The Ongoing Fight For Our Democratic Rights

The first semester of AY 2008-2009 marks the continuous struggle of students, student organizations and institutions against the economic crises, alongside the struggle against the continuing commercialization of UP education and fascism inside the campus.

BACKGROUND

The UP students have continued to coordinate with different organizations and institutions to reclaim the hard-won democratic rights. The UMAKSYON alliance conducted consultations among different student organizations. At the onset, it was the issues of lack of tambayans, stringent recognition process for organizations, and the unreasonable rental rates for university facilities that the campaign initially grounded itself. Thus, being a broad alliance that staunchly campaigned against the tuition increase, laboratory fee increases, and other commercialization schemes in our university, the UMAKSYON alliance saw the need to address these legitimate student concerns as they unnecessarily hamper the student formations from performing their different academic, social, and political tasks in the University and the society.

On July 30, 2008 during the Board of Regents (BOR) meeting at the UP Manila, UMAKSYON, through the Office of the Student Regent, submitted a petition paper signed by 111 student councils, publications, organizations, fraternities, and sororities in the UP Diliman, including the UPLB and UPM University Student Councils, that enumerated 18 student demands.

The overwhelming support of student formations won significant victories, as the 18 demands were discussed during the Presidential Advisory Council (PAC) Meeting, the assembly of Chancellors of different UP units last August 15, 2008. The Chancellors were compelled to set dialogues with the respective USCs of their units to discuss the demands. At the same time, our student leaders were granted a dialogue with Pres. Roman last September 23, 2008 which succeeded in asserting for the scrapping of Article 444 of the UP Code which provided that “organizations which are religious, provincial, and sectional in nature shall not be allowed in the university”.

As part of our ongoing campaign for the reclaim of students’ democratic rights, a series of dialogue between the UMAKSYON and the UP Diliman Office of the Chancellor and the Office of Vice-Chancellor for Student Affairs transpired last October 7 and 17, 2008. As a result of our insistent and tireless campaign, we have succeeded in asserting the following:

On the Free Use of University Facilities

Student organizations are faced with exorbitant rental rates for the use of university facilities and equipment for their different activities. Classrooms and conference halls are being rented out for general assemblies, classroom discussions, prayer meetings, leadership seminars, and other activities of organizations. Even at the supposed student center, Vinzons Hall, organizations are required to pay P100 per hour for the use of its conference rooms. As a result, student organizations encounter difficulties in holding their activities and are being precluded from fulfilling their organizational goals and objectives, all of which, we believe are in line with the university goals and principles.

Thus, for the whole semester, we asserted for the free use of university facilities and equipment, grounded on a proposed guidelines. As of the October 17 dialogue with Chancellor Sergio Cao, we have succeeded on negotiating for the following:

1. The University Student Council of UP Diliman shall have the possession and management of the Conference Rooms found in the Vinzons Hall (Alcantara Hall, Vinzons Rooftop, and Vinzons Activity Center). These rooms can be used by organizations for free subject to some rules and regulations on cleanliness, maintenance, and electricity use in the said rooms. The terms and parameters shall be agreed upon and negotiated by the Office of the Chancellor and the USC-UPD in the following weeks.
2. Rental fees, according to Chancellor Cao, shall be maintained to augment the low budget for Maintenance and Other Operating Expenditures (MOOE) of colleges, however, the UP Diliman Executive Committee agreed on giving discounts. Fees shall only be waived on special activities such as Alternative Classroom Learning Experience (ACLE), University Convocations, and the likes.

Given these significant victories, we shall continue to assert the approval of the proposed guidelines on the free use of university facilities despite the initial declaration of Chancellor Cao to maintain the rental fees. We shall also continue to assert for a more flexible policy of scheduling the use of facilities especially on activities involving urgent matters of university and national importance.

We shall continue to demand the construction of bulletin boards and publicity boards in conspicuous areas inside and outside the buildings as we see that the lack of such services and equipments hamper the publicity, campaign, and recruitment efforts of different student formations.

On Laboratory Fees

The collection of laboratory fees in some courses, generally, is being imposed to supposedly augment the meager budget that the university receives from the national government. However, throughout the years, data shows that these fees are being collected either for consumables, for maintenance of equipments, and even for the acquisition of equipment. This shows that there is no clear definition or distinction as to what laboratory fees actually augment. Maintainance of equipment is supposedly covered by the Maintenance and Other Operating Expenditures (MOOE) Budget, while acquisition of equipment is supposedly covered by Capital Outlay Budget (CO). This arbitrariness of imposition of lab fees exposes that lab fees are in fact mechanisms of the university to generate income by misleading students using supposed laboratory classes as smokescreen.

