UP dean discriminatory
THIS LETTER pertains to the case I recently filed before the Office of the Ombudsman against Jorge V. Sibal, the dean of the UP School of Labor and Industrial Relations (Solair), for discrimination and unethical behavior.
It is unfortunate that a former faculty of Solair—a unit committed to the empowerment of labor, enlightened industrial relations and social justice—could be a victim of prejudice and injustice.
The case arose out of the failure of Dean Sibal to act on a decision of Solair’s Academic Personnel Committee (APC) recommending me to serve as a lecturer of APC for at least two more years, a practice resorted to by Solair and the university to avail itself of the knowledge and expertise of senior but retiring faculty. I retired as assistant professor in October 2010, after serving the university as a full-time professor and, concurrently, as the coordinator of Solair’s Graduate Studies Program (GSP).
I expressed my intention, in a letter I sent to him, to serve as a lecturer months before my retirement, citing my contribution to the Solair as its GSP coordinator, the excellent ratings given to me by the Solair students, my authorship of two books on the informal economy, and my co-editing of two other books. On Sept. 16, 2010, or a month before my retirement, APC acted favorably on my request. However, I learned in November that APC’s recommendation was not forwarded to the Office of the UP President by Dean Sibal.
The non-action of Dean Sibal on APC’s recommendation is discriminatory. APC recommended three professors who retired during the last seven years as lecturers. Dr. Emerlinda R. Roman, then UP president, wrote me that the Board of Regents (BOR) could not act on my appointment since she had not received any communication or recommendation from Dean Sibal about my application as a lecturer.
In the case I filed at the Office of the Ombudsman, I accused Dean Sibal of discrimination, unethical behavior and abuse of power, under Republic Act 3019, Sec. 3, (E). Furthermore, his failure to reply to my letter within the required period of 15 days is in violation of Republic Act 6713.
—ISAGANI .A.F. YUZON, DPA,
executive director, Angat Inc.,
Congressional Village, Quezon City
