Imagine yourself as a campus freshman; your first day high, excited to enter that dream university situated along the historical streets of Sto. Rosario, Angeles City—Holy Angel University (HAU).

Such a dream you hold by knowing that the university is one that is bannered as the biggest Catholic university and “one of the most beautiful” campuses in Central Luzon.

Surely, with its ingeniously designed buildings, stretching along and beyond the wide roads of its boulevard, with heights even up to stories of nine, one’s simple sight will view HAU as one university that is more than just ordinary. Even extraordinary, if you were to have found that the university is, according to its administration, an “intentional university” that is continuously “updating, improving, innovating, and introducing facilities to facilitate growth and learning.”

But to break it to you, beyond the facade and what-have-yous of the university, there lies a different tale.

From broken chairs, blurry projectors, and poor ventilation within classrooms, to years-long bidet absences, as well as regularly unserviceable toilets and urinals in campus’ restrooms left in concerningly unsanitary natures—there is a stark contrast to what is marketed by the university to the realities of its core facilities that Angelites have to face and endure day to day inside the campus.

That, amidst multiple calls and repetitive attempts from the studentry to have the administration heed its big pledges of improving upon its facilities, the state of core facilities within the university still falls far from the value that students are paying to receive the bare minimum of a comfortable, conducive learning environment. 

Unconducive classrooms

You enter the campus, and the first destination that you go to is where knowledge is said to be created, and fostered: your classroom. You enter your class, bearing the excitement over the expectation that your college learning space is like that of what is marketed by HAU—a well-lit classroom, technologically advanced, and a classroom well-maintained to always appear “professional.”

To your surprise, it is not; rather, you stay in a classroom where temperature spikes with its nearly four to six electric fans, white walls blemished with stains, wobbly chairs, and a projector screen that needs to be tied using a straw rope for it to be fixed and pulled.

As dismaying as it may be, this is not an isolated experience, nor is it hypothetical. Rather, it is an actual, shared state—a state of disrepair—among classrooms and across buildings at HAU.

In an ocular inspection done by The Angelite, the above observations have been seen among 23 randomly selected classrooms at the university.

To properly assess the sampled classrooms, the publication came up with a criteria to grade each building’s state of classrooms, as well as the equipment and fixtures installed therein: zero (0) if more than 75% of the facility or equipment have defects, one (1) point if 51 to 75% are defective, two (2) points if 26 to 50% have defects, three (3) points if less than 26% have defects, and (4) points if the facility or equipment have no issue.

Upon an actual trial of fixtures and equipment and a qualitative evaluation of one’s tolerance to the rooms’ heat, sanitation, and overall maintenance, The Angelite found that the most common and gravest problem among classrooms in the university is about cleanliness and the overall construction of classrooms.

In the inspection conducted, 86.96% of sampled classrooms have stained wall painting, showing signs of neglect by the university to maintain not just the aesthetics, but the overall condition of students’ learning spaces.

As an example, a classroom inspected at the Peter G. Nepomuceno (PGN) Building has a punctured wall that is significant in size and a number of tiles erupting along the middle aisle.

Similarly, ventilation stays as an occurring problem across all rooms visited, which can be cited from the inadequacy of electric fans, with an average of four (4) to six (6) per classroom, and the absence of air conditioning, even up to date.

In an interview with Justine Fong, a 3rd-year Bachelor of Arts in Communication student, he said that the most evident classroom problem he observes is also about ventilation, with electric fans being inapt to properly cover the ventilation for the room.

“Ang mga fan sa room [namin], particularly sa [St. Joseph Hall (SJH) Building], most of them are not really that working, and [if] working naman, but at the same time they have difficulty [functioning],” Fong mentioned.

(Most of the fans in our room at SJH Building are not really that working, and if they are, they have difficulty functioning.)

The same concern is aired on the side of the faculty, mentioning that poor ventilation within classrooms affects students’ concentration. With that, it was also magnified that interventions in making room temperature more tolerable shall be undertaken.

“Many students have difficulty focusing on the lesson, partly because of the heat.  Air-conditioned rooms will help a lot to make the classroom more conducive to learning and not just for convenience,” said Dr. Elvira David, president of the HAU – Teachers and Employees Union (HAU-TEU), in an interview.

Corroborating this is the report from Snohomish County Health Department in Washington, USA, saying that having poor ventilation affects students’ health, and academic performance.

