UP ALYANSA’s Position Paper on the Proposed 2012 UP and Education Budget

UP Alyansa ng mga Mag-aaral para sa Panlipunang Katwiran at Kaunlaran (UP ALYANSA) is a duly-recognized leadership and service formation in the University of the Philippines – Diliman. Composed of students and student organizations in the University, we have been vigorously pursuing progressive social change in accordance to our four pillars, namely progressive multiperspective activism, academic excellence, student empowerment, and social justice and social progress.

Education, for UP ALYANSA, is a human right and a tool in the attainment of academic excellence, social justice and social progress. Through the acquisition of knowledge and skills from the four walls of our classrooms, our citizens achieve not only their personal development – be it intellectual, physical, emotional and social – but also civic and political consciousness. Since it gives empowerment especially to the marginalized, oppressed and powerless, education thus becomes an essential service that the State must provide.

The 2012 National Expenditure Program submitted by the Department of Budget and Management to the House of Representatives on 26 July 2011 proposes an increase in the budget of the whole education sector, from P218.9-billion for 2011 to P241.1-billion for 2012. Among the items in the education pie, the Department of Education (DepEd) and the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) receive a hike in their earmark compared to last year, while the Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA) and State Universities and Colleges (SUCs) suffer a reduction in its budget.

While the formation recognizes the marked increase in the allocation for elementary and secondary education, UP ALYANSA believes that prioritization of education should never discriminate tertiary education. This belief is grounded on our Constitution, which mandates the State to “protect and promote the right of all citizens to quality education AT ALL LEVELS” (1987 Constitution: Art. XIV, Sec. 1; capitalization added).

In the case of the University of the Philippines, the budget that is allotted to the country’s national university reflects the government’s policy towards tertiary education. From the P17.07-billionproposal of the University administration, the government via the DBM only approved P5.54-billion,or a measly 34%, for 2012. Compared to this year’s allocation, UP’s budget decreases by P208.2-million, or 3.6%, for 2012. This is not the first time that the University is given an insufficient budget. For the past five years, UP received a high of P7.1-billlion (in celebration of its centennial anniversary), to a low of P4.8-billion.

We, UP students, have a litany of reasons to complain about this decline in our budget: our classrooms are in an old and decrepit condition; our laboratories are deteriorating and ill-supplied; our libraries still lack subscriptions in online journals and scholarly publications; our researches and field schools are underfunded; our instructors and staff are atrociously underpaid; our limited student housing are already creaking and fire-/earthquake-prone; our vast campus is becoming difficult to maintain and secure; and the list goes on.

You, our duly-elected leaders, do not have any reason to shrug off our dilemmas. Section 22 (d) of the 2008 UP Charter explicitly stipulates that the revenues generated from the utilization of vast tracks of idle lands in the University “shall not be meant to replace, in part or in whole, the annual appropriations provided by the national government to the national university.”

As we face again an impending decrease in our budget allocation for 2012, UP ALYANSA reiterates its call for a higher budget for the Philippines’ national university. We implore the members of the House of Representatives to assist UP in fulfilling its most important functions, namely committing itself towards national development (2008 UP Charter: Sec. 7; the Charter even made mention that the Philippine Congress “may request the national university to conduct research or provide advice on any matter involving public policy”), and serving the Filipino nation and humanity (ibid.: Sec. 8).

To realize its aim to be the leading academic, graduate, and research university in this side of the world (2008 UP Charter: Sec. 3), we call upon our legislators to retain the P1.1-billion proposal of the UP administration for Capital Outlay (CA), in order to fund the following projects:
- UP Diliman Engineering Research and Development for Technology
- UP Diliman National Science Complex Buildings
- UP Manila Centennial Building and Sports and Wellness Center (Phase 1)
- UP Los Baños Analytical Laboratory
- UP Visayas - Cebu College Library Building Extension
- UP Open University Learning Centers in the regions
The government should not content itself with the recent rise of UP in international university rankings (e.g., Quacquarelli Symonds World University Rankings, Webometrics Ranking of World Universities). With stiff competition especially from institutions of higher learning from the Asia-Pacific region, UP still has a long way to go to catch up with the best in the region.

