Articles

Letter to Anakpawis

31 August 2005

Hon. CRISPIN B. BELTRAN, RAFAEL V. MARIANO, TEDDY A. CASIñO, LIZA LARGOZA MAZA, SATUR C. OCAMPO & JOEL G. VIRADOR Partylist Representatives House of Representatives

Re: House Resolution No. 909 directing the House Special Committee on Poverty Alleviation to conduct an inquiry, in aid of Legislation, into Memo IJL-025-05 issued by UPD Vice-Chancellor for Community Affairs Ida May J. La ‘O

Honorable Representatives:

I write with regard to above-referenced matter to correct misleading and irresponsible statements which were unfortunately relied upon and formed basis for the Resolution and by so doing, possibly spare taxpayers the use of public funds for unwarranted public inquiries in these times of dire economic crises and calls for austerity in government spending:

I. The question on the validity of my appointment is easily settled by the attached approval by the Board of Regents effective 1 May 2005 (Annex A). My appointment as Chief Legal Officer of UP Diliman partakes of an additional duty and not double compensation. I was appointed as contractual employee from 1 January 2005 until 31 October 2005 as Attorney IV (Salary Grade 26-1) occupying the position of Chief Legal Officer (CLO) and upon my appointment as Vice-Chancellor continued on as CLO after choosing the higher salary attached to the position of Vice-Chancellor (SG 28-1) and of course foregoing the salary for CLO. There is nothing in the University rules that require the position of Vice-Chancellor for Community Affairs to be filled up by tenured faculty. May I also point out that performing two jobs for the price of one, at least until October 2005, results in substantial savings for a State University which barely survives but is still expected to excel against the odds posed by a shoe-string budget.

II. The relocation of the 16 Manininda from the Campus Oval is designed to provide affordable and nutritious options to our students, staff and faculty and to level the playing field between next-to-zero overhead ambulant vendors and kiosk/canteen concessionaires. There is no P1M equity requirement set by the Business Concessions Office for kiosk bidders. In fact UP is currently reviewing agency estimates to rationalize canteen concessions and kiosk bidding but the Bidding and Awards Committee has not been convened for the purposes of bidding out kiosk stalls as these are currently still under construction. Included in the range of options being studied by the administration is just reverting to the previous practice of the kiosks as purely service-oriented facilities for which a token monthly rental is charged and dispensing with the bidding process. In this way, student organizations, the Union, the old kiosk vendors and the Manininda may be accommodated.

The following enclosures will support the immediately preceding assertion: i. certification issued by the Vice-Chancellor for Administration Mary Delia G. Tomacruz denying that any requirements for kiosk biddings having been issued to date (Annex B); ii. Special Issue of the UPDATE, the official publication of the Office of the Chancellor of UP Diliman which features the new policy on canteen concessions and kiosk bidding (Annex C); iii. Proposed Partial Zoning areas for the 16 Manininda issued by the BCO and received by Mr. Hernandez, official representative of the UP Manininda (Annex D); iv. exchange of Open Letters between the OVCCA and the Manininda and the USC wherein the undersigned has painstakingly explained the new policies of the administration. (Annex E, F, G, H & I); v. UP Collegian issues which feature the same in its Editorial “Balancing of Interests” and undersigned’s letter to the Collegian Editor (Annex J & K).

Undersigned has conducted two dialogues with the representatives of the UP Manininda on 27 May 2005 and 17 June, 2005 in an effort to come to mutually agreeable terms of agreement. Dialogue was also held between the USC, the All-UP Workers Union, the UP Manininda, the Chancellor of UP Diliman and undersigned on 24 August 2005 wherein it was clarified to the Manininda that there is no P1M equity requirement for kiosk bidding. The Manininda were asked to submit counter-proposal to the relocation plan that they rejected and the Manininda undertook to consult their members through a GA. Thus, the factual bases for the Resolution contained in the Whereas Clauses No. 2-10 are all either non-existent and/or misleading and the taxpayers should be spared the expense of public hearings in these times of dire economic crises.

III. The permits granted to the ambulant vendors are a PRIVILEGE subject to reasonable rules and regulations imposed by duly-constituted university authorities. No matter how long it is enjoyed, it remains a privilege and it certainly never ripens into a right. The permits were granted on the premise that the vendors are AMBULATORY, i.e., having no fixed areas of assignment on campus and always subject to zoning/relocation. There is therefore absolutely no basis for their refusal of the attached relocation plan.

IV. INSTITUTIONAL ACADEMIC FREEDOM is constitutionally guaranteed to the UP as an institution of higher learning and this demands a modicum of respect from the House of Representatives for the official acts of the Board of Regents in constituting and filling-up administrative positions in UP Diliman such as the Vice-Chancellor for Community Affairs and in conferring/delegating the authority on the Office of the Chancellor to make policy decisions on such matters such as relocation of ambulant vendors on campus.

V. As for the 10,672 students who allegedly signed petitions in support of the Manininda, they may still avail of the services of their “sukî” by walking a mere 50-100 steps from the oval to the relocation sites provided for the 16 ambulant vendors in the peripheral/secondary roads. The revocation of permits is merely the necessary consequence of the refusal of the 16 to abide by the reasonable regulation.

Undersigned therefore, as a taxpayer, firmly registers her protest over the use of public funds to support above-referenced Resolution’s implementation and as Chief Legal Officer of UPD, would most earnestly desire to be enlightened as to the particular piece of legislation this inquiry is supposed to be in aid of so that even the validity of BOR appointments and UP Diliman’s food service policies are made subject of congressional inquiry.

Respectfully submitted.

IDA MAY J. LA ‘O
Vice-Chancellor
Chief Legal Officer
cc: Board of Regents, UP System
President, UP System
Vice-President for Legal Affairs, UP System
Chancellor, UP Diliman
University Student Council, UP Diliman
UP Manininda
ALL-UP Workers Union
UP Collegian
Back to Articles Main