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
Friday, March 19, 2010
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
It's PI100: memories
It's PI100
(to the tune of Love Story by Taylor Swift)
We were all old when I first saw you
I close my eyes and the flashbacks start
You're standing there
Behind you is Mam Beng
I see Rizal, I see the Fili, the Noli
I see you make your way to your seat
Mam Beng says hello
Little did we know
That you were seated there, I was seated here
Mam Beng said stay away from our cellphones
And she was sitting on her table
Telling us "ako ang panginoon"
No one said, Please take us somewhere
We wanna be alone
We were waiting for the semester to end
No one's a prince, no one's a princess
It's PI100, baby just say yes!
Then I sneaked out to the tindahan sa kanto
I was quiet coz i'm dead if she knew
Didn't close my eyes
Wanna escape this class for a little while
Then came the exam, I can't write a letter
Mam Beng said stay away from other papers
But I can't really answer
Exam, please just go
No one said, Please take us somewhere
We wanna be alone
We were waiting for the semester to end
No one's a prince, no one's a princess
It's PI100, baby just say yes!
Help us, save us, we wanna pass this course
This course is difficult, but it's real
I am afraid, wanna be out of this mess
It's PI100, baby just say yes!
Then we were waiting
At women's dorm, do the filming
Our group was really shaking
When we filmed on the freedom park
Aira said, Yaya take Pepe somewhere you could be alone
We'll be waiting, all you have to do is run
The sun's over my head, we don't know what we're doing
Someone fell to the ground, pulled out her hair and said,
"Ang hirap Aira, we can never be alone"
I hate this and that's all I really know
Can we talk to Mam Beng, and pick out another topic
It's Pi100, baby just say yes!
Now we were all old when we've done this!
(to the tune of Love Story by Taylor Swift)
We were all old when I first saw you
I close my eyes and the flashbacks start
You're standing there
Behind you is Mam Beng
I see Rizal, I see the Fili, the Noli
I see you make your way to your seat
Mam Beng says hello
Little did we know
That you were seated there, I was seated here
Mam Beng said stay away from our cellphones
And she was sitting on her table
Telling us "ako ang panginoon"
No one said, Please take us somewhere
We wanna be alone
We were waiting for the semester to end
No one's a prince, no one's a princess
It's PI100, baby just say yes!
Then I sneaked out to the tindahan sa kanto
I was quiet coz i'm dead if she knew
Didn't close my eyes
Wanna escape this class for a little while
Then came the exam, I can't write a letter
Mam Beng said stay away from other papers
But I can't really answer
Exam, please just go
No one said, Please take us somewhere
We wanna be alone
We were waiting for the semester to end
No one's a prince, no one's a princess
It's PI100, baby just say yes!
Help us, save us, we wanna pass this course
This course is difficult, but it's real
I am afraid, wanna be out of this mess
It's PI100, baby just say yes!
Then we were waiting
At women's dorm, do the filming
Our group was really shaking
When we filmed on the freedom park
Aira said, Yaya take Pepe somewhere you could be alone
We'll be waiting, all you have to do is run
The sun's over my head, we don't know what we're doing
Someone fell to the ground, pulled out her hair and said,
"Ang hirap Aira, we can never be alone"
I hate this and that's all I really know
Can we talk to Mam Beng, and pick out another topic
It's Pi100, baby just say yes!
Now we were all old when we've done this!
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Chronology of Events on the SR Issue
Student Regent Issue PDF Print E-mail
Written by Office of the Chancellor
Friday, 05 March 2010 17:10
CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS
SDT CASE 08-01
(UPLB and CEB versus Charisse Bernadine Bañez)
SDT CASE 09-14
(UPLB versus Charisse Bernadine Bañez)
Feb. 8, 2008
Five College Secretaries who were members of the Central Electoral Board (CEB) for the University Student Council elections, filed a formal complaint with the UPLB SDT against Ms. Charisse Bernadine I. Bañez, Vice Chair of the UPLB USC, for “behaving with gross misconduct and deliberate discourtesy” against College Secretaries during a meeting of the CEB on February 6, 2008.
Note: While the case was being heard, Ms. Bañez was elected as Chair of the UPLB Student Council for SY 2008-2009.
April 3, 2008
Ms. Banez wrote to Atty. Florinida Blanca, SDT Chair, providing clarification on the complaint filed by some college Secretaries against her, explaining her manner of debating from the perspective of parliamentary procedures, etc.
Sept. 10, 2008
OSA Director Severino E. Cuevas issued a Formal Charge for SDT Case 08-01, UP Los Baños and CEB versus Charisse Bernadine I. Bañez
Feb. 18, 2009
Another complaint letter was submitted by some bona fide UPLB students against all officers of University Student Councils of UPLB since the administration of Mr. Leo XL Fuentes (AY 2007-2008) to the present (AY 2008-2009) led by Ms. Charisse Bernadine Banez, for violations of the UPLB USC Constitution.
April 7, 2009
OSA Director Dr. Vivian A. Gonzales issued Formal Charge for SDT Case 09-14a, UP Los Baños versus Acuña, Arbeen et al which included Charisse Bernadine I. Bañez, for violation of the 1984 Constitution
April 13, 2009
The Student Disciplinary Tribunal rendered a decision on SDT Case 08-01 against Charisse Bernadine I. Banez, finding her “guilty of misconduct” and imposing the “penalty of EXPRESSION OF APOLOGY, both written and oral, and submission of certification that she executed both, with a warning that in case of a second offense, she shall be penalized severely.”
Note: On 14 April 2009, the General Assembly of U.P. Student Councils (GASC) unanimously selected Ms. Bañez as the new 2009 Student Regent.
Note: Ms. Bañez completed all academic requirements for the 2009 graduation but was not recommended for graduation by the University council because of her pending cases.
May 29, 2009
BOR acknowledged the election of Ms. Banez. However, her Oath as Student Regent shall be administered once she has complied with the requirements of the Board during the BOR 1243th meeting held on May 29, 2009 at UP Visayas, to wit:
“1) As required of her by the Student Disciplinary Tribunal, she is to apologize to those she has been found discourteous to, and such apology should be both oral and in writing, publicly made; and
2)As demanded by the UPLB student complainants and as provided for in the rules set by the UPLB students themselves, she is to submit financial reports and other documents to account for proceeds from the February Fairs for her term and that of her predecessor’s.
June 18, 2009
Ms. Bañez wrote a letter of apology to the UPLB CEB and specifically to Prof. Lolita Vega, Prof. Mutya Manalo, Dr. Benjamin Reuel Marte, Prof. Agnes Banzon and Prof. Myrna Borines. Attached to the letter was a certification of the expression of apology. It showed that both written and oral apology was not rendered to Prof. Lolita Vega and an oral apology was not rendered to Prof. Borines. An apology to the CEB as a body was not also rendered.
July 27, 2009
Atty. Peralta, SDT Chair, wrote Dean Asuncion Raymundo informing her that based on the certification submitted by Ms. Bañez, it appears that Ms. Bañez have partially complied with the penalty prescribed by the SDT for SDT Case No. 08-01.
Dec. 7, 2009
The SDT rendered a decision on SDT Case No. 09-14, finding Ms. Bañez guilty and seven other respondents to have “violated the provisions of the 1984 USC Constitution”…and were “ordered suspended for a period not exceeding six months pursuant to Sec 24 (m) of the Rules and Regulations of Student Conduct and Discipline approved by the BOR on June 1992.”
