Alternative Reporting Policy for Alleged Misconduct or Wrongdoing
As of September 2024
I. Background
This is a policy on alternative reporting of alleged misconduct or wrongdoing by University Personnel. It was approved in essence and in general by the Board of Trustees on February 2, 2019 in line with its responsibility for overseeing the governance framework of the University.
The University’s Code of Conduct and Ethics for its employees demonstrates its commitment to the highest standards of ethical conduct by and among the members of the University community. All members of the community are required to fulfill their responsibilities with honesty and integrity and comply with all applicable laws, regulations and policies.
The objectives of this policy are to establish policies and procedures for:
Reporting serious concerns regarding an actual or suspected covered misconduct involving University Personnel, as covered by the Scope of this policy;
Handling such concerns; and
Protecting individuals reporting concerns made in good faith from retaliatory actions.
It should be emphasized that this policy is intended to assist individuals who believe they have knowledge of a misconduct involving University Personnel that is better handled outside the normal reporting channels. The preferred method of reporting such issue or concern involving University Personnel is to first discuss the matter with the particular personnel’s supervisor. Alternatively, the concern can be raised with the University Decorum and Investigation Office, the University Legal and Compliance Office or the Internal Audit and Financial Risk Management Office.
All concerns to be raised will be treated fairly and properly. Both the subject of the allegation and the individual raising a concern can expect to be treated with respect and will receive a response from the University. The University will neither tolerate harassment or victimization of anyone raising a concern, nor will any individual be disciplined for raising a concern made in good faith, even if it is proven to have be mistakenly made. However, this assurance is not extended to anyone who maliciously raises a matter knowing the same to be untrue.
II. Scope
Anyone who has knowledge of an actual, or suspected, misconduct or wrongdoing of University Personnel can avail of the alternative reporting mechanism provided by this policy if this is better handled outside of the normal reporting channels. A University employee is as defined in Section III.A.
For purposes of this policy, misconduct or wrongdoing includes, but is not limited to:
Conflicts of interest;
Misuse of donor and/or grant funds;
Falsifying documents and transactions, including misrepresentation at University proceedings;
Wrongdoing in reporting financial transactions;
Theft, sabotage or vandalism of University assets, including data, information and/or computer systems; and
Attempts to conceal and/or suppress the disclosure of any information relating to any of the above and retaliating against a reporter of the above wrongdoing.
Resort to alternative reporting should not be done to:
Question policies or decisions made by the University; neither should it be used to reconsider matters which have already been addressed by already-established policies and procedures;
Resolve personal grievances regarding an individual’s terms and conditions of employment with the University, or other aspects of his/her working relationship with other individuals;
Handle issues already addressed by already-established policies and procedures;
Raise concerns regarding the private acts of an individual that are not connected with his/her responsibilities in and to the University; and
Address situations where there is an immediate threat to life or property.
III. Definition of Terms
A. University – shall be the Ateneo de Manila University, a private educational institution organized and operating as a non-stock non-profit corporation under Philippine Law.
B. University Personnel – shall mean the trustees, academic personnel, academic support personnel, non-academic personnel, administrators, and officials of the University, regardless of the nature of their contracts, status of employment, positions, or ranks, including persons engaged with the University as visiting faculty or visiting staff, who represent the University in an official capacity.
C. Supervisor – Shall be the unit head and, when applicable, the cluster head of such person having official administrative supervision over employees and other personnel representing, performing work for, or rendering services to the University.
IV. Guiding Principles for Reporting
Any individual has the right and responsibility to report an actual or suspected misconduct involving any University Personnel. The University is a strong advocate of transparency and accountability and will investigate a properly-reported alleged misconduct or wrongdoing.
Anyone reporting a concern must act in good faith and have reasonable basis for believing that a covered misconduct or wrongdoing exists and that it is in the best interest of the University that the concern be raised.
Where University policies and procedures already exist to handle certain specific concerns, such as fraud, grievance and complaints, professional ethics and sexual harassment, those concerns should be addressed as per such policies and procedures, unless the individual has reasonable basis to prefer other means of address. Alternatively, concerns can be brought to the attention of the University Decorum and Investigation Office, the University Legal and Compliance Office or the Internal Audit and Financial Risk Management Office, which will then assist the individual in dealing with the concern.
Any matter raised under this policy will be investigated thoroughly, promptly and confidentially, and the outcome of the investigation reported back to the individual who raised the issue.
Maliciously making a false allegation is a disciplinary offense. So is an instruction to cover up a wrongdoing. (University Personnel should not agree to remain silent when told not to raise or pursue such a concern, even by a person in authority such as a supervisor. S/he should instead report the matter to a more senior administrator. The report shall be dealt with accordingly.)
