THIS LETTER WAS SENT TO PRESIDENT RODRIGO DUTERTE ON NOVEMBER 28, 2017 THROUGH THE PRESIDENTIAL COMPLAINT CENTER HOTLINE 8888, pcc@malacanang.gov.ph and TO THE REST OF THE RESPONDENTS AND INTERESTED PEOPLE AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC THROUGH www.shelltangaorefinerylife.blogspot.com
STEPPING UP, SPEAKING OUT, STANDING FIRM
BY SCP PIO CHIEF THEODORE TE
TED TE·SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 2017
Agenda for the Next Three Years
Atty. Theodore O. Te[1]
This morning, I came to Malcolm Hall early because I wanted to walk around and see what’s new in the College and while there are many things that are new, one thing remains and will always remain--and it will never get old: UP Law is, and will always be, home. It is good to be back home.
We have been given two more minutes to introduce ourselves, allow me to integrate my introduction into my presentation.
Oliver Wendell Holmes, over a hundred years ago, exhorted his law school using the words that are now etched in granite in front of Malcolm Hall; words that almost every resident and graduate of Malcolm Hall can recite from memory. By these words, Holmes meant that a law school should do more than what was expected or what was obvious; he meant that law schools must challenge convention, tradition, and imagination. A hundred years ago, Holmes was already talking about the future.
In the context of UP Law’s present, which is a culmination of over a hundred years of collective wisdom and experience, we must reread Holmes’s words and honestly reflect on what they mean to UP Law today, the next three years, and in the many years to come.
What does it mean to teach law in the grand manner?
To proclaim, as we do, that we teach in the grand manner is to claim our unique and distinctive identity.
We teach students to not merely be expert legal technicians but to also be principled and passionate advocates; to not only be compelling speakers but to also be critical thinkers; to not just be steeped in the jargon of the law but to also be fluent in the language of human rights, economics, development, philosophy, history, arts and culture; to not just be participants in transactions but to be leaders that create the environment for such transactions. To teach law in the grand manner is to encourage innovators and creative legal thinkers, those who challenge convention and tradition and, in so doing, create new conventions and traditions.
We create space to allow for greater multi-disciplinary discourse and interaction. Law cannot and must not be read in isolation from the society that it disturbs, influences, shapes, or interferes with. Law must be understood as a tool for creating a system of relationships that allow for greater freedoms to think, do, and be. Necessary interactions with great thinkers in philosophy, ethics, sociology, psychology, the arts and humanities, engineering, science and technology must undergird our conventional approaches to teaching law.
We teach our students to lead in every field of law they find themselves. That is the identity, mandate, and mission of every graduate of UP Law.
It is only by doing so that our students, even while they are still in UP Law, may be taught to more fearlessly face or fight the future. It is only by doing so that we may, as an institution, be able to ask the hard questions and demand the difficult answers. It is only by doing so that we may make legal education relevant and responsive.
A Vision for The Next Three Years
To achieve this, we must, in the next three years, do the following:
1. RECALL AND REMAIN TRUE TO OUR IDENTITY, MANDATE, AND MISSION AS A PUBLIC LAW SCHOOL TEACHING LAW IN THE GRAND MANNER AND MAKING GREAT LAWYERS.
2. LEAD THE LEGAL PROFESSION, SHAPE THE NATIONAL DISCOURSE, AND PROVIDE RESEARCH BACKBONE FOR THE FORMULATION OF PROGRESSIVE NATIONAL POLICY.
3. ENSURE ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY TO UP LAW’S MANY PUBLICS; ENGAGE THE ALUMNI.
IDENTITY, MANDATE AND MISSION
We are a public law school steeped in the highest traditions of excellence in all fields of the law. We have produced the finest lawyers engaged in advocacy for various interests, private and public. We have produced Presidents of the Philippines, both good and bad; we have produced Senate Presidents and House Speakers. We have produced Chief Justices and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, Presiding Justices and Associate Justices of the third level courts, and judges of the first and second level courts. We have produced scholars, academics and intellectuals who have contributed directly to the country–for good or worse–through their research and writings. Finally, we have produced lawyers for the People who have committed their life to working for the rights of those among our people who are on the shorter end of the stick–the laborers, the urban poor, the peasants and farmers, the indigenous peoples, the poor and defenseless accused; you have but to look at a list of non-governmental organizations and people’s organizations engaged in various advocacies to see a list of U.P. lawyers who have committed their lives to the people.
To remain true to our identity, mandate, and mission, we must continue to teach law not just as training for trade but a formation process.[2] We must continue to teach law in a way that is academically rigid--demanding nothing less than the highest standards from our students and from our faculty--but also in a way that is character forming, intellectually stimulating, change motivated, service oriented, and globally connected---demanding the same commitment that we put into our traditional academic undertakings. Our students must learn and understand that obtaining a law degree is not the end-all and be-all but simply a way to make a meaningful difference, wherever they may find themselves.
