UEP Stakeholders Oppose House Bill Nos. 9414 and 9861 in Their Present Form, Call for Genuine Consultation and Student Protection

House Bill No. 9414 and its substantially identical counterpart, House Bill No. 9861, seek to revise the charter of the University of Eastern Philippines and establish UEP as the National University for Sustainability Studies.
The proposed reform presents an important opportunity for UEP to strengthen its role in sustainability education, environmental stewardship, climate resilience, green innovation, research, and community development.
We recognize these goals.

However, changing the charter of a public university is a major institutional decision. It can affect the university's governance, academic direction, internal policies, student organizations, student representation, administration, and the experience of current and future students.

For Immediate Release

“Sustainability Must Not Come at the Expense of Students’ Rights, Representation, and Welfare”
We, the concerned students, faculty members, non-teaching personnel, alumni, parents, citizens, and other stakeholders of the University of Eastern Philippines (UEP), respectfully express our strong opposition to House Bill No. 9414 and its substantially identical counterpart, House Bill No. 9861, insofar as these measures seek to establish UEP as the National University for Sustainability Studies without sufficient, transparent, and documented consultation with the university community.
We recognize the value of sustainability, environmental stewardship, green innovation, academic excellence, and institutional development. These are goals worthy of support.

However, good intentions cannot replace due process, meaningful consultation, student participation, and institutional safeguards.
The transformation of UEP's charter is a matter that will affect not only the present administration but generations of students, faculty, employees, alumni, and communities that depend on the university.
For this reason, we believe that HB 9414 and HB 9861 should not be enacted in their present form unless their provisions are thoroughly reviewed, publicly discussed, and amended where necessary to protect the rights and welfare of the UEP community.

WHY ARE WE OPPOSED?

1. The lack of comprehensive and documented consultation is deeply concerning.
Changing the charter of a university is not an ordinary administrative matter.
The proposed legislation would repeal the existing UEP charter, introduce a new institutional mandate, and potentially result in corresponding amendments to the University Code, which serves as a major internal governing framework of the university.
Yet serious questions remain regarding the extent to which students, faculty, non-teaching personnel, alumni, local government partners, and other stakeholders were meaningfully consulted before the measures were filed.
We believe that informal conversations or general claims of institutional support should not substitute for a transparent and documented consultation process.

The UEP community deserves to know:
• Who was consulted?
• When and where were consultations conducted?
• What recommendations were submitted?
• Which recommendations were accepted or rejected?
• What impact assessment was conducted?
• How will students be protected during the transition?
• What will happen to existing university organizations, policies, programs, and student rights?
These questions deserve clear answers before Congress makes a decision affecting the future of UEP.

2. STUDENTS COULD BEAR THE GREATEST IMPACT.
The proposed charter is not simply a change in name or institutional branding.
It could trigger broader institutional changes, including revisions to the University Code.
Because the University Code contains important academic, administrative, and operational policies, amendments to it could eventually affect the day-to-day university experience of students.
This may include matters involving:
• student representation;
• student organization governance;
• academic policies;
• campus participation;
• student services;
• organizational constitutions and regulations;
• university elections;
• student activities; and
• other rights and responsibilities governed by university policies.

Major student organizations such as the University Student Council (USC), The Pillar, the University Performing Arts Organization (UPAO), and other recognized organizations may likewise need to review or amend their constitutions and governing rules if changes to the University Code affect them.
We therefore ask:
Have students been adequately informed about these possible consequences?
If not, the legislative process should not move forward without meaningful student consultation.

3. SECTION 22 DESERVES PARTICULAR SCRUTINY.
One of the most significant concerns is the transitory provision under Section 22, which provides that the incumbent UEP President would serve a new term as the university's first president under the proposed national university status, subject to one reappointment.

This provision deserves serious public discussion.
The issue is not about any particular individual.
The issue is about institutional governance, accountability, transparency, and fairness.

When a new charter creates a new institutional status and substantially changes the governance structure of a public university, stakeholders have a legitimate interest in understanding why the incumbent president should automatically receive a new term under the proposed charter.

The public deserves a clear explanation of:
• the rationale behind Section 22;
• the governance safeguards surrounding the provision;
• how it relates to the powers of the Board of Regents;
• how it protects institutional independence;
• how students and other stakeholders will be represented; and
• why this transitional arrangement is necessary.
A university charter should be designed around the institution, not around any individual officeholder.

4. ACADEMIC FREEDOM IS WELCOME—BUT IT MUST BE MEANINGFUL.
We recognize that the proposed charter would grant UEP academic freedom pursuant to Republic Act No. 8292, or the Higher Education Modernization Act of 1997, giving the university greater authority over its curriculum.
This can be a significant advantage.

Greater academic autonomy can allow UEP to:
• develop programs responsive to regional needs;
• strengthen research and innovation;
• introduce sustainability-focused programs;
• respond more quickly to changes in the labor market;
• develop interdisciplinary programs;
• strengthen partnerships with industry and communities; and
• position Eastern Visayas as a center for sustainability research and education.
We therefore do not reject academic freedom.

5. WHAT ARE THE POSSIBLE ADVANTAGES OF THE PROPOSED CHARTER?
For fairness, we acknowledge that HB 9414 and HB 9861 may offer legitimate opportunities for UEP.
If properly implemented, the designation of UEP as the National University for Sustainability Studies could potentially:

A. Strengthen UEP's national identity
UEP could become a leading Philippine institution for sustainability education, research, innovation, and environmental stewardship.

B. Expand research opportunities
The university could attract research partnerships, grants, and collaborations focused on climate resilience, environmental protection, agriculture, renewable energy, coastal management, disaster resilience, and other sustainability-related fields.

