This refers to Fr. Ranhilio Aquino's article in the opinion section entitled "Negativing academic freedom" published in the Nov. 25, 2016 issue of the Manila Standard.
Allow us to clarify some issues raised by Fr. Aquino in said article, particularly the following:
Curtailing the right of a university to determine who should teach on the pretext of enforcing civil service rules.
In this instance, Fr. Aquino said that the Supreme Court has been no less vigilant in defending academic freedom by reminding the Civil Service Commission (CSC), particularly in the UP vs. CSC case in 2001, that not even on the pretext of enforcing civil service rules may CSC curtail the right of a university to determine who should teach.
The CSC would like to stress that it did not intend to curtail academic freedom in said case.
There was a technical issue which certain UP personnel themselves wanted the Commission to resolve. A certain professor went on a two-year leave of absence while on assignment in another institution. When the two-year leave of absence was about to expire, he requested for an extension of another year. This was disapproved by UP officials concerned with a warning that he would be dropped from the rolls if he failed to report for work. The professor failed to report for work and came back only after almost five years of absence without leave.
At first, UP told him to re-apply. When he sought reconsideration, he was allowed to report back to work considering that there was no record that UP officially dropped him from the rolls. Two members of the Academic Personnel Committee of the Agricultural Credit Corporation Inc. (ACCI) of UP Los Baños where he was particularly assigned, brought the matter to the CSC. The Commission has no other recourse but to resolve the matter based on Civil Service rules which are applicable to all government officials and employees including those in the state universities and colleges (SUCs) like the UP.
The Commission ruled that the professor was considered dropped from the rolls pursuant to Section 33, Rule XVI of the Revised Civil Service Rules which was the existing rate at that time. However, since his case is non-disciplinary, he can be reappointed to any vacant position subject to existing Civil Service law and rules. Section 33, Rule XVI of the Revised Civil Service Rules specifically provides automatic separation from the service if an employee fails to return to work after the expiration of the allowed maximum period of one year leave without pay. The case was brought before the Court of Appeals which ruled in favor of CSC's decision. The Supreme Court, however, ruled otherwise considering that UP did not officially drop him from the rolls.
The CSC would like to emphasize that the ruling made in the aforementioned case would not serve as a prohibition to actions that are taken or made by CSC in the exercise of its mandate.
It is basic in law and in jurisprudence that Decisions of the Supreme Court apply in a case to case basis and the burden to prove whether the acts of CSC is ultra vires is on the person/entity alleging the same.
2. "… the Civil Service Commission that chimes in – oftentimes very distractingly – into university life. Many who, by purely academic standards, are well-regarded in their own fields of specialization, recognized by academe and renowned by scholarly circles are spurned by the Civil Service Commission, denied rank, title and salary, because of missing on one or the other silly bureaucratic requisite."
This is bothering but it is a baseless and unfounded statement. Nevertheless, the CSC would like to look at this as an occasion to clarify its mandate. While the Commission fully respects and supports the right of state universities and colleges to exercise academic freedom, it is also firm in its constitutional mandate as the central human resource agency of the government to uphold the merit and fitness principle, adopt measures to promote morale, efficiency, integrity, responsiveness, progressiveness and courtesy in the civil service, integrate a human resources development programs for all levels and ranks, and institutionalize a management climate conducive to public accountability.
Further, in keeping true to its mandate, the Commission likewise upholds the prerogative of the appointing authority of SUCs to select and appoint their officials and employees pursuant to the doctrine laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Luego vs. CSC (G.R. No. L- 69137, August 5,1986). As to qualification standards, the CSC simply sets the minimum and basic requirements of positions in the government as it has always encouraged government agencies, including SUCs, to set higher standards for particular positions if deemed necessary. In SUCs, this is particularly manifested in CSC Memorandum Circular (MC) No. 19, s. 2005 (Model Merit System for Faculty Members of State Universities and Colleges and
Local Colleges and Universities) which was developed in consultation with the Philippine Association of State Colleges and Universities (PASCU) and the Association of Local Colleges and Universities (ALCU).
In 2012, this CSC amended MC No. 19, s. 2005 by promulgating MC No. 10, s. 2012 (Educational Requirement for Faculty Positions in State Universities and Colleges and Local Colleges and Universities). Then in 2013, CSC MC
No. 17, s. 2013 (Qualification Standards for Faculty Positions/Ranks in State Universities and Colleges and Local Colleges and Universities) to implement the Memorandum of Agreement between CSC and the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) allowing SUCs and LCUs to modify their qualification standards provided in the two previous MCs.
From the foregoing, CSC would like to emphasize that promotion of its constitutional mandate to implement Civil Service laws and rules which cover all government officials and employees, including those in SUCs and LCUs, should never be considered as a stumbling block in the exercise of academic freedom nor distraction in the operations of SUCs and LCUs but rather a safeguard to ensure that the merit and fitness principle is promoted in the entire bureaucracy, free from partiality and bias of the appointing authority.
ALICIA DELA ROSA-BALA
Chairperson, Civil Service
Commission