“When a room has lots of people or poor ventilation, the concentration of [carbon dioxide] may get too high… [which] can affect student health and academic performance, [and] cause lack of focus, headaches, and other issues,” said the health department in their report.

As a result, students also state that such poor classroom ventilation within classrooms “adds up to students’ stress,” as said by Reigniel Escalada, a School of Hospitality and Tourism Management (SHTM) sophomore studying at the university’s oldest building, St. Therese of Lisieux (STL), and, for others, it “hampers their concentration.”

“…nawawalan po kami ng concentration dahil nga may pawis po, medyo [nafe-feeling stinky rin,]  [kaya] nadi-distract kami sa temperature,” Maria Venesa Mae Yabes, a 2nd-year School of Engineering and Architecture (SEA) student, stated.

Aside from the ventilation, cleanliness, and overall construction, there are also shared problems within rooms that are less observed but, in one way, affect classroom conduciveness—from lighting, door locks, chairs, and projectors, which are all used in day-to-day instructions.

For instance, rooms inspected at the STL building have no accessible light switches.

Meanwhile, a significant finding in the Sacred Heart (SH) Building is that its doors have their locks situated outside the classroom—a clear risk to the safety of students and faculty, should there be any force majeure that would come, which would, with high possibility, trap those inside the rooms.

Several rooms at PGN also have a number of broken chairs, with 44 out of the total 348 examined being defective—wobbly stands, detached or partly detached desks, and seats having exposed rivets, and poorly painted desks that, as students report, usually pull up a thread from, and stain, their uniforms.

Some projectors in the university’s classrooms also are defective, from being blurry to being technologically obsolete.

“…for example, ‘yong projector. Hindi kami makapaglesson ng maayos, hindi namin maintindihan [ang naka-present],” expressed Rizette Pamintuan, a CCJEF freshman.

(…for example, the projector. We cannot have proper lessons as we cannot properly see what is presented.)

“I have noticed that some projectors are already outdated. They don’t work if your computer is a new or upgraded model. Also, when it is windy, the projector screens are blown by the wind, and it’s very distracting,” said Dr. David.

In a nutshell, using the qualitative criteria set by The Angelite, sampled classrooms in the university have a “somewhat poor overall state,” in turn affecting students’ learning.

“I think these affect somehow their learning, because, of course, hindi nagiging comfortable sa [learning] space [ang students], [at] nakaka affect [iyon] sa studies nila,” Fong said.

(I think these affect somehow their learning, because, of course, students are not comfortable in their learning space, and that affects their studies.)

(Dis)comfort rooms

As “disenchanted” as you may have been entering your classroom, you now go on to try the restroom to ease yourself. But, alas, the graver extent of faults and defects becomes more evident.

Supposedly meant for individuals to relieve themselves, comfort rooms (CR) inside HAU instead become places of discomfort—with poor sanitation, extensive unserviceability, the absence of bidets, and a lack of hygiene materials for Angelites to use.

In a separate qualitative ocular inspection by The Angelite, the same metrics used in classrooms are also applied to translate the state of the 21 randomly selected CRs within the university.

Compounding these problems are poor sanitation and foul odor, with 81% of inspected CRs being unsanitary, further worsening the condition of HAU’s restrooms.

Design flaws are also prevalent, with male restrooms in STL and SH lacking adequate partitions, and cubicles in the St. Joseph Hall (SJH) Building measuring less than a meter in width.

A common issue across all student restrooms is the absence of bidets, with proper dippers and pails also missing, often replaced by makeshift solutions like cutout bottles or reused condiment containers. Likewise, all visited comfort rooms have no soaps available for use, raising serious hygiene concerns—all translating to the observation that CRs in the university are in a “poor condition.”

In coordinated reports with The Angelite, College Student Councils (CSCs) echoed similar findings from the publication’s investigation.

According to CSC-CCJEF Governor Mark Lawrence Herrera, a common clamor among students at their college is to have restrooms be “more hygienic.”

“Students want bidets, soap, and tissue paper in all restrooms for better hygiene. There’s [also a] need for more regular cleaning of the restrooms to keep them in better condition,” Hererra reported.

Hygiene problems are also the same concerns of SOC and School of Education (SED) students, as reported by their respective CSCs.

