The UP Board of Regents (BOR) has botched the UP presidency and chancellorship selection, undermining the voices of the UP community. The deviation of the BOR away from its constituents’ trust effectively abrogates the regents’ duty to serve the university.
The board favors the decision of seven outsiders and the UP president over the student, staff, and faculty regents representing the sectors that make up the UP community. Their decisions, especially in recent years, were besmirched with personal motivations–brotherhood over service, and politics over merits. Partisanship rules over the board.
These decisions have been met with skepticism due to the lack of explanation, transparency, and accountability. Thus, the board should regain the UP community’s trust as the former remains the primary decision-maker shaping the university's future.
But despite the tainted image of the BOR, it is imperative to retain it as the university's highest governing body. Abruptly abolishing the BOR poses a significant challenge to maintaining order and stability, considering the BOR's long-established bureaucratic structure since 1908. Its abolition would mean rebuilding the university's bureaucracy, which requires a significant amount of time.
This does not mean that no changes must be made. Because the BOR is entrusted with the responsibility to serve the university effectively, it must address the constituent's concerns regarding partisanship and transparency proactively. To achieve genuine democratic management of UP and accountability, the BOR should adopt the code of conduct and ethical standards wherein conflict of interest, affiliations, and partisan members are in check.
A code of conduct and a code of ethics is imperative in a governing body, especially the highest governing body. Without proper oversight, those who hold power can wield it for their own cause. With a code, their interests and actions can be kept in check. Ideally, this would compel the regents to act with integrity.
Implementing a comprehensive code of conduct would foster a culture of transparency, integrity, and accountability. After all, all government officials and employees are expected to follow a code of conduct and ethical standards as mandated by Republic Act (RA) 6713. A government official’s failure to follow the said law could lead them to face stiffer penalties.
For instance, RA 6713 requires regents to disclose their affiliations with businesses and other institutions that may come in conflict with matters that the board will discuss. A failure to disclose may result in sanctions or removal from office depending on the gravity of the offense. However, under existing rules, we have not seen any publication of the regents’ disclosures, much so their statements of assets, liabilities, and net worth.
Under RA 6713, each regent must have political neutrality, wherein they have to serve with no favor over political affiliation or preference. The regents are also expected to uphold loyalty to the constituents over any party or group.
The troubling prevalence of so-called fraternity voting blocs in the BOR, for instance, could be prevented if the government-instituted code of ethical standards is religiously followed. Under the government’s ethical standards, regents affiliated with Greek-lettered organizations could be possibly prohibited from participating in selecting UP officials in which a fellow fraternity member is a nominee.
Similarly, the code would prevent a regent from directly lobbying for the university’s acceptance of a donation from an organization or companies in which a regent has a business interest in. This possible rule could prevent UP from entering into donations that could come with onerous terms, like naming rights.
Adherence to the code of conduct for officials will prevent personal motives from affecting university decisions. The truth is, behind the closed doors of Quezon Hall are regents motivated by individual and business, fraternal, and state interest. With this, the BOR seems to sway away from its intended path of providing democratic governance in the university.
Strict compliance with the code of conduct and ethical standard by the BOR would mean the cultivation of accountability. It would also be the most feasible out of all possible solutions to fix the BOR. It provides the fastest means to promote change in the BOR.
With a code of conduct followed by the BOR, a culture of transparency could perhaps be fostered among the regents. Once rules are strictly placed to check their actions, concealment of any affiliation or conflict of interest could mean recusal from their decision-making powers. The code of conduct could then compel the regents to uphold and prioritize the university's interest over their own. ●
Read the entire series here.