Aside from this deceiving character of laboratory fees, there are documented cases of laboratory fees being imposed to courses that do not have laboratory component. There are also lecture classes with lab fees which do not use consumables, materials, or equipment.

All of these account to misinformation of students during supposedly ‘student consultations’ for proposed lab fees. Students are being bombarded with data and costing of proposed lab fees without engaging in the discussion regarding the definition and principle of these fees. It seems that for as long as there are budget shortages, lab fees and other fees are liberally imposed in order to pass on to the students the burden of augmenting these shortages. The administration has been firm in implementing the collection of such fees, often disregarding the position of students who oppose it

We have already exposed such deceiving character of lab fees as means to further commercialize our education. We have continued to challenge the principle and implementation of lab fee collection. We have called for the scrapping of unjust lab fees especially those being collected in lecture classes, while we continue to oppose proposals until properly rationalized and that we are ensured of fair and genuine consultation. Among the agreements that were discussed during the dialogue were:

1. Reaffirming our position which Pres. Roman adopted when she mentioned that: “The students have the right to know where their fees are going”, the students shall be granted the right to examine and investigate the accounting of their laboratory fees. Any student or student formation can request access to accounting records of their laboratory fees.
2. The UMAKSYON and the USC-UPD shall submit to the OC an inventory of courses with laboratory fees which do not have laboratory components. Such laboratory fees, after due investigation, shall be scrapped.
3. UPD Chancellor Cao agreed in principle that: “You cannot collect lab fees for courses that do not have a laboratory component”. Vice-Chancellor Enriquez admitted that the term lab fee is loosely used to pertain to all fees meant to augment the low budget, without clarification whether lab fees should be for MOOE or CO. The Office of the Chancellor shall act on our demand to rationalize laboratory fees. In the process, laboratory fees shall be defined (whether these are fees for consumables, or maintenance or acquisition of facilities). All lab fees currently being collected that do not adhere to such rationalization and definition shall be scrapped.

We shall continue to expose and oppose such desperate fund generating measures of the UP administration in the expense of students’ rights and welfare. In the process, we need to gather data on such laboratory fees, encouraging students to report cases of unjustified or unused lab fee, which scrapping we would collectively campaign for. In all cases, we shall call for refund of such fees which may be in forms of direct reimbursement or reallocation of budget for student welfare projects. Ultimately, we shall also call for the greater state subsidy for our university and for the education sector to genuinely address the issue of insufficient funds in providing accessible and quality education.

On Dormitories
Dormitory concerns range from lack of subsidized student housing, to the severely poor conditions of dormitory facilities, to the undue benefits for resident assistants and other staff, and to the inefficient admissions process. All of which are attributed to the depleted subsidy for student housing and the policy declaration of the administration that staying in dormitories is a privilege and not a right.

Currently, our dormitories provide for only about 11% of the UP Diliman population (it was 14-15% when Narra Residence Hall was still operating). We have consistently called for additional dormitories to service the more than 50% of UP Diliman students who live outside the National Capital Region (NCR). This is extremely low considering also that a lot of students in UPD are from provinces and/or are from low economic status. Understanding the conditions, we have consistently called upon the UP administration for the construction of additional dormitories. At the same time, we also asserted for the immediate renovation and improvement of dormitory facilities as dormers currently describe our dorms as unfavorable to decent living and studying.

The sudden change of admissions process also became an additional burden for dormers and aspiring dormers. The centralized application process that did not solicit recommendations and comments from students before implementation, thus, resulting to inconvenience that could have been foreseen if students were consulted. Thus, we have also called for the revision of this admissions process with the participation of student leaders from the USC and the Alliance of Concerned Dormers (ACD).

