In a matter of days, the university will be naming its 22nd president. He will act as chief executive, head of the faculty, and chief academic officer of the UP System for the next six years. He is also tasked to face the concurrent problems of the university including the looming budget cut, and threats to academic freedom amid a Marcos presidency. As the head of the national university, he will be at the forefront of leading the transition of the education system through the post-pandemic world.
A leader who genuinely listens to the concerns of sectors inside the university has always been at the forefront of campaigns during every UP president selection. But despite the efforts of the UP community over the years, the UP Board of Regents (BOR) has not always selected a president based on the sectors’ demands and interests.
Baselines and Rules
The BOR, the university’s highest policymaking body, is responsible for selecting the UP president. The process starts with nominations for the presidency, and those who accepted them will be shortlisted. Finally, the board deliberates and holds special meetings to determine their choice. The selection has always been kept behind closed doors characterized by private deliberations and nondisclosure of the votes cast by each regent.
The board is composed of the chairperson of Commission on Higher Education and the UP president acting as co-chairpersons, the chairpersons of the Committee of Higher Education from the Senate and the House of Representatives, an alumni regent, and three regents from each UP sector: staff, students, and faculty. The three remaining positions are occupied by Malacañang appointees.
In 1987, former President Edgardo Angara recommended to the BOR to formalize the criteria of the search committee tasked to screen the presidential candidates. The criteria adopted by the board included the nominees' academic achievements and qualifications, their rapport with the UP community, and their present position or employment.
One criterion back then was the requirement to have prior association with UP to qualify as a nominee. Past presidents like Onofre Corpuz in 1975 and Jose Abueva in 1987 served as faculty members before their term, while Edgardo Angara was the Diliman chancellor before his presidency in 1981.
In 1999, the BOR removed the requirement of having an association with UP as a qualification. Despite this revision, the presidents selected up to this day formerly held offices in UP before becoming president. Francisco Nemenzo Jr. was the chancellor of UP Visayas before he became president in 1999, Emerlinda Roman was the Diliman chancellor before assuming office in 2005, Alfredo Pascual was the alumni regent before being voted into the position in 2011, and the incumbent president, Danilo Concepcion, was the dean of the College of Law before his presidency in 2017.
Under Nemenzo in 2004, the criteria for selecting the president again underwent significant changes. The selection process provided a more comprehensive set of qualifications, and the possession of a PhD was removed from the criteria. “There are other ways of establishing oneself,” said Nemenzo in a January 2004 BOR meeting on the discussion of the qualifications.
From then until now, four selection criteria are being used for the selection, revolving around the nominees' administrative capabilities, how their values are anchored in UP’s role in society, their plans to continue the modernization of the university, and the preservation of UP’s autonomy. This is assessed based on their academic achievements, past experiences, and overall reputation.
The BOR claimed it has always adhered to these rules for selection, and that they are only following government mandates stated in the UP Charter. However, they have contradicted themselves through the decisions that they have made in the past.
Backed by the Powers that Be
Among the BOR’s members, it is evident that sectoral representatives from the students, faculty, and staff are outnumbered by palace appointees and government officials. This underrepresentation paves way for the BOR to make decisions that are not always aligned with the welfare and needs of its constituents.
Before Emil Javier's term as president in 1999, his chancellorship was filled with issues on the acute mismanagement of funds. It was also no secret back then that Javier was favored by former President Fidel Ramos. The palace's involvement in the selection was questioned by many as Ramos appointed a majority of the regents at that time.
But the 2005 presidential selection tells a seemingly opposite narrative when Malacañang bet Edgardo Espiritu was outvoted by fellow nominee, Emerlinda Roman, by the slimmest margin, 7 to 5. Making history as both the university’s first woman and centennial president, Roman was hugely supported by UP at the start of her term.
While Roman achieved most of her goals in resource generation and mobilization programs, she fell short of the students’ agenda. UP experienced a 300-percent tuition increase after continuous subsidy reductions. Student representation eluded further from the BOR when the voting power of former student regent, Charisse Bañez, was removed as she settled conflicts in her academic affairs.
In the duration of her term, Roman often sided with Malacañang-instated members on issues such as her recommendation for the reappointment of three palace appointees in the BOR without consultation with the UP community, and the privatization of UP’s assets.
When the whole UP community is reduced to just three votes on the board, it is hard to expect that the selected leader would adhere to the needs and demands of the university.
Braving What Lies Ahead
Campaigns were held back then to increase the participation of the UP community in the selection of the president. In 1993, the UP Multisectoral Alliance (UPMSA) was created to represent the concerns of the UP community through systemwide campaigns.
In a Collegian article in 1993, then vice chairperson of the USC and student representative of UPMSA, Carlos Osi, suggested to the BOR the “creation of a mechanism allowing grassroots-level consultation and participation, the presentation of nominees; stand on university issues and the holding of open fora in all UP units, and straw polls as components of a democratic selection process.” It would serve as a way for the BOR to determine who the community favors. But this was opposed by the BOR stating that the students may hold these forums themselves.
Presently, the selection process took a step in informing the public of the nominees’ stances on university issues. The BOR now conducts public forums, albeit strictly regulated and time-limited, and nominees' mission-vision statements have been made accessible online. Despite these improvements, genuine involvement of its constituents is still asked of the BOR.
While a genuine democratic process in choosing the president is yet to be implemented, the UP community must continue its campaigns in forwarding their demands. Quality education, workers’ rights, and genuine student representation will only be achieved through a leader who represents the community and who advocates for such calls. The BOR should heed the voices of its constituents. After all, it is the UP community that will be directly affected by the decisions and policies made within the boardroom. ●
