COMMISSION ON HIGHER EDUCATION

TOWARDS ENHANCING THE MERIT SYSTEMS

IN PUBLIC HIGHER EDUCATION
A Research on the Development of a Career System
for State Universities and Colleges

A study commissioned by the

Commission on Higher Education (CHED)
from the Development Academy of the Philippines (DAP)
under the Executive Development Program for SUCs (EDPS)

AARON JAMES R. VELOSO

Research Leader

June 2014
 FINAL REPORT

Executive Development Program for State Universities and

Colleges
Steering Committee Management Committee

Hon Patricia B Licuanan, PhD Gloria Jumamil-Mercado PhD MNSA

Hon Antonio D Kalaw Jr, CESO I Chairperson
Co-Chairs
Dr Jean C Tayag
Ricardo E Rotoras, DEng’g Dr Libertad P Garcia, CESO IV
Miriam Edulian-Pascua, PhD MoninaAgrifina R De Armas
Atty Mar P De Asis, PhD Rodney A Jagolino, MNSA
Members Violeta B Galo
ApoloniaR Vivo
Dr Herbert Glenn P Reyes
Member

Project Team

Dominic M Barnachea
Project Manager

Aaron James R Veloso

Research Leader

Evelyn C Cruzada, DA
Ophelia P Tongco
Mary Ann Z Fernandez-Mendoza
Regina Galang-Reyes, PhD (cand)
Grace Gorospe-Jamon, PhD
Supervising Fellows

Ethel Cablay-Cuyco, PhD, MNSA

Arnel Onesimo O Uy, PhD, CPA, CMA, CFC
Consultants

Maria Rosthel A Geonzon

Ildelita R Francisco
Vanessa G Villegas-Carriedo
Rachelle Kristina E Clarete
Ray Anthony P Santos
Documentors and Transcriptionists

i
 FINAL REPORT

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This study is the fruit of a continuing collaboration between the Commission on

Higher Education and the Development Academy of the Philippines, together with
the key stakeholders, the State Universities and Colleges of the Philippines.

The conduct of the first round of Focus Group Discussions in the provinces was
made through the generous assistance of several leading State Universities and
Colleges, led by their respective presidents. We would particularly want to record our
gratitude to the following, for their assistance and facilitation in the research process:

Dr Ricardo E Rotoras President

Mindanao University of Science and Technology and
Philippine Association of State Universities and Colleges

Dr Milabel Enriquez-Ho University President

Western Mindanao State University

Dr Aleth M Mamauag University President

Isabela State University

Dr Fay Lea Patria M Lauraya University President

Bicol University

The research team would also like to thank various officials of the Commission on
Higher Education, the Department of Budget and Management, the Civil Service
Commission, and the Philippine Association of State Universities and Colleges for
providing the necessary baseline data for the completion of this work.

ii
 FINAL REPORT

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The current strides that the Philippine Higher Education sector has been making –
especially in the State Universities and Colleges (SUCs) sector – make the
development of a pool of capable, well-selected, and development-oriented
administrators an imperative and sustain these achievements in recent times.
However, in order to set this system in place, a holistic and systematic change in the
whole personnel system of State Universities and Colleges needs to be set in
motion. The proposed career system for SUCs is the fruit of consultations from the
different sectors and levels of management in the SUC system over a period of two
years. It looks at the integration of personnel and human resource mechanisms –
such as recruitment and selection, training and development, performance
management, reward management and career management - in all the sectors of
the SUC system: top and middle managers, faculty members, and non-teaching
staff. It also highlights the entry, promotion, and competency requirements for the
proposed grades and levels. It is hoped that the proposed system will be able to
promote meritocracy in the SUCs, an important input in order for the SUCs to
contribute to the higher goals of the public higher education system in the country.

iii
 FINAL REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Cover Page i
Acknowledgment ii
Executive Summary iii
Table of Contents iv

PART I – RESEARCH FRAMEWORK 1

1.0 Introduction
1.1 Background of the Study 2
1.2 Statement of the Problem 3
1.3 Objectives of the Study 3
1.4 Significance of the Study 5
1.5 Scope and Limitation 6

2.0 Review of Related Literature 7

3.0 Research Methodology 9

3.1 Theoretical Framework 9
3.2 Conceptual Framework 10
3.3 Research Design 11
3.4 Research Tools 12

PART II – DATA PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS, AND CONCLUSION 14

4.0 Data Presentation 15

1

4.1 Review of Similar Systems in the Bureaucracy 15

4.1.1 Faculty Promotion System (under NBC No. 461) 15
4.1.2 Career Executive Service Officers System in the Philippines 16
4.1.3 Foreign Service Officers System in the Philippines 18
4.1.4 Summary 19
4.2 Results of the Initial Focus Group Discussions 20
4.2.1 Cagayan de Oro City (8-9 April, 2013) 20
4.2.2 Zamboanga City (11-12 April, 2013) 22
4.2.3 Tacloban City (15-16 April, 2013) 23
4.2.4 Echague, Isabela (22-23 April, 2013) 24
4.2.5 Legazpi City (25-26 April, 2013) 25

iv
 FINAL REPORT

5.0 Data Analysis 27

5.1 Entry 27
5.2 Coverage 30
5.3 Grades and Levels 31
5.4 Promotion and Merit Procedures 32
5.5 Management of the Career System 32

6.0 Conclusion and Recommendations 34

6.1 Proposed Model 34
6.2 Pre-Requisites for Implementation 36
6.3 Conclusion 37

v
 FINAL REPORT

PART I – RESEARCHFRAMEWORK

The research framework is composed of three chapters. The first chapter describes
the study, identifies its objectives, and provides its significance. The second chapter
is dedicated to the review of related literature while the third chapter provides the
details of the theoretical and conceptual frameworks, and the methodology adopted.

1
 FINAL REPORT

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

The role that Higher Education plays in a society is crucial. The reasons run the
gamut from simply the cultivation and production of new knowledge, to stimulating
the economy through a stable supply of proficient and capable workforce. Higher
Education Institutions are also seen as enablers, allowing people to develop their full
potentials, as well as promote social justice through equity1.

The Philippine Development Plan 2010-2016 envisions higher education in this

frame, with the emphasis to promote quality across the board while at the same time
enhancing accessibility of higher education to peoples of all social classes. This is
because, to a large degree, competitiveness of Filipino professionals is determined
by the quality of instruction they had the benefit of receiving. The goals and
aspirations of Philippine Education Reform to improve quality and standards of every
aspect of higher education management makes the putting in place of a career
system (in the public higher education sector) imperative. The career system is
designed to govern the selection of the members of management of a university to
ensure that university strategic directions and operations are in the hands of capable
men and women.

The goal of “strengthening public higher education management through an

Executive Development Program,” among others, has been hindered by the
“fundamental and long-running deficiencies of Philippine higher education: the lack
of overall vision, framework and plan; deteriorating quality; and limited access”2.

Part of these “fundamental and long-running deficiencies”3 is the lack of a “pool of

well-selected and development - oriented career administrators who shall provide
competent and faithful service,” which could help professionalize the higher

1
Mishra, Sanjaya. (2007). Quality Assurance in Higher Education: An Introduction. Bangalore, India:
National Assessment and Accreditation Council.
2
Covenant on Philippine Public Higher Education Reform. Signed by the presidents of the 110 State
Colleges and Universities in the Philippines, 17 May 2012, Higher Education Development Center,
Diliman, Quezon City.
3
Ibid.

2
 FINAL REPORT

education system by avoiding the “filling-up of positions based on considerations

other than merit and demonstrated competence”.4

Evidently, there is a pressing need to further eradicate the shackles that bind the
public education sector (particularly the State Universities and Colleges) from
politicking. The Higher Education Modernization Act of 1997 should not be seen as
an end-all solution to this problem but rather should be treated as a foundation
where more institutional reforms are to be built upon.

Background of the Study

The concept of establishing a Career System for State Universities and Colleges
was born from the public consultations and stakeholder analyses conducted after the
Executive Development Program was awarded to the Development Academy of the
Philippines. The notion that there is a need to further professionalize the public
higher education sector was one of the things that kept on coming up during the
consultations.

Initially, the idea was for a system not unlike the Career Executive Service System
(CES System) that will cover the top and middle-level management of the State
Universities and Management (i.e., the positions equivalent to the third-level
managerial positions in the national line agencies). However, over time, the idea
evolved into the development of a whole career service system for SUCs, beginning
with the mandate to look into the National Budget Circular No. 461 (NBC 461, or the
Faculty Compensation and Position Classification Plan) in early September, 2012;
and the mandate from Secretary Patricia B. Licuanan to include the development of
a support service sector last January, 2013.

Statement of the Problem

The concept of establishing a Career System for State Universities and Colleges
was born from the public consultations and stakeholder analyses conducted after the
Executive Development Program was awarded to the Development Academy of the
Philippines. The notion that there is a need to further professionalize the public

3
 FINAL REPORT

higher education sector was one of the things that kept on coming out during the
consultations.

While in theory all appointments in a particular college or university is made by the

Board of Regents, it must be noted that the President of the college or university, by
grant of the charter, has the prerogative to recommend appointees for the positions
of Vice-President, Dean, Director of offices and heads of departments. The Dean, on
the other hand, has the prerogative to recommend appointees to the different
positions inside his or her College, such as Vice-Deans, heads of departments and
offices, and similar positions. It must be noted that managerial positions in State
Universities and Colleges, being highly technical, are not covered by the Career
Executive Service (CES) system and a CES rank is not a requirement for
appointment in these positions. While certain checks and balances are being
initiated in individual Universities and Colleges, the selection process, being
absolutely reserved to the discretion of the appointing authority, remains whimsical.

