Gavel
Face the Freedom Wall
by Benedict Ballaran
Content warning: Mention of sexual harassment and predatory behavior
In the UPM Freedom Wall’s resurgence came its quick descent into limbo.
As the All Org’s Fair came to a close, several alleged cases of sexual harassment and predatory behavior were published on the page, most revealing that they occurred within school premises, and worse being allegedly conducted by a University of the Philippines Manila (UPM) student against another. The students were swift in condemning the heinous acts and litanies of complaints that were published like dominoes.
Posts spread like wildfire — declarations of support for the victims were published in succession, demands for the administration to hold the perpetrators accountable grew stronger, and the public clamor pressured student organizations to provide clarity on their association with the accused, eventually leading to groups and fraternities releasing a statement condemning the act and clearing up their disassociation to the person. Some of the posts even demanded that the perpetrator be publicly named instead of being concealed under asterisks and redactions. Even the Office of Student Services reached out to some of the posts encouraging the anonymous writer(s) to come forward and file a report.
The students were rightfully angry however, some posts questioned: Is the Freedom Wall the proper avenue in addressing these problems?
There were several posts condemning the public lynching. In their view, it is unfair to set a public trial based on anonymous posts. There are proper avenues, some posts pertained, that follow the due process to address grave crimes such as sexual harassment and sexual assault. Citing the EJKs and the unfair media representation, a post mentioned that it is “unfair to adhere to these public trials.” They instead encouraged the victims to file cases against the accused to designated councils, university committees, and offices.
Contradictions were quick. Several students responded by saying that the burden should not be on the victims. Recalling their grievances is ghastly enough for these victims and posting them on the Freedom Wall was their way of sharing these concerns.
But these views overlook the bigger issue. Instead of debating whether or not it is right to expose these heinous crimes in a public space such as the Freedom Wall, the real question is: why are students choosing to share their harrowing experiences under the veil of anonymity in the first place? The bold posts of accusations on the Freedom Wall are a glaring indictment of the broken bureaucratic system of the UPM administration and a reflection of its failure to effectively address the students’ concerns.
The student handbook of the University in the Anti-Sexual Harassment Code stipulated insufficient definitions of terms and inadequate mechanisms in addressing these concerns. For one, they limited their scope to sexual harassment “committed inside UP premises” or “outside UP premises in a work, education, research, extension, or related activit[ies]” only — anything beyond that and their hands are off. Some stories on the freedom wall do not fully fit this description, with some happening outside UPM’s campus. This means that no matter how true the stories of these anonymous posts are, the administration can opt not to take action but instead endorse the case to a larger, more tedious bureaucracy in the country’s judicial system.
Even the process of filing a case is a cross the victim has to carry through the bureaucracy of the administration. The Office of Anti-Sexual Harassment’s (OASH) flowchart details that for an investigation or a hearing to be pushed regarding an incident, the victim must personally file the case. The victim must write a complaint and have a tiresome process of getting it notarized before taking the long and dreadful walk to the eighth floor of the Philippine General Hospital, the building where the office is located, to formally file it before the OASH. From there, the report is deliberated, interviews may be requested, and then they determine if the accusations are reliable or not. Filing a case is a long and tedious process all the while justice for the victims remains elusive.
Distrust in student organizations has also grown apparent on the Freedom Wall. Several organizations were under fire because of their association with the perpetrators, making them question the fairness of these bodies in addressing victims’ concerns. Whether or not student organizations can go beyond their supposed “bond,” “brotherhood,” or “benefits of the doubt” to their members accused of such grave cases is a risk no victim is willing to take as trust in student arms seems to also be waning.
If UP continues to bury the victims in stringent bureaucracy, then justice for the victims will remain out of reach and the community will never be a safe place. The irony is that the administration should be all hands on deck when it comes to horrific cases such as this against its students, yet they seem to turn a blind eye if it is outside the university — as if there is a bubble of accountability they firmly operate in.
Organizations and fraternities meant to be a safe community that fosters camaraderie and brotherhood defeat their purpose if rotten perpetrators continue to be affiliated with them. More so, if they do not outright condemn such acts and make a firm stand against them. To steadfastly keep the community a safe space should be a default vision for these bodies, not a mere reaction to public outcry.
If there is one thing that the UPM Freedom Wall tells us, it is that people will always find alternative means to achieve justice — especially when the systems supposed to provide this fail them. The UPM Freedom Wall simply proves that UP, with all its honor, excellence, and service, is a mere microcosm of the country’s broken system it is trying to fix. It is no different from the national level, its justice system is a failure forcing people to air their grievances to the public — whether it be through the streets or on a freedom wall.