“Most restrooms lack bidets, have weak flushes, and the urinals in SJH are always out of order. Additionally, they noted that the restroom doors have no locks, the facilities are unclean and smelly, the water flow is weak, and essential items such as tissue dispensers and hand soap are not available,” mentioned Masato Martin, CSC-SOC Vice Governor.

“Poor sanitation of the bathrooms and a lack of equipment like soaps and a bidet or wash basin. It was also pointed out that the girl’s bathroom in SJH, particularly on the 4th floor where the SEd students reside, does not have working locks in the cubicles. Meanwhile, in the boy’s bathroom, urinals are always out of order,” CSC-SEd Governor Kyla Yvette Gonzales said in the report.

Statutory defiance

Though it is clear that the state of classrooms and restrooms in the university is below fully functional, conducive conditions, these faults go beyond the simple neglect of the HAU administration to, at least, naturally provide to their stakeholders a proper, working, and comfortable learning environment.

More than mere disrepair, these poorly maintained facilities defy even a more stringent set of standards—the law, imposed by both the national and local governments. 

The poor ventilation, damaged fixtures, and substandard maintenance in classrooms show the failure to adhere to the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) standards, specifically Article VI, Section 26 of the CHED Manual, which mandates that school buildings must provide sanitary, and functional classrooms and restrooms for their stakeholders.

The code also provides that schools “shall have enough lavatories for both sexes which shall, at all times, be kept clean; shall be adequately lighted and ventilated; shall contain sufficient space, furniture, and fixtures for the general needs of the administrative staff, faculty, and students.”

Alongside these, CRs not having proper sanitation and having no installed bidets, or at the minimum, pails and dippers for everyone’s access, contravenes Angeles City Ordinance No. 489, Series of 2019, and Presidential Decree 856—both requiring establishments to maintain clean, functional restrooms with proper sanitation facilities.

PD 856, in particular, requires schools to provide their population “with potable water, sewage, and waste disposal systems,” as stipulated in Chapter VI, entitled “School Sanitation and Health Services,” Section 41, and also requires the maintenance of restrooms used by the public in various establishments.

AC’s local ordinance, on the other hand, enacted in 2019, requires all establishments in the city to have bidets installed in their comfort rooms.

In an interview with Mr. Alvin Dingal, AC Sanitation Division Chief, he said that HAU, with its lack of bidet, fails to meet the statutory requirements for sanitation and comfort room specifications set by the LGU.

“Required [ang bidet]… Kapag [private] school institutions, considered neng public [deng restrooms] kasi [they are] used by the public,” Mr. Dingal said.

(Bidets are required. Even for private school institutions, their restrooms are already considered public as they are used by the public.)

“Mikaka-violation ya [ing establishment] keng PD 856 patse unsanitary ya ing metung a toilet na ning metung a facility… magkaka-subject for notice of hearing na ang management ng isang establishment or school [kapag e makapag-comply kareng sanitary policies after inspection and grace period para maglinis], kailangan nilang dumulog sa [Sanitation Division] or sa City Health Division,” Mr. Dingal explained.

(An establishment violates PD 856 if its toilets are unsanitary… the management of an establishment or school will receive a notice of hearing if it still does not comply with sanitary policies, even after inspection and the grace period given for them to clean, and they will be required to report to the Sanitation Division, or to the City Health Division.)

No response, action from the admin

While all the aforesaid legal obligations are put in place, HAU’s compliance is, evidently, not seen.

This lack of adherence to the law draws a parallel to the administration staying mum towards grievances about the universities’ facilities, amidst relentless clamors, calls, and petitions from the studentry.

Over the past years, the HAU – University Student Council (USC) has led the calls and student-driven ocular inspections of facilities in the university.

The most recent initiative taken by the council was during the term of incumbent President Emmanuel Manalastas, which floated a survey during the first week of classes on June 26 – 29, 2024.

In the said survey, problems as earlier mentioned, including electricity, ventilation inside classrooms, and unsanitary comfort rooms, were reported to also be commonly observed by the student body.

A similar action was also taken during the term of Shejanira Arcilla, USC president during the academic year 2023 – 2024.

However, she noted in an interview that while reports on faulty facilities and equipment are communicated to the Campus Services and Development Office (CSDO), it takes a lengthy lead time for the latter to address the concerns.

“During our term, we conducted a survey [with] the class representatives para sa mga sirang electric fan and projectors. We submitted the report to the CSDO. After [a] few weeks ng pag-submit namin, one change we noticed [was] naalis na yung mga sirang electric fan sa classrooms, [but] it took a very long time para mapalitan sila,” Arcilla narrated.