To do this, we must equip (a) our faculty, (b) our college, (c) our students, and (d) our staff.
We must continually examine our Curriculum and, if necessary, revise it. The privilege of being autonomous in our offerings must be viewed as a responsibility. Using this autonomy, we must take the initiative to provide space for areas of the law that are incapable of being offered in any other law school.
Even as we continue to provide the highest standards of teaching in the fields that are required for licensing, we must also commit to the same standards in other fields that are under-developed and under-taught. In this connection, establishing a “tracks system” for our students in chosen fields of faculty expertise would allow us to teach the non-traditional and unconventional fields and also enhance our faculty profile through the recruitment of adjunct faculty who are experts in specific fields of law. To ensure that our students are fully aware of the options available to them, we must strengthen our system of faculty advising.
We must also continue to examine the way we teach. While the case method is the traditional method of teaching, we must also be open to approaches that might help us teach law better. In this regard, we must consider a system of “courses and seminars” where “courses”, which provide the general legal principles required for an understanding of the field are taught by regular faculty members to large classes, and “seminars”, which are smaller, more focused classes, on specific areas covered by the “courses”, are taught by adjunct faculty or lecturers. In this way, we are able to provide for learning that is both substantively rigid but also practically meaningful.
We must continue our leadership in Clinical Legal Education through the pro bono services of the Office of Legal Aid, which was the pioneer in this field and contributed substantially to the development of Rule 138-A or the Student Practice Rule. Part of this leadership must also include an honest assessment of the existing Rule and providing input to the Supreme Court towards a strengthening of the Rule. We also must recognize that there are other related fields of law where our students may serve and shine.
Because the Office of Legal Aid provides training primarily in litigation, we should consider establishing a “Social Justice” Clinic[3] where students who are interested in fields other than pro bono litigation may serve out their 8-unit Clinical Legal Education requirement. Some of the topics that may be considered here are workers’ rights and welfare, children’s rights, gender issues, transitional justice, indigenous peoples rights, environmental advocacies, and health rights. Alumni who are in public interest, human rights, and developmental legal work may be tapped to serve as adjunct faculty and/or resource persons who can provide internship opportunities.
We must also develop leadership in public service by allowing students who are inclined to consider work in government and the civil service to serve as interns. Some of the offices that we may establish formal working relationships with are the Supreme Court and the trial courts, the Office of the Solicitor General, and the Public Attorney’s Office.
We must continue to sustain our excellent showing in the annual bar examinations. One way to support our students is through a vibrant faculty presence in the student-led Bar Operations Commission. Designating a faculty member to liaise with the BOC would be a good start. We must however also go beyond the national obsession with the bar and its results. Our pedagogies and our curriculum must reflect this shift by not focusing unduly, to the exclusion of other courses and seminars, on bar-mandated or bar-related subjects. Providing more “seminars” under the “tracks system” would be a good way to start this shift.
We are about to reopen our LLM program. We must ensure that we provide for the appropriate transformative academic environment. In this regard, we must consider seriously entering into academic cooperation agreements with global leaders in legal education, establishing joint programs during the summer break, inviting experts from Asia, Europe, and the Americas to teach at our LLM program.
LEADERSHIP OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION AND THE BACKBONE OF NATIONAL POLICY
UP Law, as an institution, must continue to lead the legal profession. We must not only produce bar topnotchers and a 100% bar passing average but the best lawyers and legal minds for the country in every field of law.
We must continue to provide leadership and invaluable support to the development of national policy through the UP Law Center.[4] National policy should find a home at the UP Law Center through its various institutes.
The Institute for Maritime Affairs and the Law of the Sea must continue to provide leadership in helping our people understand the various issues involved in the country’s dispute against China involving the nine-dash line and the emerging issues of Chinese expansion in the West Philippine Sea. The Institute of Human Rights must continue to produce its well-researched and well-received publications educating our people on the various issues involved in the whole universe of human rights. The Institute for Government and Law Reform must continue to provide leadership by pushing for national policy that will contribute to reforms in governance and law. The Supreme Court must see the Institute for the Administration of Justice as a valuable partner in pushing for and implementing much-needed judicial reforms.
We must continue to provide leadership in other areas of the law that other institutions might be unable or unwilling to provide. Our Institutes at the UP Law Center must be able to provide leadership on present issues that may have impact on the future such as national and global security as affecting human rights, peace building, transitional justice, trade and development, electoral reforms, information and communications technology, all of which are rich areas for research, teaching, and policy work. The intersections between law and development, law and science, law and economics, law and the arts must continue to be explored.