In searching for new sources of funding for UP and the education sector at-large, we suggest that the House of Representatives must carefully scrutinize and reduce discretionary spending, rechannel debt-servicing allocation to education, and legislate measures that will increase the tax effort of the government.

Finally, we re-echo the call of our national partner, the Youth Against Debt (YAD) Coalition, in legislating a bill that will automatically appropriate at least 6% of the Gross National Product (GNP) to the whole education sector. The proposed 2012 education budget, amid the increase, only amounts to 2.5% of our 2010 GNP – less than half and a far cry from our ideal budget. The 6%-of-GNP standard, first proposed in 1996 by the International Commission of Education in the Twenty First Century (headed by Jacques Delors), is considered as the UNESCO international benchmark for education and is already accepted by over a hundred countries. In following this international standard, the basic, higher and technical education sectors are now assured of the priority it deserves from the State without causing ill and irreparable effects to the quality and accessibility of education our people receives. In addition, this standard is in sync with a clear Constitutional provision that “assigns the highest budgetary priority to education” (1987 Constitution: Art. XIV, Sec. 5).

As UP, CHED, DepEd and other agencies prepare its respective budget presentations to the House Committee on Appropriations, UP ALYANSA will continue to engage our lawmakers (in both chambers of Congress) and the Aquino administration in the call of every Iskolar Para Sa Bayan for a higher budgetary allocation for UP and the whole education sector.

We, in UP ALYANSA, believe in the transformative benefits of education for our country. We maintain that unless the government increases the budget of its national university and invests more on the education sector, we will find it nearly impossible to attain quality, relevant and accessible education, lift ourselves from poverty, and uplift the lives of our countrymen.


INCREASE THE UP BUDGET, INVEST IN EDUCATION.



REFERENCES:

1987 Philippine Constitution
2008 University of the Philippines Charter
2010 National Account, National Statistics Office
2011 General Appropriations Act
2012 National Expenditure Program

Freedom from Debt Coalition and Youth Against Debt Coalition (2008). “The Neglected Generation”.http://fdc.ph/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=59&&Itemid=89 (Retrieved: July 31, 2011).

Office of the Hon. Ma. Kristina Conti (2011). “Updates from the Student Regent: On the budget campaign”. http://www.facebook.com/notes/krissy-conti/updates-from-the-student-regent-on-the-budget-campaign/10150247703715069 (Accessed: July 31, 2011).

BUDGET WATCH UPDATE: ALYANSA’s budget campaign reaches the House of Representatives

August 3 (Wednesday): We gave out copies of our three-page position paper to 47 district and partylist representatives in the Lower House. Dialogues with some of these congressmen/women will commence very soon.

August 4 (Thursday): UP ALYANSA Vice Chairperson for Education and Research Aides Baccay and Buklod CSSP Circle of Individuals Rep. Migs Angeles witnessed the budget hearings for CHED and SUCs (including UP) at the Andaya Hall, House of Representatives.

That same day, we were also able to personally hand out UP ALYANSA's and Buklod CSSP's position papers to UP President Alfredo Pascual and UPD Chancellor Caesar Saloma. They both agreed to have a dialogue with us regarding the UP budget and other student issues.

Iskolar Para Sa Bayan, kasama ka sa BUDGET WATCH. MAKILAM at MAKIBAHAGI.


IN THE PHOTO: UP President Alfredo Pascual and CHED Chairperson Patricia Licuanan at the CHED and SUCs budget hearing, Andaya Hall, House of Representatives. (Photo credit: Aides Baccay)

Links to President Noynoy Aquino's 2011 State of the Nation Address (SONA)

Original speech, in Filipino: http://www.gov.ph/2011/07/25/benigno-s-aquino-iii-second-state-of-the-nation-address-july-25-2011/

English translation: http://www.gov.ph/2011/07/25/benigno-s-aquino-iii-second-state-of-the-nation-address-july-25-2011-en/

Technical Report: http://www.gov.ph/2011/07/25/the-2011-state-of-the-nation-address-technical-report/

2011 Youth Statement on the State of the Nation

(Given at Manila, July 22, 2011)


A year has passed since President Benigno Simeon Aquino III delivered his State of the Nation Address. His first year in office shed light on the tremendous corruption that was institutionalized in the government by the previous administration. We waited patiently as the President introduced reform measures to address corruption, poverty, health, and a host of other concerns that seemed to have been neglected and worsened by the previous administration. Government effort in addressing these concerns slowly but surely restored trust and hope in government.