(During our term, we conducted a survey to the class representatives para sa mga sirang electric fan and projectors. We submitted the report to the CSDO. A few weeks after the submission, one change we noticed was that defective electric fans in classrooms were changed, but it took a very long time for them to be replaced.)

Even on the part of The Angelite, when the publication attempted, through numerous attempts, to gain the side of the CSDO over its plans for maintaining university facilities, the office opted to reply, “No response”—showing how the university administration stays mouth-shut over visible issues experienced by the community.

Such a lack of action towards addressing defects in HAU’s facilities shows a “lack of prioritization” and a “failure to provide a conducive environment for learning and teaching” of the university administration, as Arcilla described.

“I think hindi na-prioritize yung mga concerns regarding classroom equipment and ventilation concerns. Bukod sa maraming hindi maaayos na equipment, matagal din ang pagpapalit nila sa mga irreparable equipment… there is still definitely a problem sa facilities natin lalo na sa pagbigay ng conducive environment for learning and teaching,” she said.

(I think that concerns regarding classroom equipment and ventilation concerns are not prioritized. Aside from the extensive number of defective equipment, the time to replace irreparable equipment is also not prompt… there is still definitely a problem in our facilities, especially in the provision of a conducive environment for learning and teaching.)

Need for a conducive environment

More than what is required by law and an expected regard from an “intentional” university that pledges improved facilities on its campus, the need for a conducive environment is founded on a much more fundamental bottomline—the tuition and other fees paid by students.

As a student, you may feel a sort of “dissonance” to the realities that you have seen and have been seeing about the university’s facilities—even more especially that you are paying fees averaging from P50,000 to P65,000 per semester, holding the expectation that such value is commensurate to the quality of your learning environment.

But it is not at par with what Angelites are paying, as students report.

“When it comes sa tuition, hindi nabibigay ng school [ang value nito given the facilities]… nahihirapan kami mag-produce ng high-quality outputs for our courses,” said Fong, as he remarked that the value of what he is paying is not at par with the quality and accessibility of campus facilities.

(When it comes to tuition, the school does not provide its value given the facilities, causing us to have difficulties producing high-quality outputs for our courses.)

“Hit-or-miss projectors that may or may not work, blackboards with only an estimated 70% viable writing surface, and less-than-standard comfort rooms are some of the most standout problems a student such as myself faces on a daily basis. Other than the ‘quintessential’ turnstile gates at the main entrance, I think development funds can be better utilized for these general student facilities, especially in classrooms,” John Mathew Sausora, a 3rd-year Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering, said as he recounted facility problems and the need for more budget allocation for maintenance of classrooms.

Although the HAU Finance Office did not disclose to the publication any figure allotted for facility maintenance, what is clear is that a portion of a student’s tuition and other fees goes to the said fund, making it imperative that, with such high fees collected from Angelites, it becomes a responsibility for the university to ensure that all spaces inside the campus are conducive and comfortable for everybody’s use.

Supporting this is 2021 research by Husnul Khatimah entitled “Major Impact of Classroom Environment on Students’ Learning.” She pointed out that “learning cannot run well without complete, functional learning tools and facilities.”

“A conducive environment is needed so that students can concentrate well so that they can absorb lessons easily. An environment that is less conducive will interfere with the learning process so that students will be hampered in absorbing lessons,” Khatimah emphasized.

The study shows how important it is for educational facilities and establishments, such as HAU, to give top priority to the caliber of their learning environments, leading to truly improved and innovative facilities that facilitate actual growth and learning for every Angelite.

Given all those, it is high time that HAU starts heeding the call of its stakeholders—students and faculty—for the transformation of all classrooms and restrooms into more conducive and comfortable spaces that genuinely support learning.

To banner itself as an “intentional university” whose goals include continuous improvements of its facilities entails actual commitment to do so, and to break off from years of detachment to the realities experienced by Angelites.

What is imperative for the university administration is to acknowledge the experiences of its stakeholders over poorly maintained, faulty facilities that students and faculty endure every day and, from there, undertake decisive actions committed to ensuring that each facility used by the university community meets the standards of quality and comfort. 

Only then can HAU truly provide a service on par with what students are entitled to receive, recognizing that value-creating education only begins when the university starts to be a conducive space where knowledge can truly thrive.