As a concerned citizen of this Republic, I am bothered by the statements of Rappler on UST’s granting of a doctorate to Mr. Chief Justice, Renato Corona. I am not an admirer of Corona, but I defend his right to earn his doctorate with honors, especially that he completed it despite the demands of his work and family.
Issue 1: Why did UST bend its rules and waive its dissertation requirements for Corona?
UST did not bend its rules and waive its dissertation requirements. Corona delivered a “scholarly treatise” in a public lecture. This is equivalent to a dissertation. Note that other universities in Japan and Europe, the equivalent of a dissertation can be “essays” or an article “published in a refereed journal”. In some PhD programs around the world, dissertation, as Ms. Vitug probably understands it, is no longer required.
If Rappler doubts that Corona’s lecture is not equivalent to a dissertation, I challenge Rappler to do a comparative study of related dissertations among Philippine universities.
Issue 2: Why was he given top honors, summa cum laude, when he had overstayed?
Corona spent an equivalent of seven years to complete his PhD. Seven years is the maximum residency requirement. The UST Graduate School Student’s handbook provides that “As a general rule, a PhD degree program may be completed in five (5) years, i.e., enrolled for at least ten (10) semesters or summer terms. The maximum residency for the PhD program is seven (7) years…Students who overstayed beyond the maximum residency must take reactivation courses.” Granting that Corona overstayed, he could take reactivation courses.
The top honors given to Corona was based on his grades. If he is that good academically, then let him earn what he deserves.
Comments to Rappler
Code 1 of the Journalist's Code of Ethics as adopted by the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines states that “I shall scrupulously report and interpret the news, taking care not to suppress essential facts nor to distort the truth by omission or improper emphasis.” Why did Ms. Vitug failed to check the UST Student’s Handbook, which is available at the website of the University, to determine the veracity of the accusations contained in her write up?
Code 11 states that “When in doubt, decency should be my watchword”. Where is decency when Ms. Vitug’s write up was published by the Inquirer without getting the side of UST (see check Codes 1 and 4 of the Code of Ethics)? Why did she not interview the Dean and faculty members of the UST Graduate School to get their side of the story?
As a former journalist, I feel bad each time I watch reputations destroyed by practitioners of free press. Ms. Vitug is a recognized practitioner of free press, but I am disappointed that she committed conflict of interest and violated the Journalist's Code of Ethics in the pursuit of producing a “ripple” without “rap”, probably forgetting that what Rappler claims as the meaning of “rap” is similar to dissertātiō (Latin), meaning "discourse", which is the etymology for the word dissertation.