It is no surprise that the youth today feel that we must speak up about our issues now that the mechanisms for addressing our concerns have been strengthened.

The State of the Nation for the Filipino Youth is one filled with both trepidation and hope. There is trepidation because the opposition to reform efforts is very strong. But we also know there is hope now that we can see crucial youth reform measures can be realized under this administration.

Security of Employment

Now is the time to raise the collective voice of the youth in fighting not only for jobs, but security of tenure in those jobs.

Contractualization is a major factor to the serious employment problem. The youth have nothing to gain from such an oppressive and failed job policy that has ensured that our workers have little protection from corporate greed. Current labor laws are inadequate in ensuring the rights of workers are protected by the pernicious effects of contractualization.

A study in 2000 by a leading international research NGO showed that the “combined share of casual, contractual and part-time workers in total enterprise-based employment” had increased from 14 to 15 percent in 1990-94 to 18.1 percent in 1995 and to 21.1 percent in 1997, which meant that for every five workers at least one was a non-regular worker.

Another local research has even claimed that between 1995 and 2005, contractual labor in the Philippines has “soared from 65 percent to as much as 78 percent of the country’s employed labor force.”

The youth is challenging the Aquino government to generate secure jobs for all, especially for the working youth, and for jobs wherein workers are justly remunerated and their rights are fully respected. We are also calling for the passage of the Security of Tenure bill, HB 4853, which has been lingering in Congress for more than a decade now. This legislation, if passed, will be the biggest response of the President Aquino government in addressing the working youth’s concerns

Education

In 1948 the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which recognized the universal right to education. We believe that education is a right that must remain accessible to all Filipinos regardless of race, religion, gender, and social class.

While the government has made attempts to solve this problem, it has yet to address the issue of educational accessibility. A K-12 system does not mean more poor youths will have access to education.

The solution is larger government investment in education. With the current administration spending only 2.44% of the GNP, less than the 6% international standard, it comes as no surprise that education in the country remains as dismal as ever.

Access, however, must go in tandem with quality. We believe that students learn more in academic environments that respect their rights. The Students Rights and Welfare (STRAW) bill will allow students to demand more from their teachers and administrators. It will also ensure that school administrations respect the autonomy of its students.

Healthcare and RH Bill

We believe that a comprehensive reproductive health policy is crucial to the welfare of the youth. Age-appropriate and gender sensitive sex education is integral to the intellectual and moral growth of young people.

It is imperative that RH information and services be made available and accessible to those who needed it most: young people, who are most prone to sexual illnesses and unwanted pregnancies.

We support the Reproductive Health Bill. It is a law that will allow the state to uphold women’s rights and the health of its citizens, regardless of which faith they subscribe to.

These three measures are the most urgent legislative actions that can address the needs of the Filipino youth today. We therefore urge President Aquino to fast track their passage.

We agree that the road to reform is a rough and rugged road. However, it is a road that we Filipino youth will wholeheartedly tread. The straight path, the “tuwid na daan” which our hero Jose Rizal walked was never easy. But we must remember that at the end of every road is the destination. For the likes of Rizal it was freedom from tyranny and ignorance. For the youth, it is the freedom from economic disempowerment, from deprivation of right to health, and the right to meaningful education.

There are five years left for our President to accomplish these and other reforms. They may seem insurmountable but with the youth backing a comprehensive reform agenda, we will succeed.


Signed:
MABUTING PILIPINO YOUTH MOVEMENT*

* UP ALYANSA is a convener of the Mabuting Pilipino Youth Movement

Void or Valid? The legal acrobatics of the Supreme Court decision in Hacienda Luisita

by Rep. Kaka Bag-ao
AKBAYAN Party-list


Decision or Confusion?

In its decision dated July 5, 2011, the Supreme Court affirmed the resolution of the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC) revoking the Stock Distribution Plan (SDP) of the Hacienda Luisita Inc. (HLI). At first blush, it may seem that the decision is a victory for the farmers. However, a close reading of the lengthy decision will show that it leaves much to be desired.

