is not quiet in the Diliman Republic

LAST month, a group calling itself the Movement for Democratic Governance in UP, or MDG-UP, issued a statement titled “Accountability and transparency issues continue to hound UP Board of Regents.”

It is actually their position on the recent selection of the UP Diliman Chancellor by the governing body of the premier State University.

The group slammed the BOR for its selection on April 3 of Atty. Edgardo Carlo L. Vistan II as UP Diliman (UPD) Chancellor as the product of “transactional politics,” and urged “greater accountability and transparency” in its decisions.

Last April 17, Dean Ma. Antonia Tanchuling of the UP College of Engineering said the selection of the new Diliman chancellor compromised the university’s long-standing tradition of choosing university leaders on the basis of academic and administrative qualifications as well as the support of both the academic and non-academic community.

She lamented the credentials needed for an academic leader and the sentiments of the UP Diliman community were not given due consideration in the selection of chancellor, and called on UP President Angelo Jimenez and the other regents to disclose how they voted.

“University leadership positions are not simply managerial positions. The entire ethos of the university is based on the idea that intellectual and academic excellence, as well as a record of accomplishment, is necessary. Unlike corporations, universities rely substantially on processes of self-governance. Articles are peerreviewed, departments vote on the tenure and promotion of colleagues. For these decisions to have authority, academic standing and intellectual leadership matter deeply. When the Board of Regents ignores academic credentials and intellectual capability in the selection of leaders, it eviscerates the very life blood of the academy,” the group said.

The MDG-UP also raised concern over the growing centralization and secrecy of decisionmaking at the BOR in relation to appointments and infrastructure development. In 2019, sectoral members of the BOR had already observed the diminishing importance of the UP community’s inputs in the BOR selection of deans. The BOR regents representing the faculty, staff, and students cautioned: “In the past months, a spate of selections for Deanship seems to have been undertaken by the BOR with an apparent disregard for Search Committee reports and the recommendations of the Chancellor.” the country. Given all this, the BOR selection of the chancellors has serious implications not only for how the campuses will be run, but also the quality of its output for the country.

Among these appointments was an outsider, a former Bureau of Internal Review (BIR) commissioner, as the dean of the Virata School of Business (VSB).

The new dean prevailed over nominees who had PhDs and other academic credentials, realworld business experiences, and VSB support.

The dispute between the VSB faculty and the BOR led national media to expose “political appointments” in the selection of UP officials.

But instead of making the selection process more transparent, the BOR opted for more secrecy, the group said.

In January 2020, the sectoral regents wrote the BOR an open letter, raising concerns over the increasingly arbitrary nature of the decisionmaking.

The statement quoted Professor Emeritus Eduardo Tadem, who said in a public forum: “The BOR, as presently constituted, may have seriously damaged and compromised its credibility as a body that can make informed, impartial, and just decisions for the good of the University, its community and the Filipino people.”

The group concluded: “The outcome for the current push for BOR transparency and accountability—twin pillars of democratic governance and meritocracy— will determine whether UP will be able to hold the line against vested interests, out to make the country’s premiere national university no different from other state institutions in the country that have become a base for influence-peddling and patronage.”

(Email: ernhil@yahoo.com)

The letter pointed out it was during the Concepcion administration (2017-2023) that the BOR did away with “the practice of a written endorsement, with clear justifications, by the UP President of his or her recommended candidates.”

The three regents also noted the frequency of executive sessions (when staff is asked to leave the room, and no minutes are taken) and secret balloting. While there were executive sessions in the past, the regents said these were “invoked judiciously and selectively.”

Only under Concepcion was there a “blanket invocation” of executive sessions for “all deliberations on appointments of University officials such as Chancellors.”

Today, the MDG-UP said, there are clear indicators of the emergence of an all-powerful BOR. Not only does it have greater control over the appointments of the chancellors of the eight constituent universities and the deans of colleges in the UP System’s 17 campuses in the country.

It also has greater control over university property and its development, scattered all over

What de Lima said, therefore, is not only nonsense; it’s a clear example of non sequitur.

