Why the hullaballoo over repealed UP-DND Accord?

By Joseph B.A. Marzan

 

The one-sided decision of the Department of National Defense (DND) to terminate its 31-year-old agreement with the University of the Philippines (UP) was met with widespread criticism from students, activists, and the Commission on Human Rights (CHR).

DND Secretary Delfin Lorenzana sent a January 15, 2021 letter addressed to UP President Danilo Concepcion, stating that the UP-DND Accord of 1989 was terminated on the same day.

The letter was first published by UP Diliman’s campus-wide publication Philippine Collegian on Monday.

Lorenzana claimed in the letter that UP campuses were becoming “clandestine recruitment hubs” for the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) and its armed wing, the New People’s Army (NPA).

The defense secretary, however, did not provide proof for his claim.

He did cite the Anti-Terrorism Council’s (ATC) designation of the CPP-NPA as a terrorist organization under Republic Act No. 11479 (Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020).

The ATC issued Resolution No. 12 on Dec. 9, but only published it on its website on Dec. 21, according to a report by Rappler.

Lorenzana also doubled down on his decision to abrogate the agreement in a series of tweets.

In one tweet, he compared UP to the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) between North and South Korea, with a reference to the popular 2019 Korean drama “Crash Landing on You”.

 

He said that the DND was merely “protecting the youth” from what he called “enemies of the state”.

 

“Sa UP mayroon silang ala-Demilitarized Zone (DMZ). Military can’t enter without coordination. What makes UP so special? Nasa Korean border ba kayo? CLOY is life na ba? We are not your enemies. We are here to protect our people, especially our youth,” he said in a tweet.

 

The accord was signed on June 30, 1989 between then-UP President Jose Abueva and then-DND Secretary Fidel V. Ramos.

It was an update of a similar 1982 agreement signed between the then-Chairperson of the League of Filipino Students (LFS) Sonia Soto, and then-Defense Minister Juan Ponce Enrile.

Most articles and public mentions of the two agreements misconstrue them as being one and the same.

The 1989 agreement stated that police and armed forces were not allowed inside any UP campus without prior notification and authorization from the UP President, or the Chancellor of the constituent university, or the Dean of the regional unit, or their respective officers-in-charge.

Services of warrant of arrest against a member of the UP community should also be done with prior notification to the school administration.

The agreement also explicitly prohibits police and armed forces from interfering with peaceful protest actions.

The UP campuses employ their own police force and security staff for the safety and welfare of the community.

The agreement provided only a few exceptions, such as hot pursuit and similar occasions of emergency, or when the President, Chancellor, Dean, or officer-in-charge deemed their presence necessary.

According to a tweet by UP journalism professor Danilo Arao, the signing of the 1989 agreement was prompted by the abduction of Philippine Collegian staffer Donato Continente, who he said was tortured and forced to confess to the killing of American military officer Col. James Rowe.

 

 

REACTIONS FROM THE UP COMMUNITY

As expected, the UP community, as well as many critics of the government, did not take these declarations sitting down.

In a press statement on Tuesday, UP Visayas Chancellor Dr. Clement C. Camposano denounced the sudden termination, citing the history between the university and the country’s armed forces.

UPV comprises of three campuses of the UP system, with its main campus in Miag-ao, Iloilo, and two smaller campuses in Iloilo City, and Tacloban City, Leyte.

Camposano told Daily Guardian via text message on Monday evening that they were preparing a statement denouncing the termination of the accord.

 

“Historical events that have shaped the relationship of UP and the country’s security forces—many of these leaving wounds that have yet to heal—explain the University’s strong apprehension. While the [DND] has given assurances that constitutionally guaranteed rights and freedoms would not be suppressed, these historical events and the sordid reality of recent killings, abductions, and other forms of human rights abuses widely believed to have been perpetrated by security forces cannot but leave us unassured,” the chancellor said in a statement.

 

He told the UPV community to be “steadfast and resolute” in defending their democratic rights.

 

“We call on the members of the UPV community to be steadfast and resolute in the defense of their democratic rights, and in ensuring that the University’s campuses remain free, safe, and welcoming towards a wide range of ideas and advocacies,” Camposano added.

 

Camposano echoed UP President Danilo Concepcion’s call to Lorenzana to reconsider the termination and “return to the path of reason”.

 

“The 1989 Accord provides a reliable mechanism for resolving differences of opinion between the University and law enforcement agencies. We strongly urge the Secretary of Defense to return to the path of reason and reconsider this unilateral and ill-conceived abrogation,” he said.

 

The six student councils of UPV also joined hands in releasing a unity statement to condemn the accord’s termination.

The statement was released on Tuesday morning, and was signed onto by the UPV University Student Council, the UPV College of Arts and Sciences Student Council, UPV College of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences Student Council, UPV College of Management Student Council, and the UPV Tacloban Campus Student Council.

It focused not only on Lorenzana, but also on President Rodrigo Duterte, citing incidences of arrests and disappearances of known activists in the frontlines during protests, saying that the termination of the agreement “galvanizes Duterte’s disdain for accountability and dissent”.

 

“With DND terminating the landmark agreement, the move legitimizes further attacks and harassment against members of the UP community, as well as empowering state forces to stifle our basic Constitutional right to dissent. The move can also be considered as a calculated political action to make use of UP as the state’s testing grounds of their grand plan to curtail freedom of expression and showcase the institution as their example to dissuade critics from dissenting and expressing their thoughts against the government,” said in the joint statement.

 

 

‘MAY BE LEGAL, BUT STILL AGAINST RIGHTS’

Commission on Human Rights-Region 6 (CHR-6) director Atty. Jonnie Dabuco told Daily Guardian in a phone interview that the termination was legal based on the law, particularly the provisions of the Civil Code of the Philippines.

 

“Since there was no clause on how they would terminate the agreement, the default is that one of the parties, since it was only the two of them in this case, may terminate the agreement if it deems so, because there were no other conditions,” Dabuco said.

 

He clarified that Article 1308 of the Civil Code, which states that contracts “bind both contracting parties, its validity or compliance cannot be left to the will of one of them,” was only applicable to non-compliance by any of the parties.

Dabuco did not rule out the availability of a legal challenge, saying that UP President Concepcion, a former dean of the UP College of Law, would be able to challenge the termination in the courts.

But Dabuco said that while the termination may be legal, it goes against the right to academic freedom, reiterating the CHR’s condemnation of the termination.

The CHR stated that the termination of the accord “was not okay with human rights”, citing Section 1, Article XIV of the 1987 Constitution, which provides for “the right of all citizens to quality education at all levels”.

 

Dabuco said that academic freedom was essential to the pursuit of the right to education of the students and staff, not only of UP, but also all academic institutions.

 

“We cannot freely exercise our right to education without academic freedom by the students and the faculty. This termination is seen to have an impact on academic freedom, because, for example, the military may threaten any faculty who discusses politics that they don’t like. The principles of academic freedom would be violated there. The students are not being trained to become parrots of the State, but to become critical thinkers, so they should be allowed to learn and decide on the issues presented to them,” he said.