SUCs Draft 2

8/8/2019 SUCs Draft 2

1/14

State of AbandonmentThe Systematic Neglect by the Government of the Education Sector of the

Philippines

In his first Budget Message, President Benigno Aquino III said that he considers the

national budget as a social contract with the people. Among his avowed principles aretransparency, accountability, and the efficient use of our scarce resources while leavingno sector behind.

Sounds credible and makamasa , coming from a president who allegedly holds thealarming support of the people. Consider, however, his next statement:

We allocated P23.4 billion to 112 State Universities and Colleges (SUCs) in 2011. This is 1.7 percent lower than the P23.8 billion budget for 2010. We are gradually reducing the subsidy to SUCs to push them toward becoming self-sufficient and financially independent, given their ability to raise their income and to utilize it for their programs and projects. (emphasis provided)

This is a ridiculous declaration considering the very definition of a government owned andcontrolled corporation, which technically is the essence of a state university/college. AGOCC is an entity owned or controlled by the state for the purpose of providing accessibleand basic services for the people and not to generate profit.

Taking the lead from Aquino and his budgetary priorities, the national government isworking to lay down stronger legal bases for private companies to dip in basic socialservices, including education. And bearing in mind the principles embodied in his petprojects, the private sector is going to do more than just dip in the education sectorit willtake a dive and swim in hearty profits.

On the following pages are analyses of the budgetary allocations given to some SUCsin Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao (a few are large ones, but most are lesser-known). Data

were gleaned from the Statements of Receipts and Expenditures from 2007 to 2011 issuedby the Department of Budget and Management, the National Expenditure Program for theFiscal Year 2011 submitted by the Office of the President to the House of Representatives,and House Bill 3012 or the General Appropriations Bill. The numbers are proof that thedaang matuwid is no different from the road paved by the previous President, she who wasshown by history to be the number one violator of the constitutional rights of the people,particularly those relating to quality and accessible education.

LUZON

I. Philippine Normal University

PS MOOE CO TotalGeneral Administration andSupport

46,790 21,065 67,855

Support to Operations 7,624 5,576 13,200Operations

Advanced EducationServices

27,357 2,657 30,014

Higher EducationServices

140,409 17,247 157,656

Research Services 6,994 2,181 9,17


2/14

5

Extension Services 15,461 2,519 17,98

0 Total 190,221 24,604 214,825

Total 244,635 51,245 295,880Table 1: Current Operating Expenditures of PNU (In Thousand Pesos)(Source: National Expenditure Program for the Fiscal Year 2011)

With the current years Total Available Appropriations for PNU at P 387,233,000 (perNEP), the proposed budget of P 295,880,000 places PNU as the SUC with theworst budget slash, with -23.59% growth (less P 91,353,000) . This wouldforce the university to press for higher tuition and other fees and look for ways inorder to augment its income (such as contracts with private entities and incomegenerating projects with PNU students as immediate consumers), making PNU

operate like a private higher educational institution. Government subsidy for PS increased by P 28,910,000. But:

o this is just in compliance with the upcoming installments of salaryincreases mandated by the Salary Standardization Law, as amendedand

o this presents an increase of only 11.01% in peso value (the actual rise inteachers salaries in terms of actual value, that is, vis a vis the higher cost of living at lower exchange rates, is another matter).

The NG did not allocate any amount for capital outlay, thus PNU will have to take19.32% out of income it internally generated. This P 16,791,000 will answer for theinfrastructure and other facilities, a measly amount considering that the budget isshared by four campuses.

