Are local colleges and universities unstable institutions?

The rapid expansion of local colleges and universities (LUCs) since the passage of the Local Government Code of 1992 has been both a boom and a bane for higher education.

While most Filipinos are familiar with state universities and colleges (SUCs) whose establishment can be traced to the Americans when they colonized the country, many don’t know that there are actually more LUCs than SUCs now, and the unabated creation of more LUCs appears impossible to stop.

There are now 173 LUCs in the country located in all regions except the Cordillera Administrative Region and BARMM. More than 500,000 free higher education beneficiaries are enrolled in LUCs in 2025-2026.

While it may be true that LUCs often serve as the last resort for thousands of aspiring young Filipinos who are unable to enrol in SUCs, given their limited carrying capacity, it is equally true that the governance of LUCs presents significant challenges. These issues directly affect the quality of education, institutional continuity and long-term development.

Unlike SUCs whose operations, policies and leadership appointments are governed by the Higher Education Modernization Act of 1997 (RA 8292), LUCs are created by local ordinances and operate under the authority of the LGUs. The local chief executive (governors and mayors) chairs the Board of Trustees/Regents and the LUC president is an employee of the local government unit. This structure leaves LUCs vulnerable to the shifting tides of local politics.

Congress has been unwilling or unable to pass a law that rationalizes and strengthens the governance framework for LUCs. The LUC rationalization bill passed the House of Representatives on third reading in the 19th Congress but its counterpart bill, SBN 2269 (Villar), failed to hurdle committee deliberations.

The recent midterm elections have once again highlighted this vulnerability. In many localities, LUCs are facing upheavals as new mayors and vice mayors take office. New local officials often view the incumbent president and key officials as aligned with their political opponents, prompting them to prioritize leadership changes. Many LUC presidents with fixed terms are pressured to resign to accommodate proteges of the new mayor.

With the departure of key leaders, everything appears to be in flux. From strategic institutional direction to seemingly minor decisions – like changes in uniforms or school logo – everything is subject to review or reversal. Procurement activities that are not completed by the incumbent president can also be cancelled, halted or changed. These cycles underscore the need to insulate LUCs from the cyclical culture of upheaval that accompanies shifts in local government power.

The only silver lining, if it can be called that, is that because of political dynasties, many incumbents or their kin won in most provinces and congressional districts, so there will be fewer changes in LUC leadership this year.

However, in at least three regions – Region IV, Region III, and NCR – newly elected politicians have replaced LUC presidents. In Region IV, educational stakeholders in the Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng San Pablo have endured five presidents in the past six years. After a contentious election, San Pablo City Mayor Arcadio Gapangada has appointed his own choice, Dr. Venus Guevarra. The whole academic community is expecting mayhem as the supporters of previous and current officials embedded in the LUC vie for appointments and positions.

A local college in Region III once recognized as a model community college, with initiatives supported by national and international funding, abruptly altered its trajectory following a change in administration, reverting to a traditional model copied from state universities and colleges.

Meanwhile in the NCR, all eyes are on a major LUC where a bitter feud between two siblings vying for mayoralty has cast uncertainty over the fate of the institution’s current president.

These events prompt an important question: are LUCs unstable institutions with directions dictated by those in positions of political power?

Local colleges are critical assets in their communities. They can offer contextualized admissions and comprehensive support to marginalized and vulnerable populations, given their familiarity with the community’s needs. Their program offerings can be agile and industry-relevant and enhance the local economy. Unfortunately, leadership changes and the attendant disruptions put these gains at risk.

These transitions often result in wasted resources. Initiatives to empower individuals and inspire hope among students can be abruptly dismantled with the arrival of new leaders. The vision of sustainability is lost in the rush to align with the new political priorities.

This situation transcends mere administrative inefficiency. It has real consequences for students’ mental well-being, the professional growth of the faculty, the quality of educational programs and the ethical standing of local leaders.

Should the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) intervene, or is it the responsibility of the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) to ensure accountability among local officials, provide continuity of university operations and quality of education?

I call on the politicians claiming to be “educational champions” to make this a priority agenda in the 20th Congress, starting with asking the hard questions to CHED and DILG during the budget hearings.

And what about Congress, which has not acted on the LUC Rationalization bill for the past decade?

Clearly, reform is needed. Without meaningful intervention from the national government, LUCs risk becoming unstable politically driven institutions, receiving governmental subsidy but detached from their fundamental mission of providing quality education and contributing to national development.