The following are among the updates and prospects in our pursuit to address these dormitory issues, including our agreements with the Office of the Chancellor and the OVCSA:

1. A P20 Million budget allocation for dorm renovation was approved by the Office of the Chancellor and the Dormitory Oversight Committee (DOC). The Alliance of Concerned Dormers (ACD) and the different House Councils, together with the USC-UPD shall serve as recommendatory body for the approval of priority dorms that shall be renovated.
2. UP College of Engineering Alumni shall be donating two additional dormitories with 144 capacity near the Kamagong Residence Hall.
3. Two additional dormitories shall be built near the Kalayaan Residence Hall.
4. The dormitory admissions process shall be subjected to review and revision with the participation and representation of the UPD-USC and the ACD.

On Student Representation

Much of the policies and decisions which are against the rights and welfare of students were approved and implemented without the prior knowledge or solicited recommendations from the student body. Our elected student council leaders who are supposed to represent the students on matters of institutional policies and decisions affecting our rights and welfare are often bypassed, if not completely neglected. Most policies only undergo consultation after being implemented, thus have already caused infraction of our rights, unnecessary inconvenience, and difficulties on the part of the students. Policies such as the Mondays as free day, the 2008 Rules and Regulations Governing Residence Halls in UP Diliman, rental rates, tambayan policies, organization recognition process, and other guidelines on student affairs are only some of these.

In other UP units such as in the College of Arts and Sciences in the UP Manila and in UP Baguio, student leaders are invited as resource persons and as voting members of committees that discuss matters concerning student affairs. This model of student representation and democratic governance is what we envision for our own campus. Thus, we have continued to assert a representative in the Office of the Culture and the Arts (OICA), Dormitory Oversight Committee (DOC), Dorm Admissions Committee (DAC), College Executive Committees, Office of the Chancellor Executive Staff, and other committees and assemblies, ad hoc or not, that decide on matters of student affairs. As of the dialogue with Chancellor Cao, we have arrived to a resolution that we shall submit a formal letter of request for student representation in different committees in the University. The Office of the Chancellor upon consultation with the proper bodies shall immediately act on the matter.

On Tambayans

A unit-wide consultation shall be conducted by the USC-UPD and the OVCSA regarding tambayan and student affairs policies.

On SLIS Building
The current Institute of Biology Building is already earmarked for the School of Library and Information Studies.

Notwithstanding the victories that we have attained as manifested in the UP administration’s yielding and its willingness to yield to several of our demands, the need and the urgency for students to continue and intensify the campaign against commercialization and repression continues. For as long as deplorable conditions in the University and among UP students exist as a result of the UP administration and the national government’s ineptitude, it shall remain imperative for all of us to forge a broader unity through collective action, realizing that it is only through such that our victories will be achieved.

11 New Eng’g Lab Fees Pending Approval

Last May 6, 2008 the Students Rights & Welfare Committee (STRAW Committee), headed by Councilor Jaque Eroles, attended the student dialogue regarding the proposed Lab Fee increase for 11 Mechanical Engineering (ME) courses. Representatives from the College of Engineering Student Council (ESC) and Student Regent Shahanah Abdulwahid also attended the dialogue initiated by the ME department head, Prof. Gerald Denoga.

According to Prof. Denoga, the department aims that the increases be implemented starting First Semester AY 2008-2009. The proposal has already been approved by the college faculty and administration, and was already submitted to Vice-Chancellor for Student Affairs, Dr. Elizabeth Enriquez. However, the OVCSA refused to approve the proposal since it did not undergo consultation with the University Student Council (USC). Thus, the reason for the said dialogue.

The courses affected by the proposed lab fee increase are as follows:

SUBJECT	Original Fee	Proposed New Fees	Remarks
ME 122 Turbomachinery	0	600	presently no equipment for the experiments
ME 131 Manufacturing Processes	300	1,500	price increase in materials
ME 136 Machine Tools Operations	300	1,500	price increase in materials
ME 143 Mechanical Vibrations	0	800	will need PC’s
ME 176 Control Systems 1	0	800	will need PC’s
ME 183 Refrigeration & Airconditioning	200	800	consumables & PC use
ME 73 Mechanical Measurements & Instrumentation	300	500	consumables & maintenance
ME 41 Mechanisms	0	500	will need shop & PC
ME 142 Dynamics 0f Machinery	0	500	will need shop & PC
ME 91 Numerical Methods	0	800	will need PC’s
SHOP 7 Shop Practices	200	1,500	price increase in materials

The original proposal included ME 165 Internal Combustion Engines (none-P1500) but was opposed by the ESC since according to them, it was a lecture class. The department agreed and decided that it shall not be included in the proposed lab fee increase.