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011PS 10.28% 10.71% 6.66% 5.76% 8.81%MOOE 36.82% 59.34% 44.35% 85.26% 46.6%CO 47.36% 38.68% 81.76% 100% 1

00%

Total 16.46% 26.43% 19.7% 56.4% 21.68%Table 1: Percentage Shares of IGI (Per Item) to Total Expenditures of PNU, 2007-2011(Source of Basic Data: DBM Statements of Expenditures)

In the last four years, government subsidies for PS took an upward trend, rangingfrom 89.29% in 2008 to 94.24% in the current year. However, as the figures forsubsidies for PS rose, so did the IGI shares for MOOE and CO, as the figurestherefor show a bias in favor of less government subsidies and greater IGIshares .

o Percentage share of IGI to total MOOE expenditures decreased by almost 15percentage points in 2009 after increasing sharply in the previous year (by22.52%). The decrease in 2009 (by 14.99 percentage pointswhichtranslates to a gain for PNU), did not compensate for the increase in 2008 (by


3/14

22.52 percentage pointsa loss), and yet the government, in the currentyear, still saw it fit to arrange things so that PNU was forced to spend moreout of IGI for MOOE2010 IGI shares to total MOOE went up by almost twicethe figure in 2009.

o The percentage share for CO, on the other hand, growth rates are moredrasticas the figures for subsidies for PS went higher, so did those for IGIshares for CO, but in greater leaps. First, it went from 38.68% in 2008 to aflat zero in the current year. Second, whatever little good the decreases in2008 (by a little less than 9 percentage points) did, it was set off by theincreases that occurred thereafter.

Average Shareof IGI, 2007-

2010

Share of IGI inProposed

Budget,2011PS 8.35% 8.81%MOOE 56.44% 46.6%CO 66.95% 100%Table 2: Comparison of IGI Shares, 2007-2011(Source of Basic Data: DBM Statements of Expenditures)

Although the proposed budget gives an increase for PS, the share to be borne by IGIto total PS spending will still be greater than the average of the last three years of the Arroyo administration (up by 0.46 percentage point). The proposed IGI share forMOOE is lower by 9.84 percentage points, but the government subsidy for MOOE isstill cut by P 1,911,000. For CO, the Aquino administration went on a straight pathindeedstraight from the cue left by the Arroyo administration.

This, in essence, demonstrates this administrations low regard to education. Aquino,in the guise of looking for new and creative approaches to making ends meet(Presidents Budget Message), simply continued the trend under the Arroyoadministration in which much of the expenses of so-called state universities andcolleges are left to students who can barely afford higher education.

II. Philippine State College of Aeronautics

2010 2011Personal Services (PS) 50,115,0

0056,902,0

00Maintenance and OtherOperating Expenses (MOOE)

9,383,000

9,646,000

Capital Outlay (CO) Total 59,498,0

0066,548,0

00Table 1: National Government Subsidy, 2010 to 2011(Source: DBM Statements of Expenditures)

The PHILSCA subsidy from the National Government will increase by P 7,050,000(12%), but 85.51% of that will go to PS (salaries of trustees, administrative officers,faculty, and other personnel). This increase is because of the implementation of thelatest amendment to the Salary Standardization Law.

PHILSCA was spared from the trend among the SUCs by which budgets for MOOEwere slashed. There is an increase of P 263,000,000 but that is only a 3.73% of theincrease in subsidy. Thus, the school will suffer further from a state of disrepair andlack of facilities, its contractual personnel with inadequate wages.

In line with the zero capital outlay policy of the Aquino administration, nothing was


4/14

allotted for new infrastructure. Projects under this item will be funded entirely by IGI(see discussion under Tables 2 and 3 ). PHILSCAs four campuses have beenoperating with a zero subsidy for CO since 2009 , after being given theminimum P 3,012,000 in 2008. As a result, the faculty and students have long beenwaiting in vain for the acquisition of even a single helicopter as part of the trainingfor aircraft mechanics, pilots, and other similar professionals.