To be fair, the decision did have some positive aspects. It made an assertion that the revocation of the SDP is not an intra-corporate dispute and that the SDOA is a special contract imbued with public interest and is primarily governed by the provisions of RA 6657.

The SC also agreed with the findings of the PARC that HLI did not fully comply with the distribution of homelots to the farmworker-beneficiaries (FWBs), that the use of “man-days” formula in the distribution of stocks effectively diluted the shares of the qualified FWBs in the corporation and that the provision of the SDP which called for a 30-year timeframe for the distribution of the stocks was violative of the mandated 3-month period to complete the transfer process of shares.

However, the good news all ended there. These favorable declarations seemed very insignificant compared to the alarming statements plaguing the decision. Out of the six (6) grounds cited by PARC, three of the grounds were actually overturned by the Supreme Court. What is even more disconcerting is that the discussions on the three grounds involve interpretations of the law which may be applied to the disadvantage of existing SDPs.

First, the decision disagreed with PARC’s argument that the SDP was void because it failed to enhance the dignity and improve the quality of the lives of the FWBs. It The SC decision stipulated that the law did not guarantee the enhancement of the dignity and improvement of the quality of lives of the FWBs, but merely provided them with an “opportunity” to enhance and improve their lives. Thus, it was not the legal obligation of the HLI under the SDP, nor an imperative imposition of the CARP or DAO 10. As with any business venture, a corporation, such as HLI, cannot guarantee a profitable run all the time.

Proceeding with this view of the SC, SDPs, in general, are not expected to uplift the status of our farmers. While the other farmers who have been granted their own lands under compulsory acquisition are already enjoying the benefits of tilling their own lands, their counterparts who have become subjects to the stock distribution option, such as the FWBs of HLI, are placed at the mercy of the corporate gods. If the corporation proved to be unprofitable, the FWBs are forced to accept their fate. In local parlance, “sorry na lang sila.” This is the picture that the decision conveys. Despite the fact that HLI is far from profitable, having admitted to be deep in debts, the SC still gave the FWBs the worthless option of staying as a stockholder of an ailing corporation contrary to the dictates of social legislation. Pursuant to its fundamental role as defender of the oppressed, it should have intervened and decided in favor of land distribution because it is clearly the better alternative for the FWBs. It cannot wash its hands by saying that the FWBs took the risk when they opted for stock distribution. If the stock option failed to achieve the fundamental objective of agrarian reform, the distribution of the lands to the FWBs becomes imperative.

Second, the decision disagreed with the pronouncement of PARC that the conversion of the lands violated the SDP. As a justification, it maintained that it is not the agricultural land which the law mandates to remain intact but the viability of the corporate operations. If we subscribe by the logic of the decision, HLI can just dispose the agricultural lands and merely claim that it is necessary for the viability of the corporation. It will result to the fragmentation of ownership and will serve to deprive the FWBs of their livelihood and a portion of their share of the land. This is contrary to the very heart of agrarian reform which is the ownership by the farmers of the land they till. Clearly, the physical integrity of the farmlands must remain inviolable.

Third, the decision overturned the pronouncement of PARC that the 2-year period under the law does not pertain to the implementation of the SDP or the distribution of the stocks but applies to the approval of or application for the stock distribution option. However, in its discussion on the period of implementation, it held that the corporate landowner is compelled to complete, not merely initiate, the transfer process of shares within a three (3) month timeframe. Now, which is which? Apparently, even the Court is confused.


Stock Distribution Option : Constitutional or Unconstitutional?

One of the biggest confusions created by the decision concerns the issue of the constitutionality of the mechanism of stock distribution.

The decision stated that the constitutionality issue was rendered moot by the passage of RA 9700 (CARPER) in 2009. Not only was the issue moot, the SC likewise held that it was not the lis mota of the case, which means that its resolution is not critical and that the tribunal can still rule upon the case using other grounds. However, despite these clear pronouncements, the Supreme Court treaded dangerous grounds by discussing and impliedly ruling in favor of constitutionality. This may have an undesirable impact on the other 14 SDOs, 12 of which have been petitioned for revocation, existing throughout the country.