C. Improve academic programs
Greater academic freedom could allow UEP to develop programs specifically responding to the needs of Eastern Visayas and the country.

D. Strengthen community extension programs
UEP could use its sustainability mandate to help communities develop solutions to environmental, agricultural, economic, and social challenges.

E. Create opportunities for students
A stronger sustainability focus could open opportunities for scholarships, internships, research projects, competitions, international partnerships, and employment in emerging green industries.

F. Raise UEP's national and international profile
A distinct national mandate could help position UEP as a center of expertise in sustainability studies.
These are worthwhile objectives.
But potential benefits must not be used to dismiss legitimate concerns about governance and student welfare.

6. WHAT ARE THE POSSIBLE DISADVANTAGES AND RISKS?
The potential risks must likewise be taken seriously.

A. Disruption during the transition
Replacing the existing charter and revising the University Code could create uncertainty and administrative disruption.

B. Possible effects on student organizations
Changes in the University Code may require corresponding amendments to the constitutions and governing rules of student organizations.

C. Uncertainty regarding student rights and representation
Without explicit safeguards, institutional restructuring could unintentionally affect mechanisms for student participation in university governance.

D. Potential additional financial burden
A new national mandate may require additional facilities, equipment, personnel, research funding, laboratories, training, and other resources.
The public must be assured that these costs will not simply be passed on to students.

E. Risk of prioritizing institutional branding over student welfare
Becoming a national university for sustainability should not become merely a change in institutional identity.
The designation must produce tangible benefits for students and communities.

F. Governance concerns
The special treatment of the incumbent president under Section 22 raises legitimate questions about governance and transitional arrangements that should be publicly addressed.

G. Possible marginalization of existing programs
A strong sustainability mandate should complement existing academic programs—not automatically diminish disciplines that are equally important to the university's educational mission.

OUR POSITION: OPPOSE THE BILL IN ITS PRESENT FORM

Our opposition should not be interpreted as opposition to sustainability.
It is not opposition to academic freedom.
It is not opposition to UEP's development.
It is not opposition to legislative reform.

Our opposition is to a process and provisions that may inadequately protect the people who will live with the consequences of the proposed charter.
We therefore call for HB 9414 and HB 9861 to be held in Congress for comprehensive review and meaningful stakeholder consultation before any final action is taken.

OUR PROPOSED SOLUTIONS
We respectfully propose the following:

1. Conduct genuine university-wide consultations.
Congress and UEP authorities should facilitate transparent consultations involving students, faculty, non-teaching personnel, alumni, parents, local government partners, student organizations, and other stakeholders.

2. Publish the results of consultations.
Stakeholders should be able to see what concerns were raised and how these concerns were addressed.

3. Conduct a student-impact assessment.
Before the bill is enacted, Congress should determine its possible effects on tuition and other costs, scholarships, academic programs, student services, organizations, student governance, and other aspects of university life.

4. Protect existing students.
Students currently enrolled at UEP must not be disadvantaged by the transition to the proposed new charter.

5. Review Section 22.
The provision concerning the incumbent president's new term should undergo careful review and public justification to ensure that the new charter prioritizes institutional integrity and transparent governance.

6. Protect student representation.
Any amendment to the University Code should expressly preserve meaningful student participation and representation in university governance.

7. Protect existing academic programs.
The sustainability mandate should enhance, rather than unnecessarily displace or weaken, the university's existing disciplines and programs.

8. Guarantee funding.
If UEP is to assume a national mandate, the national government must provide adequate and sustained funding.
A national mandate without national-level resources would be an unfair burden on the university and, ultimately, its students.

9. Make sustainability student-centered.
Sustainability should not only mean environmental programs. It should include sustainable education—education that students can actually afford, access, complete, and use to build better lives.

We respectfully appeal to the authors and sponsors of HB 9414 and HB 9861, as well as all members of Congress:
Please listen to UEP before deciding the future of UEP.
The people of Eastern Visayas deserve a university that is ambitious, innovative, sustainable, and nationally recognized.
But they also deserve a university where students are heard, where faculty and employees are respected, where governance is transparent, and where institutional reforms do not create unnecessary burdens for those who depend on public education.

We ask Congress not to rush the passage of a measure of this magnitude.
Take the time to consult.
Take the time to listen.
Take the time to amend what needs to be amended.
Take the time to protect the students.

OUR MESSAGE TO THE UEP COMMUNITY
We call on students, faculty members, employees, alumni, parents, organizations, and citizens to remain informed and engaged in the legislative process.
This is not merely a debate about a university charter.
It is a discussion about what kind of university UEP will become and what kind of educational future it will provide to generations of Eastern Visayan students.
We should welcome progress—but progress must be inclusive.
We should welcome sustainability—but sustainability must include the welfare of students.
We should welcome academic freedom—but academic freedom must be accompanied by accountability.
We should welcome institutional reform—but reform must be built through consultation, transparency, and participation.

OUR CALL
We oppose HB 9414 and HB 9861 in their present form.
We call for:
Genuine consultation.
Transparent governance.
Student protection.
Adequate funding.
Meaningful representation.
A thorough review of Section 22.
And amendments that place the long-term welfare of UEP students and the university community at the center of the proposed reform.

The future of UEP should not be decided without UEP.

Let us build a stronger UEP—not simply a different UEP.
Let us pursue sustainability without sacrificing student welfare.
Let us pursue academic freedom without sacrificing accountability.
Let us pursue reform with, not without, the people of UEP.

For the students.
For the University of Eastern Philippines.
For Eastern Visayas.
For a sustainable, democratic, accessible, and student-centered university.