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Tuition Fees (TF) 18,823,0

0020,705,0

0022,064,0

0085,546,0

0087,177,0

00Other IncomeCollected fromStudents (OI)

13,524,000

14,876,000

48,323,000

9,197,000

29,793,000

Income From OtherSources (IO)

458,000 504,000 3,151,000

1,400,000

1,206,000

Income FromRevolving Fund (RF)

Grants and Donations(GD)

Others Total 32,805,0

0036,085,0

0073,538,0

0096,143,0

00118,176,

000Table 2: Internally Generated Income, 2007-2011(Source: DBM Statements of Receipts)

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011PS 18,823,00

020,705,00

022,064,00

085,546,00

018,480,00

0MOOE 13,524,00

014,876,00

048,323,00

051,141,00

074,348,00

0CO 458,000 504,000 3,151,000 8,729,000 25,348,00

0 Total 32,805,00

036,085,00

073,538,00

0145,416,0

00118,176,0

00Table 3: Expenses against Internally Generated Income, 2007-2011(Source: DBM Statements of Expenditures)

Historically, amounts collected as tuition fees are spent for PS, OI for MOOE, and IOfor CO. (In 2010, additional P 49,273,000 was spent for MOOE and CO. No data as tothe source of the amount was provided in the DBM Statements, but the amounts mayhave been from unrecorded receipts of RF, IO, and GD.) For 2011, 15.64% of IGI willbe spent for PS, 62.91% for MOOE, and 21.45% for CO; much of the IGI is channeledto MOOE and CO, to compensate for the large cut in government subsidy for MOOEand the zero allotment for CO.

NGS IGI Grand Total Percentage of IGI to Grand

TotalPS 56,902,000 18,480,000 75,382,000 24.52%MOOE 9,646,000 74,348,000 83,994,000 88.52%CO 25,348,000 25,348,000 100%

Total 66,548,000 118,176,000 184,724,000 63.97%

Table 4: Ratio of Internally Generated Income to Government Subsidy, 2011(Source: DBM Statement of Expenditures)

The only item mostly subsidized by the government is for PS, because salaries of thefaculty and regular personnel should increase per the second and third tranches of the Salary Standardization Law, as amended. For MOOE and CO combined, Aquinoallotted a mere 11.48%.

Since the Aquino administration refuses to any amount for CO, almost a quarter of IGIwill be spent for new infrastructure. Also, the damages incurred by the Villamorcampus from Ondoy and Pepeng will have to wait for funding from the


5/14

Department of Defense or donations from the local government, shouldthere be any , because an amount of less than P 84 M is insufficient considering thatit would have to be spent for the maintenance of all four campuses. (Incidentally, thescheduled transfer of the Villamor campus to the newly constructed buildings alongthe South Superhighway is still contested by the school community, as the new areais considered to be a catchbasin for flood.)

NGS IGI Grand Total Percentage of NGS to Grand

Total2007 76,629,000 32,805,000 109,934,000 69.7%2008 52,384,000 36,085,000 88,469,000 59.21%2009 61,389,000 73,538,000 134,927,000 45.5%2010 59,498,000 145,416,000 204,914,000 29.04%2011 66,548,000 118,176,000 184,724,000 36.03%Table 5: Trend in Government Subsidy, 2007-2011(Source: DBM Statements of Expenditures)

While the proposed subsidy from the government increased from 2010 figures, it is(a) only a minimal increase (less than 7%) and (b) still vulnerable to the downwardtrend seen in the past four years. It is alarming to note that 36.03% is less than half

than the nearly acceptable support given by the government in 2007 to the countryspremier school of aeronautics. Due to the states dwindling assistance to students who wish to serve the country as

pilots, engineers, and other professions in aeronautics as well as to their professors,PHILSCA is forced to get its funds from tuition and other fees, and from IGPsundertaken by the school administration and some members of the faculty. Putsimply, the public character of PHILSCApurportedly a state-run educationalinstitutionis being run like a private aeronautics school . This results to (a)the increase of tuition and other fees and the invention of other charges, (b) sales,leases, and other arrangements with private entities involving the schools resourcesand assets, (c) the draining of a significant number of students and faculty to privateschools, and (d) the decrease of professionals produced by the school (e.g., 9aeronautical engineersout of 17 candidatesin the 2009 Board, whereas previous

passing percentages are better) as well as its researches, linkages, and projects.

