On the TSU presidential search

A CALL FOR TRANSPARENCY & QUICK RESOLVE

“it is ironic that the LEB, under Resolution No. 2019-406, in fact considers the basic law degrees of Ll.B. or J.D. as already equivalent to a doctorate degree in other non-law academic disciplines…” [Pimentel v. Legal Education Board (2019)]

The  irony stems from the LEB’ s minimum requirement of a Master of Laws Degree for Law Deans and professors but considers the Juris Doctor Degree as equivalent to a doctorate outside legal education.

To be more graphic about it, picture a situation where a JD graduate can become a university president when its law dean needs to be a Master of Laws (LLM) Degree holder.

Here now is the issue at the Tarlac State University where a candidate Atty Gherold Benitez was disqualified and who in turn sought a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) from a local court to suspend the conduct of a  University Forum where the qualified five other presidential candidates were set to deliver their mission/vision for the University.

As per the implementing Rules and Regulations of the Amended Charter of the TSU, the forum represents 25 % in the selection criteria of a TSU President. The other criteria are: Professional Competence – 35%;  Academic Background – 25%; and Panel Interview – 15%. Thus, minus the mandated forum, the selection process is halted.

A CALL FOR TRANSPARENCY AND QUICK RESOLVE

Outside the issue on whether or not JD can be equated with an “earned doctorate degree” which is a basic requirement to be an eligible candidate for the presidency, the Search Committee should be more transparent on the grounds by  which  TRO Petitioner, Atty Benitez was disqualified.   The committee should make this public to avoid misconceptions and false news  and for transparency’s sake.

If the information that reached me is true and correct, the disqualification was due to the failure of the TRO Petitioner  to meet some basic and documentary requirements.  Aside from the issue about  an “earned doctorate decree” as mandated by the IRR, another basic requirement he failed to comply was the five-year experience as an administrator and the documentary requirement of a medical certificate from a CHED accredited physician.

The search committee must render a report on such disqualification. The TSU community and the Tarlaquenos in general deserve nothing less.

ACHING FOR FRESH LEADERSHIP

In short, the JD issue should not hamper the selection of a new president.  I believe that even as the local court can make a decision here, it is likely that the decision if unfavorable to the disqualified candidate would elevate it to the higher courts.

This may take a long time but the installation of a new president should not be held in abeyance — if the search committee can prove — that other requirements for eligibility as candidate were not met by the TRO petitioner.

The courts can go forever in distinguishing a JD from an “earned doctoral decree” but  it can not overlook the other requirements set in the Amended TSU Charter,  If the TRO petitioner is disqualified on other grounds, shouldn’t the selection of the next TSU President continue with the five qualified candidates?

The term of the current president expires March 31, 2026. The Board of Regents decided not to extend his term, unlike the past 3 president whose terms were extended.

Here now is an academic community aching for a fresh leadership, the JD issue that is yet to be decided by the Courts should not derail the election of a new president if indeed the TRO petitioner was disqualified by failing to meet the other eligibility requirements.

CHED vs LEB vs TSU Charter

The Commission for Higher Education or CHED was created through R.A 7722. It is the  general regulator of higher education  while the Legal Education Board (LEB) created by R.A 7662  is the specialized regulator of legal education. RA 7662 was passed in 1993 but its  implementation started only in 2009.

“Because CHED is treated by law as the agency that determines HEI/program compliance with higher-education QA frameworks (RA 11587 (2021)), and because the Supreme Court limits LEB to non-intrusive regulation consistent with academic freedom (Pimentel (2019); Pimentel (2021)), therefore disputes about the JD degree often turn on whether an LEB act is merely setting minimum standards (allowed) or already controlling core academic discretion (not allowed).

Nothing in RA 7662 expressly mandates the Legal Education Board (LEB) to declare that a Juris Doctor (J.D.) is equivalent to a Ph.D. or other doctoral degree for general academic/employment purposes. At most, the LEB may regulate legal education; but any “equivalency to a doctorate” policy is not a power clearly granted by RA 7662, and—if it affects matters beyond legal education—may be vulnerable as ultra vires (beyond its authority) and/or as an intrusion into domains of other regulators such as the CHED.” ( Anycase.ai)

In simple terms, the LEB’s mandate is to uplift the standards and implement reforms in the legal education system.  To declare equivalency status outside the ambit of legal education or across disciplines is not within its power which can be contested as an ultra vires act.

TSU CHARTER

TSU has its  own charter and its implementing rules set the parameters in the selection of the university president. For all legal intents and purposes, these rules should prevail,  Most important issue in the current debacle is not whether JD is equivalent to an “earned doctorate decree” as mandated by the TSU Charter but whether or not the TRO Petitioner met all the basic and documentary requirements to be an  eligible candidate.  This should be done on first pass.  Apparently, aside from the debatable issue on JD vs “earned doctorate degree” there are other qualifications he failed to meet.

The TSU presidency is not a promotion as may be construed from the civil service rules and procedures,  It takes on a different form that kicks off with the creation of a search committee for eligible candidates that may or may not be organic to the institution.  The final say rests on the Board of Regents (BOR) represented by each sector of the academic community and the community at large.  For obvious reasons, the BOR Chaired by the CHED Chairman.

That said, there is no point in delaying the continuance of the search for the new TSU president.

I rest my case.

Nota Bene:  I was conferred my JD  by TSU only last year, practically into my 9^th year as a lawyer. Did I earn my doctorate by this re-conferment from LLB to JD. So can I now qualify as university president but not Dean of TSU School of Law as I don’t have an LLM?  Just thinking out loud.@