Dec. 10, 2009
Dean Asuncion Raymundo, Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, wrote to Chancellor Luis Rey I. Velasco informing him that Ms. Banez has not enrolled yet for the second semester of AY 2009-2010 and that her status is AWOL. The college also noted the receipt of the suspension order for Ms. Bañez thus she needs to file for Residence this Second Semester AY 2009-2010 to serve the suspension ordered by SDT
Dec. 15, 2009
Chancellor Luis Rey I. Velasco wrote to Pres. Emerlinda R. Roman informing her that UPLB SDT ordered the suspension of some members of the UPLB Student Council 2008-2009, including Ms. Bañez. He also informed the President of the need for Ms. Bañez to file for residence to serve her suspension but as of this time, she has not enrolled yet, rendering her as a non-bonafide student of UPLB.
Dec. 16, 2009
Ms. Banez wrote to Chancellor Velasco requesting that she be permitted to register or file for residency for the second semester AY 2009-2010. The letter, which was received by the Office of the Chancellor on January 11, 2010, included an authorization for a certain Ma. Elena Carlos to process the request to register or file for residency on her behalf.
Dec. 16, 2009
Ms. Banez submitted Motion for Reconsideration for SDT Case No. 09-14 through her counsel, Atty. Julius G. Matibag.
Jan. 11, 2010
Chancellor Velasco wrote Ms. Banez in response to her letter dated Dec. 16, 2009. He requested Ms. Bañez to submit a written explanation of why she failed to register during the regular registration period. The letter was sent to the Office of the Student Regent and a copy was sent through Ms. Elena Carlos on January 12, 2010.
Jan. 12, 2010
Atty. Julius Garcia Matibag, as Legal Counsel of Ms. Banez, wrote to Dean Asuncion Raymundo, requesting for a leave of absence for the Second Semester AY 2009-2010.
Jan. 12, 2010
The original letter of Ms. Banez addressed to Chancellor Velasco dated Dec. 16, 2009 was withdrawn by Ms. Carlos, accordingly, upon the instruction of Ms Bañez.
Jan. 15, 2010
Ms. Banez called the Office of the Chancellor and confirmed that she asked Ms. Carlos to withdraw her letter request. When asked if she will no longer pursue her request for registration, she said that she is putting it on hold pending the advice of her legal counsel. She also confirmed that she received the reply of the Chancellor dated Jan 11, 2010 to her letter dated Dec. 16, 2009. Further, she inquired if an explanation is the only requirement for the Chancellor to approve her late registration for residence.
Jan. 20, 2010
Ms. Banez responded to Chancellor Velasco’s letter dated January 11, 2010. In her letter, which was received by the Office of the Chancellor on Jan. 28, 2010, Ms. Bañez explained that “… it is most respectfully submitted that the filing of the application for residency of the undersigned for the second semester, 2009-2010, a few days after the regular registration period is not unreasonable.”
Jan. 21, 2010
Dean Asuncion Raymundo wrote to Atty. Julius Matibag disapproving the request for leave of absence (LOA) of Ms. Bañez for the following reasons:
1. The UPLB calendar provides that the last day for filing a leave of absence for those who are not enrolled was on 17 November 2009;
2. Application for leave should be accompanied by the approval of her adviser and her parents, which documents were not submitted;
3. Her application for leave was not accompanied by a clearance required by the College of Arts and Sciences;
4. The reason why she is filing a leave of absence is not clear and not adequately explained;
5. The above requirements should have been filed on or before 17 November 2009.
Feb. 18, 2010
Chan. Velasco replied to Ms. Banez’ letter dated Jan. 20, 2010 informing her “that inasmuch as you did not give concrete reasons why you did not file your application on time, I likewise do not have any basis to favorably act on your request”.
Feb. 23, 2010
Ms. Banez requested Dean Raymundo to allow her to file for late residency for the second semester AY 2009-2010
Feb. 24, 2010
Ms. Banez responded to Chan. Velasco’s letter dated Feb. 18, 2010 requesting to reconsider her request to file late residency for the Second Semester AY 2009-2010 based on several grounds that she presented. Among which is the approval of the late registration for residence of two students of the College of Forestry and Natural Resources.
Feb. 24, 2010
Dean Asuncion Raymundo responded to Ms. Banez’ letter dated Feb. 23, 2010 affirming the decision of the Chancellor disapproving the request for residency. The Dean pointed out “the efforts of the former College Secretary, Prof. Mabini DG. Dizon and her staff to remind and advise you on the need to file for residency for the 2nd semester 2009-2010.”
March 1, 2010
The Office of the Chancellor forwarded the Feb. 24 letter of Ms. Bañez to Dean Raymundo for her comment and recommendation.
March 3, 2010
Dean Raymundo submitted her comments on the letter of Ms. Bañez together with the report of Prof. Mabini Dizon, former College Secretary, regarding the effort of the OCS to notify Ms. Bañez of the need to register before the deadline for filing of residency.
March 4, 2010
Chancellor Velasco responded to the Feb. 24 letter of Ms. Bañez. A copy of the letter was sent to Ms. Bañez through the Office of the Dean, CAS.
Written by Office of the Chancellor
Friday, 05 March 2010 17:10
CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS
SDT CASE 08-01
(UPLB and CEB versus Charisse Bernadine Bañez)
SDT CASE 09-14
(UPLB versus Charisse Bernadine Bañez)
Feb. 8, 2008
Five College Secretaries who were members of the Central Electoral Board (CEB) for the University Student Council elections, filed a formal complaint with the UPLB SDT against Ms. Charisse Bernadine I. Bañez, Vice Chair of the UPLB USC, for “behaving with gross misconduct and deliberate discourtesy” against College Secretaries during a meeting of the CEB on February 6, 2008.
Note: While the case was being heard, Ms. Bañez was elected as Chair of the UPLB Student Council for SY 2008-2009.
April 3, 2008
Ms. Banez wrote to Atty. Florinida Blanca, SDT Chair, providing clarification on the complaint filed by some college Secretaries against her, explaining her manner of debating from the perspective of parliamentary procedures, etc.
Sept. 10, 2008
OSA Director Severino E. Cuevas issued a Formal Charge for SDT Case 08-01, UP Los Baños and CEB versus Charisse Bernadine I. Bañez
Feb. 18, 2009
Another complaint letter was submitted by some bona fide UPLB students against all officers of University Student Councils of UPLB since the administration of Mr. Leo XL Fuentes (AY 2007-2008) to the present (AY 2008-2009) led by Ms. Charisse Bernadine Banez, for violations of the UPLB USC Constitution.
April 7, 2009
OSA Director Dr. Vivian A. Gonzales issued Formal Charge for SDT Case 09-14a, UP Los Baños versus Acuña, Arbeen et al which included Charisse Bernadine I. Bañez, for violation of the 1984 Constitution
April 13, 2009
The Student Disciplinary Tribunal rendered a decision on SDT Case 08-01 against Charisse Bernadine I. Banez, finding her “guilty of misconduct” and imposing the “penalty of EXPRESSION OF APOLOGY, both written and oral, and submission of certification that she executed both, with a warning that in case of a second offense, she shall be penalized severely.”
