Atty. Te's reply on the PDI Article Re: SR Issue

REPLY TO ARTICLE BY MARICAR CINCO, PHILIPPINE DAILY INQUIRER
Monday, March 15, 2010



10 March 2010

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

Dear Mr. Aruta:

On behalf of the University of the Philippines, allow us to react to the story by Maricar Cinco entitled “UP STUDENT REGENT: I WAS ALLOWED TO VOTE IN PGH POLL” (PDI, March 7, 2010) by stating the following:

1. It is untrue that Ms. Charisse Banez, former student regent, “was not enrolled this school year because she had completed her academic requirements ahead of schedule and was awaiting graduation.” She herself admitted on two occasions before the Board of Regents that she was not enrolled because she was “busy.” She also admits this in her Complaint before the RTC of Quezon City. Despite having completed all the academic requirements for her degree, she knew that she needed to enroll to be nominated and to remain student regent; this much she admits when she enrolled for residency for the first semester.

2. It is misleading and false to say that Ms. Bañez was allowed to vote on the election of the PGH Director because the BOR had deliberated and voted on a motion of the UP President to “revoke her right to vote on the ground that she was not a bona fide student of the state university.”

On December 18, 2009, the UP President, at the start of the meeting, brought up the issue of Ms. Banez’s disqualification as Student Regent because she did not enroll for the second semester, a fact she admitted. At that point, it was clear that she was not qualified to sit as Student Regent because she was not a student and there was no disagreement among the regents on this matter. In fact, the President had already pointed out that the seat has been ipso facto vacated by Ms. Banez’s failure to enroll.

The President’s motion to allow Ms. Banez to continue participating in the December 18, 2009 BOR meeting but only as an observer was in response to an observation by the Faculty Regent that the students would be deprived of representation if Ms. Banez was asked to leave. Clearly the context of the observation of the Faculty Regent was to allow Ms. Banez to remain in the room, despite a clear disqualification on her part to sit as Student Regent. For this reason, the President moved that Banez be allowed to remain in the room, even if she was no longer a regent, but this time as an observer. The only “error” was in allowing Banez to remain in the room when the President’s motion to have her sit as an observer was defeated; as a non-student, she was not entitled to be in the room.

3. Ms. Banez’s references to a Malacanang block are unfortunate and unbecoming of a regent. This is ad hominem argumentation and name-calling that has no place in the Board of Regents of the national university.

4. Ms. Banez faults the President and the three government regents for actively voting on the President’s motion. It is strange that she would say this if she understands basic parliamentary procedure. That President Roman and the other regents voted on the motion is insignificant because it was their job to do so; that Ms. Banez voted and voted for herself is the height of impropriety and lack of delicadeza. The vote on the UP President’s motion, taken by secret ballot, was 5-4; clearly, had she done the ethical thing, the vote would have been 4-4 and inconclusive and Ms. Banez would have been asked to leave the room.

5. Ms. Banez says that she was surprised that Dr. Rolando Enrique Domingo, the PGH Director, was elected in the February meeting because his name had been supposedly removed from the list.

Dr. Domingo had not been disqualified by the BOR on December 18, 2009. When the Board voted, they were voting on the three nominees, as forwarded by the Chancellor of UP Manila. There was nothing sinister about Dr. Domingo’s name again being considered during the February 25, 2010 meeting. The Board simply took up the original list after it had disqualified Ms. Banez and annulled the vote taken on December 18, 2009 because of the decisive nature of Ms. Banez’s vote (it being a 6-5 vote).

6. On the three regents whose continued stay in the BOR has been questioned by Ms. 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.

7. As for the two UPLB students whose applications for late registration for residency were approved and which Ms. Banez claims is unfair, it is sufficient to say that Ms. Banez never complied with any of the rules prescribed for late registration or late LOA; the two students did. Moreover, the documents submitted to the UPLB Chancellor’s office show that a request for late registration was submitted and then later withdrawn by Ms. Banez’s authorized representative; later, she would ask her lawyer to submit a letter of intent to take a leave of absence without filing an actual application for LOA. Under these circumstances, it would be almost impossible for the UPLB authorities to act on her application because her intentions were unclear, at best.

The news item ends with a quote from Ms. Banez that “It is unfair.” Perhaps it is high time to ask Ms. Banez if it was fair to her constituents that she deprive them of representation simply by refusing to do something so fundamental and so basic and so elementary? 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. It is thus surprising that the news item was printed without reaction from UP’s part.

In the interest of fair play, may we request that this reply be given the same prominence as that given to Ms. Banez.

Thank you.

ATTY. THEODORE O. TE
Vice President for Legal Affairs
University of the Philippines System