rampant plunder and gross corruption, deteriorating social services and intensifying repression.

The progressive student movement performs the role of a propaganda and education movement for the Filipino people's struggle against the rotten reactionary neocolonial regime, state and ruling system. The worsening socio-economic conditions and political crises of the rotten reactionary ruling system leave the Filipino people with little choice but to press on with their militant struggle and revolution in order to advance their rights and interests, and attain national liberation and democracy.

Hindi magiging mabuti ang kasaysayan

Pasintabi Column

Pinoyweekly.org
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.
 

 AN OPEN LETTER TO THE PHILIPPINE DAILY INQUIRER
(Posted at http://dilimandiary.com)

March 15, 2010
Mr Jorge V. Aruta
Opinion Editor
Philippine Daily Inquirer
1098 Chino Roces Street
corner Mascardo Street
Makati City, Metro Manila

Dear Mr. Aruta:

The Diliman Diary (http://www.dilimandiary.com/) is a community blog that covers the Diliman area which includes the University of the Philippines, the Katipunan stretch bordering Ateneo and Miriam College, and associated communities. Despite our extremely limited number of writers, we have been doing our best to cover developments in the University of the Philippines, as we believe that it is our public duty to report to our readers how their tax remittances are being put to use by the public institutions located in their community (whether wisely or not too wisely). We also feel obligated to report all sides of an issue and to add more information when less information is in danger of distorting a holistic appreciation of the facts at hand.

In this regard, therefore, I would like to comment on the portion of the statement of Atty. Theodore Te, Vice President for Legal Affairs of the U.P. System who has posted an open letter to the Philippine Daily Inquirer, dated March 15, 2010 on the government-owned and tax-payer funded U.P. website at (http://www.up.edu.ph/features.php?i=190) where he said that:

“On the three regents whose continued stay in the BOR (U.P. Board of Regents) has been questioned by (Student Regent) Ms. (Charisse) Banez indirectly in her Complaint for Injunction, it is sufficient to say simply that two of those regents were appointed before the UP Charter took effect and so their term of office is defined by the law prevailing at that time, which prescribes that they stay in office up to two years or until replaced. For the third regent whose acting appointment was issued in September 2008, the acting appointment is for a public office with a fixed term, two years; that term ends in September 2010. The only effect of an acting appointment is that the holder of the acting appointment can be replaced at any time before the two year period. None of the three regents holding acting appointments have been replaced. By law, their continued membership in the BOR is legal and they remain fully qualified. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of Banez.”

Unofrotunately, the above statement does not go into the details, including the time line, which are important in understanding who among the once-upon-a-time regents remained regents during critical voting periods and whether they continue to exist as regents, and whether they will continue to remain as regents. For the sake of the taxpayer, this issue needs to be clarified and not obscured.

If Atty. Te was so sure of the strength of U.P.'s legal position on the validity of the terms of all the regents; spanning the continuum of the disputed period, then why did the U.P. System submit the three regents' names for “midnight” appointments at the last minute to President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and only after the Student Regent brought up the issue in a court case she filed with RTC # 215 in Q.C.on February 22, 2010? Glaring gaps remain on the legitimacy of certain regents' eligibility to vote during critical periods when important decisions were made, such as the removal of the Student Regent and the removal of the Executive Director of the PGH. It is during these periods when regents morphed into former regents only to be legitimately (or in one case not legitimately) appointed regents anew.

The “midnight” appointments are a given and are a fact and this has been covered by the Diliman Diary at: http://diliman-diary.blogspot.com/2010/03/breaking-news-three-3-malacanang.html

Here are the details, as confirmed by the Office of the Executive Secretary, Leandro Mendoza to the Diliman Diary as well as actual documents:

* Regent Francis Chua's appointment was signed by President Arroyo on January 1, 2008, which means that if you follow U.P.'s two-year argument, then his term expired on January 1, 2010, and his vote to remove the Student Regent on February 25, 2010 was null and void since President Arroyo only signed her “midnight” appointment on March 1, 2010 for a period of two (2) years.
* Regent Abraham Sarmiento's appointment was signed by President Arroyo on September 29, 2008 but the Office of Secretary Mendoza stressed that President Arroyo signed Regent Sarmiento's “midnight” appointment on March 9, 2010 but good only until September 29, 2010.” Why then did the Board of Regents recommend Regent Sarmiento for reappointment at a time when he was supposed to be enjoying the length of his term from September 29 2008 to September 29 2010? Would not Arroyo's appointment have been redundant? That is, unless U.P. itself is admitting that Regent Sarmiento, was already a former regent when his papers were submitted by U.P. itself, to President Arroyo for reappointment which impliedly means that it was supporting Faculty Regent Taguiwalo's position that the one-year and not the two-year rule applied (http://upissues.wordpress.com/2010/03/01/up-faculty-regents-report-on-the-february-25-2010-bor-meeting/), meaning that his papers expired in September 29, 2010 and that he was a former regent when he voted to render the Student Regent a former regent as well. The other alternative is that President Arroyo, upon U.P.'s recommendation, committed a faux pas when she reappointed a Regent whose term had not yet expired. The Diliman Diary's analysis of this is that this is an attempt to extend Regent Sarmiento's term beyond the alloted two year period (from September 2008 to September 2010) so that he can vote for the next U.P. President when U.P. President Roman's term ends in November, 2010.
* Regent Nelia Gonzales' appointment was signed by President Arroyo on March 18, 2008 and expires on March 18, 2010 but President Arroyo reappointed Regent Gonzales on March 9, 2010 for a period of two (2) years or nine (9) days BEFORE Regent Gonzales' term expired. This could render President Arroyo's appointment of Regent Gonzalez null and void, and with the March 10, 2010 ban on Presidential appointments already in effect, U.P. will have to wait until the country finishes electing a new President when the presidential elections start on May 10, 2010.

In support of my statements, I am attaching the scanned copies of the three regents' appointment papers in 2008.

I am of the opinion that more scrutiny on this issue by a newspaper of the Inquirer's caliber is needed since it has the necessary expertise and resources to scrutinize the politics in U.P. in greater depth, and this is always to the country's advantage.

The Office of the Executive Secretary informed us that the appointment papers have already been forwarded to U.P., but this has not yet been announced officially by the U.P. administration through its website. Nevertheless, it is always possible to verify this and to dig much deeper in depth to get to the heart of the story. I am sure the U.P. officials won't mind this at all. As Atty. Te says: "The UP has been transparent on this issue. A factual chronology is available on the University website; UP officials are always available for comment or reaction."

Best regards,

Chanda Shahani
Editor
The Diliman Diary
http://www.dilimandiary.com


Copy furnished: Atty. Theodore Te
Faculty Regent Judy Taguiwalo
Other U.P. Alumni