Petitioners in an open letter to Valenzuela Mayor Rex Gatchalian on the labor issues and campus repression issues in the Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Valenzuela (PLV) responded to the mayor’s reaction to their letter or such concerns contained in the letter that has been circulating online.

“While we appreciate that Mayor Gatchalian took time to peruse and attempted to address the claims in the open letter, the minutes of the meeting held on June 8 published by the PLV Chronicle night of June 10 show that the Mayor’s response was a justification rather than an investigation of the labor malpractices and campus repression,” the petitioners, composed of current and former teachers and current students and alumni of PLV, said.

In an interview with Inquirer in a June 15 article, Gatchalian reiterated that some former teachers who signed the open letter and were contract-based employees committed various infractions during their stay in PLV. He said the nonrenewal of a teacher’s contract was due to her giving her students a field assignment while Metro Manila was in lockdown due to the new coronavirus disease. He dismissed the reports about the late release of salaries, saying the city government had documentary evidence to disprove such claims.

“Certain teachers have wanted to make it appear that this is more than performance in the school setting. They would rather make it appear as repression to free speech. But in my possession are various academic records that will show various infractions committed by former teachers. These infractions range from endangering students’ lives to absenteeism and [tardiness],” Gatchalian said to Inquirer.

Gatchalian also posted in his Twitter account a June 8 dialogue for those who have complaints, but none showed up. The mayor proceeded to hold a discussion with the student council and the student publication, PLV Chronicle, and then let the student groups inform others of what transpired in the discussion with him.

 

The petitioners, in reaction to Gatchalian’s responses to the concerns in their letter, clarified that their absence in the said meeting was because of these five reasons:

  • the invitation from the Mayor’s end, sent through a tweet to Gracio, was sent before the drafting and circulation of the open letter therefore was not prompted by it;
  • the Mayor failed to inform the petitioners of the presence of the school officials in question in the said meeting;
  • the petitioners are currently scheduling a special dialogue with the Mayor alone, having sent three emails which remain unanswered as of this writing (June 12);
  • the petitioners are still in the process of gathering proofs of the malpractices and repression; and,
  • the petitioners are still finalizing teachers and students demands toward a more democratic teaching-learning community, which we intend to present in the dialogue.

They also expressed disappointment of what they read in the minutes of the mayor’s meeting with the student council and student publication how the mayor insisted that teachers were removed because of [their] overall performance “without quantifying what it means.” They said the university does not have a faculty manual.

“The rundown of this overall performance and the guidelines which objectively explain it as basis for renewal or nonrenewal are normally stated in a faculty manual–which the university does not have. Without an existing faculty manual, the teachers are left in the dark of the many aspects of their employment in PLV,” said the petitioners.

They were also disappointed with Gatchalian’s “defense of contractualization.”

“The Mayor may have explained the rigorous process of paper work concerning teachers’ salaries but it does not suffice in explaining their sufferings: As long as they remain contractual, they will helplessly be waiting for their salary the way the characters in Beckett’s play wait for Godot. If the Mayor is able to fund the many infrastructure projects in Valenzuela, he can surely be able to fund permanent teacher items in the city’s primary tertiary institution,” said the petitioners.

In their original petition, they said roughly 8 out of 10 teachers in PLV work on a contractual basis, which means majority of them are not entitled to benefits and security of tenure.

They also reiterated that the mayor or any school official cannot dictate on the contents or the staff of the official student publication once established, citing various provisions in the Campus Journalism Act of 1991:

  • On the editorial board and editorial policies on Section 4 states: “A student publication is published by the student body through an editorial board and publication staff composed of students selected but fair and competitive examinations.

“Once the publication is established, its editorial board shall freely determine its editorial policies and manage the publication’s funds.”

  • On the role of the adviser on Section 6 states: “The publication adviser shall be selected by the school administration from a list of recommendees submitted by the publication staff. The function of the adviser shall be limited to one of technical guidance.”

In their petition, they said there were also reports of censorship of articles that tackle socio-political issues and that the publication failed to print on a regular basis “due to the administration’s meddling.”

A student also complained of red-tagging and manipulation of stories about the New People’s Army to scare students into submission to some policies and warnings in the Senior High School of PLV perpetrated by the school administration.

The petitioners demanded for the University President, who they consider “the primary perpetrator of repression in the university” to be investigated and sanctioned.

They also await the Mayor’s response on their request for dialogue.

 

Loading spinner

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here