If, for some reason, an individual who is inclined to report covered misconduct or wrongdoing wishes to remain anonymous, the University, in line with best practice in ethics and good governance, has contracted the services of a third party service provider to administer its web-based anonymous reporting hotline which can be accessed 24/7. This reporting hotline is not to be used for reporting non-covered misconduct or wrongdoing or immediate threats to life or property.
The written report made through such reporting hotlne should contain as much specific factual information as possible to enable the investigation and resolution of the concern. However, the anonymity of the reporter and/or the lack of pertinent details may hinder or delay the resolution of the concern. The reporter will be informed if such is the case.
The reporter may need to provide a statement to serve as necessary evidence. When agreeing to make such a statement, the reporter may opt to be accompanied by other individuals such as work colleagues.
V. Safeguards for Reporting in Good Faith
An individual who makes a report in good faith and has reasonable basis for believing that a covered misconduct or wrongdoing exists will not be subjected to any retaliatory actions, including use, or attempted use, of authority or influence against him/her which interferes with his/her rights to disclose the misconduct or wrongdoing either through established channels or through the alternative reporting website.
Should an employee make a legitimate and/or good faith report, his/her continued employment and opportunities for future promotion or training will not be prejudiced thereby. Justifying or mitigating circumstances will be considered if s/he is found to have some level of participation in the misconduct or wrongdoing reported after the conduct of a formal administrative investigation.
Likewise, an individual who engages in retaliatory action against the person making the disclosure in violation of this policy will be subjected to disciplinary action, which, if such person is an employee, may include dismissal from employment.
VI. Consequences for Reporting in Bad Faith
Making allegations that prove to be unsubstantiated, or to have been made maliciously or recklessly, will be viewed as a serious disciplinary offense and may result in disciplinary action, up to and including dismissal, if the individual reporting is a University employee. Such conduct may also give rise to other actions, including lawsuits.
VII. Confidentiality
All reports of covered misconduct and wrongdoing, and any resulting investigations, will be treated confidentially and sensitively. Identities of reporters will be kept confidential as long as such does not hinder or frustrate investigations, or unless the reporters agree to disclosure of their identities.
VIII. Disclosure through the Alternative Reporting Channel
If an individual who wishes to report an alleged misconduct or wrongdoing prefers to use the alternative reporting channel, the web-based reporting hotline can be accessed 24/7. All reports of actual or suspected misconduct or wrongdoing made through the hotline will be processed by the University Legal and Compliance Office, which will then direct covered and credible reports to pertinent University units for handling in accordance with established processes.
The following information needs to be provided in the report to be made through the hotline to enable the University to investigate and resolve the concern:
What?
What is the alleged misconduct or wrongdoing? Why is the report being made through the alternative reporting channel? Are there documents that provide evidence of the reported wrongful activity? If so, where are the documents located? Who controls them?
Who?
Who are the alleged perpetrators of the supposed misconduct or wrongdoing? Who else are believed to be involved – complete names and positions? Are the supposed perpetrators aware of this report? Can anyone else corroborate the criminal activity being reported, and how can they be reached?
Where?
What are the specific locations where the incidents of misconduct or wrongdoing occurred?
When?
When did the supposed misconduct or wrongdoing occur? Is it ongoing? How frequently has it been happening?
How?
How did you become aware of the reported activity? How was it carried out? What do you believe is the reason why it happened (e.g. as a result of an override of controls, or the lack thereof)? Please describe.
In providing the information, the reporter should not conduct any official investigative procedures s/he is not authorized to carry out or obtain evidence which s/he has no right to access.
IX. Feedback and Closure
When reports are made through the web-based reporting hotline, the individual making the report will receive a Report Key Number and will be asked to nominate his/her password. This will enable him/her to get a response from the University while protecting his/her identity, if s/he has opted to be anonymous. It will be the University Legal and Compliance Office that will inform the individual making the disclosure of any action that will be taken. If no action is to be taken, the individual will also be informed thereof and the rationale for not taking action.
X. Reporting and Monitoring of Disclosures
All disclosures received via the alternative reporting channel and subsequent actions taken will be summarized by the Director of the University Legal and Compliance Office and reported to the University President and the VP for Human Resources monthly. They will also be reported to, and monitored by, the Internal Audit and Financial Risk Management Office, the Audit and Risk Management Committee and the Board of Trustees.
Prepared by Atty. Jaime G. Hofilena
Director, University Legal and Compliance Office
Approved by Fr. Roberto C. Yap, SJ
University President
