Introduction
1. I would like to thank Rev. Everett Mendoza, Vice-President for Theological Education and Academic Dean, Union Theological Seminary – PCU, for the invitation to speak before the 2012 UTS graduating class today. It is an honor and privilege for me to speak before you. My youngest brother Rev. Dr. Felicisimo Cao, graduated from this institution in 1990 with a Master of Divinity (Cum laude). He eventually went on to Pacific School of Religion, Berkeley, California to get his Doctor of Ministry in 2004. He has been serving as Pastor in the United Methodist Church in the U.S., his present assignment being at Wayside United Methodist Church, Vallejo, California. I would like to think that Pastor Fel is considered among the more successful alumni of UTS. Pastor Fel was just in UTS recently together with some Fil-Ams for an exposure/immersion program.
Another alumnus I have been in contact with recently is Pastor Reeve Velunta, who is Associate Professor of New Testament and Cultural Studies in UTS. He is also one alumnus UTS should be proud of.
Pastor Fel, Pastor Reeve, and many others like them will be joined by you as UTS alumni as you GRADUATE from UTS today.
I congratulate you all for this achievement which I am sure meant a lot of individual and collective sacrifices from you and your families and loved ones; what you have achieved is no mean feat! Of course you would not be here today without the support of your families (wife, husband, parents, and church members). They should be congratulated as well, for this is as much their accomplishment as it is yours! I also congratulate the local churches who supported the studies of many of you, many of which I believe are looking forward to your return armed with a UTS graduate degree.
I also congratulate the faculty, you have done well as well, for you have been important components of the education and training of the graduating students.
2. Initially I had some hesitation in accepting the invitation, I asked myself “What can I possibly share with the UTS graduating class of 2012?” Given my experience in budgeting and resource generation for a government institution like the University of the Philippines,I thought I will just share some insights in connection with funding and resource generation of theological schools. Of course, I am no longer with the UP but am now President of Manila Tytana Colleges, formerly Manila Doctors College or MADOCS. Manila Tytana is a member of the Metrobank Group of Companies. Doña Tytana was the mother of George S.K. Ty, founder of Metrobank. We offer BS Nursing, Psychology, Information Technology, Holistic Nutrition with Culinary Arts, Hotel and Restaurant Management, Accountancy, Entrepreneurship and Business Administration with five (5) majors, also Caregiver. Some of these insights I have already shared with members of the STEP, or Samahan ng Teolohikal na Edukasyon sa Pilipinas when they had their General Assembly last year at the Philippine Baptist Theological Seminary in Baguio City.
Manila Tytana is only one of 2,180 HEIs in the Country, 110 of which are State Universities and Colleges or (SUCs), 93 are LUCs and the rest are private HEIs. UP used to be the only State University; but now there is a State University or College in almost every province.
While UP used to get almost all the budget for higher education, now it has to compete with the other SUCs for the budget for higher education every year. Of course, it still gets a large chunk of the budget, something that the other SUCs resent and understandably so! The need to defend UP’s lion share of the SUCs budget is among the reasons why there was a need for UP to be declared as The National Unversity. This identification, it is argued, justifies the grant of a big budget for UP.
Interestingly, UTS itself is only one year older than UP, having been established in 1907 when the Presbyterians’ Ellinwood Bible School and the Methodists’ Florence B. Nicholson Seminary merged in 1907 to form Union Theological Seminary. UTS is the only ecumenical ministerial formation center in the country, and is faced with challenges posed by denominational seminaries sprouting left and right.
According to the list of membership of the Association of Theological Schools in South East Asia (ATESEA) there are 26 member theological schools in the Philippines. They are also spread out in different regions in the country. How does UTS position itself in this big community of theological schools, with very varied program offerings and wide variances in quality?
Maybe some lessons can be learned from the experience of the University of the Phlippines (UP) as the National University.
On April 29, 2008, President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo signed Republic Act 9500 into law, “An Act to Strengthen the University of the Philippines as the National University.
The new UP Charter mandates UP as the National University to “carry out its unique and distinctive leadership in higher education and national development”;
Specifically, as the National University, UP must:
(a) Lead in setting academic standards and initiating innovations in teaching, research and faculty development.
(b) Serve as a graduate university by providing advanced studies and specialization especially for those who serve on the faculty of state and private colleges and universities;
(c) Serve as a research university in various fields of expertise and specialization.
(d) Lead as a public service university by providing various forms of community, public, and volunteer service.
(e) Serve as a regional and global university in cooperation with international networks of universities in the Asia-Pacific region and around the world;
I want to adapt, and maybe, “paraphrase” the above listed five (5) purposes to fit a suggested mandate for UTS to carry out a similar “unique and distinctive leadership” role in theological education.
There are so many theological schools. I believe that UTS should not just be “one of those”. It must take a leadership position, among the community of theological schools, and be a leading innovator in theological education. UTS must
(a) Lead in setting academic standards and initiating innovations in teaching, research and faculty development in theology.
(b) Serve as a graduate university by providing advanced studies especially to those who serve on the faculty of other theological schools and seminaries.
