“Separating Facts From Possible Fiction: The last reply”

This is my last reply to columnist Solita Monsod.
Reading Ms. Monsod’s column “Separating Facts From Possible Fiction” (Inquirer, 9/15/12) is perplexing as it would appear that I was personally responsible for the injustice suffered by the complainant. It would appear that I was the one who sexually harassed the complainant and caused the nonrenewal of her appointment as an instructor at the Institute of Biology in the University of the Philippines Diliman (IB UPD).
Let me state categorically that I did not sexually harass the complainant, much more found guilty of it, nor did I preside over the Tenured Faculty who decided not to renew her appointment as an instructor.  The only reason my name was mentioned in the complainant’s letter of appeal to the Board of Regents (BOR) was that I organized the response of IB UPD (when I was its newly appointed director) to comply with the then Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs’ request for “…a report on the evaluation (procedures/results) of the complainant, which was used as the basis for her nonrenewal…” in her letter dated 25 August 2006.
It is interesting to note that in her two articles, Ms. Monsod never mentioned the name of the guilty party yet was very liberal in mentioning the name of the victim as well as mine.
In this connection, I have asked the Inquirer to remove any reference to the name of the complainant in my initial response which as I mentioned was done in haste.  I fell into the trap committed by Ms. Monsod when she mentioned the complainant’s name, which I assume she had permission to use in her article. I apologize to the complainant for using her name in my initial reply. I will also refrain from naming names unnecessarily as these names could easily be known for those who are really interested in the truth.
Her latest article conveniently avoids answering a basic question I asked in my initial reply: Why did she not do any fact-checking first before publishing a nearly 5-year-old private letter between her and former Chancellor Segio Cao?  She littered her article with the word “fact” as if by repeating it throughout her article it would make up for the biggest omission in her original article, which is that she did not do any fact-checking. It appears that she only had access to one side of the facts as she never contacted IB UPD for any documents to review. Did she even read the 3-page cover letter, 4-page summary of events supported by 25 appendices that I, as the then director of IB UPD, submitted to the BOR through then Chancellor Cao, of which only a part was included in the minutes of the BOR meeting as recorded in the UP Gazette (the complete IB UPD reply is available on file at the Office of the Secretary of the University and the BOR)? She said in her introductory paragraph that she did, but did she?

To better understand the issues Ms. Monsod raised, dates are important.
Since her article came out on a Saturday, it was only on Sept. 10, 2012, that I was able to check existing documents in the IB UPD office regarding the issues she raised and establish the following facts:  the moment the incumbent UP Diliman Chancellor was made aware about the non-action on the case by the Secretary of the University and the BOR on June 1, 2012, he initiated a series of actions that would lead to the creation of an independent investigating committee.  Some might construe this as a result of Ms. Monsod’s article, but the dates when things happened would belie this.  On June 6, 2012, the incumbent Chancellor requested the Dean of the College of Science (CS) and the Director of IB UPD to provide him with the relevant facts pertaining to the complaint, which was complied with when IB UPD sent its reply to the chancellor on June 14.  This in turn triggered a series of meetings and exchanges of communication until Aug. 14, when the IB Director replied to the UPD HRDO Director’s query on whether the respondent served his sentence of six-month suspension, which he did serve.
Ms. Monsod came out with her article on Sept. 8, 2012.  These are facts that could easily be established if she bothered to check, which she never did.  She could have written an updated version of her letter with evidence-based facts without diluting her message of bureaucratic atrophy.

On the issue of the complainant’s parents as relevant to her case. There is a reason why a blindfolded Lady Justice carries the scale of justice on one hand and a sword on the other: so that justice can be dispensed impartially, without fear or favor, regardless of who you are.  Is Ms. Monsod now implying that Lady Justice should peek through her blindfold in this case and dispense justice in favor of the complainant because of her parents?  Isn’t this unfair to the complainant, who should gain justice based on merits?

In her articles, Ms. Monsod creates confusion by making three different but interrelated timelines appear as one, one timeline was covered by confidentiality due to the sensitive nature of the case, the second timeline was the non-confidential phase, and the third timeline linked the two. The confidential phase seemed to have ended when the hearing was concluded, the respondent found guilty, the suspension order was served and the complainant filed a complaint to the BOR through Faculty Regent Roland Simbulan.  This led to the publication of her case in the minutes of the BOR through the UP Law Gazette.

Please remember that all information regarding the sexual harassment case was gathered by IB UPD after the fact, i.e., after the case was decided upon. The summons for the hearings was delivered directly to the residence of the respondent and presumably to the complainant’s as well. A copy of the sentence was also delivered in a similar manner.  The offices which were copied with the said suspension order were the Office of the CS Dean, the HRDO and the Accounting Office.  IB UPD was never furnished a copy and this is a fact.  IB UPD learned about the suspension of its former Director for the first time, as well as the fact that there was another complainant but whose case was dismissed, when the Philippine Collegian reported this in its June 20, 2006, issue.

Briefly, the first timeline, which is the confidential phase, is as follows:
Complainant filed a complaint with the OASH (March 2005) — hearings conducted by OASH-Academic Disciplinary Tribunal (OASH-ADT) — Guilty verdict handed down by OASH-ADT (October 2005) — Chancellor Cao accepts the guilty verdict and the recommended penalty (January 2006) — Respondent appealed the verdict — Chancellor Cao reaffirmed the verdict and the sentence was ordered for immediate implementation (April 2006) — Sentence served May 1, 2006-Oct. 31, 2006.