The Supreme Court impliedly upheld the constitutionality of the stock distribution option by stating that it falls within the ambit of the second mode of land distribution which is collective ownership. In the decision, the SC interpreted the words “collective ownership” to mean as “sama-samang paggawa sa isang lupain o isang bukid”, an example of which is the HLI SDP.

In a stock distribution option, farmers are given shares of stocks in corporations instead of lands. In the case of the HLI, the corporation owns the land and the FWBs were given stocks amounting to just 33% of the total number of shares. As mere minor stockholders, the FWBs have no ownership or control over the land and may even be deprived of it by the simple expedient of conversion and sale of the lands by the corporation. Through this mechanism, the FWBs of HLI will never become the owners of the lands. Yes, they may have stocks, but they are still landless. For years, they will be tilling and remain slaves to lands belonging to corporate landowners. Worse, the corporation may even dispose of the majority of the lands under the guise of “sustaining corporate viability” leaving the FWBs with no land at all. Emphatically, the freedom from bondage to the soil envisioned by the true land reform will never be realized.

The words of Justice Mendoza in his dissenting opinion are instructive:

“In a genuine land reform, the qualified FWBs should be given, directly or collectively, ownership of the land they till with all legal rights and entitlement, subject only to the limitations under the law, like the retention limits, expropriation and payment of just compensation. Under a collective ownership, if they are not in control of the cooperative or association, it cannot be considered a compliance with the law.”

Clearly, if the Supreme Court intended to uphold the tenets of true agrarian reform, it should have ruled against the constitutionality of Section 31.


Is the Stock Distribution Option Agreement valid?

It bears emphasis that the nullification of the SDP by PARC was affirmed by the SC. The obvious and necessary consequence of the nullification is that the SDP no longer exists.

The Supreme Court, however, took a different view. Under the cloak of the principle called “operative fact”, it justified the continued existence of the SDP after having declared it to be void. This is borne by the directive of the Supreme Court to allow the farmers the option to remain as stockholders of HLI.

This pronouncement of the SC finds no basis in fact and in law and confuses the public.

The “operative fact” doctrine declares that when a law is found to be unconstitutional, its effects prior to its nullification may be respected as a matter of equity and fair play. It must only be applied in cases where there is a vacuum as to the applicability of any law or jurisprudence. In the case of HLI, there is no vacuum created because Section 31 of CARP categorically states that in the event that a stock distribution is not completed, direct land distribution should be resorted to. Thus, when the SC nullified the SDP, the Court should have applied Section 31 and ordered the distribution of the land.

Furthermore, it must be stressed that the application of the doctrine should be demanded only by equity. Is it equitable to allow the farmers to be stockholders of a corporation that is not only deep in debts but is also highly unprofitable? Is it equitable to allow a corporation to perpetuate injustice to the farmers and circumvent the noble purposes of agrarian reform though the conversion and sale of agricultural lands? Is it equitable to deprive the farmers of their lands for more than two decades? Common sense answers otherwise.


The Supreme Court’s directive to conduct a referendum has no basis

After declaring the nullity of the SDP, the Supreme Court nonetheless proceeded to allow the FWBs to choose a legally baseless agreement. In her dissenting opinion, Justice Lourdes Sereno stated that:

“Without any legal basis left to support the SDP after the pronouncement of the complete nullity of the administrative approval thereof, the majority proceeded to allow the farmworker-beneficiaries (FWBs) of Hacienda Luisita the option to choose a completely legally baseless arrangement. It is legally baseless because an SDP and its operating agreement, a Stock Distribution Option Agreement (SDOA), can only be valid with the corresponding PARC approval. There is not a single legal twig on which the order to proceed with the voting option can hang, except the will of this Court’s majority.”

It must be remembered that the nullification was based on the violations of the provisions of the SDP and ensuing injustice to the farmers. Despite this, the SC still allowed them to remain in the same prejudicial set-up. The SC attempted to validate it by transferring the weight to the farmers through referendum. This is nothing short of a coward decision and is an abrogation of the high court’s fundamental role of upholding social justice. As correctly opined by Justice Sereno in her dissent, “to allow the FWBs, the disadvantaged sector sought to be uplifted through agrarian reform, to remain in an illegal arrangement simply because they choose to so remain is completely contrary to the mandatory character of social justice legislation.”