III. Other SUCs in the NCR

SUC Year National Government SubsidyPS MOOE CO Total

Marikina PolytechnicCollege (MPC)

2007 42,899,000 5,921,000 2,012,000 50,832,000

2008 43,066,000 5,751,000 3,012,000 51,829,0002009 52,222,000 6,326,000 3,012,000 61,560,0002010 53,306,000 5,693,000 58,999,0002011 59,052,000 5,978,000 65,030,000

Eulogio AmangRodriguez Institute of Science and Technology

(EARIST)

2007 81,666,000 18,608,000 2,012,000 102,286,000

2008 81,994,000 17,290,000 3,012,000 102,396,000

2009 95,892,000 23,656,000 3,012,000 122,560,000

2010 96,772,000 23,073,000 119,845,000

2011 108,812,000

24,227,000 133,039,000

Rizal TechnologicalUniversity (RTU)

2007 115,328,000

23,153,000 2,012,000 140,493,000

2008 115,767,00 21,260,000 3,012,000 140,039,00


6/14


7/14

IV. Palawan State College of Agriculture and Technology

National Government Subsidy Internally Generated Income Grand TotalPS MOOE CO Total PS MOOE CO Total PS MOOE CO Grand

Total2007 109,1

91

16,73

9

2,012 127,9

42

11,50

0

43,40

0

54,10

0

109,0

00

120,6

91

60,13

9

56,11

2

236,9

422008 109,630

18,534

3,012 131,176

12,650

47,740

59,510

119,900

122,280

66,274

62,522

251,076

2009 129,957

17,577

147,534

12,902

60,493

78,299

151,694

142,859

78,070

78,299

299,228

2010 130,916

45,672

176,588

12,472

64,140

103,364

179,976

143,388

109,812

103,364

356,564

2011 147,510

8,699 76,209

12,058

63,944

60,398

136,400

159,568

92,643

60,398

312,609

Table 1: The PSCAT Budget, 2007-2011 (In Thousand Pesos)(Source of Basic Data: DBM Statements of Receipts and Expenditures)

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011PS 9.53% 10.35% 9.03% 8.7% 7.56%MOOE 72.17% 72.03% 77.49% 58.41% 69.02%CO 96.41% 95.18% 100% 100% 1

00%

Total 46% 47.75% 50.7% 50.48% 43.63%Table 2: Percentage Shares of IGI (Per Item) to Total Expenditures of PSCAT, 2007-2011(Source of Basic Data: DBM Statements of Expenditures)

PSCAT is the first state college to become a university in Palawan, and one of the topperforming schools in law and accountancy. It boasts quality programs in Education(MA and PhD), along with undergraduate courses in Elementary and SecondaryEducation, Marine Biology, and Engineering. However, its crowded classrooms(expected teacher-student ratio is 1:59), among other indicators, reflect stateabandonment.

As seen above, PSCAT relies heavily on IGI , with high percentage shares similar toRTUs. Considering that its appropriations went down to P 28,699,000 fromthe current years P 45,672,000 (per the General Appropriations Act of 2011, a marked decrease of 37.16%) , PSU administration will be thinking of newcreative ways to augment its income in the immediate academic years, so that itcan maintain its ten campuses and four new extension campuses, and expectedenrollment which increases by 5% annually (average rate per PSU estimates; itanticipates 16,727 students in 2011-2012).

PSCAT has a high ability to mount IGPs so it had been able to offset its zero CO,which started a year earlier than in most SUCs, and the cuts in MOOE subsidies (nextyears is cut by 37.16%). Total NGS is down by P 379,000 from the current year evenas collections for total IGI likewise is down by P 43,576,000. The bulk of NGS(87.71%) is allotted only for PS, leaving IGI to answer for almost 70% f MOOEspending and 100% for CO. The government has no choice but to increase PSspending (although in inconsistent growth ratesit increased by 18.54% in 2009,which is unmatched by 2011s 12.68%) because of a law mandating it. No such lawfor MOOE and CO, (that is, providing for similar yearly increases of MOOEand for periodic CO appropriations that would allow SUCs to install long-term investments) exists.