The Higher Education Modernization Act of 1997 should not be seen as an end-all
solution to this problem but rather should be treated as a foundation where more
institutional reforms ought to be built upon. It is suggested that a system similar to
the Career Executive Service Board for all officials of State Colleges and Universities
with the equivalent positions of Presidents, Directors, Deans and Administrators of
Satellite Campuses shall be created.

The de-politicization of government institutions of higher education was the spirit

behind the Higher Education Modernization Act of 1997 (R.A. 8292). The necessity
of maintaining a high level of professionalism in the education sector was stressed
as well in the World Bank report Regaining an Educational Advantage – Investing in
the Philippines’ Economic Future, citing its importance in improving the sector’s
governance and systems management. Despite this move, as well as the creation of
the CCE (Common Criteria for Evaluation) and QCE (Quality Contribution
Evaluation), the goal of making appointments in positions in State Universities and
Colleges based on merit has not been totally achieved. This phenomenon has been
causing great detriment to the growth and development of the many State
Universities and Colleges scattered all over the Philippines. It is the goal of the

4
 FINAL REPORT

proposal to be able to see State Universities and Colleges maximize their potential
and resources under the leadership of competent, well-trained and highly capable
officers and staff.

Objectives of the Study

The study is conducted with the broad objective of gathering data that will guide
policy direction on the perceived need for a career system for SUCs. It therefore
seeks to:
1. Determine the necessity of putting in place a career system for SUCs; and
2. Define the mechanism that will put in place this proposed system in the SUCs.

Research questions for each of the two objectives are as follows:

To determine the necessity of putting in place a career system for SUCs.

 What is the current practice in appointing key officials in SUCs?
 How does the appointment practice affect the overall management and
operation of the SUCs?
 What are the views of the SUCs’ stakeholders on the current appointment
practice and the possibility of putting in place a career system to replace the
current practice?
 How are the eligibility process in the career executive service and theForeign
Service implemented?
 What leadership and management positions should be covered by the career
system?

To define the mechanism that will be put in place in this proposed system in the
SUCs.
 What are the components of this proposed system?
 What are the characteristics of these components?
 How is this proposed system to be managed?

5
 FINAL REPORT

Significance of the Study

The research towards the development of career system for the SUCs is designed to
provide a robust rationale and firm ground upon which to build the envisioned career
system. Basically, this will serve as a preparatory work towards policy formulation.
Policy makers would demand information to aid them in their job and lend credence
to the necessity of having a career system for SUCs. Improving quality and
standards of state universities and colleges as articulated in the Philippine Higher
Education Reform (PHER) will draw life partly from a system that uses merit in
selecting and appointing men and women who provide leadership in the country’s
one hundred eleven (111) SUCs. The same system will sustain all the gains
generated in the Executive Development Program for SUCs implemented by the
Development Academy of the Philippines in partnership with the Commission on
Higher Education and the Philippine Association for State Universities and Colleges.

A career system to govern the movement of key officers to the top is nothing new in
the public sector. Government employees occupying third level positions need to go
through a process to be conferred Career Service eligibility. An equivalent process
governs those in the Foreign Service. A career system for SUC officials may be
necessary at this time given the thrust of CHED to promote higher education which is
defined as institutions and programs that are at par with international standards, and
graduates and professionals that are highly competent and recognized in the
international arena.

Scope and Limitation

The scope of the study covers all personnel of the State Universities and Colleges in
at least three tracks: first, the faculty track (refers to the teaching and research
personnel), second, the administrative track (refers to the non-teaching personnel),
and third, the managerial track, which covers positions which, ordinarily, would be
categorized in third level of the bureaucracy.

6
 FINAL REPORT

7
 FINAL REPORT

CHAPTER TWO

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

The importance of having competent and qualified managers and staff of educational
institutions has been the subject of many researches, especially those that
underscore their importance in light of the Quality Assurance initiatives worldwide.

Vroeijenstijn proposes a quality model in analyzing an educational institution. Using

the Systems Theory as his framework, he showed the correlation between the input,
processes, and outputs in order to achieve the desired goals and outcomes4.

In his model, Vroeijenstijn named two important inputs to quality higher education
outputs and outcomes, namely, Management and Staff. He emphasized the
centrality of management approaches (i.e., grassroots approach, participative
approach, etc.) and quality staff inputs (i.e., faculty, non-teaching personnel) in
achieving the desired results.

Figure 1
Vroeijenstijn’s Proposed Quality Model5

4
Vroeijenstijn, A. I. (2003). Towards a Quality Model for Higher Education in Journal of Philippine
Higher Education Quality Assurance 1(1). Quezon City: Accrediting Agency of Chartered Colleges
and Universities in the Philippines.
5
Ibid.

8
 FINAL REPORT

The need for highly competent managers was underscored in Hölttä and
Pulliainen6, and de Trejo7. The two studies, which reflected on managerial
efficiency in higher education institutions (in Finland and Mexico, respectively), noted
the swiftly-changing environment for public higher education in the world. The
combination of meager financial resources and increasing demand for quality higher
education necessitates creative fiscal and administrative management combined
with competent academic management on the part of the leaders of public higher
education institutions. Anything that falls short would simply be unacceptable, given
their mandates. This has been validated in the Philippines, to a great extent, by the
study conducted by Milton-Smith and Echanis8, which proposed continuous
training and development for the incumbent top and middle-level officials of
Philippine State Universities and Colleges as a stop-gap measure to enable the
leaders of these institutions to cope with the globalizing face of public higher
education.

Cohen9 noted the underlying reason for the failure of managers of higher
educational institutions. He noted that by their nature, academics were never trained
to supervise people or programs, nor did they have a generally wide experience in
management. He further cited that lower-rung academic managers, such as Deans
and Department Chairpersons, would have miniscule, homogenous administration
portfolio that would make it difficult for them to administer larger institutions with a
more diverse mix of cultures and backgrounds. They, however, possess analytical
skills that are necessary to administration of educational institutions.

6
Hölttä, Seppo J. and Kyösti Pulliainen (1994). Improving Managerial Effectiveness at the University
of Joenssu Finland. Monograph from the series Improving the Managerial Effectiveness of Higher
Education Institutions. Paris, France: United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization
– International Institute for Education Planning.
7
De Trejo, Esperanza Hirsh (1994). Improving Managerial Effectiveness of Higher Education
Institutions: the case of UNAM, Mexico. Monograph from the series Improving the Managerial
Effectiveness of Higher Education Institutions. Paris, France: United Nations Educational, Scientific,
and Cultural Organization – International Institute for Education Planning.
8
Milton Smith, John and Erlinda Echanis (2001). Management Development in Higher Education.
Technical Report HE-8 from the series Education Sector Development Program. Manila: Asian
Development Bank.
9
Cohen, David M. (1996). Amateur Government: When Political Appointees Manage the Federal
Bureaucracy (CPM Working Paper 96-1). Washington D.C.: The Brookings Institution.

9
 FINAL REPORT

CHAPTER THREE

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Evidently, there is a pressing need to further eradicate the shackles that bind the
public education sector (particularly the State Universities and Colleges) from
politicking. The Higher Education Modernization Act of 1997 should not be seen as
an end-all solution to this problem but rather should be treated as a foundation
where more institutional reforms are to be built upon.

Theoretical Framework

Figure 2
Theoretical Framework

The rationale for the establishment of the Career System is that a more efficient
management will produce better outputs, and better outcomes. Using David Easton’s
Systems Theory model, the different inputs, outputs and outcomes were identified in
this paper. Listed as inputs are Management, Faculty and Staff, Policy, Students,
Facilities and Funding, as proposed in the total quality model of Vroeijenstijn10. The
four outputs listed, on the other hand, correspond to the three-fold function of
universities and colleges, namely: instruction (graduates), research (knowledge) and
development (technology) and extension (extension services). Meanwhile, the
outcomes listed are productive human resources, new skills and knowledge,
advanced innovation, and poverty alleviation. These outcomes are what the

10
Vroeijenstijn, op. cit.

10
 FINAL REPORT

Commission on Higher Education in its Philippine Higher Education Reform

Agenda11 expects from State Universities and Colleges from the delivery of their
three-fold function.

Conceptual Framework

The Career System as a total HR framework is seen as a measure to enhance two

major inputs in the framework described above, namely, the management, and the
faculty and staff.

The total HR Framework is adapted from Singapore’s Education Service

Professional Development and Career Plan (EduPAC). Noting that Singapore’s
education system is one of the best performing in the world, Lee and Tan (2010)
argue the current setup of the education human resource is one of the main reasons
for its success.

The EduPAC as a total HR strategy is composed of several components, namely:

recruitment and selection, training and development, performance management,
reward management and career management. Ultimately, in theory, proper planning,
design and management of these areas will help us achieve our desired results with
quality.

Figure 3
Conceptual Framework

The Philippines does not have a single, unified approach for HR Development for
SUCs, particularly for its executives and senior managers. A closer look at the

11
Covenant on Philippine Public Higher Education Reform, op. cit.

11
 FINAL REPORT

current system reflects the decentralization of functions for each area – for example:
recruitment and selection systems have been mainly covered by the Civil Service
Commission as well as the individual SUCs. Performance Management and Reward
Management has been the function of the Department of Budget and Management,
with the most familiar and most recent mechanisms like the Results-Based
Performance Management System and the Performance-Based Bonus Mechanism.
Career Management for SUCs has been covered by the National Budget Circular
No. 461, which is actually insufficient considering that the current system establishes
a clear track only for the academic component of SUCs, and no clear system for
advancement in the administration component, research component and
management component of SUCs. Meanwhile, training and development has been
well-covered by various private providers and government agencies, including the
Development Academy of the Philippines, but lacking in a coherent, comprehensive,
and unified strategy that will focus on building specific competencies actually needed
by SUC officials.