Referendum should not be treated as an actual option. As admitted by the FWBs themselves, their past experiences with elections (approval 1989 SDOA and the 2010 compromise agreement) indicate that there can never be a truthful referendum and that there is no environment of free and informed choice in HLI. Additionally, referendum is not anchored on any law. In fact, the Supreme Court overstepped its authority by encroaching upon the executive functions of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR).


The Road Ahead

Since the SDP, which is essentially the same as the SDOA, has already been nullified by the Supreme Court, the logical and only step the government, particularly the DAR, should take is to resort to compulsory acquisition and the ultimate distribution of the lands to the FWBs.

The President and his administration are called to proceed with the coverage of the lands. Since the Temporary Restraining Order has already been lifted, there exists no legal obstacle for the DAR to put the lands under compulsory coverage.

It is time to give the lands to the FWBs. While it may be said that the distribution of the lands may give rise to questions on the economic viability of the small lands, nothing prevents them from pooling their lands and organizing into a cooperative. What is important is that we empower the FWBs by allowing them to decide for themselves, not as slaves to the land, but as proud landowners.

Unless and until there is actual land distribution, there can be no agrarian reform. The Constitution mandates ownership of the land and liberation from bondage to the soil. We should not settle for anything less than that. And not even a confusing decision can stop us.



*** A lawyer by profession, AKBAYAN Rep. Kaka Bag-ao was the Convenor of the Alternative Legal Group, a network of NGOs providing legal support to marginalized communities. She was the legal counsel of the Sumilao farmers.

RIZAL @ 150

Tanggapin mo, Iskolar para sa Bayan, ang hamon ni Rizal para sa pagbabago.

Isang pag-alala sa isang dakilang Pilipino sa kanyang ika-150 kaarawan.

Flashback: Student Code

2009: The 2009 Draft Code of Student Conduct was released. Given ambiguous provisions that curtail the basic rights of the students, ALYANSA launched the BREAK THE CODE Campaign. Recognizing every institution’s absolute right to establish rules and regulations governing university-student relations and recognizing the imminent need for changes in the existing rules governing student affairs, the BREAK the CODE Campaign sought to engage the administration to review and revise the 2009 Student Code of Conduct. Along with multiple organizations in the University also pushing for its revision, ALYANSA submitted a 10-page position paper that sufficiently explains contentious points while providing clear and sensible alternatives to the proposal: With the aim of protecting every student’s rights and welfare, ALYANSA called for the removal of the following provisions that are contradictory with our constitutionally guaranteed rights to free association and due process:

- Art. IV, No. 32 | Sec. 3.1, Art. VI: 0.5% Membership Requirement for Organizations
- Sec. 1.3.1.d, Art VI: The No-Freshmen Recruitment Rule
- Sec. 3.1.d.4, Art. VI: Academic Activity Requirement for Organizations
- Sec. 1.2.1, Art VII, Sec. 2.6, Art. VII, Sec. 3.6.5, Art. VII: Rule on Summons
- Sec. 3.6.7, Art. VII, Sec. 4.5.3, Art. VII, Sec. 4.6.3.3, Art. VII: Counsel for Respondent not permitted to argue before SDC/CDC
- Sec. 2.3.a, Art VI: Misconduct
- Sec. 1.3.1.a, Art VI: Harm to Persons
- Sec. 1.4.c, Art. VI: Inappropriate Behavior

The formation also called for the inclusion of the Bill of Students’ Rights that gives explicit and specific mention to particular liberties, benefits, and entitlements that the UP Administration must respect, protect, and guarantee. Concrete mechanisms for consultation on policies that ultimately affect the students were also strongly demanded to ensure that the crafting of policies are genuinely representative and responsive to the needs of the stakeholders.

