Red, symbolizing protest, was the pervading color at the Quezon Hall
lobby as various student organizations staged a rally to defer the
Board of Regents’ decision on the tuition fee increase.
Tuition fee hike to translate into quality academic services.
The UP Board of Regents (BOR) approved the proposal to adjust tuition and other fees at its 1216th meeting on December 15, 2006. The decision was made despite protesters’ concerted efforts to defer its approval by trying to block the
Red, symbolizing protest, was the pervading color at the Quezon Hall
lobby as
various student organizations staged a rally to defer the
Board of Regents’ decision
on the tuition fee increase.
The Board unanimously adopted the Report of the De Dios Committee and increased tuition as recommended by the Report. Likewise, tuition will be “subsequently adjusted annually based on the national inflation rate,” page 8 of the document entitled “Excerpt from the Minutes of the 1216th Meeting of the Board of Regents held on 15 December 2006” noted. The Excerpt was circulated to UP System (UPS) officials and chancellors of the constituent universities (CU) of the UPS in January 2007.
According to the Excerpt, the De Dios Committee was created by UP President Emerlinda R. Román upon being appointed to the University’s highest post in 2005. Headed by School of Economics professor Dr. Emmanuel De Dios, the committee was tasked to review the existing undergraduate tuition policy and structure.
The committee proposed to adjust tuition in the following constituent universities as follows: P1,000 per unit at UPD, UP Manila (UPM) and UP Los Banos (UPLB); and P600 per unit in UP Baguio (UPB), UP Visayas (UPV) and UP Mindanao (UPMin).
“The proposed tuition adjustment is the first since 1989,” the Excerpt noted.
The BOR also approved the proposal to adjust miscellaneous fees as follows: from P600 to P2,000 for UPD, UPM and UPLB; from P595 to P1,405 for UPB and UPV; and from P830 to P1,640 for UPMin.
Rationale. According to the report, the real value of the current undergraduate tuition, which was set 15 years ago, has been eroded. UPD tuition of P300 per unit in 1989 was only worth P48 in 2005 because of inflation and the increase in the prices of education services. Likewise, the P200 per unit cost in regional units was only worth P28.
The erosion of the tuition’s real value has severely affected the University’s capability to cope with the rapidly increasing maintenance and other operation expenses such as power, security and utilities costs; laboratory maintenance, equipment repair and others. It has also constrained UP in the procurement of equipment and the upkeep of its facilities.
According to the Excerpt, the estimated average cost of undergraduate instruction is P1,531 per student-credit unit and the proposed adjustement of P1,000 per student-credit unit is “significantly lower than the actual cost of an undergraduate UP education and therefore still contain a significant public subsidy for higher education.”
The tuition fee increase (TFI) will “translate into quality academic services” namely: retention of highly-qualified faculty members; improved student-computer ratios; increased internet access; well-maintained teaching and research laboratories with state-of-the-art equipment; easy access to a wider and updated collection of textbooks and reference materials; and increased stipends to a larger number of recipients of the Socialized Tuition and Financial Assistance Program (STFAP).
No to TFI rally. On the day of the BOR meeting, a rally was staged at Quezon Hall to protest the TFI and to urge the BOR to postpone its decision on the proposal. The BOR was scheduled to meet at around 2:30 p.m.
Announcements of the mass action had been posted in public places almost a week before the activity. December 15 was the last day of classes for the year and the date when culminating activities of the Christmas festivities such as the Lantern Parade and various unit celebrations were scheduled. However, the Lantern Parade was cancelled by the UPD Executive Committee in the mid-morning “in view of concerns about risks to persons and property.”
Vice President for Legal Affairs Marvic Leonen parries
questions from the media regarding the proposed tution
fee hike during the rally at the Quezon Hall lobby.
At noon on said date, protesters assembled at Palma Hall and later pro
lfonso, as USC Chair, apologized to the student who was “pushed” by the protesters, and said it was not their intention to hurt anybody, “not even the traitors in the BOR and the oppressive UP admin.”
