UP Diliman calls rice field’s Bonifacio link ‘symbolic exaggeration,’ defends redevelopment plans

The UP Diliman administration pushes back against Prof. Benjamin Vallejo’s claims that the proposed SDG Park erases the university’s revolutionary history.

The University of the Philippines Diliman administration pushed back against concerns raised by biogeographer and professor Benjamin Vallejo over plans to redevelop a 24-hectare rice field on campus—amid its perceived historical and revolutionary significance. 

Vallejo of the UP Institute of Environmental Science & Meteorology had argued that the rice field carries layers of history dating back to the Spanish colonial era and may have been crossed by Andres Bonifacio’s forces in 1896.

The UP administration countered that there’s “no documented proof that the current 24-hectare area where the SDG park is planned aligns with any cultivation zone from 1896,” adding the “geography of memory does not match the precision of land surveys.”

Historical scrutiny vs. emotional narrative

“Just because Andres Bonifacio passed through Diliman after the Battle of Pinaglabanan, and because Mariano Álvarez’s ‘Ang Katipunan at Paghihimagsik’ mentions movements toward Balara, does not mean this specific rice field holds revolutionary significance,” it said, adding there’s “no archival evidence” that Katipuneros sourced rice from the exact plot.

The administration maintained that “no verified land survey demonstrates an unbroken agricultural history from the Spanish colonial era to today,” calling the leap from the revolutionary movement in Diliman to preserving this particular field “not a solid historical argument” and, ultimately, “symbolic exaggeration.”

Clarity over emotion: Defining UP’s ‘Moorings’

Addressing Vallejo’s statement that “UP seems to be losing its moorings from the revolutionary movement that made us into a Filipino nation,” the administration said such a claim requires “careful examination in light of documented processes, legal realities, and long-term institutional responsibilities.”

“Clarity is essential. Emotion is not evidence. Memories are not land titles. Revolution is not a zoning classification,” it said.

If UP’s moorings refer to “anti-colonial nationalism, public service, and nation building,” the administration argued, then converting the “underutilized” land into an SDG-oriented agricultural demonstration and wellness park “reflects adaptation rather than betrayal.”

“History is not honored by freezing landscapes in time. It is honored by extending public purpose under new conditions,” it added.

‘No evidence’ of elitist, commercial interests

Amid allegations that the project reflects “elite priorities” or top-down decision-making, the administration said such an “interpretation” isn’t aligned with the documented process. It pointed out that there’s no evidence that the initiative “serves elitist or commercial interests.”

Vallejo previously said the SDG idea is “intimately associated with the commercialization ideology of 21st-century UP,” calling it an example of “annoying bourgeois priorities.”

The administration said that from August 2025 to January 2026, the university held “extensive consultations” with barangay officials, farmers, residents, labor groups, students, and faculty—with town halls drawing hundreds and project details “clearly presented, including rental housing provisions, livelihood training, and assurances that no demolitions or forced displacements would occur.”

“Depicting the project as unilateral or dismissive of community voice is misleading,” it said.

It emphasized that the land lies within Barangay UP Campus and belongs to UPD—not Barangay Krus na Ligas. It’s also not covered by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program, as the Department of Agrarian Reform rejected such classification because it’s designated institutional land.

“The University bears a legal and ethical responsibility to safeguard its land for present and future students,” it said. “Preventing questionable claims and unauthorized transfers is part of responsible stewardship.”

Symbolic geography

The administration didn’t mince words in saying Vallejo’s post “conflates symbolic geography with legal entitlement, substitutes nostalgia for empirical evaluation, romanticizes subsistence while resisting modernization, overlooks documented consultation, and sidesteps institutional responsibilities tied to land ownership.”

“The argument is emotionally compelling,” it said, “but does not withstand historical scrutiny or policy analysis.”

It argued that UP can modernize “without abandoning its principles,” and it “risks losing them only if it abandons public purpose.”

“The issue is not that UP has forgotten its revolutionary roots,” it added. “The greater danger lies in mistaking nostalgia for responsibility. Nostalgia, however eloquent, does not function as a land use plan and does not advance the attainment of the SDGs.”

Totally missing the point

In the comments section, Vallejo said anti-colonial tradition isn’t rooted in nostalgia “but in historical continuity that is forward-looking but considers inclusive development.”

He also rejected framing “this debate within mere nostalgia,” as it’s “totally missing the point.”

“Since we are in an academic community, the best venue for this is a university constituents discussion,” he said. “If our discourse generates debate which could lead to consensus that will serve the University and the country well, then we are on good path.”

A path toward academic consensus

Citing UP’s core values of honor, excellence, and service, he said that if the 1896 revolution is meaningfully linked to national development, “then we can honestly say that we haven’t lost our moorings.”

The administration replied that Vallejo’s framing is part of his “own narrative,” maintaining that the project is grounded in “present realities and forward-looking plans shaped through consultation.” It said the initiative “continues to evolve through careful listening” and remains aligned with UP’s core values, undertaken “with integrity and genuine concern for those it seeks to serve.”

It invited Vallejo to join ongoing discussions with the SDG Park Project Steering Committee. Vallejo said he would be “glad to participate,” requesting a formal invitation.

“I believe that some of my colleagues in campus are organizing a round table discussion on the issue,” he added. “This will be a very good opportunity for the UPD stakeholders to give their views on the issues.”

 

 

The UP administration said Vallejo “conflates symbolic geography with legal entitlement.”

 

 

READ: