The House Committee on Higher and Technical Education has submitted to the House of Representatives plenary the draft bill that would amend the 2008 UP Charter and insert provisions of the 1989 UP-DND Accord, which was unilaterally terminated by Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana last January.

House Bill 10171 is a substitute bill which incorporated the three pending measures in the lower house dealing with the 1989 agreement between UP and state security forces, which prohibited police and military presence on campus without prior notification. On September 13, the said report was referred to the Committee on Rules, bringing the bill an inch closer to final approval in the lower House.

While the draft bill is largely a copy of the accord, several new provisions were added in efforts “to protect the university campuses from possible police and military intervention, harassment and intimidation.”

Here’s what some of those new provisions look like and how they could affect the university and its constituents.

The bill strengthens UP’s emergency response teams.

Sec. 11-F. University officials and the officials of security forces in the campuses, such as the campus security group, shall strive to coordinate closely, efficiently, and harmoniously with the PNP to ensure the safety of students, faculty members, and employees of the community, as well as the residents of the campuses.

Some UP units have their own police force created in light of the 1989 UP-DND Accord. In the case of UP Diliman (UPD), they have their own UPD Police and other security personnel like the Special Services Brigade and private security guards.

Under the proposed text of the bill, the university’s security teams would also concern itself with crime response and prevention, and not merely security and firefighting capabilities. This, in effect, expands the powers of the present UP security forces by empowering them to conduct crime-prevention measures and requiring them to coordinate with the Philippine National Police (PNP) to ensure campus security.

It requires joint training and information sharing between UP and the police.

Sec. 11-F (continued). The security forces in the campuses, such as the campus security group, shall engage in joint training and enhance the sharing of information and other resources with the PNP to combat crime and to help ensure law and order in the campuses.

The old accord did not mention any joint training or information sharing between campus security forces and the police. This new section implements the 2019 pronouncement of then PNP Chief Oscar Albayalde after UP Vice President for Public Affairs Elena Pernia regarding a possible information-sharing and joint training agreement of UP and PNP forces.

Albayalde even went as far as inviting UP police in Camp Crame—the PNP’s headquarters—or on a “neutral ground” to train campus police. Despite this, no further development happened on the plan. Meanwhile, the bill is silent on the extent of these training and information-sharing with the PNP—this might very well depend on the agreement between UP campus officials and local PNP stations.

It requires UP to install CCTV or ‘modern crime prevention devices’ across its properties.

Sec. 11-F (continued). To help ensure the safety of the students, faculty and employees of the community, as well as the residents of the campuses, modern crime prevention devices such as closed-circuit television cameras shall be procured and installed in the streets and other locations in the said campuses. The concerned school authorities shall ensure the regular maintenance and immediate replacement of defective devices.

In the case of UPD, some areas and most buildings already have closed-circuit television cameras (CCTV) cameras installed. However, this bill does more than that. Under this provision, virtually every inch of UP may now be covered with CCTV. This was the issue raised during the bill’s committee meeting last May when Chairperson Prospero De Vera III of the Commission on Higher Education lamented over the burglary of his washing machine and LPG tank inside the Diliman campus. UP President Danilo Concepcion later said that the stolen items were already returned.

The bill includes sectoral regents in monitoring the law’s implementation.

Sec. 11-G. Establishment of a joint monitoring group. - There shall be established a joint monitoring group which shall be composed of the vice president for public affairs or the duly designated representative, vice chancellor for community affairs, vice chancellor for student affairs, faculty regent, staff regent, student regent and the following government officials: undersecretary of national defense for civilian relations, AFP judge advocate general or a duly designated representative, PNP assistant chief of staff for operations, and the PNP director of the civil security group. The joint monitoring group shall meet at least twice a year to ensure and determine compliance with the provisions of this act.

A sticking point in the old 1989 accord was regarding its implementation. Last February, Pernia admitted that some provisions in the agreement were not strictly adhered to, like the joint monitoring group—a body tasked to “determine compliance” on the agreement’s execution. The provision in the committee report retains much of the old language—the bill still requires the group to meet twice yearly—except that it expanded the composition of the said group.

The 10-member body now includes the three sectoral regents, a necessary move so the UP community members can be represented and bring forward concerns in the group. In terms of composition, six members are from UP while four are from the military and PNP. What remains to be seen, however, is if UP and state security forces will adhere to the law’s requirement of a bi-annual meeting—a provision that has not been met in the old accord.

It sets penalties for violators of the agreement.

Sec. 11-H. Compliance and Penalty. All parties concerned shall exert every effort to ensure compliance with the provisions of this act. The failure to comply with the provisions of this act shall be sanctioned in accordance with the law, which may include provisions on administrative or civil liability. If the violation is committed by a public official or employee […] a fine equivalent to two (2) years or removal from office or employment depending on the gravity of the offense, shall be imposed after due notice and hearing by the appropriate body or agency. If the violation is by a heavier penalty under another law, the said official or employee shall be prosecuted under the latter statute.

Any violation hereof proven in a proper administrative proceeding shall be sufficient cause for removal or dismissal of a public official or employee, even if no criminal prosecution is instituted against such public official or employee.

This is possibly the most significant addition to the accord. A recurring problem in the 1989 UP-DND Accord was the lack of a compliance and penalty clauses. This has caused many overt and covert incursions of both the PNP and the military in various UP campuses. Now, this pending measure seeks to resolve that. By including punishment to violators of the accord, it could serve as a deterrent to state security forces.

It is also easier to punish state actors in administrative proceedings compared to criminal ones. The former only requires substantial evidence to prove guilt, while the latter needs a “proof beyond reasonable doubt.” Administrative proceedings, however, need to be conducted by the erring official’s agency—in this case, the PNP or the military. Thus, if the bill is approved, it remains incumbent upon the UP community to monitor the cases of the accord’s violators so as not to let the latter get away with impunity.

The measure still has a long way to go. It shall pass both houses of Congress before it is presented to President Rodrigo Duterte, or his successor, for their approval. For now, though, UP will only remain as a sanctuary for dissent and free speech—sans any accord—so long as the members of its community keep it that way. ●