Primer: UP Situationer

Socialized Tuition System

Historicizing the Socialized Tuition Fee System in the UP System
PD No. 1177 was enacted to answer the problem of the gargantuan foreign debt incurred
by his administration. The PD called for the allotment of more than 30% of the annual national
budget to Debt Servicing.This was complemented by the allocation of another huge chunk to
Military spending to protect the State from civil uprisings due to the people’s violent reaction to
Marcos’ policies. As a result, what suffered is the budget allocation to Basic Social Services such
as Health and Education.

In our very own backyard, the University of the Philippines—the premier national university—felt
the effects of Marcos’ policies through the dramatic decrease in UP’s budget. As a direct reaction
to this particular problem, the administration had to find means to sustain the University’s
operations on top of the measly government subsidy—the most obvious and immediate being the
tuition fee. Thus, former UP President Edgardo Angara proposed one of the most drastic tuition
hikes in the UP system—a 169% increase. The policy was carried out gradually, and after four
semesters, it finally reached P40 per unit.

Six years after, systemic state abandonment of Basic Social Services worsened after Marcos’
successor, former President Corazon Aquino, declined the offer of the U.S. Government to forego
the national debt incurred by the Republic of the Philippines. Majority of the national budget was
still allotted to Debt Servicing resulting to continued “budget cuts” in Education. In light of those
events, instead of pushing for greater State subsidy, the UP administration, through former UP
President Jose Abueva, called for another tuition hike. Various student groups opposed the said
increase, arguing the inevitable inaccessibility of education that was to come. As a compromise,
the Socialized Tuition Fee Scheme (STFS) was introduced as an alternative to Abueva’s proposal.

Two STFS proposals were submitted to UP’s Board of Regents (BOR) for approval. The first one
came from the University Student Council (USC), giving emphasis to scholarships, grants, and a
socialized tuition scheme dependent on the family’s annual income. The second one came from
Dr. Romero Manlapaz, a Math professor in UP, focusing on the principle that those who can should
pay the full cost of education.

The BOR approved Manlapaz’ proposal which we eventually came to know as the Socialized
Tuition and Financial Assistance Program (STFAP). The earlier version of the STFAP was numeric,
with brackets 1-5 students having free tuition and stipends, and bracket 9 students paying the full
amount. Along with the approval of this socialized tuition scheme was the approval of another
tuition hike, increasing the cost of UP education from P40 per unit to P300 per unit.

In 2006, former UP President Emerlinda Roman created an adhoc committee to explore the
possibility of increasing the tuition fee by 300% due to inflation. According to the administration,
there was a 328% increase in price and family income levels, thus, there is also a need to increase
the price of education. There was also a proposal to revise the STFAP, turning it into an
alphanumeric bracketing scheme with 6 corresponding brackets. A year after, the BOR approved
the proposal, dramatically increasing the highest tuition fee under the STFAP from P300 per unit to
P1,500 per unit. Again, student groups opposed the shocking boom of tuition and other fees,
accusing the Roman Administration of further facilitating state abandonment of education.
However, the administration justified its actions, claiming that the STFAP will answer for the
students who can no longer afford the new price of UP Education.

In 2011, the STFAP continued to evolve as it imposed additional requirements for students to be
classified under Bracket B or lower. Failure to comply will automatically place them under Bracket
A, the highest bracket, as opposed to the previous policy that places students under Bracket B in
the event of non-compliance. This, as a consequence, makes Bracket A the default bracket in UP,
with P1,500 as the default tuition. This was implemented without prior student consultation, and
was seen as a scheme that sees students as “rich until proven poor”. Students rejected the policy,
claiming that it goes against the fundamental right to education. However, the administration
reasoned that the policy was a way to make sure that students are placed in their correct and
rightful brackets by forcing them to comply with requirements that will rightfully determine the
tuition fee they need to pay for.