Online

(www.manilastandard.net)

The Ecology Village anomaly

FORMER Senator Leila de Lima, detained at a police camp for drug raps, must have been incarcerated for such a long time that she seems to be getting delirious enough to think people will believe the nonsense she peddles as gospel truth.

Perhaps, another reason for her behavior is her probable trauma from her failure to get reelected in the May 2022 polls.

Last month, de Lima made a public statement the warrant for the arrest of Russian President Vladimir Putin recently issued by the discredited International Criminal Court (ICC) should prompt the Philippines to rejoin the ICC.

To those in the know, the ICC was created by the Rome Statute, an international treaty that took effect in July 2002.

The Philippines became a signatory to the treaty in 2011, but it formally withdrew in 2018. Its withdrawal took effect a year later.

Because the Philippines withdrew from the Rome Statute, the ICC can no longer exercise

President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. fully supports Remulla’s position, and asserts the ICC has no business operating in the Philippines precisely because of its withdrawal from the Rome Statute.

De Lima said the arrest order against Putin ought to prompt the Philippine government to rejoin the Rome Statute because rejoining will be a “most profound step in joining once again the overall struggle for international criminal justice.”

She added the ICC issues arrest orders in the exercise of its “moral institutional power” to rally member states “to work together against tyrants and butchers who commit irreversible assaults against humanity.”

In an obvious reference to ex-President Rodrigo Roa Duterte, a staunch opponent of the detained senator, de Lima also warned that protecting “our own tyrant from accountability” will take the Philippines “nowhere but the widening path to impunity.”

Incidentally, de Lima is obviously livid at

Undoubtedly, only Representative Castro believes De Lima’s nonsense

President Duterte because she was detained during his administration, which waged an all out war against drug syndicates in the Philippines. The ex-senator’s current detention has been authorized by the Supreme Court. De Lima may not be aware of it, but her statement is sheer nonsense.

First, the warrant of arrest issued by the ICC against Putin has no significance in international law because Russia has not ratified its inclusion in the Rome Statute.

How on earth then can an arrest order of the ICC be carried out against Putin?

Second, there is manifestly no connection between a legally unenforceable arrest order issued against Putin and the supposed need for the Philippines to rejoin the Rome Statute.

Third, de Lima suggests that ex-President Duterte is a tyrant, but she conveniently failed to state that Duterte was overwhelmingly elected to the presidency in 2016, and that he stepped down from office at the official end of his term in 2022.

Tyrants do not step down from power voluntarily.

During Duterte’s administration, press freedom was alive and kicking; the political opposition was free to operate; and the Supreme Court and the lower courts were open and functioning.

Those fundamental freedoms would not exist during the Duterte administration if Duterte was the tyrant de Lima imagines him to be.

For the record, President Duterte is not facing any criminal charges in Philippine courts.

In contrast, it’s de Lima who is currently behind bars and, as I mentioned earlier, her continued detention has been upheld by the Supreme Court. This fact already confirms that de Lima’s statement is pure rubbish.

As expected, only a few hopelessly diehard anti-Duterte personalities are echoing de Lima’s nonsense. One of them is party-list Representative France Castro of ACT Teachers, which observers consider as sympathetic to

Lessons in life from 3 retirees: Respect for parents, the golden rule, and honesty

radical elements.

Only a few misguided people listen to Castro and her kind anyway.

Even assuming that the Philippines did not withdraw from the Rome Statute, the ICC still cannot exercise jurisdiction over the Philippines because the ICC can only enter the Philippine legal scenario if the justice system in this country is a failure.

Regarding that matter, several members of the House of Representatives of Congress led by Pampanga solon Gloria Macapagal Arroyo recently filed a resolution declaring that the justice system in the country under President Marcos is functioning and independent.

This is evident from the fact that today, press freedom, free speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of worship, freedom of travel and other fundamental freedoms remain in force throughout the country, and the Supreme Court continues to operate independently. Undoubtedly, only Representative Castro believes de Lima’s nonsense.