Research Design

The conduct of the study was made in three tranches. The first tranche, completed
by October 2012, is the secondary data gathering stage. The goals of the first
tranche are two-fold: first, to make a primer on the current situation of the State
Colleges and Universities in terms of the composition of their administrative
executives; and second, to identify similar systems are investigated at, seeking
possible patterns on which the proposed Career System for the SUCs can be based
on.

The second tranche of the study covers the primary data gathering stage, with two
goals: 1) to conduct consultations with the different sectors of a carefully chosen
sample of SUCs to gather their inputs on whether a career system is necessary, and
2) to identify how the career system should take shape.

The third tranche of the study consists of the consultation with experts in Law and
Public Administration with sufficient background in the public education sector to be
able to formulate a proposal that can be implemented immediately, given the legal,
bureaucratic and political conditions that need to be taken into consideration.

After the conduct of secondary data research (first tranche), it is imperative to

conduct primary data research, primarily on the subjects of the proposed career
system. The purpose of this is twofold: first, to ensure participation from the subjects
(through a representative sample), and second, to provide for gaps in knowledge.

12
 FINAL REPORT

For the conduct of the second tranche, several sub-activities were conducted. The
first sub-activity, the preparation sub-activity, consisted of three steps. First among
the three was the identification stage, where the participating SUCs for the focus
group discussions were chosen. Certain geographical centers (two for Luzon, one for
Visayas and two for Mindanao) were chosen, after which SUCs were grouped under
particular centers. A random sampling of SUCs was then made to gather at least
eight (8) SUC samples per geographical center.

The five geographic centers were Isabela for North Luzon, Albay for South Luzon,
Leyte for Visayas, Cagayan de Oro City for East Mindanao, and Zamboanga City for
West Mindanao. Also, the research team partnered with SUCs in those geographic
centers to ensure a smooth conduct of the research. The SUC partners for this
research were Isabela State University (Isabela), Bicol University (Albay), Leyte
Normal University (Leyte), Mindanao University of Science and Technology
(Cagayan de Oro City); and Western Mindanao State University and Zamboanga
State College of Marine Science and Technology (Zamboanga City).

The second step was the profiling stage, where each SUC was asked to submit a
staffing profile based on a standard form (Appendix 2), the summary of which can be
found in Appendix 3. At the same time, each SUC was asked to nominate
participants for each level (managerial level, faculty level, and non-academic level),
with the EDPS Secretariat screening and approving of the representatives
nominated (Appendix 4).

Three FGDs were conducted per geographical center, with one FGD corresponding
to each level, as mentioned above. The facilitator and co-facilitator ensured that
each group would be homogeneous. A standard set of questions was used for all
FGDs, with minute adaptations to suit each level. The questionnaire is attached as
Appendix 5.

The questions generally wrapped around three major themes: first, a diagnosis of
current appointment processes in their SUCs; second, on the competencies of the
key officials of SUCs; and third, on the potential development interventions to
remedy the problem, such as the introduction of the career system and the
establishment of the Higher Education Development and Leadership Institute.

Research Tools

The research utilized the two methodological approaches to data collection and
analysis: qualitative and quantitative. As such, triangulation may be used which
means using more than one research method or data collection technique. Perone
and Tucker cited the benefits of this approach:

13
 FINAL REPORT

The use of triangulation allows researchers to capture a more complete,holistic

and contextual portrayal and reveal the varied dimensions of a given phenomena,
with each source contributing an additional piece to the puzzle. In using
triangulation, bias can be minimized and validity enhanced. Neither the qualitative
nor the quantitative method alone could yield the results of the two combined.
The sum of the whole is greater than its parts.”12

There were two types of data gathered for the study: primary data and secondary
data. The secondary data was gathered through review of studies and other
pertinent documents and to provide background information and context to the study.
Meanwhile, primary data was gathered using Key Informant Interviews, Survey,and
Focus Group Discussions (FGD).

Documentary Analysis

Documentary analysis served as the foundation of the study. The tool was used to
give the research leader a deeper understanding of the background of the system
that is being looked into. Documents that were used for the research came from
Congress (i.e., pending bills, past legislations), Executive Agencies (i.e.,
memoranda, circulars, and guidelines the Office of the President, the Department of
Budget and Management, the Commission on Higher Education), the Supreme
Court (decisions on cases related to appointment in State Universities and Colleges,
(i.e., Civil Service Commission vs. Sojor), the State Universities and Colleges
themselves (i.e., faculty manuals), and other related agencies and offices, like the
Philippine Association of State Colleges and Universities.

Key Informant Interviews

Several key informant interviews were conducted as part of the different tranches of
the study. The KIIs are important to validate and give flesh to the findings that were
made after the documentary analysis, and even after the Focus Group Discussions.

Survey
Surveys were used to establish certain baseline data. These include management
experiences, training needs, and the status of human resource in State Universities
and Colleges.

12
Peron, J. and Tucker, L. (2003). An Exploration of Triangulation of Methodologies: Quantitative and
Qualitative Fusion in an Investigation of Perceptions of Transit Safety. A final report submitted to the
Center for Urban Transportation Research at the University of South Florida, April 2003. Florida:
University of South Florida

14
 FINAL REPORT

Focus Group Discussions

Focus Group Discussions were the major tools used in the conduct of the study. The
FGDs allowed the research team to deepen the discourse on the diagnosis and
findings during the initial research processes, as well as to be able to conduct initial
consultation on an important piece of policy that will potentially affect the major
stakeholders, i.e., officials, faculty, and staff of State Universities and Colleges.

15
 FINAL REPORT

PART II – DATA PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS, AND CONCLUSION

The second part is composed of three chapters. The first chapter describes the
results of the study in the order and manner of the collection of data.

The next chapter summarizes the outputs of the various data collection techniques
and categorizes them according to the components of the proposed career system.
The chapter presents a diagnosis of the current situation for the five key components
identified, and presents how these can be modified, replaced, or created under the
proposed career system.

Finally, the last chapter presents conclusion and recommendations for subsequent
research on the career system, particularly on its future implementation.

16
 FINAL REPORT

CHAPTER FOUR

DATA PRESENTATION

Review of Similar Systems in the Bureaucracy

Faculty Promotion System (under NBC No. 461)

Unlike the appointment of officials in the State Colleges and Universities, the
promotion of faculty members between ranks and sub-ranks are clearly defined
under National Budget Circular No. 461, issued by the Department of Budget and
Management on 1 June 1998.

Faculty promotion in State Universities and Colleges used to be based on

presidential discretion13. The problem of the SUC presidents promoting people close
to them has caused appointments to be made not on merit but based on personal
considerations. This loophole caused the implementation of NCC (National
Compensation Circular) No. 69, and its revision, NBC No. 461.14

The requirements and points-based system adopted on NCC No. 69 and NBC No.
461 are very objective ways of checking the qualifications of faculty members,
solving the problem of political patronage in the granting of faculty promotions. For
appointment to a certain rank and sub-rank, one must be able to reach the
corresponding point bracket for that specific rank. Points are gathered from the
qualifications that a candidate possesses, including, but not limited to: educational
attainment, workshops and training attended, experience and professional service,
publications, and the like.15 The implementing guidelines for the budget circular are
attached as Appendix B.

The system, however, is not without fault. There have been issues with the system;
such as the submission of manufactured training and award certificates (in fact, it
was noted that this practice eventually developed into a cottage industry), in an effort
to boost the number of points that one person can gather which would hopefully
propel their status upward. Another problem was the teaching capability of the
academics. There had been instances where perfectly qualified people, with great

13
Padua, Roberto. (28 May 2012). Historical Perspectives from CHED (Lecture). Training-Workshop
on NBC No. 461: Revisiting the CCE and QCE Instrument and New Software Utilization. May 28-30,
Cebu City.
14
Ibid.
15
Department of Budget and Management (1998, 1 June).National Budget Circular No. 461: Revising
and Updating the Compensation Plan for Faculty Positions Embodied in National Compensation
Circular (NCC) No. 69. Manila.

17
 FINAL REPORT

experience and training in their respective fields, are not qualified educators and
have great difficulty to “profess” or “instruct16”. This was partly remedied by the QCE
(Qualitative Contribution Evaluation) formulated by CHED, PASUC (Philippine
Association of State Universities and Colleges), and DBM (Department of Budget
and Management), which provides for evaluation of professors’ performance every
odd year starting 1999 (for State Universities and Colleges).17 This was the main
revision that was incorporated in the NBC No. 461.

While the CCE (Common Criteria for Evaluation) system under NCC No. 69 is
comprehensive for faculty members with plantilla positions, it is eerily silent on the
requirements for designated positions. Thus, while it has been able to help lessen
politicization of faculty promotion, it does not help in doing the same for the
designated officials.

In the development of a career system that is peculiar for the State Colleges and
Universities, it might be beneficial to incorporate the Faculty Promotion System,
seeing its potential as a good foundation. There has been instances where a mere
instructor was chosen as a department head or in some other designated capacity
over more seasoned and more qualified personnel. Placing a rank requirement on
each designated position, complimented by the CCE and QCE points will be able to
help objectify the selection process for these positions.