The P 60,398,000 set for CO from IGI will fail to at least make a dent inPSCATs Proposed Capital Outlay Program, which amounts to P286,217,000 :


8/14

o Acquisition of IT equipment, instructional equipment, tables and chairs,machines for research and extension (P 23,901,320)

o New construction of nine buildings in several colleges (P 248,000,000)o Upgrading of electrical wiring in the Old Administrative Building (P 2,000,000)o Acquisition of office furniture and fixtures and other equipment (P 12,315,680)

VISAYAS

I. Samar State University

National Government Subsidy Internally Generated Income Grand TotalPS MOOE CO Total PS MOOE CO Total PS MOOE CO Grand

Total2007 72,46

99,656 2,012 84,13

76,000 10,50

58,000 24,50

578,46

920,16

110,01

2108,6

422008 72,74

49,112 3,012 84,86

86,000 12,00

09,760 27,76

078,74

421,11

212,77

2112,6

282009 91,47

512,67

11,612 105,7

585,860 20,31

27,093 33,26

597,33

532,98

38,705 139,0

232010 85,94

4

11,07

5

97,01

9

6,150 20,00

0

9,205 35,35

5

92,09

4

31,07

5

9,205 132,3

742011 95,639

10,442

106,081

6,800 21,000

9,860 37,660

102,439

31,442

9,860 143,741

Table 1: The SSU Budget, 2007-2011 (In Thousand Pesos)(Source of Basic Data: DBM Statements of Receipts and Expenditures)

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011PS 7.65% 7.62% 6.02% 6.68% 6.64%MOOE

52.11% 56.84% 61.58% 64.36% 66.79%

CO 79.9% 76.42% 21.51% 100% 100% Total 22.56% 24.65% 23.93% 26.71% 26.2%Table 2: Percentage Shares of Internally Generated Income to Total Expenditures of SSU, 2007-2011(Source of Basic Data: DBM Statements of Expenditures)

SSUs figures for IGI shares to total MOOE and CO consistently increase through theyears, with average growth rates of 3.67% and 6.7% (computed up to 2010 only, asthe maximum point was reached in that year) respectively. They are also higherthan the averages of most SUCs.

The veracity of the figures for IGI reported by the BOR and as reflected above aredoubtful. Anomalies surrounding IGPs and their adverse effects to the students,faculty, and the non-academic personnel are the subjects of several cases longpending against BOR officials (including CHED officials), members of the IncomeGenerating Program Boards, and other personnel facilitating IGPs. Some of thecauses of these anomalies are the ambiguity and incompleteness of the IGP Manualof Operation which the CHED drafted with the blessing of the Boards of SUCs in theRegion, with no substantial consultation with the affected sectors in the universitiesconcerned. The Manual and like rules operating in other regions allow theabovementioned to skirt the prohibition on double compensation (they eachtake portions out of IGP proceeds, which portions can in no way be interpreted asreasonable per diems that the law allows public officials to receive on top of theirregular salaries) and the laws on public transparency and accountability . Thestudents, faculty, and the non-academic personnel who resist these schemes aresubjected to harassment by the school administration, such as discrimination inpromotion and the filing of administrative and disciplinary cases, among others. Withthese effects of IGPs, the state is thus shown to abandon SUCs in three ways:(a) by leaving them to come up with ways to augment income; (b) by failingto install systems by which the rights and welfare of students, faculty, and


9/14

non-academic staff, as well as the integrity of the SUCs as academic andlearning institutes, are secured; and (c) by the public officials collusion indenying the SUCs funds which are justly theirs . Furthermore, the state, latelythrough the initiative of Aquino, adds insult to injury by using their capacity togenerate its own income as justification for its meager support to higher education.