Note: On 14 April 2009, the General Assembly of U.P. Student Councils (GASC) unanimously selected Ms. Bañez as the new 2009 Student Regent.
Note: Ms. Bañez completed all academic requirements for the 2009 graduation but was not recommended for graduation by the University council because of her pending cases.
May 29, 2009
BOR acknowledged the election of Ms. Banez. However, her Oath as Student Regent shall be administered once she has complied with the requirements of the Board during the BOR 1243th meeting held on May 29, 2009 at UP Visayas, to wit:
“1) As required of her by the Student Disciplinary Tribunal, she is to apologize to those she has been found discourteous to, and such apology should be both oral and in writing, publicly made; and
2)As demanded by the UPLB student complainants and as provided for in the rules set by the UPLB students themselves, she is to submit financial reports and other documents to account for proceeds from the February Fairs for her term and that of her predecessor’s.
June 18, 2009
Ms. Bañez wrote a letter of apology to the UPLB CEB and specifically to Prof. Lolita Vega, Prof. Mutya Manalo, Dr. Benjamin Reuel Marte, Prof. Agnes Banzon and Prof. Myrna Borines. Attached to the letter was a certification of the expression of apology. It showed that both written and oral apology was not rendered to Prof. Lolita Vega and an oral apology was not rendered to Prof. Borines. An apology to the CEB as a body was not also rendered.
July 27, 2009
Atty. Peralta, SDT Chair, wrote Dean Asuncion Raymundo informing her that based on the certification submitted by Ms. Bañez, it appears that Ms. Bañez have partially complied with the penalty prescribed by the SDT for SDT Case No. 08-01.
Dec. 7, 2009
The SDT rendered a decision on SDT Case No. 09-14, finding Ms. Bañez guilty and seven other respondents to have “violated the provisions of the 1984 USC Constitution”…and were “ordered suspended for a period not exceeding six months pursuant to Sec 24 (m) of the Rules and Regulations of Student Conduct and Discipline approved by the BOR on June 1992.”
Dec. 10, 2009
Dean Asuncion Raymundo, Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, wrote to Chancellor Luis Rey I. Velasco informing him that Ms. Banez has not enrolled yet for the second semester of AY 2009-2010 and that her status is AWOL. The college also noted the receipt of the suspension order for Ms. Bañez thus she needs to file for Residence this Second Semester AY 2009-2010 to serve the suspension ordered by SDT
Dec. 15, 2009
Chancellor Luis Rey I. Velasco wrote to Pres. Emerlinda R. Roman informing her that UPLB SDT ordered the suspension of some members of the UPLB Student Council 2008-2009, including Ms. Bañez. He also informed the President of the need for Ms. Bañez to file for residence to serve her suspension but as of this time, she has not enrolled yet, rendering her as a non-bonafide student of UPLB.
Dec. 16, 2009
Ms. Banez wrote to Chancellor Velasco requesting that she be permitted to register or file for residency for the second semester AY 2009-2010. The letter, which was received by the Office of the Chancellor on January 11, 2010, included an authorization for a certain Ma. Elena Carlos to process the request to register or file for residency on her behalf.
Dec. 16, 2009
Ms. Banez submitted Motion for Reconsideration for SDT Case No. 09-14 through her counsel, Atty. Julius G. Matibag.
Jan. 11, 2010
Chancellor Velasco wrote Ms. Banez in response to her letter dated Dec. 16, 2009. He requested Ms. Bañez to submit a written explanation of why she failed to register during the regular registration period. The letter was sent to the Office of the Student Regent and a copy was sent through Ms. Elena Carlos on January 12, 2010.
Jan. 12, 2010
Atty. Julius Garcia Matibag, as Legal Counsel of Ms. Banez, wrote to Dean Asuncion Raymundo, requesting for a leave of absence for the Second Semester AY 2009-2010.
Jan. 12, 2010
The original letter of Ms. Banez addressed to Chancellor Velasco dated Dec. 16, 2009 was withdrawn by Ms. Carlos, accordingly, upon the instruction of Ms Bañez.
Jan. 15, 2010
Ms. Banez called the Office of the Chancellor and confirmed that she asked Ms. Carlos to withdraw her letter request. When asked if she will no longer pursue her request for registration, she said that she is putting it on hold pending the advice of her legal counsel. She also confirmed that she received the reply of the Chancellor dated Jan 11, 2010 to her letter dated Dec. 16, 2009. Further, she inquired if an explanation is the only requirement for the Chancellor to approve her late registration for residence.
Jan. 20, 2010
Ms. Banez responded to Chancellor Velasco’s letter dated January 11, 2010. In her letter, which was received by the Office of the Chancellor on Jan. 28, 2010, Ms. Bañez explained that “… it is most respectfully submitted that the filing of the application for residency of the undersigned for the second semester, 2009-2010, a few days after the regular registration period is not unreasonable.”
Jan. 21, 2010
Dean Asuncion Raymundo wrote to Atty. Julius Matibag disapproving the request for leave of absence (LOA) of Ms. Bañez for the following reasons:
1. The UPLB calendar provides that the last day for filing a leave of absence for those who are not enrolled was on 17 November 2009;
2. Application for leave should be accompanied by the approval of her adviser and her parents, which documents were not submitted;
3. Her application for leave was not accompanied by a clearance required by the College of Arts and Sciences;
4. The reason why she is filing a leave of absence is not clear and not adequately explained;
5. The above requirements should have been filed on or before 17 November 2009.
Feb. 18, 2010
Chan. Velasco replied to Ms. Banez’ letter dated Jan. 20, 2010 informing her “that inasmuch as you did not give concrete reasons why you did not file your application on time, I likewise do not have any basis to favorably act on your request”.
Feb. 23, 2010
Ms. Banez requested Dean Raymundo to allow her to file for late residency for the second semester AY 2009-2010
Feb. 24, 2010
Ms. Banez responded to Chan. Velasco’s letter dated Feb. 18, 2010 requesting to reconsider her request to file late residency for the Second Semester AY 2009-2010 based on several grounds that she presented. Among which is the approval of the late registration for residence of two students of the College of Forestry and Natural Resources.
Feb. 24, 2010
Dean Asuncion Raymundo responded to Ms. Banez’ letter dated Feb. 23, 2010 affirming the decision of the Chancellor disapproving the request for residency. The Dean pointed out “the efforts of the former College Secretary, Prof. Mabini DG. Dizon and her staff to remind and advise you on the need to file for residency for the 2nd semester 2009-2010.”
March 1, 2010
The Office of the Chancellor forwarded the Feb. 24 letter of Ms. Bañez to Dean Raymundo for her comment and recommendation.
March 3, 2010
Dean Raymundo submitted her comments on the letter of Ms. Bañez together with the report of Prof. Mabini Dizon, former College Secretary, regarding the effort of the OCS to notify Ms. Bañez of the need to register before the deadline for filing of residency.
March 4, 2010
Chancellor Velasco responded to the Feb. 24 letter of Ms. Bañez. A copy of the letter was sent to Ms. Bañez through the Office of the Dean, CAS.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Disorder in the Court.
Dear All,
I don't know if you've read this already but for those who haven't, here it is. It's for everyone and anyone with a funny bone...especially lawyers :)
These are from a book called Disorder in the American Courts, and are things people actually said in court, word for word, taken down and now published by court reporters that had the torment of staying calm while these exchanges were actually taking place.