Career Executive Service Officers System in the Philippines

The Career System for the bureaucracy was born during the beginning of Martial
Law, when President Marcos, by virtue of P.D. No. 1 (which adopted the Integrated
Reorganization Plan) implemented the reorganization of the bureaucracy. The aim of
the Career Executive Service is to professionalize the bureaucracy by promoting
merit and fitness over trust, confidence and other personal considerations in
appointing officials in the third level. The Career Executive Service Board was
created to oversee the Career Executive Service, or the third level of the positions in
the Civil Service. The first level comprise the clerical, trades, crafts and custodial
service positions for non-professional or sub-professional work requiring less than
four years in college; the second level comprise the professional, technical and
scientific positions requiring at least four years in college work up to the level of
Division Chief; while the third level comprise the managerial and executive
positions.18

16
Padua, op. cit.
17
Ibid. Also, Department of Budget and Management, op. cit.
18
Senate Bill No. 15. Explanatory Note by Senator Antonio F. Trillanes IV

18
 FINAL REPORT

The CES system covers only the positions of the Undersecretary, Assistant
Secretary, Bureau Directors, Assistant Bureau Directors, Regional Directors,
Assistant Regional Director, Chief of Department Service and other officers of
equivalent rank in the legislative department and constitutional commissions and
offices. The CES system is also applicable to government owned and controlled
corporations with original charters. The system, however, does not cover judges and
justices, elected officials of local governments, chairpersons of constitutional
commissions, and officials of State Colleges and Universities, among others.19

Entry to the CES system is made possible by passing a “competitive examinations

based on highly technical qualifications.”20 A person will then be appointed as a CEO
(Career Executive Officer), conferred with CES eligibility and included in the roster of
CES eligibles. The President then chooses from the pool of these eligibles, upon the
recommendation of the CESB.21

The qualifying examination is divided into four parts. The first part is the written
examination part. Holders of MNSA (Master of National Security Administration) and
MPSA (Master of Public Safety Administration) degrees from the National Defense
College of the Philippines (NDCP) and the Philippine Public Safety College (PPSC)
are given an exemption from the written examination and deemed passed for that
level. A cut-off score is to be met to be able to proceed to the second step, the
assessment center stage, where the prospective CEO is given simulation exercises
to determine his or her managerial and leadership qualities. This is followed by the
validation of the applicant’s on-the-job performance, and capped by an interview
conducted by one or more members of the CESB Board.22

A performance management system under the CESB, the CES Performance

Evaluation System, is randomly set-up in various government agencies and offices,
with the sample aimed at representing the entire bureaucracy. Also, continued
training and development programs are set in place to promote continued
professional growth for the CEOs. Examples include the Salaming Paglilingkod
(SALAMIN) Training Course (a course on self-examination); the Diwang Paglilingkod
(DIWA) Training Course (a course on Interpersonal Relations); and the Gabay ng
Paglilingkod (GABAY) Training Course (learning modules aimed at addressing the
executive’s needs to remain effective on the job and to impart a deeper appreciation

19
Career Executive Service Board. (2010, October 26). Resolution No. 905: Rules And Procedures
Implementing Executive Order No. 891, Directing All Departments, Agencies Of The National
Government, And Government Owned And/Or Controlled· Corporations With Original Charters, To
Submit To The Career Executive Service Board For Its Attestation, All Appointments Or Appointees
Occupying Career Executive Service And/Or Third Level Positions. Quezon City.
20
Civil Service Code, P.D. No. 807.
21
CESB Website. www.cesboard.gov.ph
22
Ibid.

19
 FINAL REPORT

of government’s policies and programs).23 Also, the CES provides for the CESO Pool
Program, which helps insulate the system from changes in administration (both in
the national and local levesl) that may put the tenure and stability of the career of the
CESOs.24

23
Ibid.
24
Revised Guidelines on the Administration of the Career Executive Service Officer (CESO) Pool.
CESB Joint Circular No. 2, Series of 2002.

20
 FINAL REPORT

Summary

The following is a comparison of the three systems evaluated, laid out in tabular
form:

FSO SYSTEM CESO SYSTEM FPS (NBC 461)

Entry Basic Qualifications: Appointment to a CES Individual
Filipino, under 35 position for 6 months, qualifications are up to
years old, with a or appointment to at individual SUCs; FPS
Bachelor’s Degree. least a Division Chief is more concerned
This is followed by a Level position for two with the levels of SUC
series of four years. This is followed instructors. Entry level
competitive by rigorous exam in is determined through
examinations. four stages. categorization subject
to Modified Quota
System.
Coverage All executive positions All positions in the All faculty positions in
in the Foreign third level of the SUCs, CHED-
Service. Members of Philippine Civil supervised HEIs, and
the pool are Service System: TESDA supervised
appointed to ranks Managerial, TEIs.
and assigned to Executive, Technical,
positions. Scientific and
Academic Positions.
Promotion and From FSO IV to III, Adjustment and Promotion is made
Advancement/ Merit batch promotion is promotion are made after an evaluation
Procedures done. Succeeding upon recommendation cycle which is to be
promotions are done of CESB, which held every evaluation
individually, with a should have a gap of cycle, subject to the
gap of at least three at least two years. availability of positions
years. in the next rank/sub-
rank.
Grades And Levels FSO I-IV, IV being the CESO I-VI, VI being Five ranks, each with
entry level rank. the entry level rank. five sub-ranks:
Instructor, Assistant
Professor, Associate
Professor, and
College/University
Professor
Training And Career In-House: Rigorous No specific training No specific training
Development Tool training before institutionalized. institutionalized. At the
deployment, with Continuous trainings discretion of Head of
trainings in-between such as ELP and Agency.
assignments. CES-EL

21
 FINAL REPORT

Results of the Focus Group Discussions

As stated earlier, the research team was able to conduct fifteen focus group
discussions in five geographic centers all over the country. Thirty-five (35) of the
forty-five (45) State Universities and Colleges (including the autonomous and
constituent units of the University of the Philippines System and the Mindanao State
University System) were present in the focus group discussions.

Cagayan de Oro City

The first set of focus group discussions was held on April 8-9, 2013 in Cagayan de
Oro City, in partnership with the Mindanao University of Science and Technology.

The research team invited a total of eight institutions to the focus group discussions
in Cagayan de Oro. Only six of them were able to send representatives, namely:
1. Bukidnon State University
2. Camiguin Polytechnic State College
3. Caraga State University
4. Central Mindanao University
5. Mindanao University of Science and Technology
6. Misamis Oriental State College of Agriculture and Technology

The two institutions which were not able to send representatives were:
1. Mindanao State University System - Marawi
2. MSU-Iligan Institute of Technology

The appointment process for the President of the SUCs present was more or less
the same, with the rules in RA 8292 and its corresponding Implementing Rules and
Regulations (IRR) being the guideline used in the process. Also, participants
responded that appointments for the other managerial positions are usually based
on trust and confidence of the appointing authority.

The groups acknowledged the existence of external political pressure in the

selection process of SUC officials, particularly that of the president. At the same
time, they pressed for the professionalization of key officials by subjecting them
through a rigorous screening process.

The need for an SUC president to have "lieutenants" with the necessary
competencies was discussed. This hinted at the possibility of establishing a pool of
professionals for positions from Vice-President below, not unlike the setup in
national line agencies where the secretary is appointed at the discretion of the
President of the Republic while the CES System covers the lower managerial ranks.

22
 FINAL REPORT

On the discussion of a pool of competent people in the administration of SUCs, they

noted that there might be a possibility of rotating these people, which is, transferring
them from one SUC to another, thus insulating the system from political intervention.
At the same time, however, they noted the possibility of having key officials not
acceptable to the receiving academic community causing the officials to be
subjected to a non-supportive environment that may cause poor performance in the
long run.

During the discussion on the inclusion of the faculty in the Career System for SUCs,
the groups were equivocal in their criticism of the evaluations used for the NBC 461.
The groups noted that the current system as it is now is very effective in weeding out
politicization in appointment to a faculty rank, because of the quantitative nature of
its points-based system. However, they noted the lack of an agency that will properly
monitor the evaluation of the implementation of each cycle. Also, they lamented
about the need to update the QCE (Quality Criteria Evaluation) part of the NBC 461,
saying that it rarely, if ever, reflects the real quality of service delivery of a faculty
member.

The group also pressed for the development of a particular corps for the
administrative side of SUCs. They noted that because the administrative corps of
SUCs is rarely developed, faculty members are designated to managerial positions
depriving the institution of the necessary personnel in the delivery of instruction.
Furthermore, they suggested the need for different tracks that would allow faculty
members to continue teaching while enjoying greater financial rewards without
having to resort to an administrative position.

In the FGDs, competencies for the president and the directors of satellite campuses
tend to lean more towards the vision-setting and strategic planning competencies.
They think that SUC presidents should be a visionary strategic planner with excellent
communication and leadership skills. He or she should be innovative and wise in
resource generation and utilization, as well as good in building linkages and
partnership.

Competencies for Vice-Presidents, and to some extent, the Deans and Directors,
tend to be more on the implementation side. They think that while they should have
managerial experience and leadership skills, they should also be well- versed in the
implementation of programs of the University. They are also expected to have the
support of the president as well as from the ground. The competencies of Directors
and Deans, meanwhile, focus more on management of subordinates, such as
conflict and stress management; and character and rapport building.

23
 FINAL REPORT

Zamboanga City

The second set of focus group discussions was held on April 11-12, 2013 in
Zamboanga City, in partnership with the Western Mindanao State University and the
Zamboanga State College of Marine Sciences and Technology.