II. Partido State UniversityNational Government Subsidy Internally Generated Income Grand TotalPS MOOE CO Total PS MOOE CO Total PS MOOE CO Grand

Total2007 19,89

42,889 2,012 24,79

51,230 5,552 5,080 11,86

221,12

48,441 7,092 36,65

72008 19,97

23,548 3,012 26,53

21,292 5,848 5,334 12,47

421,26

49,396 8,346 39,00

62009 25,86

12,490 2,213 30,56

42,151 9,323 4,606 16,08

028,01

211,81

36,819 46,64

42010 24,65

84,513 1,000 30,17

12,222 7,133 7,347 16,70

226,88

011,64

68,347 46,87

32011 27,48

53,617 31,10

22,604 7,800 5,660 16,06

430,08

911,41

75,660 47,16

6Table 1: The PSU Budget, 2007-2011 (in thousand Pesos)

(Source of Basic Data: DBM Statements of Receipts and Expenditures)

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011PS 5.82% 6.08% 7.68% 8.27% 8.65%MOOE

65.77% 62.24% 78.92% 61.5% 68.32%

CO 71.63% 63.91% 67.55% 88.02% 100% Total 32.36% 31.98% 34.47% 35.63% 34.06%Table 2: Percentage Shares of Internally Generated Income to Total Expenditures of SSC, 2007-2011(Source of Basic Data: DBM Statements of Expenditures)

ParSU is one of the few SUCs which offer programs in AgriculturalEntrepreneurship, Environmental and Sanitary Engineering, and Fisheries

Technology. It also offers programs in Education, Environmental Science, andGeology. Fewer professionals in the above fields are being produced onaccount of declining enrollment . Next to Dr. Emilio B. Espinosa, Sr. MemorialState College of Agriculture and Technology and Camarines Norte State Colleges,ParSU has the thinnest student population among the eight SUCs in Region V(6,019 students in all seven campuses).

Two hundred and three teaching staff, 89 non-teaching staff, and 155 institutionalscholars, among others will have to share in the P 83,159,000 allotted for PS andthe P 8,296,000 allotted for MOOE. (Figures are per the NEP)

The average tuition for undergraduate courses, P 175 per unit, is the third highestin the Bicol region, which is the same as Bicol Universitys. (The highest areSorsogon State Colleges [P 225 per unit] and Camarines Sur PolytechnicColleges [P 180 per unit]). Partido State may not charge the highest tuition butstudents are still liable for miscellaneous fees, which includes:

o audio-visual fee (P 25 per sem),o laboratory fee (P 70 per subject with lab),o computer fee (P 25 per subject with computer),o NSTP (P100);o observation fee (P 262) and practice teaching fee (P 300), which are paid

by Education students;o athletic fee (P 400); ando publication fee (P 525)

and special fees such as those for testing (LET, imposed beginning the currentyear), late enrollment, removal, and dropping.


10/14

ProjectDescription/Location

CollegeUnit/Campus

ProposedFunding Justification/Remarks

Expansion of UniversityLibrary (Phase I) Goa Campus P 7,000,000

The existing library can no longeraccommodate the increasing number of students.

Construction of Collegeof Education Building Goa Campus P 5,000,000

Enrollment in the College is continuouslyincreasing.

Construction of NewAdministration Building Goa Campus P 8,000,000

The present building is combination of concrete and light materials and dates back tothe pre-war era. All the important documentsof the university are housed here.

Construction of theEngineering Building Goa Campus P 5,000,000

To strengthen the flagship programs in thecampus, Civil Engineering should betransferred here from the San Jose campus.

The existing building there cannotaccommodate the possible increase inenrollment.

Completion of theEntrepreneurialLaboratory Center

Goa Campus P 7,000,000 To provide actual entrepreneurial learningactivities.

Completion of the Two-Storey Building

LagonoyCampus P 2,100,000

With the transfer of the campus fromCabonotan to Poblacion, the enrollmentcontinuously increases.

Construction of the Food Technology Building

CaramoanCampus P 2,000,000

The present condition is very hazardous dueto cracks and leaks in the concrete roof;demolition of the entire building required.

