What’s wrong with Philippine higher education and its governance?

ONE of the most ballyhooed outcomes of the Edcom 1 report way back in 1994 was probably the so-called trifocalization of Philippine education. Before 1994, for almost a century since the establishment of the Department of Public Instruction in 1901, the Philippine education system was a monolithic structure headed by a department secretary, with all the components — basic education, higher education, and vocational and technical education — under one roof. Indeed, with the shortcomings and inefficiencies of a huge bureaucracy, the creation of three separate education agencies by law was a good idea in 1994, or so it seemed.

At about the same time, Thailand has a trifocalized system of education — quite a template for Edcom 1 at that time to look at. However, as we would see much later, the Thais perhaps knew something we don’t and, in a few years, have consolidated back to one education system, albeit with separate agencies focusing on specific areas.

The Philippines never looked back, and here we are today, still with a trifocalized system, while almost all the economies in the world are integrating into much smaller and related government agencies or departments.

Today, with the Edcom 2, we begin to ask ourselves, what’s wrong with the Philippine education system? What has the trifocalized system brought the country in terms of the goals of Edcom 1, the parameters of educational policy and development in the 21st century as well as quality of life?

At the outset, this commentary shall dwell initially on higher education and how the Commission on Higher Education (CHEd) — a creation of Edcom 1 — has shaped, influenced or even stumped higher education development, in a nutshell. More than anything else, on certain key points about what ails higher education governance through a present-day magnifying lens and why the proposed amendments of the CHEd Law — Republic Act 7722 — are not the answer to strengthening and making relevant Philippine higher education.

Quo vadis, CHEd?

What was the idea behind the creation of CHEd in 1994? The Philippine education system needed an agency that would steer and focus on the development of a higher education system that is of high quality, relevant and comparable to the rest of the world. Thus, the law creating CHEd has a long list of powers and functions precisely to address these goals:

“Section 8. Powers and Functions of the Commission. The Commission shall have the following powers and functions:

“a. formulate and recommend development plans, policies, priorities and programs on higher education and research;

“b. formulate and recommend development plans, policies, priorities and programs on research;

“c. recommend to the executive and legislative branches, priorities and grants on higher education and research;

“d. set minimum standards for programs and institutions of higher learning recommended by panels of experts in the field and subject to public hearing, and enforce the same;

“e. monitor and evaluate the performance of programs and institutions of higher learning for appropriate incentives as well as the imposition of sanctions such as, but not limited to, diminution or withdrawal of subsidy, recommendation on the downgrading or withdrawal of accreditation, program termination or school closure;

“f. identify, support and develop potential centers of excellence in program areas needed for the development of world-class scholarship, nationbuilding and national development;

“g. recommend to the Department of Budget and Management the budgets of public institutions of higher learning as well as general guidelines for the use of their income;

“h. rationalize programs and institutions of higher learning and set standards, policies and guidelines for the creation of new ones as well as the conversion or elevation of schools to institutions of higher learning, subject to budgetary limitations and the number of institutions of higher learning in the province or region where creation, conversion or elevation is sought to be made;

“i. develop criteria for allocating additional resources such as research and program development grants, scholarships, and other similar programs: Provided, That these shall not detract from the fiscal autonomy already enjoyed by colleges and universities;

“j. direct or redirect purposive research by institutions of higher learning to meet the needs of agro-industrialization and development;

“k. devise and implement resource development schemes;

“l. administer the Higher Education Development Fund, as described in Section 10 hereunder, which will promote the purposes of higher education;

“m. review the charters of institutions of higher learning and state universities and colleges, including the chairmanship and membership of their governing bodies and recommend appropriate measures as basis for necessary action;

“n. promulgate such rules and regulations and exercise such other powers and functions as may be necessary to carry out effectively the purpose and objectives of this Act; and

“o. perform such other functions as may be necessary for its effective operations and for the continued enhancement, growth or development of higher education.” Xxx

As the newest education agency in 1994, tasked to supervise public and private higher education institutions and existing postsecondary, CHEd-supervised HEIs at that time, the CHEd was governed by a commission and headed by a chairman and four commissioners, supposedly from different specializations and with the earned doctorate degrees and academic experience. An executive director managed the day-to-day operations of the commission, assisted by central office directors and staff. At the regional level, the CHEd is headed by regional directors with the proper staff complement.

In 1994, the Philippine higher education system consisted of less than a hundred state universities and colleges, close to 2,000 private higher education institutions, and more than a hundred CHEd-supervised schools, not counting several local government colleges.

In terms of numbers, the system is probably not too far from the numbers in 2023. However, with the passage of RA 8292, all of the CHEd-supervised institutions were eventually integrated or absorbed by the existing state universities and colleges (SUCs), in effect contracting further the number of public higher education institutions existing during those years. At present, the system is comprised of chartered SUCs, private HEIs, and local universities and colleges (LUCs) operated by local government units. As of 2020, records from CHEd showed that the country has 1,975 HEIs (excluding satellite campuses of state universities and colleges). From this number, 246 are public HEIs (SUCs and LUCs), while 1,729 are private institutions. In terms of enrollment, 3,408,815 students were enrolled in higher education in 2019–2020. (https://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Higher_education_in_the_Philippines)

In the almost 30 years since the creation of CHEd, in terms of the number of public and private HEIs, there has not been a dramatic expansion in the number of HEIs except for the increase in the satellite campuses of SUCs and the number of LUCs. Due to population increases and the advent of scholarships, low tuition fees, and the free tertiary education law, student enrollment in the public sector has increased dramatically, reaching almost the same percentage now as that of the private sector.

With respect to legislative enactments in support of CHEd’s mandates and functions, the years following the passage of RA 7722, otherwise known as the “Higher Education Act of 1994,” several laws were passed such as the law mandating the uniform governance of state universities and colleges, or RA 8292, otherwise known as the “Higher Education Modernization Act of 1997”; RA 11448 or the “Transnational Higher Education Act,” granting foreign higher education institutions (FHEIs) the opportunity to establish institutional services in the Philippines and collaborate with local universities; RA 10687, or “An Act Providing for a Comprehensive and Unified Student Financial Assistance (Unifast) System for Tertiary Education” and most recently RA 10931, otherwise known as the “Universal Access to Quality Tertiary Education Act.” To be continued

Julito D. Vitriolo, PhD, is a lawyer and former executive director 4 at CHEd. Dr. Jose D. Lacson is a former director-general of the National Manpower and Youth Council and the founding director-general of Tesda.