Demolition Job
Assessing the issues behind the eviction of the GAB Caf concessionaires RUTH GENEVIEVE AUSTRIA LUMIBAO, JENNAH YELLE MANATO MALLARI, AND ANGELICA NATIVIDAD REYES ILLUSTRATION BY DEONAH ABIGAIL LUGO MIOLE AND DANIEL JOHN GALINATO ESTEMBER
ast February 28, 2014, L all concessionaires in the university without a contract
were evicted. The livelihood of these people who have served the students, faculty, and staff of the university will be put in peril for the sake not only of modernization but also of commercialization. But now we are faced with an administration that does not bow down to the rights of students and concessionaires. The Despot In a meeting on January 24, 2014, the administration of the University of the Philippines Manila informed the concessionaires in the Gusaling Andres Bonifacio (GAB) Cafeteria that a new student center building was going to be built. For sanitary purposes, the administration informed the concessionaires that they will have to leave to give way for the construction. This, however, created confusion in the primary reason for evicting the concessionaires because they could be easily transferred to a different location within the university. In an interview* with The Manila Collegian, Dr. Jose Florencio Lapeňa, the newly-appointed Vice Chancellor for Administration (VCA), clarified that the concessionaires are being evicted because they do not have a contract with the administration. For the concessionaires to return to the university, Lapeňa said, “Your administration will announce if, and when concessionaires will be available for proper application processes, to the general public, including these and other interested prospective concessionaires”.
Opening the bidding to the public is not the same as granting business security to the concessionaires. Their contracts may have expired, but they still paid their rent to the administration. The lapses of the administration in ensuring that there is a contract should not be blamed on the concessionaires. But the administration itself does not want to hear the grievances of the concessionaires. VCA Lapeňa himself said, “There was no need for [such] consultations. Their day-to-day or monthto-month occupancies had actually dragged on for several years (most for more than 5 years) on verbal agreements only, without written contracts. Many of the stalls are semi-permanent or permanent structures accessing utilities of the University.”Contrary to this, Section 22(f) of the 2008 Charter of the University of the Philippines requires that any income generating scheme or use of real properties in the university should undergo democratic consultations with its constituents. Neither the eviction of the concessionaires nor the establishment of a new student center building underwent proper consultations with the student body. An administration that does not value democratic consultation is an administration that wants to relieve itself of accountability to its constituents. And a public office that is not held accountable to its constituents is bound to abuse its power.
The Stakeholders For several years now, the GAB Caf concessionaires have been the most accessible source of affordable food for the students taking their subjects inside the College of Arts and Sciences. In this case, the current actions of the UP Manila administration threaten the business
security of these concessionaires as well as the accessibility of a nearby food source for the students. According to Vice Chancellor Lapeña, “Clean, nutritious and affordable food is available nearby, if students simply walk a bit further. The PGH itself, as well as Padre Faura, Taft Avenue and Pedro Gil has food outlets, not to mention the nearby grocery stores. All of these are closer to CAS than similar sites on other campuses like Diliman. The students will not lack outlets to obtain food from; what they will lack (and miss) are the outlets they have gotten used to having.” He also added that “ . . . The GAB Caf “issue” will only be an issue if it is treated as such.” It is indeed possible for students to obtain food from other sources outside CAS. But in terms of expediency and security, such argument poses a threat to the students. Not only does it cost the students more time to go out and look for other food concessionaires, it also endangers the safety of the students because they will have to go beyond school premises. The food outside are also more expensive than those offered by the GAB Caf concessionaires. Students who cannot afford other food sources will now experience the difficulty of coping not only with the rising cost of education but the deprivation of affordable food sources inside the University. Lapeña also stated that “. . . Without written contracts arrived at based on due process, there are no obligations binding both parties (in this case, the concessionaire and the University), and therefore no basis for assuming responsibility. If, for instance, the health and safety of students is jeopardized by any product sold by a concessionaire, who will be held responsible? . . .” Based on this statement, the administration
waives the assumption of responsibility in case “the health and safety of students is jeopardized by any product sold by a concessionaire”. If the administration really worries about the health security of the students, then it is a huge hypocrisy to encourage the students to buy food outside the University since, as said earlier, these suggestions do not just pose threats to the health of the students but to their security and financial capacity as well. But the power of the students to demand the accountability of the administration is not yet lost. As Vice Chairperson of the College of Arts and Sciences Student Council (CASSC), Rodel Cahiyang stated, the GAB Caf concessionaires will not give up easily, “basta makinang ang suporta ng mga estudyante.” The administration seemingly wants to waive all their responsibilities and completely abandon the students. This is, however, impossible. None of their actions will make them unaccountable to their constituents.
The Persecuted The GAB Caf concessionaires have provided services for the University and the students. For several years, the concessionaires depended on the income generated by their operations within the university. Now, they are on the danger of being robbed of and displaced from their livelihood. The representatives of the concessionaires mentioned that they were given a very short notice in relation to their eviction in GAB Caf. According to them, the initial discussions about the erection of the new student center showed no problems relating to the Continued on page 09