Construction of the HRMBuilding

San JoseCampus P 4,532,000 Increasing student population

Completion of Classrooms on the Two-Storey Building

TinambacCampus P 2,000,000

Of the construction that began in 2000, onlythe ground floor of was finished; expandingenrollment.

Rehabilitation of variousclassrooms Goa Campus P 1,500,000

The Marcos type classrooms are no longerconducive to learning.

Rehabilitation of RoadNetwork and CoveredPathway

Goa Campus P 500,000 To protect the school population from theelements.

Purchase of ComputerUnits All Campuses P 1,000,000

Modernization of the IT equipment, to keeppace with advances in technology and forbetter services to clients.

Table 3: Proposed CO Program of ParSU (In the Order of Priority)(Source of Basic Data: Consolidated Briefing Materials for Region V)

There is zero CO both per DBM Statements and the NEP. This betrays the insensitivity of the Aquino administrationand the leadership of the House of Representatives becauseit brushed aside the PSUs Proposed Capital Outlay Programas presented to the DBM.

Considering that the allocations for CO from IGI are insufficient to address thisprogram, PSU classrooms will sadly remain in the Marcos era.

Partido State will have to rely on grants and donations from privateentities and the LGUs to support its 17 extension programs andlinkages. Intended beneficiaries include at least 330 farmers (forthe Techno Gabay Program), 35 special education students, at least10 coastal barangays (for the clean-up and solid wastemanagement projects), and 100 indigenous students (for extensionclasses).

MINDANAO

I. Adiong Memorial Polytechnic State College


11/14


12/14

Technology (ADSSCAT)2008 18,358 4,154 3,033 25,5452009 21,988 6,308 3,033 31,3292010 22,193 4,739 26,9322011 24,857 3,365 28,222

Table 1: Comparative Summary of Allotments to Some SUCs in Mindanao, 2007-2011(Source of Basic Data: DBM Statements of Receipts)

ExpenseClass 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

MSU PS 0.43% 0.49% 0.41% 0.57% 0.52%MOOE 21.14% 24.95% 39.14% 43.01% 46.41%CO 46.49% 51.89% 39.32% 68.99% 100%

NMSCAT PS 11% 24.43% 22.44% 26.48% 27.34%MOOE 63.23% 38.28% 43.19% 39.21% 51.49%CO 28.36% 46.94% 48.09% 81.24% 100%

ADSSCAT PS 21.2% 17.02% 7.78% 8.41% 8.28%MOOE 47.25% 57.79% 63.08% 71.44% 79.49%CO 19.52% 16.15% 21.38% 100% 100%

Table 2. Comparative Summary of Percentage Shares of IGI to Total Expenditures of Some SUCs in Mindanao,2007-2011(Source of Basic Data: DBM Statements of Receipts)

Similar observations in Luzon and Visayas, but in Mindanao, NGS rates are eitherhigher for PS (of small SUCs, as in the case of NMSCAT), or lower (for big ones, likeMSU.) The figures are percentages, so it is not a question of the number of employees in the payroll. It also seems that the farther away one is fromMalacaang and Congress, the less attention one gets.

NMSCAT stands to suffer a cut of more than half a million pesos in its total NGSsubsidy (its MOOE is slashed by P 1.07 M). For its part, ADSSCAT considers NGS forMOOE and CO as insufficient so it keeps on increasing its IGI collections for saidexpense classes, with average growth rates of 9.38 and 26.83 percentage points forMOOE and CO, respectively.

Violator of the Constitutional Rights to Education

The numbers above show how the state systematically abandons public highereducation institutions. Year after year, the state gives less subsidies to SUCs. Faced withintense criticism from all stakeholders in the education sector that it is nothing but a newface for the old administrations policies, the Aquino administration seesaws betweendenials and admissions regarding the cuts, but essentially confesses its neglect by givingurgent instructions to the Upper and Lower Houses to pass its his proposed budget in thesoonest possible time and with the least amendments. His reform budget simplyembodies the trends set through nine years of Arroyo:

The least budgetary attention for the installment of long-term investmentsthrough acquisitions and/or modernization of equipment and constructionsof campus buildings, classrooms, and laboratories. Flimsy excuses include theassertions that previous allocations have done their job and that continued

capitalization is no longer necessary. Such justifications fail to consider salientfactors such as steadily-increasing enrollment rates, continuous need for upgradesespecially in information and medical technology, and other causes which cannot beaddressed through mere trickles of funds at every number of years.

