|
THE SUBIDO
MEMORANDUM: USURPATION AND NAKED POWER
Wilfredo M. Chato
1964-1965 (Second Semester)
Academic freedom and the University have
been accepted to be inseparably linked. Being a state institution, the University has its
vaunted adherence to the principle of intellectual autonomy constitutionally guaranteed.
Yet, in the history of the University,
there have been several attempts toward curtailing this principle. Not so long ago,
obscurantists and anti-intellectuals, cloaked in the guise of an inquisitorial artifice,
subjected the University to legislative probes. Members of the faculty who had the
reputation for independent thinking and the profession to uphold autonomy in the search
for truth as they see it were made to suffer the innuendos designed to cast aspersions on
their ideological beliefs and ways of life. It is a credit, however, that of these
attempts there have been no successes. Steeped in the inheritance of a noble tradition and
spurred for a militant studentry and administration, the University took a firm stand and
the encroachments into the intellectual life of the University failed.
Recently, however, a new attempt to the
same curtailment ensued. The commissioner of Civil Service, Alfredo Subido, in a CSC
memorandum, series of 1965 imposed upon the University the loyalty and character check. In
a display of irresistible resolution to subject the University faculty to the check, the
Civil Service Commissioner literally ordered the University to implement the CS circular.
This recent encroachment has again focused
undivided attention to the constitutional mandate guaranteeing the University the
postulate of academic freedom. Although beclouded by a vague constitutional clause,
nevertheless, there is validity to the assertion that academic freedom as constitutionally
guaranteed assures to the University control over the four essentials of a free
university, namely, 1) the admission and examination of students, 2) the curricula for
courses of study, 3) the appointment and security of tenure of the teaching staff, and 4)
the method and medium of instruction. Academic freedom, at once, has a two-fold aspect:
one, the freedom of the individual researcher or scholar, and the other, the freedom of
the University itself.
The CS circular, according to the
Commissioner, finds basis in a power conferred upon him by law, particularly the Revised
Administration Code. This argument, however, suffers a delusion for two reasons, namely,
that the said provision of the Revised Administrative Code does not apply to the
University and that, being a corporation created by a special charter, the provision of
the special law prevails.
Under the Revised Civil Service Act of
1959, the University of the Philippines, not being covered under both the classified and
unclassified civil service, is exempt from the operation of its provisions. The faculty
and personnel, therefore, should not be made to comply with civil service regulations. By
a clear provision of law, unaffected by any ambiguity, the University Faculty cannot be
forced to take the loyalty and character check.
The special law, on the other hand,
otherwise known as the UP charter gives the duty and the power to determine the fitness
and qualifications of professors to the Board of Regents and to the University President.
Under the said law, a loyalty and character check, if there be any, can only be imposed by
the Board of Regents with the concurrence of the University President. It is not for the
Civil Service Commissioner to do that, for to do so would be an unwarranted usurpation of
official functions.
The situation, however, does not call for
the application of specific provision of statutes. It is still basic that under a
democratic society firmly devoted to autonomy and its aspects, any curtailment of a
guaranteed freedom is unwarranted. In a free university, particularly, in a previous
restraint serves no other purpose than a preclusion of the very exercise of the right to
an atmosphere conducive to the accomplishment of the very purpose for which such
university exists - namely, the search for truth. For truth is transcendental and only a
commensurate intellectual research can possibly attain it. The individual scholar has the
fertile intellect for truth, and the finality with which such intellect perceives and
conceives the truth is better attained when the same intellect is unhampered, unbridled
and unrestrained by those whose only claim to interfere stems from naked civil power.
No doubt, a judicial declaration is
essential to put a stop to the controversy. But against an official who has shown a
marvellous adroitness in the art of controversy, one wonders if there would really be an
end. A judicial decision would only be a fleeting, occasional solution to the present
contingency. An evasive attitude is needed.
UP professors should not submit to the
Subido requirement. |
|