2010: With the call: “Break the Code of Student Conduct! Oppose repressive and reasonable restrictions! Push for progressive and pro-student provisions!”, the 2009 campaign bore positive results. Majority of the provisions reviewed and suggestions forwarded by the formation along with organizations who boldly took a stand on the issue were taken into consideration on the 2010 Draft Student Code of Conduct. However, rooms for improvements on the 2010 Draft were still possible- and thus forwarded:

- The formation maintains its position that a tambayan is not merely a privilege but a right, in pursuit of the University's goal towards a holistic humanitarian education, as well as a manifestation of our right to join organizations for purposes not contrary to law
- Instead of the disciplinary body inviting “students as resource persons in the conduct of proceedings”, the accused should be the one to have the power to request for the presence of such.
- The requirements for organizational recognition are still not clearly manifested.
- The formation maintains its stand on the inclusion of the Bill of Students’ rights in the Code of Conduct.

Iskolars para sa Bayan, our call for a progressive Student Code of Conduct has not yet come to an end. We are faced with the challenge to be involved in the making of the Student Code of Conduct, and this we should not take lightly. We have definitely broken the code, but what comes next? We craft it. We strengthen it. We uphold it.

Iskolar Para Sa Bayan, kasama ka sa pagpapatibay at pagtatanggol ng ating mga karapatan.
Kasama ka sa ALYANSA.


June 14, 2011

STFAP Under Protest!

We thought we were faced with a new endeavour, a new evil that spreads fear among our ranks. But, once again, we were wronged and were made fools as we believe the news that some groups claim to be true.

FACT: Last April 8, the UP Administration issued a memorandum declaring that they will use a "revised Socialized Tuition Fee Bracket B Certification for distribution to incoming freshmen students during the Registration Period for the First Semester AY 2011-2012". The additional requirements are: (1) Income Tax Return (ITR) for the last year or, a copy of the employment contract if parent(s) is/are Overseas Filipino Worker(s); and (2) Vicinity map of the family residence. The certification is also required to be notarized.

LIE: The default bracket for incoming freshman students during the Registration Period AY 2011-2012 is Bracket A (or P1,500/unit).

FACT: According to the Office of the Vice President for Academic Affairs (OVPAA, UP System) and the Office of Scholarships and Student Services (OSSS, UP Diliman), the default bracket for STFAP remains at Bracket B (or P1,000/unit).

We condemn the groups within the University who are spreading fear among the students, in general, and the freshmen, in particular. We encourage our fellow and incoming Iskolars Para Sa Bayan to keep themselves informed and to not let themselves be a victim of misinformation.

But this does not keep us from pushing for a just, progressive, and socialized tuition policy. We condemn the already flawed Socialized Tuition and Financial Assistance Program, and the manner by which this memorandum was issued. Again, the primary stakeholders of the University weren't consulted given the additional requirements to avail the base tuition, a clear violation of Students' Rights and Welfare.

As we have said since 2008, we have waited long enough for the UP Administration to rectify its severe errors. This period has long expired. Let us not stand idly as another year goes by when more and more deserving students are deprived of access to UP education.

Let us show everyone, especially the UP Administration, that our payment of tuition is not an expression of our conformity to their erroneous policies. Let us show that we have PAID UNDER PROTEST against policies that prejudice us and our fellow Iskolars Para Sa Bayan.


PUSH FOR A JUST, PROGRESSIVE, AND SOCIALIZED TUITION POLICY!


June 14, 2011

Araw ng Kalayaan 2011

Mga Iskolar Para Sa Bayan, tuloy ang laban para sa panlipunang katwiran at kaunlaran ngayong Araw ng Kalayaan!

Ang Iskolar ng Bayan ay Iskolar Para Sa Bayan!

ALYANSA for better budget for UP, higher budget for SUCs

"Nawa'y marinig natin mula sa Kongresong ito ngayong darating na SONA na ginawang priority bill na ang awtomatikong paglalaan ng 6% ng GNP para sa edukasyon taon-taon. Kasama ninyo ang UP ALYANSA at ang mga Iskolar para sa Bayan sa adhikaing ito."

- Solidarity message ni Aides Baccay, UP ALYANSA Vice Chairperson for Education, Research, and Training, sa ginanap na mobilisasyon ng Youth Against Debt Coalition sa labas ng House of Representatives kaninang umaga.


Photo credit: Freedom from Debt Coalition (http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a​.215546715143430.57988.126626354035467)

interAKSYON.com: "Youth group to lawmakers: Re-channel debt service to education budget" (http://www.interaksyon.com/article/4987/​youth-group-to-lawmakers-re-channel-debt​-service-to-education-budget)