ATTORNEY: What was the first thing your husband said to you that morning?
WITNESS: He said, 'Where am I, Cathy?'
ATTORNEY: And why did that upset you?
WITNESS: My name is Susan!
ATTORNEY: Are you sexually active?
WITNESS: No, I just lie there.
____________________________________________
ATTORNEY: Now doctor, isn't it true that when a person dies in his sleep, he doesn't know about it until the next morning?
WITNESS: Did you actually pass the bar exam?
ATTORNEY: The youngest son, the twenty-year-old, how old is he?
WITNESS: He's twenty, much like your IQ.
____________________________ ______ _________
ATTORNEY: Were you present when your picture was taken?
WITNESS: Are you sh***ing me?
_________________________________________
ATTORNEY: So the date of conception (of the baby) was August 8th?
WITNESS: Yes.
ATTORNEY: And what were you doing at that time?
WITNESS: Getting laid
____________________________________________
ATTORNEY: She had three children, right?
WITNESS: Yes.
ATTORNEY: How many were boys?
WITNESS: None.
ATTORNEY: Were there any girls?
WITNESS: Your Honour, I think I need a different attorney. Can I get a new attorney?
___________________________________ ______ ___
ATTORNEY: How was your first marriage terminated?
WITNESS: By death.
ATTORNEY: And by whose death was it terminated?
WITNESS: Take a guess.
____________________________________________
ATTORNEY: Can you describe the individual?
WITNESS: He was about medium height and had a beard.
ATTORNEY: Was this a male or a female?
WITNESS: Unless the circus was in town, I'm going with male.
_____ ________________________________
ATTORNEY: Is your appearance here this morning pursuant to a deposition notice which I sent to your attorney?
WITNESS: No, this is how I dress when I go to work.
______________________________________
ATTORNEY: Doctor, how many of your autopsies have you performed on dead people?
WITNESS: All of them. The live ones put up too much of a fight.
________________________________________
ATTORNEY: ALL your responses MUST be oral, OK? What school did you go to?
WITNESS: Oral.
_________________________________________
ATTORNEY: Do you recall the time that you examined the body?
WIT NESS: The autopsy started around 8:30 p.m.
ATTORNEY: And Mr. Denton was dead at the time?
WITNESS: If not, he was by the time I finished.
____________________________________________
And the best for last:
ATTORNEY: Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a pulse?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: Did you check for blood pressure?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: Did you check for breathing?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you began the autopsy?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: How can you be so sure, Doctor?
WITNESS: Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar.
ATTORNEY: I see, but could the patient have still been alive, nevertheless?
WITNESS: Yes, it is possible that he could have been alive and practicing law.
I don't know if you've read this already but for those who haven't, here it is. It's for everyone and anyone with a funny bone...especially lawyers :)
These are from a book called Disorder in the American Courts, and are things people actually said in court, word for word, taken down and now published by court reporters that had the torment of staying calm while these exchanges were actually taking place.
ATTORNEY: What was the first thing your husband said to you that morning?
WITNESS: He said, 'Where am I, Cathy?'
ATTORNEY: And why did that upset you?
WITNESS: My name is Susan!
ATTORNEY: Are you sexually active?
WITNESS: No, I just lie there.
____________________________________________
ATTORNEY: Now doctor, isn't it true that when a person dies in his sleep, he doesn't know about it until the next morning?
WITNESS: Did you actually pass the bar exam?
ATTORNEY: The youngest son, the twenty-year-old, how old is he?
WITNESS: He's twenty, much like your IQ.
____________________________ ______ _________
ATTORNEY: Were you present when your picture was taken?
WITNESS: Are you sh***ing me?
_________________________________________
ATTORNEY: So the date of conception (of the baby) was August 8th?
WITNESS: Yes.
ATTORNEY: And what were you doing at that time?
WITNESS: Getting laid
____________________________________________
ATTORNEY: She had three children, right?
WITNESS: Yes.
ATTORNEY: How many were boys?
WITNESS: None.
ATTORNEY: Were there any girls?
WITNESS: Your Honour, I think I need a different attorney. Can I get a new attorney?
___________________________________ ______ ___
ATTORNEY: How was your first marriage terminated?
WITNESS: By death.
ATTORNEY: And by whose death was it terminated?
WITNESS: Take a guess.
____________________________________________
ATTORNEY: Can you describe the individual?
WITNESS: He was about medium height and had a beard.
ATTORNEY: Was this a male or a female?
WITNESS: Unless the circus was in town, I'm going with male.
_____ ________________________________
ATTORNEY: Is your appearance here this morning pursuant to a deposition notice which I sent to your attorney?
WITNESS: No, this is how I dress when I go to work.
______________________________________
ATTORNEY: Doctor, how many of your autopsies have you performed on dead people?
WITNESS: All of them. The live ones put up too much of a fight.
________________________________________
ATTORNEY: ALL your responses MUST be oral, OK? What school did you go to?
WITNESS: Oral.
_________________________________________
ATTORNEY: Do you recall the time that you examined the body?
WIT NESS: The autopsy started around 8:30 p.m.
ATTORNEY: And Mr. Denton was dead at the time?
WITNESS: If not, he was by the time I finished.
____________________________________________
And the best for last:
ATTORNEY: Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a pulse?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: Did you check for blood pressure?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: Did you check for breathing?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you began the autopsy?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: How can you be so sure, Doctor?
WITNESS: Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar.
ATTORNEY: I see, but could the patient have still been alive, nevertheless?
WITNESS: Yes, it is possible that he could have been alive and practicing law.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Ang pambabastos ni SR Chaba
Kahapon ginanap ang miting de avance ng dalawang partidong nagtutunggalian sa halalan ng konseho ng mag-aaral sa UP Los Baños. Naka-schedule ang mga College Student Councils anumang oras sa pagitan ng ala-una ng hapon hanggang alas-siyete ng gabi, na susundan ng University Student Council ng alas-otso ng gabi.
Kasama sa miting de avance ng USC ang Electoral Debate na pinamumunuan ng UPLB Perspective. Naging matagumpay ang pagdaraos ng debateng ito, lalo na ng Buklod UPLB na siya namang naging magaganda at malalaman ang mga kasagutan. Ang mga bagay-bagay na pinag-usapan ay ang pagkakaisa ng konseho sa gitna ng pagkakaiba-iba ng prinsipyo, ang Morong 43, at iba pang mga usapin,. Ngunit ang usaping naging sentro ng atensyon sa gabing iyon ay ang di pagkilala ng Board of Regents sa rehente ng mag-aaral na si Charisse "Chaba" Bañez.
Matapos ang debate tinawag ng mga kinatawan ng UPLB Perspective si SR Bañez upang "magbigay linaw" sa usaping iyon. Nasabihan ang Buklod-UPLB na magsasalita si Chaba isang oras lamang bago magsimula ang palatuntunan. Orihinal kasi na wala sa daloy ng palatuntunan si Chaba. Nangako naman ang mga kinatawan ng UPLB Perspective na gagawin nilang maikli lamang ang magiging pahayag ni Chaba.