“All in all, we are just the same victims of the UP admin’s deceitful and treacherous maneuvers just to have its way of advancing UP commercialization. First, the UP Admin attempted to prevent mass actions last December 15, it created its own terror scare and cancelled the yearly Lantern Parade. It then tried to pin the blame on the faculty and students holding the protest action in Quezon Hall,” the letter said.
Faculty Regent’s proposal. Prior to the BOR meeting, the Faculty Regent had proposed to postpone the BOR’s decision for a “more objective, academic and scientific discussion with the entire university.”
Simbulan raised two points. The first was that the proposed increase was “a fundamental shift in the UP Philosophy of education ‘from providing enabling conditions for the poor but talented students of the nation to acquire quality education’ to a market-based instrument where prices must be adjusted depending on the customer’s ability to pay.”
His second point was that the “proposed STFAP guidelines provided deceptive estimates (based mainly on the flawed economic theories of the De Dios Committee Report) on income of the students (parents).
Reacting to Simbulan’s first comment, Román commented that “UP does not expect billions of pesos from tuition.” She pointed out that 70 to 80 percent of the UP budget is allotted to Personnel Services and “it is not true that once UP increases its tuition, it will get less support from the government.”
On Simbulan’s second point, she said it is not true that the poor will pay tuition. The STFAP cut-off for Bracket 1, pegged at P80,000, was based on the projected 2003 poverty threshold of P12,000 per month, which, when multiplied by 12 months, was P72,000.
“It is not true that only millionaires in UP will feel the brunt of the tuition increase,” commented Prof. Judy Taguiwalao of the College of Social Work and Community Development, since “those in Bracket 6 who used to pay P75 per unit will now have to pay P600 per unit which is a 700 percent increase.”
The report noted that the BOR did not act on Simbulan’s proposal.
Dialogues on TFI at UPD. According to the Excerpt, the President had circulated copies of the proposal to the CUs and to members of the BOR in June last year. Roman also conducted a number of dialogues with students in the CUs on the proposal.
At UPD, the proposal was discussed in two venues: at the University Council meeting on December 6 and at a convocation on December 8. Many points were raised in both venues.
College of Business Administration’s (CBA) Dean Erlinda Echanis wanted to know how the increase in income will be allocated. She also commented that according to the Commission on Higher Education, 70 percent of the TFI will go to the teachers and urged that “a specific percentage should be allocated for teaching enhancement and research so that it will not be used for STFAP or building or equipment.”
Prof. Armin Sarthou of CBA noted that the proposal is too conservative. “Maybe Bracket A student should pay even more and those in Bracket B. Another commented, “kapag tumaas ang tuition, mawawalan ng saysay yung budget na binibigay ng gobyerno sa UP dahil makikita na mas may kakayahan na ngayong mag-generate ng resources ang UP.” Another said “UP is a community which has a social obligation to the country. Any form of TFI is contradicting to UP’s principles.”
The report also noted that Román sat down with Alyansa, an organization composed of 11 student groups. In a letter to Roman on December 6, the group expressed that “a readjustment of the current STFAP is proper in view of inflation” but before any decision is made, “certain conditions must first be met by the UP Administration.” Foremost among these conditions is “the revision of the current bracketing system in order to widen the coverage of lower income bracket groups which
At the center of the mass action were the Faculty Regent Roland G. Simbulan and the University Student Council Chair Paulo Alfonso. They set up a table and several chairs at the Quezon Hall lobby and urged the BOR to hold their deliberations on the TFI with the Faculty and Student Regents there, instead of the BOR Room on the third floor.
Unknown to the protesters, the BOR were instead holding the meeting at the Law Center.
Later, the contingent from UPLB proceeded to the Law Center and many of the protesters followed suit. At the College of Law, a minor incident occurred where students preparing for their Christmas program were “harassed” by the protesters.
A statement by the UP Law Student Government (LSG) said, “Such students verbally assaulted members of the LSG and the UP Law community who were at that time peacefully preparing for Malcolm Madness, the college’s Christmas program. In the attempt to find the regents, these students harassed practically everyone who was foreign to them, including the UP Law Center staff, the UP Law personnel and fellow UP students.”