The research team invited a total of nine institutions to the focus group discussions
in Zamboanga. Only six of them were able to send representatives, namely:
1. Basilan State College
2. Mindanao State University - Tawi-Tawi College of Technology and
Oceanography
3. Sulu State College
4. Western Mindanao State University
5. Zamboanga City State Polytechnic College
6. Zamboanga State College of Marine Sciences and Technology

The three institutions that were not able to send representatives were:
1. Jose Rizal Memorial State University
2. Josefina H. Cerilles State College
3. Tawi-Tawi Regional Agricultural College

The presence of representatives from the Mindanao State University (MSU) has
allowed the research team to appreciate the peculiarity of their system. For example,
this particular FGD revealed that the appointment of the president of the MSU
System still goes to the President of the Republic. Furthermore, the representatives
from the MSU System confirmed the existence of a separate NBC for MSU, with
higher compensation rates than that of the other State Universities in the
Philippines.

The group affirmed that the appointment of Vice Presidents is at the discretion of the
SUC president. However, the President recommends the appointments to the Board
of Regents for confirmation. Meanwhile, for the selection of deans, a consultation
with the faculty is conducted to arrive at the best candidate for the position. The
choice is confirmed by the Vice President for Academic Affairs, endorsed to the
President, and recommended to the Board of Regents.

While the process for appointment is clearly laid out, issues of politicization and
intrusion from extra-institutional forces are among those that were discussed at
length, perhaps due to the political condition in this particular part of the country.
Among the most important reforms, they note, are the composition of the Board of
Regents/ Board of Trustees, and the introduction of fixed terms for Vice-Presidents

24
 FINAL REPORT

and other key officials. For example, some representatives from the non-teaching
sector feel that they are underrepresented in the Board of Regents/Board of
Trustees of their respective SUCs because the charter does not provide for the
election of a Staff Regent, unlike in other SUCs.

The participants noted the value of the Career System in motivating the people in
SUCs to perform better. They feel that the promotion of merit over the palakasan
system would create a drive among employees of SUCs themselves to perform to be
able to move up the ladder.

NBC 461 was hotly debated at in Zamboanga. While the necessity to revise the QCE
(Quality Criteria Evaluation) evaluation instrument component of the NBC 461 was
discussed, the group also highlighted the need for third-party evaluators to ensure
accuracy and fairness. Furthermore, faculty members with designations were
pressing for the introduction of another set of evaluation standards for faculty
members who are given administrative assignments due to the nature of their work.

One of the major highlights of this focus group discussion is the problem of
designated positions in the advent of a career system. Since a career system
presupposes tenure among the members of the pool, members of the group think
that a lot of plantilla positions should be created to meet the demands for the pool.
This would also mean that positions formerly held by designated personnel (i.e.,
position of the Vice President), will now become a plantilla position. They find that
problematic too, as it would take a long time for a turn-over to occur.

Also, the importance of promoting administrative staff was highlighted in this session.
The participants noted that most, if not all, administrative/non-teaching positions in
the SUCs are dead-end positions, demotivating the holders to continue in that
specific track. An example that was given was that of a Librarian, who recently
gained her master’s degree in Library Science. Despite finishing her Master’s, she
can only get a Librarian II plantilla position as this is the highest librarian position
available, forcing her to go to the Academic department to receive higher
remuneration. Meanwhile, the position of head librarian is converted into a
designated position, which necessitates deloading of a particular faculty member to
be able to take on additional administrative tasks.

Tacloban City

The third set of focus group discussions was held on April 15-16, 2013 in Tacloban
City, in partnership with Leyte Normal University.

25
 FINAL REPORT

The research team invited a total of ten institutions to the focus group discussions in
Leyte. Only eight of them were able to send representatives, namely:
1. Eastern Samar State University
2. Eastern Visayas State University
3. Leyte Normal University
4. Naval State University
5. Northwest Samar State University
6. Palompon Institute of Technology
7. Samar State University
8. Visayas State University

The two institutions that were not able to send representatives were:
1. University of Eastern Philippines
2. University of the Philippines - Tacloban College

It is to be noted that the University of Eastern Philippines opted to send

representatives to the focus group discussions in Legazpi City.

The panelists in the focus group discussions in Leyte more or less voice out the
same concern on the appointment of Vice Presidents. Many of them prefer the
current system of designation by the University/College President, with the designee
serving at the pleasure of the appointing authority. They seek to implement,
however, certain checks and balances in the appointment process to make it more
transparent and effective.

The group was also very vocal on the politicization of SUCs in their region, saying
that it polarizes the organization into camps. They were also very particular on the
search committee for SUC presidents, saying that the purpose of the search
committee was futile because the rankings on the ground are useless in the actual
election. However, one noted that merely following the ground ranking would just
shift the fulcrum of pressure away from the Board of Regents towards the Search
Committee.

Another important issue discussed in this leg of the FGDs was the abolition of
plantilla positions in case of integration/amalgamation of SUCs. An example that was
cited was the case when the Tomas Oppus Normal College was integrated into the
Southern Leyte State University. The positions held by the incumbents were retained
with the proviso that the same will cease to exist upon their resignation or retirement,
after which the position will be reverted to Level 1. This, they say, will have a great
bearing on the development of the administrative side of SUCs in light of
amalgamation and integration.

26
 FINAL REPORT

Echague, Isabela

The fourth set of focus group discussions was held on April 22-23, 2013 in Echague,
Isabela, in partnership with Isabela State University.

The research team invited a total of nine institutions to the focus group discussions
in Isabela. Only six of them were able to send representatives, namely:
1. Aurora State College of Technology
2. Benguet State University
3. Isabela State University
4. Kalinga Apayao State College
5. Nueva Vizcaya State University
6. Quirino State University

The three institutions that were not able to send representatives were:
1. Apayao State College
2. Cagayan State University
3. University of the Philippines Baguio

The guidelines issued by the Search Committee for Presidents were criticized by the
participants in Isabela. They noted that these guidelines can be, at times, bent. They
noted that among the common technique was the adoption of the word "preferably"
over "must" (e.g., preferably a holder of an earned Ph.D. degree, instead of requiring
it), or of "or" instead of "and" (e.g. requiring a Sandiganbayan Clearance or an
Ombudsman Clearance, instead of requiring both).

Most of the SUCs present in this group are Level 4 universities. They deplored the
fact that there are a lot of SUCs without fulltime research plantilla. They noted that
research is one of the mandates of SUCs, but most do not have full-time researchers
and extensionists.

Lastly, one of the major points of discussion during the FGDs is the lack of uniform
organizational structure for SUCs. They noted that in the advent of the outcomes-
based typology that is being promoted by CHED, there might be a need to reform
SUC structures and keep the proposed SUC Career System in line with this initiative.

Legazpi City

27
 FINAL REPORT

The fifth and last set of focus group discussions was held on April 25-26, 2013 in
Legazpi City, in partnership with Bicol University.

The research team invited a total of ten institutions to the focus group discussions in
Albay. Only nine of them were able to send representatives, namely:
1. Bicol University
2. Camarines Norte State College
3. Camarines Sur Polytechnic Colleges
4. Catanduanes State University
5. Central Bicol State University of Agriculture
6. Dr. Emilio B. Espinosa Sr. Memorial State College of Agriculture and
Technology
7. Partido State University
8. Sorsogon State College
9. University of Eastern Philippines

The only institution that was not able to send a representative was:
1. Bicol State College of Applied Sciences and Technology

It is to be noted that the University of Eastern Philippines opted to send

representatives to the focus group discussions in Legazpi City.

Three unique highlights came out during the discussions in Legazpi. First was the
importance of creating a college/university code in designation of key official of
SUCs. The participants of the Legazpi FGD noted that there is no standard operating
procedure for the designation of Vice Presidents down to Department Chairs and
Section Chiefs.

Second, the representatives from Bicol SUCs noted the futility of sticking with the
current staffing pattern for both teaching and non-teaching staff. They said that the
current setup has caused a brain-drain problem, especially in the support services,
because people transfer to other government agencies. The need to upgrade the
support services of State Universities and Colleges was emphasized by the group –
in fact, one of the suggestions that came out was the renaming of the plantilla
positions into items unique to SUCs.

The third, which is corollary to the second, is the revision of the SUC Staffing
Pattern. The representatives from Bicol noted that the SUC staffing patterns are
quite outdated and no longer respond to the needs of the SUCs.

Also, discussed in length was the issue of politicization of appointment of SUC

officials. It is to be noted that in all the five locations in the country where the FGDs

28
 FINAL REPORT

where conducted, the most heated discussions on politicization of appointments

were in Zamboanga City and Legazpi City.

29
 FINAL REPORT

CHAPTER FIVE

DATA ANALYSIS

The focus group discussions afforded the team the opportunity to further develop the
model for the establishment of a career system for State Universities and Colleges.
Coming off from the three models of career systems in the Philippine bureaucracy,
and supplemented by the data from the FGDs, the following options came out. The
options are presented per key component of a career system, after a short
presentation on the status quo generally operating in the State Universities and
Colleges.

Entry

Entry refers to the mode in which a prospect enters the pool in the personnel system.
It will also cover admission requirements, equivalencies, and other similar
qualifications.

The current system operating in State Universities and Colleges offer an assortment
of processes in which a prospect enters the system.

For prospective Presidents of State Universities and Colleges, the standardized rules
as codified in RA 8292 (Higher Education Modernization Act) and the Revised
Implementing Rules and Regulations of the said law (CHED Memorandum Order
2009-16) apply.