(c) Serve as a research university in various fields of expertise and specialization in theology;
(d) Lead as a public service institution by providing scholarly and biblical-based advice and technical assistance to the government, the private sector, and civil society;
(e) Serve as a regional and global theological institution in the Asia-Pacific region and around the world;
To do this, UTS must invest heavily in
(a) Faculty development; rewards and incentives; faculty retention
(b) Research capability development; research grants, research dissemination (e.g. funding for conferences)
(c) Internationalization efforts and networking
(d) Infrastructure development, among others.
Of course, these investments require a huge amount of financial resources. The question is: How does UTS get funding to achieve these objectives?
Sure, students must share in the cost of their education by paying tuition, no matter how heavily subsidized they are. Their local churches have to share too. (Question: Why should local churches pay for their education when it’s very likely that after graduation they will be assigned; or they will ask to be assigned somewhere else, even in churches abroad!)
But raising tuition is said to be a most unimaginative, or uncreative mechanism to raise generate resources. How else should we raise funds?
The New UP Charter provides in Section 22, (c) The Board may plan, design, approve and/ or cause the implementation of land leases: Provided, That such mechanisms and arrangements shall not conflict with the academic mission of the national university;
I understand that UTS has a lot of real properties. If and when UTS so decides to pursue this direction, it has a lot to offer to prospective developers. It must of course define its own terms of reference for any partnership or lease agreement mindful of the mission of the school.
Consider also the following question: Can the University borrow or take out a loan? What collateral will be used?
Under Section 22 (d), The Board may allow the use of the income coming from real properties of the national university as security for transactions to generate additional revenues when needed for educational purposes. This provision allows the UP to borrow or issue securities with the payments of lease rentals as or collateral. This is in fact what was intended for the rental income from the UP-Ayala Techno Hub Property in Diliman, a 38-hectare property developed by Ayala Land.
Another provision Sec. 22 (e) says,”The Board may approve the implementation of joint ventures.”
The idea of “Joint ventures” suggests the pursuit of Academe-Industry Partnership. Education Institutions, even theological education institutions, can benefit from partnerships with the private sector, joint ventures being one of them. These can also include support for endowments for Professorial Chairs, Scholarships for students and faculty development, support for “laboratories” or resource centres, etc.
Finally, how can UTS exploit donations as a rich source of funding?
In Sec. 25 (b), the new UP charter says “Allowable deductions for donations (to the University of the Philippines) shall be equivalent to 150 percent of the value of the donation.
This is a very helpful provision that encourages donations to the university. It means for example that if an individual or a corporation donates P10 million to the University, they will have tax credits equivalent to P15 million! That is, if their tax due for the year of the donation is P15 million exactly, they will not have to pay anything to the BIR!
I don’t know how a similar provision can be done for UTS or if it is even possible! Maybe a miracle will happen and the BIR will agree to such a provision! But my point is that the UTS must find an incentive mechanism to encourage donors and corporate partners to donate and partner with the School; otherwise it will be difficult to convince them to part with their own hard-earned financial resources and give them to UTS.
Having said all of the above, the discomfort by most people when we discuss these things is “Is this not commercialization of education?” Or more specifically, is this not “commercialization” of theological education?
This question is something that is, and has been asked, in the University of the Philippines, where many are of the ideology that it is the State’s responsibility to provide free education to its people.
(In the program, p.8, “Our hope…)
But I am a realist, mindful of the real environment of decreasing resources and support for education. I believe that funding or financial support for churches and theological schools have also been steadily dwindling in recent years. This is a situation that higher education institutions can no longer ignore. We must find ways and means to survive the ever increasing cost of providing quality education. And I don’t believe that asking students to pay tuition, partnering with private sector for lease agreements for real properties or real property development projects, asking donations from the private sector, and similar initiatives for resource generation, are necessarily “Commercialization” of education! If undertaken to support academic, research, and infrastructure development, and to upgrade student services, they fall within the framework of fulfilling the academic mission of the University or the school.
There are other issues and concerns that theological education institutions must put some serious thought to. These include:
1. Efficiency issues; when we are able to generate financial resources, do we use these money wisely? Are we efficient in the utilization of money?
2. Internationalization; how do we balance the need to have internationalization of the curricula and faculty? Should we hire foreign faculty? How many should we hire? How should we pay them? Can we do this without destroying the “ecology” of the institution in terms of faculty profile? And therefore leave local faculty demoralized?
3. How about language policy or issues? Are we preparing well our students to be leaders in local churches if we continue to use English as medium of instruction?
4. How about distance learning? This is the direction that many education institutions are already pursuing. How about UTS?
5. There are also governance issues. In the case of the UTS and its relation to PCU, what governance concerns that are presently gray areas should be discussed and addressed? If UTS real properties will be developed what is the sharing agreement on the income? These are just some of the governance and relational issues that have to be faced head on.
I am sure there are more issues and concerns that I have not touched on.
The question in your mind, I’m sure is: What is this to you?
If UTS were to carry out a distinctive leadership position in the community of theological education institutions, how do we measure its success in performing this mandate?
Matthew chapter 7: verse 20 says “By their fruits ye shall know them.”
Do UTS alumni take on leadership positions in local churches, communities, or institutions they get connected with? Are they good pastors? Are they good teachers? Do they make informed decisions backed by validated research experience? The answers to these questions will place UTS in an enviable leadership position among theological schools in the Philippines.
Dear graduates, MAKE your Institution proud. God bless you all.