Nagsimulang mag-init ang gabi ng mga taga-suporta ng Buklod nang makalipas na ang sampung minuto ay hindi pa rin tapos magsalita si Chaba. Ngunit ang ikinainit ng ulo ng lahat ay nang harap-harapan niyang sasabihin sa esensya na ang Buklod ay hindi nararapat maupo sa konseho dahil ang partido raw "ay mapagkompromiso", at binigyang diin pa na ang partido mismo ang nagsampa ng kasong grave misconduct at paglabag sa 1984 USC Constitution laban sa kanya at sa mga miyembro ng Konseho ng mag-aaral.
Isang paglilinaw lamang: muli, hindi Buklod UPLB ang nagsampa ng kaso kay SR Bañez at sa mga Konseho, kundi anim na indibidwal na mag-aaral na naniniwala sa demokrasya na transparent at accountable.
Nagmumula sa isang alumnus na nakasaksi sa mga pangyayari kagabi, aking ikinalulungkot at ikinagagalit at mariing kinukundena ang mga aksyon ng rehente ng mag-aaral.
Ilang beses naring nasabi ng SR na siya ay kumakatawan sa interes ng lahat ng mag-aaral at hindi ng iilan lamang. Hindi ba mag-aaral ang mga miyembro ng Buklod-UPLB? Malinaw pa sa sikat ng araw na kinilingan niya ang kabilang partido dahil sa pambabastos na ginawa niya sa partido Buklod, ang partido na isa rin sa kumikilala sa kanyang matinding papel bilang rehente ng mag-aaral. Mismong Buklod ay tumuturing din sa kanya biglang prutektor ng mga interes ng bawat isang mag-aaral.
Kaya naman ang partido ay hindi na nakatiis at nagdeklara ng malawakang pull-out ng mga kandidato, miyembro, at mga taga-suporta dahil mas nakita na ang sinasabing miting de avance kagabi ay hindi na venue upang maiparating ng parehong partido ang mga saloobin at plataporma nila sa isang balanseng paraan. Inalala na rin ng mga lider ng partido ang kapakanan ng bawat isang ka-Buklod na nasa loob ng bulwagan ng Student Union Amphitheater sa kung anumang maaaring mangyari dulot ng matinding pisikal at emosyonal na stress.
Nakakagalit isipin na sa itinagal-tagal nang pagbuo ng Buklod-UPLB sa kanyang pangalan ay dudungisan lamang at yuyurakan ng isang rehente sa loob lamang ng 30 minuto. Hindi nga lang pangalan ng partido ang kanyang dinungisan, ngunit niyurakan na din ni Chaba ang dangal at pagkatao ng bawat kandidato, miyembro, alumni, at taga-suporta ng partido.
ANG MGA BAGAY NA ITO AY HINDI DAPAT PINALALAMPAS.
Nawa'y makita ng mag-aaral ng UP Los Baños ngayong araw na ito ng halalan kung sino ang TUNAY NA MAGSUSULONG NG KANILANG INTERES bilang representante nila.
ITIGIL ANG CHARACTER ASSASSINATIONS!
KILALANIN ANG BAWAT ISANG MAG-AARAL ANUMAN ANG KULAY PULITIKAL
ISULONG ANG ISANG MALINIS NA HALALAN PARA SA ISANG MAKATAONG KONSEHO!
Kasama sa miting de avance ng USC ang Electoral Debate na pinamumunuan ng UPLB Perspective. Naging matagumpay ang pagdaraos ng debateng ito, lalo na ng Buklod UPLB na siya namang naging magaganda at malalaman ang mga kasagutan. Ang mga bagay-bagay na pinag-usapan ay ang pagkakaisa ng konseho sa gitna ng pagkakaiba-iba ng prinsipyo, ang Morong 43, at iba pang mga usapin,. Ngunit ang usaping naging sentro ng atensyon sa gabing iyon ay ang di pagkilala ng Board of Regents sa rehente ng mag-aaral na si Charisse "Chaba" Bañez.
Matapos ang debate tinawag ng mga kinatawan ng UPLB Perspective si SR Bañez upang "magbigay linaw" sa usaping iyon. Nasabihan ang Buklod-UPLB na magsasalita si Chaba isang oras lamang bago magsimula ang palatuntunan. Orihinal kasi na wala sa daloy ng palatuntunan si Chaba. Nangako naman ang mga kinatawan ng UPLB Perspective na gagawin nilang maikli lamang ang magiging pahayag ni Chaba.
Nagsimulang mag-init ang gabi ng mga taga-suporta ng Buklod nang makalipas na ang sampung minuto ay hindi pa rin tapos magsalita si Chaba. Ngunit ang ikinainit ng ulo ng lahat ay nang harap-harapan niyang sasabihin sa esensya na ang Buklod ay hindi nararapat maupo sa konseho dahil ang partido raw "ay mapagkompromiso", at binigyang diin pa na ang partido mismo ang nagsampa ng kasong grave misconduct at paglabag sa 1984 USC Constitution laban sa kanya at sa mga miyembro ng Konseho ng mag-aaral.
Isang paglilinaw lamang: muli, hindi Buklod UPLB ang nagsampa ng kaso kay SR Bañez at sa mga Konseho, kundi anim na indibidwal na mag-aaral na naniniwala sa demokrasya na transparent at accountable.
Nagmumula sa isang alumnus na nakasaksi sa mga pangyayari kagabi, aking ikinalulungkot at ikinagagalit at mariing kinukundena ang mga aksyon ng rehente ng mag-aaral.
Ilang beses naring nasabi ng SR na siya ay kumakatawan sa interes ng lahat ng mag-aaral at hindi ng iilan lamang. Hindi ba mag-aaral ang mga miyembro ng Buklod-UPLB? Malinaw pa sa sikat ng araw na kinilingan niya ang kabilang partido dahil sa pambabastos na ginawa niya sa partido Buklod, ang partido na isa rin sa kumikilala sa kanyang matinding papel bilang rehente ng mag-aaral. Mismong Buklod ay tumuturing din sa kanya biglang prutektor ng mga interes ng bawat isang mag-aaral.
Kaya naman ang partido ay hindi na nakatiis at nagdeklara ng malawakang pull-out ng mga kandidato, miyembro, at mga taga-suporta dahil mas nakita na ang sinasabing miting de avance kagabi ay hindi na venue upang maiparating ng parehong partido ang mga saloobin at plataporma nila sa isang balanseng paraan. Inalala na rin ng mga lider ng partido ang kapakanan ng bawat isang ka-Buklod na nasa loob ng bulwagan ng Student Union Amphitheater sa kung anumang maaaring mangyari dulot ng matinding pisikal at emosyonal na stress.
Nakakagalit isipin na sa itinagal-tagal nang pagbuo ng Buklod-UPLB sa kanyang pangalan ay dudungisan lamang at yuyurakan ng isang rehente sa loob lamang ng 30 minuto. Hindi nga lang pangalan ng partido ang kanyang dinungisan, ngunit niyurakan na din ni Chaba ang dangal at pagkatao ng bawat kandidato, miyembro, alumni, at taga-suporta ng partido.
ANG MGA BAGAY NA ITO AY HINDI DAPAT PINALALAMPAS.
Nawa'y makita ng mag-aaral ng UP Los Baños ngayong araw na ito ng halalan kung sino ang TUNAY NA MAGSUSULONG NG KANILANG INTERES bilang representante nila.
ITIGIL ANG CHARACTER ASSASSINATIONS!
