Correction, please. Last week, I reported that the University of the Philippines Board of Regents (BOR) turned down faculty regent Judy Taguiwalo?s motion for reconsideration [on their ?veto? of the University Council?s decision to withdraw the graduation of students in a cheating case so that they could serve a 45-day suspension sentence by the Student Disciplinary Tribunal], without discussion, by a vote of 5 to 3, in exact duplication of their original vote overturning the UC?s decision.

I was mistaken. After last week?s column came out, I was informed that the vote was a tie at 4-4. The student regent, who had abstained in the original decision, cast her vote in favor of reconsideration, adding to those of president Emerlinda Roman, the faculty regent, and the staff regent, thus solidifying the stand of the UP community. The tie was broken by the BOR chair (ex officio because he is CHEd chair), who once again effectively disregarded the opinion of those representing the UP community, and confirmed not only his group?s unwarranted decision to gainsay the decision of the highest academic body of the university in a purely academic governance matter, but its refusal to explain the basis of that decision.

Actually the substance of Taguiwalo?s motion for reconsideration did not even ask for the BOR to reverse its original decision (that is the sole responsibility of the University Council). What she was asking was for the BOR to explain to its constituents, i.e., the university community in general and the UC in particular why it decided that the students found guilty of ?misconduct? had already served their sentence (the UC didn?t think so, and stated its reasons) and therefore should not have their graduation withdrawn, as the UC wanted to do.

That had to be a pretty reasonable request. Judges, justices, prosecutors, anyone who is tasked with making a decision, follow a common procedure: they state the facts, the arguments of both sides, their own reasoned findings, before they finally make their decision (dispositive portion, is what I think they call it) known. So everybody knows what?s what.

But not the BOR, even though one member, Abraham Sarmiento, is a retired Supreme Court justice. It is bad enough that it intervened where there was no need or call for intervention (no one was questioning the UC decision); but it did not even bother to explain why it intervened. Worse, when one of its members suggests that these reasons should be made public?after all the community is an academic one, where ideas, logic and reasoning are the common currency?she is rejected. I am given to understand that one of the regents indignantly asked, ?Why do we have to explain??

New information I received also adds more to the puzzle of alumni regent Gari Tiongco?s vote. The president of the alumni association historically, and rightfully so, supports the university president?s recommendations, much more than the faculty and student regent do, so his voting against Roman?s recommendations raised eyebrows. But I was recently told (by unimpeachable sources) that in fact Tiongco had been vocal in his criticism of the decision of the SDT (Student Disciplinary Tribunal) labeling the students? behavior as ?misconduct? when the actions described in the decision actually constituted cheating. But if that is the case, and the students involved were already getting off lightly, why did he vote against their being made to come back and serve their sentence? I still wait for the point-by-point answers Tiongco promised me (gratuitously, I must add).

In reaction to my columns on this matter, former Prime Minister Cesar Virata, former dean of the UP College of Business Administration, son of former UP president Enrique Virata, and a UP alumnus all the way (I think from elementary), shakes his head in dismay at the unwonted interference of the BOR in what he calls a ?sacred? decision of the UC (sacred because it is a decision on academic issues), and wonders at how values and norms of conduct seem to have deteriorated.

Various alumni called to recall cheating cases during their time, and how they were disposed of. A particular case involved falsification of ROTC records?not even an academic subject. But it bespoke dishonorable behavior, and the student was not allowed to receive a law diploma from UP, although the university did certify as to his grades, so he could take the bar. By the way, he subsequently became a trapo (traditional politician)?with everything that connotes, including unexplained wealth and, yes, cheating during elections.

But even non-alumni have taken notice, recounting their favorite stories. One was about Judge Guillermo Guevara, who as a prosecutor, successfully prosecuted a case where the defendant was not only a member of a famous clan, but was his former student and a close friend of his wife. She was convicted, and jailed, and her uncle, a Supreme Court justice at the time and her boss, resigned from his position (he had testified to the effect that she was just obeying his order).

Another was about how Chief Justice Ramon Avanceña and his entire court offered their resignations when then President Manuel Quezon made the mistake of asking about a pending case. Quezon refused their resignations, and apologized for his indiscretion.

Them were the days. Honor and Excellence. We must bring this back to UP, and to the Philippines.