Six months to a year prior to the end of the term of the incumbent president, the
governing board of the said SUC shall create a Search Committee, composed of at
least five members, with the representatives coming from the academic community,
the private sector, the Commission on Higher Education and PASUC. The same IRR
sets the minimum qualifications for the position - the prospective applicant must not
be less than 35 years old but not more than 61 years old upon application, a natural-
born Filipino citizen, a holder of an earned doctorate degree from a reputable higher
education institution; with a proven track record as an administrator for at least five
years preferably in the academe; and should not have been convicted of any crime
or administrative offense.

The candidate's professional competence and academic background will be

appraised through a standard form, with results carrying a weight of 35% and 25%,
respectively. He or she will then be subjected to a Panel Interview (by the Search
Committee) and presentation in a public forum, with a weight of 15% and 25%

30
 FINAL REPORT

respectively. After this, they will be ranked according to the scores they garnered,
and the results contained in a report submitted by the Committee to the SUC
Governing Board. The Board may then subject the top three candidates to another
round of panel interview, after which they will be voting the next president among the
three. Note that the report of the search committee at this point is merely
recommendatory and does not guarantee the election of the first in the ranking
as president.

For the appointment of vice-presidents of SUCs, there have been two responses
which are common among the participants. First, the participants noted that the vice-
presidents are in effect designated by the presidents, serving at their will and
pleasure. The Vice-Presidents are chosen by the President who then forwards the
name to the Board for confirmation. It is to be noted that in some SUCs, a sort of
nomination and selection process not unlike that for the presidents are set. However,
for others it (i.e., the selection of vice-presidents) is largely at the discretion of the
president. While there are available plantilla positions for Vice-Presidents for SUCs,
they are rarely, if ever, appointed to these permanent positions. The same trend is
present in the appointment of other designated officials, such as Deans and
Directors of Administrative Offices, Campus Directors, and the like.

Entry of faculty members in the SUC system is more quantitative. The Common
Criteria for Evaluation, which is basically the points-based system adopted under
NCC No. 69 and NBC No. 461 is a very objective way of checking the qualifications
of faculty members, solving the problem of political patronage in the granting of
faculty promotions. For appointment to a certain rank and sub-rank, one must be
able to reach the quota for the corresponding point bracket for that specific rank.
Points are gathered from the qualifications that a candidate possesses, including, but
not limited to: educational attainment, workshops and training attended, experience
and professional service, publications, and the like.

For the non-teaching personnel of the State Universities and Colleges, the
qualification standards are set by the Civil Service Commission. There is no system
peculiar to administrative staff of SUCs. Being a Civil Service Eligible would be the
common minimum requirement for all administrative positions in SUCs.

The participants in the FGDs complained of the politicization in the processes

currently operating in the appointment of top and middle level officials in State
Universities and Colleges. For example, some lament the fact that the results of the
Search Committee for the Presidency is merely recommendatory and that in the end,
the voting of the governing board, which is purely political in nature, becomes the
main arbiter on who becomes the next president. At the same time, the absence of

31
 FINAL REPORT

clear-cut, uniform, and codified rules on the appointment of Vice-Presidents and

other officials has given too wide a leeway to the appointing authority.

The CCE component of the NBC 461 is very functional and has been praised by the
members of the faculty from State Universities. However, the common problem in
SUCs is the lack of plantilla positions for faculty members (among others), causing
the faculty to be engaged first contractually. Employment under NBC 461 would
usually come later. The same problem is diagnosed in the non-teaching staff of
SUCs, with the compounded problem of relatively low wages due to the fact that
their wages are pegged to that of National Government Agencies, having the same
job titles.

In the proposed system, entry to the pool of qualified personnel for State Universities
and Colleges would be divided into three parts: one would be for entry into the pool
of qualified managers, another for entry into the pool of qualified faculty, and another
for the pool of qualified non-teaching staff.

Entry to the pool of qualified faculty will be more or less the same as it is now. It was
noted among all the discussions that the CCE component of the NBC 461 is working
well and has been achieving the results desired.

Entry to the pool of qualified administrative staff would necessitate the creation of a
new staffing pattern for SUCs not unlike the Foreign Staff Service Employee
and Foreign Staff Service Officer track of the Philippine Foreign Service. This
would mean that instead of the plantilla items bearing the name “Clerk I” or
“Administrative Aide I”, the positions would be and “SUC Staff Service Employee I”
and “SUC Staff Service Officer I” that would run parallel to the SUC Faculty System
up to the Managerial Track of the Career System. This would unshackle them from
the wage set for NGAs and at the same time give them a path which they could
ascend as they develop in the system.

How is this entry to the SUC Staff Service corps envisioned? The idea that has been
floated for quite some time already is the creation of a Common Criteria Evaluation,
particularly a points-based system, for the non-teaching staff.

Finally, the entry to the corps of managers of State Universities and Colleges
will definitely be more competitive. Like in the Foreign Service and in the Career
Executive Service, a series of examinations and hurdles will be set before the
prospective SUC manager. Passers will be appointed to ranks (not unlike, for
example, Career Executive Service Officer V or Foreign Service Officer II – we do
not intend to discuss nomenclature at this point) and designated to particular

32
 FINAL REPORT

positions, say Vice-President or Director. Thus, the need to create a new plantilla
position for each managerial post is eliminated.

Naturally, there is a provision for holdovers. Upon the effectivity of the proposal, all
new officials will be subjected to an examination while acting on the post in a
holdover capacity. They may continue to do the same until such time when a
qualified person is designated to the position.

Coverage

Coverage refers to the scope of the proposed career system in the SUCs. Simply
put, the question is what positions are covered by the proposed system.

Ideally, all officials ought to be covered by the Career System. However, consensus
was not reached during the focus group discussions – instead several options came
out for the consideration of the stakeholders.

First, no consensus was reached as to whether the President of State Universities

ought to be a career official or not. Parallels were made between the SUC President
on one hand, and the Non-career Ambassadors and Cabinet Secretaries on the
other. Those who argue against the inclusion of the Presidents in the career system
say that this could create complications with the Governing Board as appointing
authority and thus, the status quo should simply be reformed by implementing more
stringent rules on the appointment of Presidents, such as upgrading the minimum
qualifications for the SUC Presidency. Those who are for the inclusion of the
President, however, argue that the SUC President should never be a political
appointee and that a career president might be able to serve his or her
constituencies better, given that he or she rose from the ranks.

The same question was raised on the inclusion of the Vice-Presidents in the Career
System. Two significant schools of thought emerged during the discussions: first, on
the Vice-President as the “alter ego” of the President; and second, on the Vice-
President as a “lieutenant” that would be able to bolster a President should he or she
need help. Proponents of the first one emphasized the importance of Vice-
Presidents.

At the level of Deans and Directors and other middle administrative officials, there is
no question that they are to be career officers. The only main reservation that was
discussed is the importance of ensuring that the Dean must come from the academic
tradition of the College he or she is managing.

33
 FINAL REPORT

The mandate given by the Commission on Higher Education to the Executive

Development Program for SUCs to include the faculty and the support services in
the career system has made the team look into these two major sectors of the state
universities and colleges. No major issues came out of the inclusion of the faculty,
save for the suggestion of introducing different parallel tracks for research and
instruction.

Grades and Levels

Grades and Levels refer to the “steps” in the ladders of the proposed personnel
system for State Universities and Colleges.

There are two possibilities for the managerial track in SUCs. The first is to convert
the designated managerial positions into permanent plantilla positions, with an
accreditation/qualification examination necessary to be appointed permanently to the
said positions. The second, which was the preference of more respondents, was to
keep these positions as designated positions.

The proviso for the second possibility would be to introduce a separate structure – a
pool if you will – that will provide the personnel who will be designated to these
positions. Four ranks, patterned after the Foreign Service Officer System, will be
instituted as the SUC Service Officer System. Those who qualify under the system
will be appointed to the rank and designated to positions commensurate to their
rank.

A question that nagged that proviso was the issue of rotation? Would the rotation be
SUC-wide, region-wide, or nationwide? What are the mechanics of the rotation? The
answer is not to clear at this point, as it would need further consultation with the
stakeholders. However, instituting a tour of duty would be necessary for the effective
functioning of the system.

For the faculty, the mechanics that are being implemented, particularly in the ranking
and sub-ranking, under NBC 461, are to be retained. The most crucial amendment,
which is on the NBC’s QCE component, is to be discussed in the next section.

The institution of the SUC Staff Service Officer (4 grades) and SUC Staff Service
Employee (4 grades) would allow the development of the support service of SUCs.
The SUC Staff Service Officer and SUC Staff Service Employee form part of a linear
track that connects with (and in certain points, overlaps with) the 4 grades of the
managerial track of the career system for SUCs. The 4 grades of SUC Staff Service
Officer (2 of which overlaps with the lowest two grades of the managerial track)
would provide for the professional and technical positions in the support services of

34
 FINAL REPORT

the SUCs that does not fall under the coverage of the managerial track and would
require at least four years in college. The SUC Staff Service Employee, on the other
hand, would constitute positions in the first level of the SUCs, namely those for
positions whose work require less than four years in College.

Promotion and Merit Procedures

This item tackles the modes by which advancement in the proposed system is made.

Those who are part of the pool of officers in the managerial track are posted on a
tour of duty for a specified period of time. After this tour of duty, assessment and
evaluation is made, after which recommendation to move up to the next level is
given or withheld. Promotion cannot be made more often than every two years.

