N.B. – This was published in The Lobbyist (November 30) where I write a column (Subtext).

Journalists should know that thousands of concerned students, faculty members, staff and alumni of state universities and colleges (SUCs) are expected to march to the Philippine Senate on December 1 (Wednesday) to protest the budget cut.

It is said to be the culmination of a series of mass actions in the past few days within and outside various SUCs. How should media analyze the issue of the SUCs’ budget cut and the upcoming December 1 mass action? Proper contextualization is necessary at this point.

Unlike in the past where only organized students, faculty members and other cause-oriented groups are leading protest actions, the mobilization on December 1 has the full support of the Philippine Association of State Universities and Colleges (PASUC) led by Dr. Lauro Tacbas who is also president of the University of Northern Philippines-Ilocos Sur. There are also various university and college officials who have supported the mass actions organized since last week.

This proves to be a unique development as officials, faculty members and students normally do not see eye to eye when it comes to the national government’s policies and programs on education. That they are now united in denouncing the budgetary allocation to SUCs means that there is something utterly wrong with what the national government is proposing. After all, one seldom sees school administrators taking the issue to the streets as they are used to solving problems in the board rooms or through various lobbying efforts with concerned agencies.

If journalists were to analyze the National Expenditure Program (NEP) for 2011 (available online at http://www.dbm.gov.ph/index.php?pid=9&xid=30&id=1306), they would immediately notice what is wrong. SUCs have a total proposed allocation for 2011 amounting to P23.4 billion, slightly lower than the previous year’s P23.8 billion. But this is not where the problem lies.

About 88% of this amount is allocated for personnel services (PS) or salaries given to officials, staff and faculty members. The rest of the amount (P2.8 billion) is for maintenance and other operating expenses (MOOE). The latter refers to the funds SUCs use for the maintenance of buildings and other infrastructure, as well as to buy the necessary supplies and equipment. Compared to the MOOE funds for the previous year, the proposed allocation for MOOE is P1.1 billion less. Yes, a lower MOOE is a problem but there is an even bigger problem.

For those who are familiar with the national budget, they are wont to ask the allocation for the third component which is capital outlay (CO). According to the government’s proposal, CO has zero allocation which simply means that SUCs will not have funds for the construction of new buildings and other infrastructure.

The argument for lower budgetary allocation is simple: The government says that SUCs should become self-sufficient in raising funds. Government officials are actually suggesting the raising of tuition and the leasing of land and other facilities so that SUCs can augment its funding.

Of course, many SUC officials, faculty, students, staff and alumni are arguing the exact opposite: SUCs are meant to be perpetually funded by government as they are the only venues for those who are poor to get a college education. Increasing their tuition and allowing private businesses to use the already limited land and facilities defeat the purpose of providing quality education to its students whose interests should be the schools’ primary concern. If SUCs were to commercialize its operations and increase tuition, where else would their students go if the latter can’t afford sustain their education anymore? Obviously, private universities and colleges are not wise options as they charge even higher tuition and other fees.

Journalists should take note that the NEP for 2011 has the slogan “Tungo sa paggugol na matuwid” (loose translation: Toward righteous spending). This is obviously adopted from President Noynoy Aquino’s campaign slogan “daang matuwid” (loose translation: straight path) which basically promotes his administration’s commitment to promote and uphold the rights of the deprived.

For the longest time, SUCs have been deprived of sufficient funding. How can the Aquino administration claim righteous spending when, according to Kabataan Partylist, the following sectors are being given more priority?

• “Pork barrel funds for legislators will be increased by more than P13.9 billion for a total of P24.8 billion;
• “Former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo will be given an additional P2 billion in pork barrel funds;
• “Lump-sum (read: corruption) funds for 2011 total P245 billion. Of this amount, P68 billion represents audit-free Presidential pork barrel;
• “Dole-out and patronage funds under the Conditional Cash Transfer program of the DSWD has a budget of P29 billion;
  “The military, notorious for violating human rights and killing civilians, will be awarded a P10 billion increase in its budget for a total of P104.7 billion; and
• “Debt servicing eats the chunk of the budget, getting an increase of P80.9 billion with P823 billion in total spending for both interest payments and principal amortization.” (http://kabataanpartylist.com/blog/response-to-aquino-government-lies-about-suc-budget-cuts/)

Clearly, the Aquino administration has several priorities but higher education is not one of them. Perhaps it is in this context that media reports should analyze the mass actions that will happen on December 1.