KILALANIN ANG BAWAT ISANG MAG-AARAL ANUMAN ANG KULAY PULITIKAL
ISULONG ANG ISANG MALINIS NA HALALAN PARA SA ISANG MAKATAONG KONSEHO!
Monday, February 22, 2010
The State of Continuing Education in the Philippines
A recent study led by Dr. Rene Ofreneo of the UP School of Labor and Industrial Relations shows that the Philippines is still a primarily export-oriented country, and labor is one of the top exports of the country. With the Philippines facing a major crisis of job mismatch, and high unemployment and underemployment rates, people getting into the labor force are equipping themselves with all necessary skills – skills that cannot be acquired solely by the four years (or more) in college.
The Philippines is struggling to become a “learning society”, one in which its citizens obtain a high-quality general education, appropriate vocational training, and a job worthy of a human being while continuing to participate in education and training throughout their lives (Edralin, 1999) and, when seen as a set of practices, can be viewed in any of the following: (1) an educated society, committed to active citizenship, liberal democracy, and equal opportunities; (2) a learning market, enabling institutions to provide services for individuals as a condition for supporting the competitiveness of the economy, and; (3) a learning network, where learners adopt a learning approach to life (Edwards, 1995). However, with globalization taking its toll on the country’s primarily below-poverty population, the government’s objective of achieving higher levels of employment, in a manifest attempt to reduce poverty, is hindered by the conspicuous mismatch between the skills offered by higher education institutions (HEIs) and those being looked for by potential employers – a situation further exacerbated by the government’s neo-liberal educational policies such as commercialization of education such as unjust tuition hikes and the like.
Graduates, therefore, in an effort to place themselves ahead of the competitive labor force pack, resort to advanced learning solutions via the practice of continuing education and adult education. Continuing education, as defined by Edralin (1999), refers to “the aggregate principles and practices encompassing education of individuals after they have left the formal system”. On the other hand, adult education is defined as “the entire body of organized educational processes… whereby persons regarded as adult by the society… develop their abilities, enrich their knowledge, improve their technical or professional qualifications… and bring about changes in their attitudes… in the two-fold perspective of full personal development and participation in balanced and independent social, economic, and cultural development (UNESCO, 1989). In many societies, especially the developing ones, education is an endless process.
Many business organizations in the country resort to seminars, conventions, academic studies, distance learning, authorship, inventions, teaching material preparation, on-the-job training, observation tours, and professorial chair lectures as part of their strategies to promote continuing education while on the job, all of which are recognized and promoted by the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC) as part of the national program for continuing professional education (CPE). These are especially prepared to update professionals about recent developments in their respective fields.
As the Filipino work force is faced by a globally prepared competition, the government has required all Filipino professionals to undertake CPE programs, as mandated by Executive Order No. 266 signed by then President Fidel Ramos on July 25, 1995. Since then, at least 43,100 certificates of compliance have been issued by the PRC for professionals.
Continuing education is not spared from issues and concerns. Despite the growing need of college graduates to acquire more skills to better connect themselves with the rest of a globally competitive workforce, continuing education seem to become more of a privilege than a right.
One of the foremost problems facing continuing education programs in the country arises from the general level of educational attainment of Filipinos. A study by Conferido (1998) shows that the condition of the Philippine education system highlights the crisis the country is facing amidst continuing globalization. According to the study, only 11% of the total number of employed obtained tertiary education – a requirement for most continuing education programs.
Another issue is employee motivation. Edralin (1999) stated that, according to national surveys, majority of adults qualified to undertake CPEs do not enroll in one simply because they have no motivation, support, or interest. And even those who are undertaking CPEs can come up with lists of financial, institutional, situational, or behavioral factors that hinder them to actively and maximally participate in such programs.
Furthermore, most people do not perceive the relevance of continuing education in their careers. Many professionals only undertake CPEs simply because they are required to do so by the PRC in order for their licenses to be renewed. This has raised a question as to whether the CPEs actually raised the level of competencies of these professionals.
But the most important and most critical issue continuing education is facing will have to be financing. It has been proven even in developed countries that revenues from taxation are inadequate to finance the increasing costs of education in general and continuing education in particular. In the Philippines, with the advent of the government’s neo-liberal policies that have greatly affected the country’s educational system, unjust tuition hikes for both private and state colleges and universities, the privatization of certain state universities, and other issues are already convincing indicators of the government’s lack of resources to fund general education, which implies that the government must luck resources to fund continuing education. Therefore, to supplement the government’s inadequacy, employer contributions via payroll taxes are seen as additional funds for such programs. With the global economic crisis still hounding the global economy, businesses are most likely to respond to immediate needs and are less likely to commit resources for human resource development.
But how are these issues addressed? Edralin (1999) have recommended 16 salient points for improving the condition of continuing education in the Philippines:
1. The government should unify and standardize a human resource development framework.
2. Continuing education programs should be reviewed.
3. A progressive model of CPE programs should be adopted.
4. The government, through the PRC and other relevant agencies, should improve their monitoring of the CPEs.
5. The government must ensure that access to education should be maximized and democratized.
6. Professionals and workers should be encouraged to continue education by offering incentives such as scholarships.
7. The government should provide tax incentives to firms that promote continuing education.
8. The needs of employees should be identified and assessed.
9. Education and employment should be effectively integrated.
10. Employers, workers’ unions, and the government should work hand-in-hand to achieve their respective goals.
11. Effective financing schemes should be put in place.
12. The government must aggressively market their continuing education programs.
13. The academe should closely cooperate with all providers of continuing education.
14. The educational system must be reformed.
15. A policy review of the laws and guidelines concerning CPEs should be undertaken.
16. Areas for further research should be identified.
In this era of increasing globalization, the primary goal of continuing education in the country is to develop a more competitive labor force. An efficient employee should have the capability, competence, and potential to perform well to meet the grueling demands of the work place. If major reforms in the educational system of the country would be put in place, and if the government has the political will to implement their programs for continuing education and resources are properly allocated and utilized, then this goal will be realized. Continuing education shall eventually provide the momentum for a sustainable effort towards becoming a learning society.
References:
• Atchoarena, D. (ed). 1993. Lifelong Education in Selected Industrialized Countries. Paris, France: International Institute for Educational Planning & National Institute for Educational Research.
• Cervero, RM. 1988. Effective Continuing Education for Professionals. San Francisco, CA. Jossey-Bass.
• Conferido, RD. 1998. Building-blocks Towards Lifelong Learning in the Philippines. Manila, Philippines: Institute of Labor Studies, DOLE.
• Edralin, D. 1999. Continuing Professional / Technical Education in the Philippines. Manila, Philippines: De La Salle University.
• Ofreneo, RE, CL Erickson, S Kuruvilla, MA Ortiz. 2001. Recent Developments in Employment Relations in the Philippines. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.
• http://solair.upd.edu.ph
this post is the extended, academic version of the feature article I have written for a company newsletter
The Philippines is struggling to become a “learning society”, one in which its citizens obtain a high-quality general education, appropriate vocational training, and a job worthy of a human being while continuing to participate in education and training throughout their lives (Edralin, 1999) and, when seen as a set of practices, can be viewed in any of the following: (1) an educated society, committed to active citizenship, liberal democracy, and equal opportunities; (2) a learning market, enabling institutions to provide services for individuals as a condition for supporting the competitiveness of the economy, and; (3) a learning network, where learners adopt a learning approach to life (Edwards, 1995). However, with globalization taking its toll on the country’s primarily below-poverty population, the government’s objective of achieving higher levels of employment, in a manifest attempt to reduce poverty, is hindered by the conspicuous mismatch between the skills offered by higher education institutions (HEIs) and those being looked for by potential employers – a situation further exacerbated by the government’s neo-liberal educational policies such as commercialization of education such as unjust tuition hikes and the like.