For the faculty members, the rules of NBC 461 are to be maintained. However,
crucial amendments are to be made. Among the crucial revisions to be made are the
following: 1) inclusion of more diverse respondents in QCE (with bigger weight
allocated to students), 2) the assignment of points in QCE, and, 3) the
implementation of the NBC 461 cycles on a yearly basis. The template of the result
of the Seminar-Workshop on the Revision of NBC #461 (May 2012) is attached as
Appendix 9.

A similar system of points-based system ought to be introduced for the non-teaching

staff, the intricacies of which will be based on the results of the initial dialogue
between the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) and the Administrative
and Planning Officers of State Colleges and Universities Association (APOSCUA). A
yearly implementation of the cycle for the non-teaching staff is recommended as
well.

Management of Career System

Lastly, several options for the management of the career system came out in the
discussions.

First, it has to be stated that several components of the career system is to be

managed: first, there should be a regulatory body that would be responsible for the
day-to-day functioning of the career system; second, a quasi-judicial body which will
serve as a sort of “court of first instance” in resolution of conflicts related to the
career system; third, an evaluation and assessment body that will handle the
screening, examination, and assessment of prospective members of SUC personnel
as well as of personnel due for promotion; fourth, an external assessing and
validating body as a check-and-balance in the conduct of the evaluation and

35
 FINAL REPORT

assessment functions; and fifth, a developmental body that will provide for the
continuous training and development of the members of the pool.

While ideal, it is not necessary that all the functions of the management of the career
system be under one governing agency. In fact, it would appear that only one
government agency is fulfilling all these tasks for the bureaucracy, namely, the Civil
Service Commission. This would mean that an agency that would specialize in the
management of the career system of SUCs would be having concurrent jurisdiction
with the CSC and the Governing Boards of SUCs.

These roles are limited to oversight on personnel concern. The proposed functions,
while similar, are not equivalent to the role that the Governance Commission on
GOCCs plays. The oversight functions on SUCs remain with the Commission on
Higher Education.

Naturally, the first one to be considered for the management of the Career System is
the Commission on Higher Education. However, it is suggested that a separate body
– perhaps a board whose chair is the CHED Chairperson sitting ex officio – be
created to perform the five functions listed above.

36
 FINAL REPORT

CHAPTER
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This study has shown that the current circumstances is quite ripe and is indeed
welcoming of the prospect of establishing a career system for State Universities and
Colleges.

Proposed Mode

Given the diagnosis that was made by the research team and the dialogue that came
out of these initiatives, the proposed model for the career system in State
Universities was drawn up.

The proposed career system for SUCs will be three-tracked: One track will be for the
faculty members: those who are involved in instruction and research. In all the
FGDs, the current leveling system for faculty under the NBC No. 461 was affirmed,
with the exception of its Quality Criteria Evaluation component. Thus, for the
proposed track for faculty members, the same leveling system will be employed,
from Instructor I to College/University Professor.

Figure 4
Three-Tracked SUC Career System

37
 FINAL REPORT

Another track is proposed for the support service corps of SUCs. Here, the current
system operating in the foreign service is adapted, tentatively named: SUC Staff
Service Employee (four ranks) and SUC Staff Service Officer (four ranks). Like in the
foreign service, the rank holders for this track are appointed to a certain rank (say,
SUC Staff Service Employee IV or SUC Staff Service Officer II) and designated to
positions (for example, assistant registrar, accountant or clerk). While they are part
of a pool of rank-and-file employees for the support corps, there will still be a certain
QS criteria for each of the position that they will be designated to.

The final track (and in some ways, an extension of the non-teaching track) is the
managerial track for SUCs, tentatively with four ranks. Like the CESO System and
the FSO System, the eligibles are appointed to a rank and designated to a position.
All managerial positions will be categorized under the four ranks and designation to
such positions shall be made from members of the pool holding that specific rank.

The research also netted proposals and further discussion points on specific
components of the system, namely: Entry, Grade and Level, Advancement and
Management. They are summarized, as follows:

MANAGERIAL FACULTY NON-TEACHING

Entry Series of competitive Determined through Determined through
examinations and categorization subject categorization subject
hurdles; passers to Modified Quota to Modified Quota
appointed to ranks System. System.
and designated to
particular positions.
Coverage Presidents and Vice All faculty positions All positions in the
Presidents: Career or (Instructor I to non-teaching sector
Non-Career? University Professors)

Deans and
Directors: Career

Specialized
Stipulations for
Academic Deans?
Promotion and Batch promotion is Promotion is made Promotion is made
Advancement/ Merit done from entry level after an evaluation after an evaluation
Procedures to the next level. cycle that is to be held cycle that is to be held
Succeeding every evaluation cycle every evaluation cycle
promotions are done (preferably held every (preferably held every

38
 FINAL REPORT

individually, with a year), subject to the year), subject to the

gap of at least two availability of positions availability of positions
years. in the next rank/sub- in the next rank/sub-
rank. rank.

Evaluation should be Evaluation should be

validated by a third- validated by a third-
party. QCE party.
component should be
modified.
Grades And Levels Four ranks, with Rank Five ranks, each with Eight grades,
IV as entry level and five sub-ranks: separated into two:
Rank I as the highest. Instructor, Assistant four grades under the
Professor, Associate SUC Staff Service
Professor, and Officer, another four
College/University under the SUC Staff
Professor Service Employee
Management of the Functions:
Career System 1. Regulation - day-to-day functioning of the career system
2. Quasi-judicial - resolution of conflicts related to the career system;
3. Evaluation and assessment - handles the screening, examination,
and assessment of prospective members of SUC personnel as
well as of personnel due for promotion
4. External assessment and validation - check-and-balance in the
conduct of the evaluation and assessment functions
5. Development - provides continuous training and development of
the members of the pool.

Given the proposed model, the path that the study will take for the development of
the career system is clearer.

The setting of key competencies for each level, drawn up from the focus group
discussions, would be the next step. This would enable the group that will draft the
proposed legislative text to work out the minute details of the proposed system.

There are other pre-requisites for the implementation of the career system, which will
be discussed in the next part.

39
 FINAL REPORT

Pre-requisites for implementation

The study on the development of a career system showed the many pre-requisites
that need to be put in place for the effective functioning of the career system. Among
them are:

1. Revision of Staffing Standards and Occupational Index for SUCs

The staffing standards for SUCs should be looked into. Many have noted that these
have been used in State Universities and Colleges for decades already, and that the
two no longer correspond to the current needs of the SUCs. This would be a pre-
requisite as well for the proposed creation of new plantilla positions.

2. Creation of New Plantilla Positions

It is widely noted, across all the five geographical centers, that there is a lack of
plantilla positions not only for the third level, but in a greater part, for the first and
second level of the non-teaching sector. There is a need to create new positions, in
line with the nomenclature suggested, in order to create the three tracks proposed
and thus solve the hemorrhage in the personnel system of SUCs.

3. Revision of DBM-National Budget Circular No. 461

The rules under National Budget Circular No. 461 may generally be adopted in the
proposed career system. However, tweaking is necessary in the QCE component of
the said NBC, primarily because of its inability to quantitatively measure quality in
instruction, extension and research,

4. Creation of New System for Administrative / Non-Teaching Staff

The introduction of streamlined rules in entry and promotion for administrative and
non-teaching staff is necessary under the proposed career system in the interest of
developing an effective support corps for State Universities and Colleges. A proposal
that has been floating for the past decade is introduction of a points-based system
for non-teaching staff not unlike the NBC No. 461 for the faculty.

Conclusion
The study on the development of a career system showed the many pre-requisites
that need to be put in place for the effective functioning of the career system. Among
them are:

40
 FINAL REPORT

APPENDICES

Number Title Page Cited on

(page)

1 Cover Letter for the Request of Staffing 39

Summary

2 Staffing Summary Profile Form 40 11

3 Summary of Staffing Patterns of SUCs 41 11

4 Letter of Invitation for the Focus Group 44 11

Discussions on the Career System

5 Questionnaire Template for the Focus Group 45 11

Discussions on the Career System

6 Standard Powerpoint Presentation for the 49

Focus Group Discussions

7 List of Invited State Universities and 51

Colleges for the Initial Focus Group
Discussions

8 List of State Universities and Colleges who 54

participated in the Validation Focus Group
Discussion

9 Breakdown of Competencies from the Focus 55

Group Discussions

10 Output of the Seminar-Workshop on the 61

NBC 461: Revisiting the CCE and QCE
Instrument (28-30 May, 2012, Cebu City)

41
 FINAL REPORT

Appendix 1

COVER LETTER FOR THE REQUEST OF STAFFING SUMMARY

(Development Academy of the Philippines)

March 14, 2013

Dear Mr./Madam President,

As part of the EDPS research component (particularly for the research on the
development of a Career System), we would like to request for a staffing summary of
organic and non-organic personnel of your respective SUCs.

Please find attached a template form for the said staffing summary.

Thank you very much as we hope for your usual kind consideration.

Respectfully yours,

Aaron James R. Veloso

EDPS Secretariat

42
 FINAL REPORT

Appendix 2

STAFFING SUMMARY PROFILE FORM

STAFFING SUMMARY CY 2013

NAME OF
SUC:

ORGANIC NON-ORGANIC

SENIOR
ADMINISTRATIVE
OFFICIALS

MIDDLE
ADMINISTRATIVE
OFFICIALS

FACULTY

ADMINISTRATIVE /
NON-TEACHING
PERSONNEL

TOTAL

Legend:
1. Senior Administrative Officials are executive officials who are designated/ appointed/
elected which are higher than the levels of Deans (Academic Track) and Directors
(Administrative Track).
2. Middle Administrative Officials are officials in the managerial class who are
designated or appointed from the level of Deans and Directors down.
3. Faculty refers to personnel engaged in instruction and/or research, preferably under
the definitions / rankings set by NBC 461.
4. Organic Personnel are personnel with plantilla positions – whether permanent,
coterminous, or casual - allocated under the Personnel Services section of the SUC's
budget.
5. Non-Organic Personnel are personnel engaged by the university or college by Job
Order / Contract of Service and paid through allocations classified under the SUC's
MOOE.

