STALEMATE: UPV stakeholders still open to talks after ‘meeting failure’

By Joseph B.A. Marzan

No talks happened between the chancellor of the University of the Philippines Visayas (UPV) and the group of UPV students, faculty, and staff last week regarding the recent visit by the Regional Task Force to End Local Communist Armed Conflict (RTF-ELCAC) to the campus in Miagao, Iloilo.

But both sides said they are still open for a dialogue on the matter.

The RTF-ELCAC has been at the receiving end of criticisms from some UPV constituents for red-tagging or linking some groups and personalities to the rebel movement.

Chancellor Clement Camposano scheduled a meeting with concerned students, faculty, and staff last Nov 5 to discuss what transpired during the UPV administration’s meeting with the RTF-ELCAC officials last Oct 29.

But the talks fell through after both parties did not move from their separate locations where they invited each other for the dialogue.

Camposano arranged to dialogue at the UPV College of Management building, while the other side waited at the All-UP Workers Alliance (AUPWA) Building.

Daily Guardian spoke to Camposano and sectoral representatives via Messenger call to clarify their positions on the current issue.

The chancellor stated that he is still open to a dialogue on the matter, provided that there would be no requisites imposed on him.

He mentioned that the requisites made for the Nov. 5 dialogue included holding the meeting at the AUPWA Building, denouncing the NTF-ELCAC and red-tagging, as well as signing a unity statement on the “Ligtas na Balik-Eskwela” (Safe Return to Schools) campaign.

“I’m open to a dialogue all the time, as long as there are no preconditions. They know where to find me. The only precondition should be to come with open minds,” the chancellor said.

Philippe Hiñosa, an incoming officer of the UPV University Student Council (UPV-USC), said that the student body was still open to sitting down with the UPV administration if the latter heeded their requisites.

“We are not closing our doors. We are open if that will propel our campaigns against tyranny moving forward. We know how grave the political climate is right now especially that the 2022 elections are nearing. The requisites made for the dialogue was a safety to ensure that the UPV community can still rely on the administration to lead our calls, which we think is entirely necessary after they engaged with the RTF-ELCAC,” Hiñosa said in an online call.

Ms. Erna Decastillo, adviser of the UPV Pangkat Lingkod Bayan (UPV PALABAN), said that a dialogue would ease students’ worries over their own safety.

“We want to clear the minds of my advisees at UPV PALABAN, as well as other organizations [in UPV]. Students are worried because there might be probable face-to-face classes at [UPV Miagao]. What measures will we undertake to protect them? We’re not aware of the plans of the [RTF-ELCAC], that’s why we need this dialogue, so we can clear everything, and for the administration to take a stand in protecting the UPV community,” Decastillo said.

Prof. Early Sol Gadong, president of the All UP Academic Employees Union-Iloilo Chapter (AUPAEU-Iloilo), believes that a genuine dialogue is key to clarifying the issue and other related concerns.

“For us in the Academic Union, it is clear that fear is the weapon of choice by state forces looking for ways for people to just keep quiet on the happenings now. We trust that the UPV and UP as a whole can still be a sanctuary for those who wish to speak the truth. We are open to a genuine dialogue with [Camposano] and his administration because we believe that if he listens to us, and he understands our reaction, we can also listen why he did that. This will all lead to a solid stand of UPV aligned with the stand of the university on academic freedom,” Gadong said.

BOTH NO-SHOWS

Both Camposano and the sectoral representatives explained the “no-show” situation last week.

Gadong said that the AUPAEU and the UPV-USC jointly asked for Camposano to release the minutes of the meeting with the RTF-ELCAC and the list of books the latter gave to the university.

She added that they were unable to agree on a common venue but she was surprised when Camposano told Daily Guardian that he had scheduled a meeting with them.

“Based on the time and venue, the initial building was set, and we did inform the Chancellor. He wasn’t available on Friday morning, so we agreed on Friday afternoon. But he didn’t agree at the [AUPWA] building, we wanted to hold it there because we can set that up to accommodate all attendees to the meeting. In other words, we weren’t able to agree, so we were surprised when it came out to the press that he would hold a meeting,” Gadong said.

Hiñosa said the students were “surprised and perplexed” that Camposano would disclose details of the meeting to the media and not to the students, prior to their sit-down.

He said sectoral representatives from the community waited at the AUPWA building until they have established that the talks will not happen.

“As early as 12:30 [p.m.] there were already sectoral representatives, and we waited until almost 3 p.m., and the UPV administration was at [College of Management Room 21] but they didn’t come down. We decided then and there that our presence had no direction and the Chancellor did not satisfy our requisites,” he said.

Gadong added that the venue would not be an issue, and that Camposano could have asked them to go to the CM building, saying that they were “very eager” to have a dialogue.

She also said that the chancellor was asked to agree with their requisites to set a clear stand on the UPV’s position.

“We have to clarify that the venue was not the main issue in holding the meeting. In the chancellor’s one-year term, we’ve formed dynamics and we wanted to avoid the dialogue he was proposing will turn out to be just an ‘FYI’ from his end. We needed the assurance that something will come out of this dialogue,” Gadong explained.

