The UP-DND Accord is more than an agreement limiting the entry of State forces in any of the UP campuses. Seen from a history of abuse of power since the dictatorship, it serves as an assurance that the freedom to express dissent, to protest, and the exercise of academic freedom will be respected by the government, particularly by the police and military.
For more than three decades, this Accord has served to protect the University’s students, faculty, and employees from arbitrary, capricious repressions of protected rights.
However, at this time, when human rights violations continue to abound, the unilateral termination of DND of the said Accord with UP serves to cast further doubts on its intent and aggravates the climate of distrust towards the government.
The UP-DND Accord does not place UP beyond the reach of the rule of law. The University continues to exist as a subject of valid restrictions inasmuch as it is guaranteed freedoms. No one is and should ever be above the law.
DND should have appealed to good judgment in expressing concerns to UP and finding ways to move forward, instead of immediately abrogating the Accord, in pursuit of the best interest of all.
The DND, with whom UP entered into the subject agreement, is in charge of the Armed Forces, whose mandate is different from that of the PNP. The primary concern of DND is to secure the State from external and internal threats. Maintaining peace and order is within the ambit of the Philippine National Police.
The exercise of academic freedom, such as by conducting ideological discourses or even by holding non-violent protest activities against the government, is not the threat to State security contemplated under the law which would justify intervention by the armed forces.
There is no justification for government to stifle the legitimate exercise of rights guaranteed under the constitution, including that of academic freedom within universities. And there is no need for any accord on this.
More than anything, the agreement between UP and the DND underscored the recognition by the two institutions that the expression of intellectual dissent is part of academic freedom which ought be respected by government.
The Commission on Human Rights (CHR) is alarmed by the “withdrawal” of the DND from the Accord.
Although some quarters may deem it alarmist, it is now legitimate to ask if the government, through the military (not the police), is contemplating the suppression of civil and political rights and academic freedom, within the university. Otherwise, why threaten the university with the symbolic act of repudiating the said Accord?
At the same time, we have continuously advised the government to address the multitudes of social inequalities that tend to fuel protests and tendencies of rebellion in the country—the same inequalities that presidents, senators, legislators, police and military officers, community leaders, artists, and scientists, to name a few, hailing from UP are also trying to address and solve through their respective fields.
CHR, as a product of the triumph of democracy after the dark days of dictatorship, urges the government to focus its attention to issues of guaranteeing public health, alleviating poverty, promoting sustainable development, advancing social justice, and ensuring good governance among others.
The Commission urges the DND to reconsider its position on this matter with the end in mind that the government should always work on improving the people’s enjoyment of their rights, and not diminishing or undermining them. Suppression of guaranteed rights should never be the response to dissent under a democracy. Protests serve as a gauge on how well a government is responding to the needs of a nation.
And finding a solution to the country’s problems will be better if we can think, discuss, and debate freely; when we can hold leaders accountable to the people; and there is respect for human rights at all times. ###