Prof. Denoga discussed the rationale for such increases. According to him, ME should be a hands-on program and students should have access to adequate laboratory facilities. Most of these equipment and facilities are either non-functioning, insufficient or inexistent. Experiments may also require fuel, materials and other consumables. Also the 5 courses that currently has a lab fee was based on pre-1989 prices. The proponent also presented the cost breakdown of the expenses per subject.

The USC having the benefit of discussion during the dialogue recommended for the deferral of approval since certain question and concerns were not addressed. Some of these questions are:

1. In light of the second year of implementation of the Tuition and Other Fee Increase (TOFI), will there be any budget increase for the Mechanical Engineering (ME) Department? The TOFI promised for better facilities but why is there a need for even more exorbitant laboratory fees?

2. How else can lessons be modified to minimize cost while not sacrificing the quality of instruction?

3. What are the other possible sources of funds?

4. What are the mechanisms of the ME Department or of the College of Engineering Administration to address students welfare concerns? For example, in the ME program, students need to take 2 to 3 of such laboratory courses in one semester. Such may result to a possible P4,500 in total of lab fees to be paid by a 3rd year or 4th year ME major. What shall be the action to be taken if there will be any student who will be forced to drop-out and not graduate because of the increase?

5. Are laboratory fees, in general, supposed to cover acquisition expenses, aside from maintenance expenses, and consumables as what the proposal indicates?

The USC and the ESC shall also study if it will be possible to request the Industrial Engineering (IE) Department to subsidize their students who take SHOP 7. According to Prof. Denoga, they were able to offer SHOP 7 to their majors until the IE department required this subject to IE majors. Since there are approximately 140 IE majors, as opposed to around 40 ME majors, the ME Department could not shoulder the SHOP 7 expenses alone. The USC STRAW committee and ESC plans to draft a letter requesting for the deferral of approval to be submitted to the OVCSA, Office of the Chancellor and the Board of Regents.

Manifesto Against 30 CMC Lab Fee Hikes

Below is a manifesto petition being circulated in the College of Mass Communication (CMC) by the CMC Student Council and the Student Alliance of the Advancement of Democratic Rights - UP CMC (STAND-UP CMC) with regards to the new laboratory fee hikes to be implemented in the college.

We, students of the College of Mass Communication, strongly condemn the railroading of the laboratory fee hikes in 10 Broadcast Communication subjects and 4 Broadcast Journalism subjects last March 12, and oppose similar impending hikes in at least 23 Film subjects. We take these recent moves as an assault to the principle of democratic consultation of the studentry and a clear indication of the commercialization route that our university is currently taking.

The proposed 16 new courses under the Broadcast Communication program also brought with it a fresh batch of laboratory fees ranging from P200 up to P1,000. As for the film courses, the proposed hikes during the first consultation last March 28 include the laboratory fees of both lecture classes (from P200 to P1,200) and production classes (from P800 to P3,200).

We stand firm and united against these anti-student policies that further render quality education as inaccessible, as this recent maneuver will set the trend in other degree programs in the college.

We also question the procedures and conditions which the approval of lab fees in Broadcast Communication subjects have undergone, and warn future tricks of a more scathing dissent from the broad number of uninformed or ill-informed students.

Rather than subscribe to the faulty logic of better facilities from greater lab fees, we remain steadfast in preserving democratic access to such mass media courses and in upholding the interest of the broad number of financially underprivileged students who will be severely hit by such increases.

The need to upgrade and replace some of the existing equipment and facilities in the college is unquestionable. However, we do not see the laboratory fee hikes as the panacea to the long-standing problem of the college in meeting the capital needs of equipment-intensive courses. Instead, we see the hikes as a counter-productive measure that will seriously limit the cultivation of skills of the broadest number of students, since costs always impose limits. This is a glaring truth especially in the context of worsening living conditions in the country.

In the interest of the Iskolar ng Bayan suffering under the harsh economic conditions engendered by the disregard of the Arroyo regime for the basic rights and needs of the people, we are determined to take effective steps to halt the impending lab fee hikes and to boldly assert that the new laboratory fee hikes in Broadcast Communication was railroaded. We persist in our call for greater state subsidy and demand the re-channeling of the people’s funds from widespread corruption to social services such as education.

No to Lab Fee Hikes!
No to Commercialization of Education!