Overlapping hinders professional development

CEBU, Philippines — A study by the Second Congressional Commission on Education (EDCOM 2) has found that overlapping mandates among the Commission on Higher Education (CHED), the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC), and the Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA) have created major structural barriers that hinder the professional development of Filipino learners and workers.

The findings will form part of EDCOM 2’s final report, which is set to be released on January 26, 2026.

EDCOM 2 said that while CHED, PRC, and TESDA were created to regulate distinct segments of the education-to-employment pipeline, their enabling laws grant parallel—and in some cases competing—regulatory powers.

Republic Act (RA) No. 7722, or the Higher Education Act of 1994, vests CHED with authority over higher education programs, curricula, and quality assurance. RA No. 7796, or the TESDA Act of 1994, mandates TESDA to set competency standards, regulate technical-vocational education and training, and issue national certifications. Meanwhile, RA No. 8981, or the PRC Modernization Act of 2000, expanded the PRC’s role beyond licensure to include oversight of professional standards, continuing professional development, and coordination with educational institutions.

According to the commission, the absence of a clear hierarchy and regular coordination in implementing these laws has resulted in blurred delineations of authority, particularly in areas where academic programs, skills standards, and licensure requirements intersect.

“This statutory ambiguity has translated into duplicative regulation, inconsistent enforcement, and conflicting policy guidance for institutions and students,” EDCOM 2 said.

The commission added that regulatory confusion is further compounded by older professionalization laws—such as the Civil Engineering Law of 1950 and the Medical Act of 1959—which were among 11 laws enacted decades before the establishment of CHED and TESDA in 1994.

“Because these provisions were crafted in the absence of a national higher education and skills regulator, they result in conflicts with contemporary standards and quality assurance frameworks issued by CHED and TESDA. Even in the more recent legislation of 34 professional boards, the failure to specify which agency’s rules prevail when standards diverge has left institutions navigating multiple, uncoordinated audits of the same programs, laboratories, and faculty,” the commission said.

While RA 7722 authorizes CHED to prescribe minimum standards for higher education programs, EDCOM 2 noted that nine professional laws prescribe program length, structure, and required facilities.

In addition, 36 professional laws specify the actual topics to be covered in licensure examinations, leaving CHED and TESDA little flexibility to adjust curricula and training programs to evolving industry needs.

The study also found that graduates of TESDA-regulated programs often encounter barriers when transitioning to CHED-regulated degree programs, as competencies earned through national certifications are not consistently credited.

“Our graduates are paying the price for regulatory overlap. EDCOM 2’s review shows that unclear and competing mandates among CHED, TESDA, and the PRC delay student progression, restrict credit recognition, and prevent programs from adapting quickly to labor market demands,” said EDCOM 2 Executive Director Karol Mark Yee. — Philippine Star News Service (FREEMAN)