The University Council (UC) of the University of the Philippines (UP) Diliman pushes for the strengthening of democratic governance in appointing officials in the university. (Photo courtesy of up.edu.ph)

“Just as we uphold the independence of university institutions, we ask for transparency and accountability in the appointment of UP officials like directors, deans, chancellors and presidents from all concerned offices, including the BOR [Board of Regents],” the UC said in a statement released Monday, May 22. “Much as search committee guidelines and other pertinent information are publicly available, their implementation has not been consistent and the basis for appointing individuals has not always been clear, compromising in the process the principles of checks and balances and subsidiarity,” the Council explained.

‘Anathema’ to academic freedom

The situation, the UC said, becomes “anathema to academic freedom that UP has the right and responsibility to exercise” under Sec. 5 of Republic Act 9500 or the University of the Philippines Charter of 2008. For the UC, “unclear bases of decisions also give rise to suspicions of conflict of interest, horse-trading, backdoor negotiations.” As the national university, UC said that the UP is called upon to embody “dangal at husay” (Honor and Excellence) in all of its endeavors and model the highest principles of democratic governance for the country. “We must uphold democratic representation by giving genuine importance to sectoral voices; honor collegiality and meritocracy by submitting ourselves to the judgment of peers based on a common and agreed upon set of standards; and ensure transparency and accountability in all processes of governance,” the UC said.

Set standards, guidelines

The UC noted that the UP President, BOR, and Chancellors of constituent units, for instance, should set “standards and guidelines” consistent with genuine democratic governance. “We urge that lessons be learned and actions be taken based on previous studies and deliberations,” the Council said. In the selection and appointment of officials, the UC said that “transparency in each step of the search process” should be ensured. “Releasing transparent criteria and standard Implementing Rules and Regulations that are strictly adhered to would aid the process, as would disclosures of conflict of interest for all relevant personalities,” the Council said. UC is also calling for the release of the highlights of all search committee reports relevant to the appointment processes for officials and return to open sessions and open balloting instead of executive sessions and secret balloting. “As practiced in the recent past, this helps create democratic space in deciding on the appointment of officials,” the Council explained. For the UC, bases for appointing officials should be “disclosed.” “Appointment-related recommendations at every stage should be publicized, including voting records and explanation of votes. In particular, the BOR as the highest decision-making body should document and disclose the justification together with each member’s vote,” the Council said. The UC noted that the information should be part of the official minutes and become part of the public domain. “Any vote that can be defended on principle need not be hidden,” the Council said. “While there may be votes considered protected under privacy laws, we trust that all BOR members can explain them while respecting such details,” it added.