Enforcing quality of education standards in public universities

(First of 2 parts)

 The “Free Higher Education” law (RA 10931) has made public higher education free in more than 200 state universities and colleges (SUCs) and local universities and colleges (LUCs), but is there quality education in these institutions?

For many years, families preferred SUCs and LUCs primarily because they were affordable, rather than because they provided superior education compared to private universities.

Except for the well-known public universities such as the University of the Philippines, West Visayas State University, Visayas State University, Central Luzon State University and MSU, the majority of the more than a hundred other SUCs and LUCs were poorly funded, lacked facilities and produced graduates who performed poorly on licensure examinations compared with their counterparts in private schools.

One major reason for this situation was the weak enforcement of standards to ensure quality in their degree programs.

When I was appointed to CHED in 2016, one of my first meetings was with officials of the Coordinating Council of Private Educational Associations (COCOPEA), who lamented the uneven treatment of private and public schools in offering degree programs.

They argued that CHED is very strict when authorizing private schools to offer new degree programs, but allows SUCs and LUCs to do so solely on the basis of their Boards of Regents’ approvals. Many of these programs are already offered at private institutions, are not part of the core mission of the SUCs and tend to attract students from private schools by offering lower tuition fees.

I gave them a straightforward answer – I already know this problem and will prioritize this during my stay in CHED.

Realizing the extent of the problem

When I started enforcing standards in the SUCs where I served as Board of Regents chairman, I was shocked to my core.

Many SUCs were opening degree programs without conducting feasibility studies, never submitted them for CHED vetting, allowed unqualified faculty to teach and, worse, some created and offered these programs without approval from their Board of Regents.

When I inquired with their officials about this issue, some said it had always been their practice. Others claimed that only their Board of Regents had the authority to establish programs and that submitting them for CHED’s review and approval was optional.

The LUCs were more defiant. Their argument was simple. Because they were created by their local governments and received no funding from the national government, CHED had no business telling them what to do.

CHED’s authority over SUCs and LUCs

CHED’s mandate to ensure quality in higher education is clear. Section 3 of RA 7722 (CHED Charter) states that CHED covers “both public and private institutions of higher education as well as degree-granting programs in all post-secondary institutions, both public and private.”

When LUCs questioned CHED’s jurisdiction and authority, the Department of Justice (Opinion 72, issued on Nov. 24, 2008) said: “Basic is the rule of statutory construction that when the law is clear, plain and free from ambiguity, it must be given its literal meaning without attempted interpretation.” The DOJ added that “the authority and jurisdiction of the CHED over both public and private higher institutions of learning, including the imposition of reasonable regulations, cannot be doubted.”

In 2009, critics of CHED raised the same issue with the DOJ, arguing that a special law, RA 8292 (Higher Education Modernization Act of 1997), empowers SUC Board of Regents to create and offer academic programs and that it is “legally wrong” for CHED to require SUCs to apply to CHED for permission to offer a course in the same way that private higher education institutions do.

The DOJ (Opinion 3, series of 2009) again reiterated that the authority and jurisdiction of the CHED over both public and private higher institutions of learning, including the imposition of reasonable regulations, cannot be doubted.

These legal issuances formed the basis for CHED and the PRC to issue Joint Circular 1 in 2010, which requires SUCs and LUCs to obtain a Certificate of Program Compliance (COPC) from CHED to offer board programs. Graduates of public universities from non-COPC programs are not allowed to take the licensure examinations.

A COPC is a CHED-issued document that confirms minimum compliance with quality assurance requirements on faculty credentials, student services, facilities and updated curriculum.

Poor implementation

But CHED and PRC failed to implement this Joint Circular fully. When I became CHED chairman in 2018, I issued a memorandum requiring a COPC not only for board programs but also for all existing programs. A new policy with tighter controls for SUCs and LUCs to offer new programs was also issued.

The COPC requirement for LUCs was easier to implement because the Free Higher Education law required CHED validation for the reimbursement of their tuition and miscellaneous fees.

Most LUCs complied. Nineteen LUCs lost their national government subsidy in 2022 after being delisted by the UNIFAST Board for failing to meet quality-assurance standards.

As the CHED regional offices began reviewing SUC degree programs, the gravity of the problem became clear.

COPC compliance was under 50 percent, and some SUCs had zero COPC. The government offered free higher education but did not ensure students enrolled in degree programs that met minimum standards.