On March 15, 2013, the nation mourned with the whole UP community when a freshman in UP
Manila, Kristel Tejada, purportedly took her own life after being forced to take a leave of absence
by the Administration when she declared that she couldn’t pay for her tuition. This tragedy opened
UP’s academic policies to wide and thorough scrutiny, especially those that directly affected Kristel
Tejada—Articles 330, 430, and 431 of the UP Code, and the STFAP. The UP Administration
reacted to it by fast-tracking revisions to both set of policies. Discussions and consultations among
university officials took place immediately thereafter, and within one academic year, the UP Code
was revised and the STFAP was replaced with the UP Socialized Tuition System of 2013 (STS).

Of Discounts and the Death of the Right to Education

The name may have changed, but it is quite evident that the primary objective of socialized
tuition remains the same: the justification of income-generation from the students. Although
numerous reforms have been made in the hopes of “improving” the system, years of experience
prove attempts to be futile precisely because the problem is the system itself, more so, the
principle behind the system.
When the STS was fully implemented at the start of AY 2014-2015, UP education was further
established as a commodity as STS application results informed the students of the “discount” they
received from our most generous administration. This was quite alarming as it finally revealed the
true position of the administration with regard to UP education: that it is definitely not a right, but a
privilege to be bought. Such is the principle being reiterated, time and again, by various forces
inside the university—the administration being the most persistent.

(Written by former KAISA Chairperson Alex Castro on her note, “An Open Letter to an “Iskolar ng
Bayan” from an “Iskolar ng Bayan”. Excerpts selected.)
Magna Carta
The Magna Carta for the Students
The UPD Students’ Magna Carta is an instrument that codifies the rights of UP Diliman
students in all aspects of university life. The instrument is designed to protect, promote, and defend
the rights and welfare of students by being enforceable against any member of the UP Community
who seeks to violate such rights. As such, the instrument actually enforces a positive OBLIGATION
upon any member of the UP Community to respect students’ rights, and grants ANY student the
capacity to seek relief (and as such, justice) against a violation of his or her right.
The Magna Carta is NOT designed to limit students’ rights – especially not to a particular purview,
or any specific perspective. As with statutes, and codes of the same kind, it is created to reflect the
context of student life. As university life evolves through time, so may an instrument like the Magna
Carta also evolve in its enforceability and in the interpretations of some of its more general
clauses. The most certain thing, however, is that the Magna Carta shall always be interpreted in
favor of students.
The Creation of the UPD Magna Carta
The MC was first started by then Student Regent Krissy Conti. The University Student
Council 2014-2015 later on continued the MC project, under the joint effort of the Students’ Rights
and Welfare Committee and Students’ Legal Aid and Assistance Committee, in partnership with the
Law Student Government. In 2015, the USC held a referendum which gathered a 93% Yes from
the student population who voted.
Student Referendum and the Board of Regents
The Magna Carta needs to be an instrument that would reflect the support of the entire
student body, and not just any specific sector or formation, if we are to even have a chance at
presenting it for approval as an official University policy to the Board of Regents – the highest
policy-making body in the University. As a first of its kind, the UPD Students’ Magna Carta aims to
become an enforceable instrument which embodies the rights of students, and has been
adequately initiated by students, with its provisions drafted by students, and subsequently
approved by students in a student referendum.
After a student referendum, the Magna Carta will still be submitted to the University Council
for deliberation, and then to the Board of Regents for approval. The instrument can only become
enforceable once it has been reviewed and approved by the highest policy-making body in the
university. But the approval of the Magna Carta through the student referendum reflects the
capacity and power of students to fight for our rights both through the use of the democratic
process and through collective action.
 Reservations
It is important to note that the Magna Carta is not the end-all solution, nor should it be
treated (or argued against) as such. We need to acknowledge that this is a form of reformism, and
we shouldn’t pin any hopes that this will spark radical change in the system. This is a document
that works within the system, and it is rightly so that since it works within, we accept that it has its
own limitations in the implementation process. But even if we advocate for such documents, we
must not lose sight of our non-negotiables, of our visions that seem to be not possible under our
current present system. We continue to fight for free, quality, accessible education, without small
victories and short-term plans disillusioning us.

