As we strive for a more just society, so too must we weave the fabric of justice within the very walls of our university. Yet, a stark dissonance to this pursuit of justice has surfaced as a barrage of sexual harassment issues hounded UP Diliman’s student leaders during the recently concluded University Student Council (USC) elections.

Former members of the Student Alliance for the Advancement of Democratic Rights in UP (STAND UP) called out the party on social media for mishandling sexual harassment cases. STAND UP has since released a statement of admission and apology on the matter, and withdrew from the USC race. 

The party’s rectification efforts can only be judged by those directly involved and aggrieved. However, the issue is telling of how institutions and organizations often fall short in safeguarding the well-being of their constituents, as even the university struggles to provide efficient and prompt responses to sexual harassment cases.

There have been 74 complaints filed to the Office of Anti-Sexual Harassment (OASH) since 2019 (see sidebar 1). Of these, only four had a final charge by the chancellor, eight had been dismissed, and 20 are still awaiting decision by the chancellor.

It is then imperative to intensify our scrutiny and examine how the university, as the authority on student issues, has played its obligation per the UP ASH Code to prevent sexual harassment and provide ample support to victim-survivors. 

Incident Report

Sexual harassment is already difficult to endure as it is. But the pursuit for justice is further marred by physical, psychological, and societal barriers, casting victims into a relentless struggle even at the very first steps of choosing whether or not to report the case.

Yanez, one of the sexual harassment victims who aired her narrative on Twitter against STAND UP, shared these difficulties. “May hesitation ako [sa pag-report] kasi syempre taxing siya at in the end, baka matalo ka lang,” she told the Collegian. 

With no support system at the time, she decided to report her case to the OASH. The office has been mandated to promote and nurture a sexual harassment-free campus since its establishment in 2003.

UPD constituents go to the OASH to file incident reports, be it in person or through the office’s Facebook page or email address. If there is an identified complainant, the report may proceed to follow UPD’s protocols (see sidebar 2), as with Yanez’s case. 

Yet other victims chose to report anonymously, or not report at all due to the fear of getting identified, among others, according to Prescilla Tulipat, university extension specialist from the OASH. “Takot sila kasi mas malaki o takot kasi mas matanda [ang perpetrator]. Patong-patong yan na factors.”

In cases where the complainant is anonymous, all that the OASH could do is request for a deployment of security personnel from UP to places where there is reported harassment. The office also works on other preventive measures such as educational seminars. But there is nothing they could do to bring cases to a conclusion since the ASH Code requires that there be faces attached to both the complainants and the accused. 

For example, in the case of “Lonsi Leaks” where the group chat of Upsilon Sigma Phi showing problematic takes and harassment was leaked, UP had no means to track where the screenshots came from, thus voiding the possibility of verification. 

These are but only part of the initial steps in the process of holding perpetrators to account, and yet the odds of vindication seem insurmountable.

Investigation and Deliberation

The following stages in UPD’s protocols demand an even greater fortitude from the parties involved.

After a complaint is filed for formal procedure, a two-step investigation commences. The ASH council conducts the preliminary investigation every month. A hearing committee, comprising a faculty, non-teaching, and student representative, conducts the final investigation. This committee ensures that involved parties can present testimonies in a jury-like system, said Tulipat.

The final charge is given by the chancellor with the advice of the Diliman Legal Office (DLO), according to the OASH. The deliberation within the DLO is where the process drags out as three elements must be satisfied: jurisdiction over place, meaning that the act had to happen within UP premises or outside in a UP-related activity; jurisdiction over time, which only considers cases reported within four years; and on the alleged sexual harassment acts (see sidebar 3), per the ASH code. Failure to meet all three will automatically dismiss the case. 

In Yanez’s situation, despite the ASH council finding sufficient evidence of sexual harassment, the case was dismissed due to a technicality over the DLO’s jurisdiction of place. She was offered more options to appeal the case to the UP president or pursue it outside the university, but the weight of undergoing the same process was too much for her to bear. 

“Kung ganoon lang din ang magiging option, parang creatively i-present lang ulit ang evidence, ano yun, bubugbugin ko ulit ang sarili ko for the same verdict?” she said. 

The DLO ensures that their decisions are done objectively, and understandably so. But there must be a rethinking of these processes that considers the victim’s welfare while acknowledging the legalistic aspects of the case. It should not be so difficult for survivors to receive support from the university that vows to keep them safe.

A highly legalistic approach is not the sole obstacle derailing the process. Tulipat points to the DLO's conservative members that disregard the significance of contemporary evidence such as digital records and those that pertain to modern relationships. “Kung hindi nila alam ang contemporary times, the tendency is to dismiss. So need ng training, parang reconceptualization kung paano ang youth ngayon at yung technical aspect din sa digital evidences,” she said.

Resolution

In theory, UPD’s protocols should provide a prompt resolution such that justice would not be delayed—and by extension, denied. However, the fastest case that concluded in UPD was reached after six months contrary to the ideal three and a half, said Tulipat.

Resolutions may be reached through a formal administrative procedure or an alternative dispute resolution (ADR). Perpetrators found guilty under the formal procedure would be sanctioned according to the ASH Code. Involved parties in the ADR may opt to resolve the case among themselves, with the mediation of the OASH, and the victim may propose a penalty that would exact justice for them. 

An ADR may be a way to avoid the taxing formal procedure for the victim-survivors. But in other cases, it is a mere band-aid solution. “Nagre-resort na lang to ADR ang constituents dahil hindi na nili-litigate dahil wala sa jurisdiction ng UP,” said Yanez. “Hindi ba iyon disservice sa constituents nila (UP administration) na nauwi lang sa ADR ang mga kaso?” Yanez was not even granted an ADR as the council was sure that a sanction would be imposed through the formal procedure, she shared.

Despite everything, for Yanez, the response of the OASH to her report was the victim-centered approach she needed. “Na-validate ako na na-sexually harass ako, they expressed na sana hindi ito nangyari, at binigyan [nila] ako ng options,” she said.

A victim-centered approach prioritizes the welfare of the victim, while providing empathetic and non-judgmental support to avoid re-traumatization, according to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. This approach does not assume the guilt of the accused but seeks to address the harm done to the survivor—the two are not mutually exclusive.

In cases where the perpetrator is guilty, a victim-centered approach also requires a swift and proper response to hold the culprit liable. Accountability must provide no sanctuary for the offender.

Only when UPD embraces a victim-centered approach alongside a commitment to accountability can it truly become a beacon of justice, where survivors find solace, perpetrators face consequences, and the pursuit of justice is no longer a distant dream. ●

Infographics by Darlene Cruz

EDITOR'S NOTE:

The article "How Legal Mechanisms Hamper UPD's Response to Sexual Harassment" has been edited to clarify the categorization of cases marked as resolved. 

Previously, we only counted the four cases with final charges from the chancellor as resolved, and all without final decision as ongoing. We have since edited the resolved cases to also include those that underwent alternative dispute resolution or were referred to other UP units. We also separated the ongoing investigations within the Office of Anti-Sexual Harassment (OASH) from those awaiting formal decision from the Office of the Chancellor and Diliman Legal Office.