“This refusal to even consider reading the draft [of the statements] sent us the message that the chancellor wouldn’t want a dialogue, maybe it was just a monologue. The setup of CM 21 confirmed these initial thoughts because it seems that all sectoral representatives will be on one side and the administration on the other end, as opposed to the set-up in the [AUPWA] building, which was set up to be like a roundtable discussion,” she said.

Camposano refuted their contentions, saying that he sent a representative who “kept going back and forth between the CM and AUPWA buildings.”

He explained that he also included in the talks Atty. Andre Palacios, head of the UPV’s Community Legal Assistance Group, which is composed of UPV alumni lawyers who assist constituents who were being red-tagged.

He added that he invited former UP Student Regent and UPV alumnus Raoul Manuel, who was mentioned by the RTF-ELCAC in their meeting.

“I was the one who requested to the dialogue, and I was prepared to the [UPV] Iloilo City campus for it. We were calling them. We requested them. The Student Organizations and Activities coordinator from the Office of Student Affairs, who was also an active union member, was walking back and forth, telling them that we were at [CM]. It doesn’t have to be me physically,” he said.

“It felt demeaning. Why would you demand that a chancellor come to you? I already arranged for a venue. Afterall, they are talking to me as the [UPV chancellor]. Why they should force me to go to a venue of their choosing?” Camposano added.

As to requisites set by the UPV sectors, Camposano said he cannot accede to them because they were not part of the original letter sent to his office.

“I thought that it was uncalled for to make these kinds of demands, after all the letter only asked for two things – what transpired during the RTF-ELCAC meeting and what were the titles of the books that were turned over. I told them that I cannot accept those things, but I am prepared to talk to them, willing to go to Iloilo City to meet, but we have to do it in a proper venue,” he said.

Camposano also explained that as UPV chancellor, he cannot denounce the NTF-ELCAC since it was a government body, which the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) was also part of.

He mentioned that he already denounced red-tagging in several statements since taking over the UPV administration last year. He also reiterating that he would write RTF-ELCAC chief Ana Liza Umpar to address the issues they discussed, including red-tagging.

“We are supposed to have a dialogue. Why impose requirements for a dialogue? I find it inappropriate. For insisting a chancellor of a state university to denounce another government entity, it’s difficult. We’re both government entities, going to congress to ask for funds. I certainly oppose red-tagging. It’s a slippery slope. Will they require us now to denounce CHED because they didn’t like [CHED Chairperson] Popoy De Vera’s statement? I don’t like it also personally. CHED is part of the NTF-ELCAC. If I denounce RTF-ELCAC, am I also supposed to denounce agencies which are part of that multi-agency task force?” he said.

REACTIONS

Hiñosa, Gadong, and Decastillo also shared their reactions to the Oct 29 RTF-ELCAC visit to UPV Miag-ao campus.

Hiñosa cited the red-tagging by the RTF-ELCAC’s parent organization, the NTF-ELCAC, of UPV students through the Kabataan Kontra Droga At Terorismo (KKDAT).

The KKDAT a police-led youth movement which allegedly aims to “encourage and strengthen the youth’s ability in suppressing the illegal drug and terrorism problem in the community.”

Hiñosa said that welcoming the RTF-ELCAC was a “way to legitimize their methods compromising student safety using resources to spread false information.”

“We opposed the hosting of the dialogue of the RTF-ELCAC, because the NTF-ELCAC has a well-known history of using disinformation which endangers the youth, as well as a history of red-tagging UPV students and faculty alike through engagements with the KKDAT. When I was UPV CAS student council chair, two students were red-tagged by KKDAT,” Hiñosa shared.

He added that the student body cannot accept Camposano’s reason of freedom of expression and academic freedom as justification for the meeting.

“The students’ and the NTF-ELCAC’s powers are not equal, given the NTF-ELCAC’s resources to spread false information with their billion-peso budget, as well as their reach on social media. So the students would have a loud clamor against the hosting of the RTF-ELCAC,” he added.

Gadong said that their criticism stemmed from Camposano’s lack of consultation prior to the RTF-ELCAC meeting, contrary to his promises during the Chancellorship selection process that he will promote participatory governance and participatory leadership.

She recalled that in June 2018, the UPV administration under then-Chancellor Ricardo Babaran received a request letter from the Miagao Municipal Police Station asking for the AUPAEU-Iloilo members’ profiles.

The union got a copy of the letter then, which prepared them to defend themselves from the police forces.

“The constituents were not consulted prior to the hosting [of RTF-ELCAC]. We could’ve given reasons as to why it was not a good idea for the UPV administration to host them. We’re just holding [Camposano] to the promises he made before his term,” she said.

Decastillo, who is also an administration staff, echoed Gadong’s sentiments, citing Camposano’s previous interview with Daily Guardian where he stated that RTF-ELCAC representatives mentioned students and faculty suspected of being communist group members.

“We always have representatives rallying on social issues to protect the UPV community’s rights and welfare. When the news came out that he hosted the [RTF-ELCAC], among the first to react were the students, they feared that the meeting would have something to do with red-tagging. We should’ve been informed and assured each organization that we would all hear RTF-ELCAC’s intentions. There was no information,” she said.