Graduates, therefore, in an effort to place themselves ahead of the competitive labor force pack, resort to advanced learning solutions via the practice of continuing education and adult education. Continuing education, as defined by Edralin (1999), refers to “the aggregate principles and practices encompassing education of individuals after they have left the formal system”. On the other hand, adult education is defined as “the entire body of organized educational processes… whereby persons regarded as adult by the society… develop their abilities, enrich their knowledge, improve their technical or professional qualifications… and bring about changes in their attitudes… in the two-fold perspective of full personal development and participation in balanced and independent social, economic, and cultural development (UNESCO, 1989). In many societies, especially the developing ones, education is an endless process.
Many business organizations in the country resort to seminars, conventions, academic studies, distance learning, authorship, inventions, teaching material preparation, on-the-job training, observation tours, and professorial chair lectures as part of their strategies to promote continuing education while on the job, all of which are recognized and promoted by the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC) as part of the national program for continuing professional education (CPE). These are especially prepared to update professionals about recent developments in their respective fields.
As the Filipino work force is faced by a globally prepared competition, the government has required all Filipino professionals to undertake CPE programs, as mandated by Executive Order No. 266 signed by then President Fidel Ramos on July 25, 1995. Since then, at least 43,100 certificates of compliance have been issued by the PRC for professionals.
Continuing education is not spared from issues and concerns. Despite the growing need of college graduates to acquire more skills to better connect themselves with the rest of a globally competitive workforce, continuing education seem to become more of a privilege than a right.
One of the foremost problems facing continuing education programs in the country arises from the general level of educational attainment of Filipinos. A study by Conferido (1998) shows that the condition of the Philippine education system highlights the crisis the country is facing amidst continuing globalization. According to the study, only 11% of the total number of employed obtained tertiary education – a requirement for most continuing education programs.
Another issue is employee motivation. Edralin (1999) stated that, according to national surveys, majority of adults qualified to undertake CPEs do not enroll in one simply because they have no motivation, support, or interest. And even those who are undertaking CPEs can come up with lists of financial, institutional, situational, or behavioral factors that hinder them to actively and maximally participate in such programs.
Furthermore, most people do not perceive the relevance of continuing education in their careers. Many professionals only undertake CPEs simply because they are required to do so by the PRC in order for their licenses to be renewed. This has raised a question as to whether the CPEs actually raised the level of competencies of these professionals.
But the most important and most critical issue continuing education is facing will have to be financing. It has been proven even in developed countries that revenues from taxation are inadequate to finance the increasing costs of education in general and continuing education in particular. In the Philippines, with the advent of the government’s neo-liberal policies that have greatly affected the country’s educational system, unjust tuition hikes for both private and state colleges and universities, the privatization of certain state universities, and other issues are already convincing indicators of the government’s lack of resources to fund general education, which implies that the government must luck resources to fund continuing education. Therefore, to supplement the government’s inadequacy, employer contributions via payroll taxes are seen as additional funds for such programs. With the global economic crisis still hounding the global economy, businesses are most likely to respond to immediate needs and are less likely to commit resources for human resource development.
But how are these issues addressed? Edralin (1999) have recommended 16 salient points for improving the condition of continuing education in the Philippines:
1. The government should unify and standardize a human resource development framework.
2. Continuing education programs should be reviewed.
3. A progressive model of CPE programs should be adopted.
4. The government, through the PRC and other relevant agencies, should improve their monitoring of the CPEs.
5. The government must ensure that access to education should be maximized and democratized.
6. Professionals and workers should be encouraged to continue education by offering incentives such as scholarships.
7. The government should provide tax incentives to firms that promote continuing education.
8. The needs of employees should be identified and assessed.
9. Education and employment should be effectively integrated.
10. Employers, workers’ unions, and the government should work hand-in-hand to achieve their respective goals.
11. Effective financing schemes should be put in place.
12. The government must aggressively market their continuing education programs.
13. The academe should closely cooperate with all providers of continuing education.
14. The educational system must be reformed.
15. A policy review of the laws and guidelines concerning CPEs should be undertaken.
16. Areas for further research should be identified.
In this era of increasing globalization, the primary goal of continuing education in the country is to develop a more competitive labor force. An efficient employee should have the capability, competence, and potential to perform well to meet the grueling demands of the work place. If major reforms in the educational system of the country would be put in place, and if the government has the political will to implement their programs for continuing education and resources are properly allocated and utilized, then this goal will be realized. Continuing education shall eventually provide the momentum for a sustainable effort towards becoming a learning society.
References:
• Atchoarena, D. (ed). 1993. Lifelong Education in Selected Industrialized Countries. Paris, France: International Institute for Educational Planning & National Institute for Educational Research.
• Cervero, RM. 1988. Effective Continuing Education for Professionals. San Francisco, CA. Jossey-Bass.
• Conferido, RD. 1998. Building-blocks Towards Lifelong Learning in the Philippines. Manila, Philippines: Institute of Labor Studies, DOLE.
• Edralin, D. 1999. Continuing Professional / Technical Education in the Philippines. Manila, Philippines: De La Salle University.
• Ofreneo, RE, CL Erickson, S Kuruvilla, MA Ortiz. 2001. Recent Developments in Employment Relations in the Philippines. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.
• http://solair.upd.edu.ph
this post is the extended, academic version of the feature article I have written for a company newsletter
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Ang Tunay na Paglilingkod ay Hindi Oportunismo
Nagwakas na rin ang Feb Fair. Ito'y natuloy sa pamamagitan ng walang humpay at tunay na paglilingkod ng dalawang tagapangulo ng pangkolehiyong konseho ng mag-aaral sa UP Los Baños - si G. Mark Flores ng Colehiyo ng Agham at Sining at Bb. Samantha Javier ng Kolehiyo ng Komunikasyong Pangkaunlaran.
Sa kanilang panunumpa bilang mga kinatawan ng mag-aaral sa pamantasan, sumumpa sila na hindi kailanman tatalikuran ang kanilang tungkulin at responsibilidad sa mga mag-aaral ng Unibersidad ng Pilipinas sa Los Baños - anuman ang mangyari.
Ang sumpang ito ay kanilang pinatunayan nang masuspinde ang Pampanatasang Konseho ng Mag-aaral (University Student Council) ng tatlumpung araw bilang isang pamigil na hakbangin laban sa pagsasagawa ng isang ilegal na aktibidad - ang gawing "Protest Fair" ang FebFair of 2010.
Sa hiling ng mga 30 organisasyon at ilan pang mag-aaral na gustong matuloy ang isang tunay na FebFair, pinulong nina Flores at Javier ang mga mag-aaral na ito upang pag-usapan ang mga maaaring legal na hakbangin upang matuloy ang Fair. Napagkasunduan ng 30 organisasyon na magpasa ng isang liham sa administrasyon na kagyat na ituloy ang FebFair. Ito ay pinayagan ng administrasyon at mismong sila ang umasikaso ng mga papeles at dokumento upang maging legal at tunay ang pagdaraos ng taunang aktibidad na inaabangan ng humigit-kumulang sampung libong mag-aaral ng Unibersidad ng Pilipinas Los Baños.