(First three parts written by Kei Garcia. Excerpts selected.)


Vendors, workers and contractual employees in UP
Contractualization in UP
Contractualization is the practice where a worker is under a contract wherein he/she works
for less than six months before becoming a regular employee. Contractual employees do not have
the benefits and services given to regular employees, and are more vulnerable to sudden
termination. At most, contractuals are bound to the cycle of applying in a job and then eventually
finding another contractual job after six months. At present, there are more than 3,422 contractual
employees in the whole UP System, according to the Association of Contractual Employees in UP
(ACE-UP) at the UPD Human Resource and Development Office. There are two kinds of
contractuals in UP: UP and non-UP. UP contractuals get the same benefits as the regular
employees but do not have security of tenure— most UP contractuals are made of faculty
members, research assistants and members of administrations of various colleges. Non-UP
contractuals, on the other hand, are workers hired to fill vacant jobs and, in contrast with the
former, do not enjoy benefits a worker should have. They are called Non-UP contractuals because
they come from subcontracting firms— they are our janitors, cleaners, guards, etc.
(Source: Philippine Collegian Tomo 94 Issue 13, page 7)
eUP
What is eUP?
The eUP project is the University of the Philippines’ current program to unify and harmonize
all of its information and communication technology (ICT) systems by 2016. According to former
University President Dr. Alfredo Pascual, the project is expected to “help promote the
administrative efficiency of the university by speeding up academic and financial transactions,
human resource operations, data collection, and report generation,” thus creating an environment
conducive for academic excellence. As such, under Pascual’s “UP Strategic Development Plan
2011-2017: The Path to Greatness” presented to the UP Board of Regents on Aug. 17, 2011, the
university shall conduct a P752 million program to modernize its ICT capabilities starting in 2012.
Integral five information systems:
1. SAIS (Student Academic Information System)
2. FMIS (Financial Management Information System)
3. HRIS (Human Resource Information System)
4. SPCMIS (Supplies, Procurement and Campus Management Information System)
5. EIS (Executive Information System)
The University required the system integrator to use enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems
from the American vendor Oracle Inc. for the eUP project’s core information systems. In addition,
Smart Communications became a major partner and ePLDT will become the integrator of eUP’s
core systems throughout the UP System.

Possible vendor lock-in with Oracle

“What we fear in these off-the-shelf products is a possible lock-in, wherein clients are tied to
using one brand because all the components needed is unique only for that brand,” said Computer
Center Director Johnrob Bantang. In the dynamic nature of technology, regular upgrades mean
regular transactions with software providers.” (Isabella Borlaza, Philippine Collegian 2012)
According to some sources, the contracts were “tailor-fitted” for Oracle. Further bidders are then
forced to place an Oracle bid rather than risk losing by placing a non-Oracle bid. This tailor-fitting is
a violation to the Section 18 of Republic Act 9184, or the Government Procurement Reform Act.
“We were convinced that Oracle Campus Solution is the best that we can have because it’s
already being used. Of course we have a bias or preference towards it,” Pascual said.

Homegrown systems (CRS) are abandoned with the Oracle venture with Smart
Communications and ePLDT. The costs of CRS implemented in Diliman and Manila for years are
quite measly as compared to the eUP which is not yet being fully implemented in the UP System.
 Because SAIS is an off-the-shelf product, it is difficult to customize by university
preferences— an example would be the batch runs (raffle system) because SAIS implements a
first-come-first-serve basis in enlisting for slots.

*Excerpts selected from Bautista and Subingsubing’s thesis, System error: An investigative study
on the implementation of the eUP project in the University of the Philippines from the College of
Mass Communication.
1

KAISA-Nagkakaisang Iskolar Para Sa Pamantasan at Sambayanan

Prepared by Education and Research Officer ’16-‘17