We hold a distinct advantage of having a Law Center that is funded well. To be able to establish our leadership, shape the national discourse, and provide the research backbone for development of national policy, the faculty and the UP Law Center should continue to: (a) research and (b) publish its findings, but our faculty and the UP Law Center should also be able to (c) bring together legal academics of various persuasions for public conversations on fields of interest that may contribute to the formulation of or change in national policy. To this end, two public colloquiums, one on present issues and one on future issues, every year would be a good way to influence the national discourse.
Our faculty and our alumni must be considered the first resource in various fields of law and its intersections as they impact on contemporary issues. At a time when the line between fact and fiction has been obscured and “truth” has become relative, UP Law must step up to provide light and truth. We must, as an institution, be unafraid to step up and speak out.
ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY AND ALUMNI ENGAGEMENT
As a public law school, we must continue to ensure accountability and transparency to our many publics. The public must be able to see where the money we receive, whether through the General Appropriations Act, the Legal Research Fund, and donations, goes. The website of the College must contain a “Transparency Page” where all financial information is uploaded regularly.
Our alumni, who continue to support and have a substantial stake in the College, must continue to be harnessed not only to give donations but also to provide their expertise to the College—either through teaching as adjunct faculty, writing and publishing as research fellows, or taking on assignments for specific administrative duties such as handling disciplinary investigations, assisting in coaching debate or moot court teams. In this regard, our existing Office of Alumni Relations will be strengthened so that alumni may more easily and productively engage.
Retired members of the Judiciary who are alumni may continue to be invited to serve as Eminent Lecturers presenting their thoughts on selected topics or preserving them in books and publications.
We must also creatively but consistently ensure that we are financially able to carry out our mandate and mission through fund raising. We should efficiently collect monies owing to us from the Legal Research Fund; we should also insist on being entrusted with management of the same.
UP Law, as an institution, and the Dean, as its leader, must be unafraid of feedback and criticism. As mandated by the UP Charter, we must “(p)rovide democratic governance based on collegiality, representation, accountability, transparency, and active participation of its constituents.”[5] Toward this end, regular dialogue with faculty, students, and staff must continue and mechanisms towards institutionalizing these dialogues must be provided.
As a way of ensuring accountability and transparency, UP Law must, as an institution, and the Dean, as its leader, provide an Annual Report detailing highlights and achievements as well as financial information. This may be done annually on the occasion of UP Law’s anniversary.
All throughout my presentation, I have used the word “We” and not “I” because the deanship is not about me, it is about us. I believe in the traditions of collegiality in the College and in doing things together. For me, a dean must lead from the front to absorb the blows, from the rear to allow others to grow, and from the sides to encourage others to go forward.
Allow me now to personalize things a bit by using the word “I.”
I am Theodore Te, I respond best to “Ted” and I am blessed to have had two degrees from this University—one in Psychology, the other in law—and a Master’s degree from a foreign university. I taught from 1996 to 2013 and was, from 2000 to 2013, a regular faculty member. I am home and happy to be home. I present myself to all of you, in all humility, as a nominee for the deanship of the UP College of Law.
Allow me now to end by answering the second strand of the question I posed at the start.
What does it mean then to produce great lawyers?
It means unapologetically producing the best lawyers in every field conceivable. It means producing lawyers who can argue the merits of a constitutional question before the Supreme Court as well as they can discuss the ethical nuances of biotechnology; lawyers who are equally fluent in the jargon of the law and the sonnets of Shakespeare; lawyers who can acquit their clients in a courtroom but also acquit themselves well in a technical discussion of poverty alleviation and the need for socialized housing.
It means producing lawyers who can step up to the next level, speak out in the midst of uncomfortable or forced silences, and stand firm on principle—all in service to the Filipino people.
[1] A.B. (Psychology; U.P. ‘86), Ll.B. (U.P. ‘90), Ll.M. (Columbia Law School, ‘12). Nominated for the position of Dean, UP College of Law.
[2] Section 3(a), RA 9500 reads:
Sec. 3. Purpose of the University. As the national university, a public and secular institution of higher learning, and a community of scholars dedicated to the search for truth and knowledge as well as the development of future leaders, the University of the Philippines shall perform its unique and distinctive leadership in higher education and development. The University shall: (a) Lead in setting academic standards and initiating innovations in teaching, research, and faculty development in philosophy, the arts and humanities, the social sciences, engineering, natural sciences, mathematics, and technology; and maintain centers of excellence in these disciplines and professions.
[3] See Sec. 3(d), RA 9500 mandating that the UP shall Lead as a public service university by providing various forms of community, public and volunteer service, as well as scholarly and technical assistance to the government, the private sector, and civil society while maintaining its standards of excellence.
[4] See Sec. 3(d), RA 9500.
[5] Sec. 3(h), RA 9500.
ATTY. DANTE GIERRAN
DIRECTOR
NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