Ang hakbanging isinagawa nina Flores at Javier ay pagpapatunay na sila ay gumaganap sa kanilang tungkulin. Ngunit, para sa mga taga-suporta ng nasuspindeng USC na hindi kailanma'y tumupad sa kanilang tungkulin bilang tagapaglingkod ng mga mag-aaral. Makikita sa screenshot sa ibaba na sina Flores (CAS Chair) at Javier (CDC Chair) ay inakusahan ng pagiging oportunista. Ito ay isa lamang sa kanilang mga maling defense mechanism upang pagtakpan ang kanilang kakulangan laban sa mga mag-aaral.
Ngunit aking nais itanong, KAILAN PA NAGING OPORTUNISMO ANG TUNAY NA PAGLILINGKOD AT PAGSISILBI SA NASASAKUPAN NA NAAYON SA SINUMPAAN NG MGA TUNAY NA LIDER-ESTUDYANTE NA ITO?
Ayon sa Free Dictionary, ang oportunismo ay ang isang konsyus na kilos o paguugali ng isang tao na makakuha ng agarang bentahe sa mga pumapaloob na sitwasyon nang walang kinikilalang prinsipyo.
Sa aking pagkakakilala kina Mark Flores at Sam Javier, ang dalawang kabataang ito ay kabataang may panindigan at prinsipyo - paninindigan na magbigay ng prinsipyadong paglilingkod sa hanay ng mga mag-aaral na kanilang nasasakupan anuman ang mangyari, anuman ang ideyolohiya o apilyason. At kanila itong ipinakita noong maglunsad sila ng kagyat na aksyon upang maibigay ang kahilingan ng mga mag-aaral na maresolba at matuloy ang FebFair na tila pinabayaan ng USC.
Isa lamang itong pagpapatunay na hindi kailanman nagwawagi ang makasariling paglilingkod at patuloy na mangingibabaw ang pagsisilbi sa tunay na interes ng mga mag-aaral ng Unibersidad.
Ang mga paratang ni Bb. Corky Maranan sa kanyang wall post sa Facebook ay isang patunay kung anong klaseng mga lider sila - makasarili at depensibo. Kinikilala lang ang interes ng kakaunti, ang interes ng mga sumusuporta sa kanila at hindi ang interes ng buong hanay ng mga mag-aaral. Sa pamamagitan nito, inilatag nila ang planong siraan ang mga tunay na lider estudyante na kumakatawan sa tunay na interes ng kapwa nila mag-aaral.
Hindi katulad nina Mark Flores at Sam Javier. Sila ang mga lider na kinakailangan ng kabataan ngayon. Sila ang mga lider ng kabataan na hindi namimili ng apilyason o ideyolohiya. Sila ang mga lider na handang tumulong sa kabataan at mag-aaral.
Hindi kailanman magiging oportunismo ang tunay na pagsisilbi sa kapwa mag-aaral.
Sa kanilang panunumpa bilang mga kinatawan ng mag-aaral sa pamantasan, sumumpa sila na hindi kailanman tatalikuran ang kanilang tungkulin at responsibilidad sa mga mag-aaral ng Unibersidad ng Pilipinas sa Los Baños - anuman ang mangyari.
Ang sumpang ito ay kanilang pinatunayan nang masuspinde ang Pampanatasang Konseho ng Mag-aaral (University Student Council) ng tatlumpung araw bilang isang pamigil na hakbangin laban sa pagsasagawa ng isang ilegal na aktibidad - ang gawing "Protest Fair" ang FebFair of 2010.
Sa hiling ng mga 30 organisasyon at ilan pang mag-aaral na gustong matuloy ang isang tunay na FebFair, pinulong nina Flores at Javier ang mga mag-aaral na ito upang pag-usapan ang mga maaaring legal na hakbangin upang matuloy ang Fair. Napagkasunduan ng 30 organisasyon na magpasa ng isang liham sa administrasyon na kagyat na ituloy ang FebFair. Ito ay pinayagan ng administrasyon at mismong sila ang umasikaso ng mga papeles at dokumento upang maging legal at tunay ang pagdaraos ng taunang aktibidad na inaabangan ng humigit-kumulang sampung libong mag-aaral ng Unibersidad ng Pilipinas Los Baños.
Ang hakbanging isinagawa nina Flores at Javier ay pagpapatunay na sila ay gumaganap sa kanilang tungkulin. Ngunit, para sa mga taga-suporta ng nasuspindeng USC na hindi kailanma'y tumupad sa kanilang tungkulin bilang tagapaglingkod ng mga mag-aaral. Makikita sa screenshot sa ibaba na sina Flores (CAS Chair) at Javier (CDC Chair) ay inakusahan ng pagiging oportunista. Ito ay isa lamang sa kanilang mga maling defense mechanism upang pagtakpan ang kanilang kakulangan laban sa mga mag-aaral.
Ngunit aking nais itanong, KAILAN PA NAGING OPORTUNISMO ANG TUNAY NA PAGLILINGKOD AT PAGSISILBI SA NASASAKUPAN NA NAAYON SA SINUMPAAN NG MGA TUNAY NA LIDER-ESTUDYANTE NA ITO?
Ayon sa Free Dictionary, ang oportunismo ay ang isang konsyus na kilos o paguugali ng isang tao na makakuha ng agarang bentahe sa mga pumapaloob na sitwasyon nang walang kinikilalang prinsipyo.
Sa aking pagkakakilala kina Mark Flores at Sam Javier, ang dalawang kabataang ito ay kabataang may panindigan at prinsipyo - paninindigan na magbigay ng prinsipyadong paglilingkod sa hanay ng mga mag-aaral na kanilang nasasakupan anuman ang mangyari, anuman ang ideyolohiya o apilyason. At kanila itong ipinakita noong maglunsad sila ng kagyat na aksyon upang maibigay ang kahilingan ng mga mag-aaral na maresolba at matuloy ang FebFair na tila pinabayaan ng USC.
Isa lamang itong pagpapatunay na hindi kailanman nagwawagi ang makasariling paglilingkod at patuloy na mangingibabaw ang pagsisilbi sa tunay na interes ng mga mag-aaral ng Unibersidad.
Ang mga paratang ni Bb. Corky Maranan sa kanyang wall post sa Facebook ay isang patunay kung anong klaseng mga lider sila - makasarili at depensibo. Kinikilala lang ang interes ng kakaunti, ang interes ng mga sumusuporta sa kanila at hindi ang interes ng buong hanay ng mga mag-aaral. Sa pamamagitan nito, inilatag nila ang planong siraan ang mga tunay na lider estudyante na kumakatawan sa tunay na interes ng kapwa nila mag-aaral.
Hindi katulad nina Mark Flores at Sam Javier. Sila ang mga lider na kinakailangan ng kabataan ngayon. Sila ang mga lider ng kabataan na hindi namimili ng apilyason o ideyolohiya. Sila ang mga lider na handang tumulong sa kabataan at mag-aaral.
Hindi kailanman magiging oportunismo ang tunay na pagsisilbi sa kapwa mag-aaral.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
