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

NOW, coming to the qualifications of the members of the Commission on Higher Education (CHEd) and their terms — to my mind, this is where the crux of the matter lies. The proposed amendments even reinforce the notion that not all doctorate degree holders possess the best management and administrative or even entrepreneurial competence and skills. The experience with CHEd leadership in the past was that management and governance was lacking and a commission which is mainly composed of academicians, or so it appears, may not be a good thing after all. In the management of corporate bodies, balance in the competencies, skills, representation and specialization has its merits. In the last 29 years of CHEd’s existence, we have yet to see good and deserving lawyers, medical doctors, engineers, economists, financial experts, labor experts, journalists, to name a few, appointed to the commission. The main reason for this scenario happens to be the counterproductive and restrictive qualification requirement (by law!) of possessing a doctorate degree and the equally restrictive imposition of academic or teaching experience as prerequisites.

Qualification vs essence

For the highest policymaking body in higher education, what is needed is not a doctorate degree and teaching experience alone, but rather the extensive and comprehensive view and exposure to industry (e.g., the fields of higher education, human resource development, international relations, higher education economics and financing, educational management, and law), may it be local or international, and the respect and stature of the prospective chairperson and/or commissioner in the local and international community and not only in the academi. Apart from wisdom and vision, the solid leadership and management qualities of the CHEd’s highest officials would be more desirable.

A better approach to balance the quality and intensity of policymaking and governance in the CHEd is to allot in the CHEd membership a ratio of academicians (maybe three) who shall be compliant with the academic qualifications and industry/nonacademe members (maybe two) who are recognized experts or eminent persons in their fields and possess a high degree of integrity and distinction in the local and/or international arena. This will ensure the balance and relevancy of ideas and policies in the commission as well as the interactions and dynamics.

The middle-level officials of CHEd should also be highly qualified with the requirement of being career executive service eligibles or officers (CESE and CESOs) to ensure the highest degree of professionalism and service.

Deserving or self-serving?

Another disturbing feature of the bill amending the CHEd law is the transitory provision which automatically extends the terms of the sitting chairperson and the commissioners and the executive director — a rather self-serving provision that, in a sense deprives the president of the Republic of the exercise of his power to appoint whoever he thinks is the best and deserving of the positions.

More precisely, Section 25 thereof provides that the incumbent chairperson and commissioners of the CHEd shall serve as the chairperson and commissioners, respectively, without need of new appointments subject to the following conditions: 1) incumbent chairperson and commissioners serving their first terms upon the passage of this act shall be deemed reappointed to serve a full term as provided under this act but shall not be qualified for reappointment; and 2) the incumbent chairperson and commissioners serving their second terms upon the passage of this act shall continue to serve only the remaining duration of the term they are currently serving and shall not be eligible for reappointment.

The incumbent executive director shall likewise serve as executive director without need of a new appointment.

As already opined, the above provision particularly on the automatic reappointment of the incumbent chairperson and commissioners serving their first term upon the passage of the act is an intrusion into the appointing power of the president of the Philippines. The 1987 Constitution lodged in the president the prerogative to appoint cabinet-level positions in the executive branch of government, thus, the transitory provision is an encroachment to such power being made under the guise of a legislative fiat.

Bloated CHEd bureaucracy

On the issue of the over-bloating of the CHEd bureaucracy, the proposed amendatory bill seeks to create provincial offices of CHEd, but in the last 29 years of CHEd, the succession of CHEd leaders never saw the need to bloat the CHEd structure. Unlike the Tesda bureaucracy, said agency is concerned with skills training and development at the grassroots level and the agency supervises or operates directly 60 training centers at the Tesda regional (15) and provincial (45) training centers in selected trade areas in the different regions and provinces in the country providing skills development, training and assessment at the national, provincial and municipal level.

Thus, the existence of provincial offices of Tesda is warranted. For CHEd, this imperative is not present, and the thrust of CHEd should be less regulatory and instead more developmental in nature. The commission likewise is not conducting skills development programs at the grassroots level like what Tesda is doing.

At a time when President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.’s administration is implementing the rightsizing of the government bureaucracy, the bloating of the CHEd organization through the creation of more personnel items and the commitment of other operating expenses at the provincial level run counter to the present government program of reducing the bureaucracy and managing expenditures.

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.