The second timeline is as follows:
Complainant filed a complaint with then President Roman through Faculty Regent Roland Simbulan (June 26, 2006) — On its 1210th meeting BOR action 1: “…refer the matter back to Chancellor Cao for further study…” (June 30, 2006) — Chancellor Cao through the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs asked IB UPD to respond to Simbulan’s query (Aug. 25, 2006) — IB UPD submitted its reply in the form of a 3-page cover letter, 4-page summary of events supported by 25 appendices (Sept. 22, 2006) — On its 1213th meeting the BOR accepted the report prepared by Dr. Ong on behalf of IB UPD.  Board action 2: “…agreed to put closure to the non-renewal aspect of this case (the appeal of respondent is still with the Legal Office).  The University was tasked to formulate guidelines to cover cases where respondent is part of a committee that will decide the fate of the complainant…” (Sept. 29, 2006)(emphasis mine) — At its 1214 meeting, the BOR was presented the letter of the complainant refuting many of the points raised by Director Ong in his letter.  Board action 3: “…The matter of non-renewal of complainant shall be referred back to Chancellor Cao who is requested to create an independent committee that would settle the facts of the case…” (Oct. 26, 2006) — IB UPD receives a copy of the BOR action but not the response of the complainant.  IB UPD decided not to engage the complainant in an argument in front of the BOR but deemed it more prudent to present its case to the independent committee — Through Faculty Regent Judy Taguiwalo, complainant inquired with the BOR the status of her appeal (Oct. 27, 2010) — BOR Action 4: “…refer the letter of the complainant to the UP Diliman Chancellor…” (Oct. 28, 2010) — New UPD Chancellor took office in March 2011 — Office of the Secretary of the University and BOR sends letter to UPD Chancellor (June 1, 2012) — see subsequent actions referred to in paragraph seven above.

Unknown to us, Ms. Monsod sent her private confidential letter to then Chancellor Cao on Dec. 7, 2007.

A third timeline links these two timelines: the renewal of appointment process.
As practiced in IB, a letter is sent by IB Director to non-tenured faculty about the need to submit accomplishment reports with supporting documents by Jan. 31, if they wish to be renewed (December of each year) — Academic Personnel Committee meets to look into the accomplishments and assign points based on the approved guidelines (February of each year).  Accomplishments to be reported are for the period Feb. 1 of the previous year to Jan. 31 of the current year — Tenured Faculty meets where the results of the APC evaluation are presented and based on their appreciation of the evaluation presented, decisions are made on who will be renewed or not (March of each year) — Letters of congratulations are sent for those who are renewed and letters of regrets are sent to those who are not renewed, signed by the IB Director (April of each year).
The complainant submitted a letter of intent to be renewed dated Feb. 6, 2006, one week after the deadline and on the day the APC was scheduled to meet.  If the APC or the IB Tenured Faculty was indeed in a retaliatory mode, her application would have simply been rejected outright for non-compliance.  But it was accepted and subjected to the same evaluation process undergone by all non-tenured faculty.
In summary, the UP BOR had issued four instructions regarding the issues raised by the complainant, of which two were addressed, one of which IB UPD responded to directly.  This leaves two instructions of the BOR that had not been attended to, until now.
Ms. Monsod claimed that “… three of the 7-person tenured faculty member who made the decision on the complainant’s (name replaced) nonrenewal…” Ms. Monsod is plainly wrong on this matter.  The 7-person tenured committee she referred to is actually the 7-person Academic Personnel Committee (APC) which is composed of four members representing the ranks of Professors, Associate Professors, Assistant Professors and Instructors. They are elected from among their ranks plus the three deputy directors (for academic affairs, administration and research and extension) who are ex-officio members and presided over by the Deputy Director for Academic Affairs.  Thus, by CS’ and IB’s own rules, two members of this committee could not be tenured.  In cases of renewal, the APC’s main function is to receive the accomplishment report of faculty members who wished to be renewed, validate the supporting documents and give the appropriate scores.  At the time, there was a single male member of the APC.  The APC then submits its evaluation to the Tenured Faculty for final action. At that time, there were 13 members of the Tenured Faculty when the renewal of appointments was decided (including the guilty party).  Of the 13 members (eight females, five males), one had died, two had resigned (including the guilty party), five had retired, two will retire between the end of 2012 and 2015.  This means that most of the members of the Tenured Faculty were in their late 50s or early 60s when the decision not to renew was made.  Only five are still in active service.
Ms. Monsod made another astonishing claim “…that the complainant (name deleted) brought up the sexual harassment matter to the entire IB faculty during its February 2005 meeting, although she did not name her harasser (he was presiding)…”  I checked with faculty members who were instructors then and who are now assistant professors and who were present in this meeting and they remembered no such thing.  What they remembered was that the complainant offered to organize a workshop on sexual harassment, which was eventually conducted sometime March 2005.
The 3-page cover letter, 4-page summary of events pertaining to the nonrenewal of the complainant is supported by 25 appendices.  The 4-page summary included the following: 1) Practices in IB vis a vis renewal of appointments of non-tenured faculty; 2A) Summary of complainant’s stint with IB and some notes on her activities; 2B) Summary of complainant’s professional advancement; 3) Summary of events leading to IB Tenured Faculty’s decision not to recommend the automatic renewal of the complainant’s appointment, which included the Criteria and Points for Evaluation of Non-tenured Faculty.  This summary of events was based on 25 appendices. Did Ms. Monsod even see these documents?
In Ms. Monsod’s desire to seek justice for the complainant, she might have committed another injustice. As the old cliché goes, one cannot right a wrong by committing another wrong.

I say let’s go to the documents. Let’s allow the independent investigation do its job and determine which facts are relevant to the issues on hand and arrive at an objective conclusion.

Perry S. Ong
Professor
Institute of Biology, UP Diliman