In an open letter to the community, Alfonso, as USC Chair, apologized to the student who was “pushed” by the protesters, and said it was not their intention to hurt anybody, “not even the traitors in the BOR and the oppressive UP admin.”
“All in all, we are just the same victims of the UP admin’s deceitful and treacherous maneuvers just to have its way of advancing UP commercialization. First, the UP Admin attempted to prevent mass actions last December 15, it created its own terror scare and cancelled the yearly Lantern Parade. It then tried to pin the blame on the faculty and students holding the protest action in Quezon Hall,” the letter said.
Faculty Regent’s proposal. Prior to the BOR meeting, the Faculty Regent had proposed to postpone the BOR’s decision for a “more objective, academic and scientific discussion with the entire university.”
Simbulan raised two points. The first was that the proposed increase was “a fundamental shift in the UP Philosophy of education ‘from providing enabling conditions for the poor but talented students of the nation to acquire quality education’ to a market-based instrument where prices must be adjusted depending on the customer’s ability to pay.”
His second point was that the “proposed STFAP guidelines provided deceptive estimates (based mainly on the flawed economic theories of the De Dios Committee Report) on income of the students (parents).
Reacting to Simbulan’s first comment, Román commented that “UP does not expect billions of pesos from tuition.” She pointed out that 70 to 80 percent of the UP budget is allotted to Personnel Services and “it is not true that once UP increases its tuition, it will get less support from the government.”
On Simbulan’s second point, she said it is not true that the poor will pay tuition. The STFAP cut-off for Bracket 1, pegged at P80,000, was based on the projected 2003 poverty threshold of P12,000 per month, which, when multiplied by 12 months, was P72,000.
“It is not true that only millionaires in UP will feel the brunt of the tuition increase,” commented Prof. Judy Taguiwalao of the College of Social Work and Community Development, since “those in Bracket 6 who used to pay P75 per unit will now have to pay P600 per unit which is a 700 percent increase.”
The report noted that the BOR did not act on Simbulan’s proposal.
Dialogues on TFI at UPD. According to the Excerpt, the President had circulated copies of the proposal to the CUs and to members of the BOR in June last year. Roman also conducted a number of dialogues with students in the CUs on the proposal.
At UPD, the proposal was discussed in two venues: at the University Council meeting on December 6 and at a convocation on December 8. Many points were raised in both venues.
College of Business Administration’s (CBA) Dean Erlinda Echanis wanted to know how the increase in income will be allocated. She also commented that according to the Commission on Higher Education, 70 percent of the TFI will go to the teachers and urged that “a specific percentage should be allocated for teaching enhancement and research so that it will not be used for STFAP or building or equipment.”
Prof. Armin Sarthou of CBA noted that the proposal is too conservative. “Maybe Bracket A student should pay even more and those in Bracket B. Another commented, “kapag tumaas ang tuition, mawawalan ng saysay yung budget na binibigay ng gobyerno sa UP dahil makikita na mas may kakayahan na ngayong mag-generate ng resources ang UP.” Another said “UP is a community which has a social obligation to the country. Any form of TFI is contradicting to UP’s principles.”
The report also noted that Román sat down with Alyansa, an organization composed of 11 student groups. In a letter to Roman on December 6, the group expressed that “a readjustment of the current STFAP is proper in view of inflation” but before any decision is made, “certain conditions must first be met by the UP Administration.” Foremost among these conditions is “the revision of the current bracketing system in order to widen the coverage of lower income bracket groups which enjoy free tuition and stipend as well as those who enjoy 70 percent discount.”
Yes to TFI. Among the UPD constituents who expressed their support for the TFI were the faculty members of the School of Economics (SE), the CBA and the CBA Student Council.
The Excerpt likewise listed the constituents who requested that the BOR act on the TFI and STFAP proposals in its December 15 meeting. At UPD, these were: SE Dean Raul Fabella; Dean Rowena Guevara (College of Engineering); Dr. Julieta C. Mallari (UP Extension Program in Pampanga); Dean Caesar Saloma (College of Science); and Dean Ramon Acoymo (College of Music).
—Chi A. Ibay