Increases in subsidies for personal services, particularly for the academicand non-academic employees, albeit at small growth rates compared topersonnel in other departments. This expense class is responsible for thealmost-yearly increases in PS and for the small percentages of total shares of internally generated income to total incomes of SUCs. This, however, is a given


13/14

responsibility, and even carved on stone, or at least in the statute books. Howeverflawed the Salary Standardization Law is, it makes the government duty-bound, onpaper at least, to increase the salaries of those in the government service.

Cuts for the salaries of non-regular personnel such as contractualemployees in the staff, janitors, etc. and for the maintenance and operationof buildings, equipment, and facilities. These result to streamlining of items,

failure to create new positions even when needed, and resort to contractualization of personnel to scrimp on basic salary and benefits. The state neglects this expenseclass, including the people who benefit under it, saying that it will be up to the SUCsto come up with the funds for them.

Unlike PS, there is no law mandating the allotment of sustainable funds forMOOE and CO, and yearly increases for the same. The state thus feels toocomfortable in allotting zero CO and brazenly cutting budgets for MOOE, and it is inthis manner that it avoids its constitutional duty to assign the highest budgetarypriority to education. There may be a lack of textually demonstrable duty inPhilippine laws making the government liable for such yearly increases formaintenance expenses and capital outlays, but that is no reason to deny SUCs, andthe sectors and communities which they comprise, a sustained existence. Besides,the duty can be traced in a contract higher than the annual appropriation act.

Despite his populist posturing, Aquino deliberately closes his eyes to the 1987Constitution, which was promulgated by the people in the early days of his ownmothers regime, that directs the state:

o to give priority to education , science and technology, arts, culture, andsports to foster patriotism and nationalism, to accelerate social

progress, and promote total human liberation and development (Section 17, Article II);

o to protect and promote the right of all citizens to quality education at alllevels andmake such education accessible to all (Section 1, Article XIV);

o to establish, maintain, and support a complete, adequate, and integratedsystem of education relevant to the needs of the people and society (Section2(1), Article XIV);

o to establish and maintain a system of scholarship grants, student loan

programs, subsidies, and other incentives which shall be available todeserving students in both public and private schools, especially to theunderprivileged (Section 2(3), Article XIV);

o to enhance the right of teachers to professional advancement . Non-teachingand non-academic personnel shall enjoy the protection of the State (Section5(4), Article XIV); and

o to assign the highest budgetary priority to education and ensure that teaching will attract and retain its rightful share of the best available talentsthrough adequate remuneration and other means of job satisfaction and fulfillment (Section 5(5), Article XIV).

Combined with its failure to assure the integrity and responsiveness of governmentalagencies such as CHED, through better budgetary commitments and organizationaldevelopments, this abandonment spells disaster for the guarantees enshrined in the

Constitution.A resounding call for the enactment of laws making it obligatory on the part of the

state to allot budgets for SUCs at higher growth rates will give effect to the aboveprovisions, particularly the last, is useful. But in the meantime, as the law is not silent asto the definite responsibility of the state as discussed above, the Aquinoadministration, being the biggest violator of the Constitution, has not heard the last from theeducation sector. PNoy may have gotten the plurality of votes according to the PCOSmachines, but he still should be held to account for continuing the state of abandonment aslaid down by his predecessor.


14/14

Atty. Maneeka Asistol SarzaLegislative Staff Office of Rep. Antonio L. TinioACT Teachers Party-List

SUCs Draft 2

Documents

Transcript of SUCs Draft 2