THE COMMISSION on Higher Education (CHED) has given the UST administration 15 days to explain its alleged violation of laws on faculty salaries and benefits obtained from tuition increases, which may lead to “appropriate actions” if the University fails to comply within the deadline.
In a show-cause order addressed to UST Rector Fr. Richard Ang, O.P. issued on March 7, the commission directed the University to submit a written explanation on its compliance with three provisions found in Republic Act (RA) 6728 and CHED Memorandum No. 03, s. 2012 within 15 days upon receipt of the order.
The move stemmed from concerns raised by faculty members over the UST administration’s release of tuition hike shares, which has been delayed for three years.
“Pursuant to Commission en ban Resolution No. 809-20201, in accordance with Republic Act No. 7722, known as the ‘Higher Education Act of 1994,’ and the attached letter from the UST Faculty Union, you are hereby given fifteen (15) days upon receipt of this Order within which to submit a written explanation regarding the compliance on the tuition fee increase shares for the members of the UST Faculty Union which is allegedly in violation of [Section 5 (2) of the law and Sections 7.2.3 and 7.2.4 of the CHED memorandum],” the show-cause order signed by CHED Executive Director Cinderella Filipina Benitez-Jaro read.
“Failure on your part to comply with this Order shall constrain this Commission to take appropriate actions pursuant to its authority under RA No. 7722, and other applicable laws, rules, and regulations,” it added.
Under Section 5 (2) of the Government Assistance To Students and Teachers In Private Education Act, private schools are required to allocate 70% of tuition increases to staff salaries, wages, allowance and other benefits.
Meanwhile, Section 7.2.3 of the CHED memorandum mandates that the benefits be sworn by the school head through a certificate of compliance. These certificates must be publicly displayed on campus “to ensure transparency” in accordance with Section 7.2.4.
Not yet compliant?
Sought for comment, UST Faculty Union president Asst. Prof. Emerito Gonzales said the CHED order was an indication that the University has yet to submit a certificate for compliance as required by law.
“Because that means, in the last three or four years, they (administration) have not yet submitted a certificate of compliance because they have not really given the money that is due to us,” Gonzales told The Flame.
In a letter addressed to Gonzales dated March 10, CHED approved the issuance of a show-cause order as a response to his request for its legal opinion and technical assistance on the tuition hike share issue in December.
Gonzales inquired about the independent release of tuition hike shares from the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) and the specifications of when it should be rightfully disbursed after the University rector denied the faculty union’s call for the partial release of funds.
Ang had argued that the release of tuition hike shares could only be done with a finalized CBA in place, which has been under back-and-forth negotiations for a year, to prevent legal risks and compliance issues.
According to Gonzales, it has been part of the University’s long-standing practice to withhold the release of funds and to file for a certificate of intended compliance instead of a direct one until a bargaining deal has been ratified.
“Well, it will be explained by UST, they will say, ‘it’s because that’s what we have been used to doing for the past few years, for the past, well, 15 years, that we need to finish the ratification of the CBA before we release it,’” he said.
Under the CHED memorandum, the certificate of intended compliance indicates future plans to allocate proceeds from a tuition increase for school personnel. Meanwhile, the certificate of compliance allows the workers’ active usage of fund shares.
In the event that an institution’s actions resulted in violations of RA 8545, which amended RA 6728, education regulating bodies, upon the recommendation of the council, “may bar the institution from participating in or benefiting from the programs of this act, and from other programs of the department, without prejudice to administrative and criminal charges as may be filed against the school and/or its responsible officers under existing laws.”
The USTFU scheduled a vote over a deadlock on March 10 to decide whether to accept or reject the administration’s final offer of work benefits. The poll results, which will be answered by about 1,400 union members, will be discussed with the administration through a dialogue on March 14.
Gonzales hopes that the developments will prompt the administration to hasten a resolution on the issue.
“Because [of the] show-cause, the admin is pressured to act quickly. They will speed things up. Well, hopefully, they will… they might try to pacify us so that things go okay since we’re also under pressure from CHED,” he said.
The administration’s final proposals include the decrease of allocation for the tertiary rank and senior high school (SHS) salary upgrades, which will only amount to P17 million from P26 million previously.
Meanwhile, the P10.5 million salary upgrade for SHS employees fell to only P1.5 million. The difference of about P8.9 million will be transferred to the tuition increase share of all University personnel as backpay, bringing the total to P87.5 million from P78.6 million.
The Flame has reached out to the UST administration for a comment on the issue but has yet to receive a response. F