43
 FINAL REPORT

Appendix 3

SUMMARY OF STAFFING PATTERNS OF SUCs

SENIOR ADMIN MIDDLE ADMIN

FACULTY ADMIN STAFF TOTAL
OFFICIAL OFFICIALS TOTAL GRAND
NAME OF SUC NON-
NON- NON- NON- NON- ORGANIC TOTAL
ORGANIC ORGANIC ORGANIC ORGANIC ORGANIC
ORG ORG ORG ORG
Benguet State
40 9 160 1 137 7 28 248 365 265 630
University

Caraga State University 1 2 0 32 104 117 60 154 165 305 470

Carlos Hilado Memorial

State College of
5 0 11 0 218 0 83 0 317 0 317
Science and
Technology

Cebu Normal University 3 0 20 0 111 83 50 33 184 116 300

Central Mindanao
4 0 37 0 288 61 434 60 763 121 884
University
Central Philippines
3 0 0 0 73 36 34 58 110 94 204
State University

Ilocos Sur Polytechnic

5 0 48 0 126 35 118 12 297 47 344
State College

KalingaApayao State
2 4 1 15 113 0 55 0 171 19 190
College

Laguna State
10 0 89 0 262 321 96 178 457 499 956
Polytechnic University

44
 FINAL REPORT

SENIOR ADMIN MIDDLE ADMIN

FACULTY ADMIN STAFF TOTAL
OFFICIAL OFFICIALS TOTAL GRAND
NAME OF SUC NON-
NON- NON- NON- NON- ORGANIC TOTAL
ORGANIC ORGANIC ORGANIC ORGANIC ORGANIC
ORG ORG ORG ORG

Mindoro Oriental State

College of Agriculture 3 0 13 0 36 12 28 86 80 98 178
and Technology

Mindoro State College

of Science and 6 0 19 21 112 29 70 0 207 50 257
Technology
Nueva Vizcaya State
0 1 0 22 132 5 57 1 189 29 218
University - Bambang
Nueva Vizcaya State
University - 1 4 1 9 194 22 123 0 319 35 354
Bayombong

Occidental Mindoro
5 0 27 0 162 0 76 0 270 0 270
State College

Pangasinan State
4 0 25 0 331 174 223 112 583 286 869
University
Philippine Merchant
4 0 11 0 61 2 96 45 172 47 219
Marine Academy
Philippine Normal
4 0 23 0 310 0 161 36 498 36 534
University
Ramon Magsaysay
Technological 73 0 16 0 120 0 88 0 297 0 297
University
Romblon State
2 3 13 29 194 0 91 0 300 32 332
University
Sulu State College 4 0 12 0 101 63 35 89 152 152 304

45
 FINAL REPORT

SENIOR ADMIN MIDDLE ADMIN

FACULTY ADMIN STAFF TOTAL
OFFICIAL OFFICIALS TOTAL GRAND
NAME OF SUC NON-
NON- NON- NON- NON- ORGANIC TOTAL
ORGANIC ORGANIC ORGANIC ORGANIC ORGANIC
ORG ORG ORG ORG
Surigao State College
3 0 25 0 109 88 31 68 168 156 324
of Technology

University of Northern
5 0 93 0 396 112 146 0 640 112 752
Philippines

West Visayas State

8 0 11 0 540 0 510 206 1069 206 1275
University
Western Mindanao
4 0 78 0 479 303 141 235 702 538 1240
State University
Zamboanga State
College of Marine
4 0 13 0 125 37 118 23 260 60 320
Science and
Technology

46
 FINAL REPORT

Appendix 4

LETTER OF INVITATION FOR THE

FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS ON THE CAREER SYSTEM

(Development Academy of the Philippines)

March 15, 2013

DR. FIRSTNAME LAST NAME

President
Name of SUC
Address

Dear President Lastname:

Greetings from the Academy!

The Academy, in partnership with the Commission on Higher Education, is jointly

implementing the nationwide Executive Development Program for State Universities
and Colleges (EDPS) aimed at equipping the top executives of various SUCs all over
the country with key leadership and management competencies required to
effectively lead their respective schools towards performance excellence and global
competitiveness. A major part of the program is the Strategic Studies Sector, which
is currently conducting a research on the development of a Career System for SUCs.

In this regard, we would like to request the participation of six officials from your SUC
(two administrative officials on Day 1, and two faculty members and two non-
teaching staff on Day 2) in the planned Focus Group Discussion on the Development
of a Career System that will be conducted in VENUE on DATE. The said focus group
discussion aims to bring together a total of 60 respondents from various SUCs in the
region to get a feel on their pulse on the development of a career system for SUCs
as well as the form in which they would like it to take shape.

For any inquiries on the Program, feel free to contact Mr. Aaron James R. Veloso,
Project Technical Staff, through the numbers (02) 631-2172 and (0917) 873-37-57,
or through e-mail at <aaronjamesveloso@upm.edu.ph>. Thank you very much and
we hope for your continued support of the Executive Development Program for
SUCs.

Very truly yours,

(SIGNED)
GLORIA JUMAMIL-MERCADO PhD, MNSA
Senior Vice President and Dean
Graduate School of Public and Development Management
Development Academy of the Philippines

47
 FINAL REPORT

Appendix 5

TEMPLATE QUESTIONNAIRE FOR THE

FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS ON THE CAREER SYSTEM

1. Appointment Process of SUCs key officials, faculty and non-teaching staff

Questions Answers
1.1 Who are the key officials of your
SUCs?

1.2 What is the process of

appointing/designating these
officials?

1.3 How long have you been doing this

practice?

1.4 What are the

advantages/disadvantages of this
process?

1.5 How is the management of SUCs

affected by this practice?

1.6 What do you propose to improve

the process of appointing key
officials?

1.7 What is the process of appointing

faculty members?

1.8 Suggestions on improving the

appointment process of faculty
members.

1.9 What is the process of appointing

administrative staff and other non-
teaching personnel?
1.10 Suggestions on improving the
appointment process ofadministrative
and other non- teaching personnel.

2. Managerial career system for SUCs

Questions Answers
2.1 What do you think of the
possibility of putting in place a
career system that will govern
the selection of key officials?
2.2 What processes of

48
 FINAL REPORT

appointing key officials do you

think should be adopted under
this system?
2.3 What are the Advantages Disadvantages
advantages/disadvantages of
this system?

2.4 Who do you foresee will People/sectors Their Ways to handle

object to this system and what objecting to the objections the objections
will be their objections? How Career System for
do you suggest these SUCs
objections be handled?

2.5 How will this system affect

the management of the SUCs?

3. Career system for SUC faculty and administrative and non-teaching staff

Questions Answers
3. 1. What Strengths Areas for Suggestions for
law/system improvement improvement
governs
thepromotion of
faculty members?
3.2. What
law/system
governs the
promotion of non-
teaching
personnel?
3.3 What do you Faculty Career system Admin and other non-teaching
think of putting a personnel system
career system for
faculty members
and administrative
and other non-
teaching staff?
3.4 What features
do you
recommend for
this system?
3.5 4 Who do you Source of Their Objections Ways to handle
foresee will object objections objections
to this system and
what will be their
objections? How
do you suggest
these objections
be handled?

49
 FINAL REPORT

4. Management of the career system

Questions Answers
Managerial Faculty Administrative
Career System Career Career System
System
4.1 How do you think the
career system should be
implemented?

4.2 What should be the

structure that will manage the
career system?

4.3 Who should be involved in

the
implementation/management
of the career system?
4.4 How will this be similar to
the management of the career
system for third level officials in
the bureaucracy and the
career ministers in the foreign
service?
4.5 What suggestions can you
give for effective
implementation of the career
system?

5. Competencies of key officials (by position based on list provided by the

participants in question 1)
President Vice Deans/Directors Directors Other Faculty Administrative
5.1 For effective and President of position Staff
efficient management satellite
campus
of the SUCs, what
competencies should
each management
position in the SUCs
have? (get
competencies by
position)
5.2 What system
needs to be put in
place so that
prospective
management officials
of SUCs are equipped
with the competencies
required? (cite the
FSI, PhilJA, CES)
5.3 How will this
system be
implemented (a
separate entity? An
attached agency of

50
 FINAL REPORT

the CHED?)

5.4 What other

suggestions do you
have in ensuring that
SUC officials have the
competencies
required of their
positions?
5.5 In addition to basic
academic
qualifications, what
personal
attributes/qualities do
you desire faculty
members to possess?
5.6 In addition to
meeting qualifications
standards, what other
personal
attributes/qualities do
you want
administrative/support
staff to possess so
they can provide good
support to the
academe?

51
 FINAL REPORT

Appendix 6

STANDARD POWERPOINT PRESENTATION

INTRODUCTION TO THE FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS

52
 FINAL REPORT

53
 FINAL REPORT

Appendix 7

LIST OF INVITED STATE UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES

FOR THE INITIAL FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS

Cagayan de Oro FGDs

NAME OF SUC HEAD OF INSTITUTION ADDRESS

Bukidnon State
Dr Victor MBarroso Malaybalay, Bukidnon
University
Camiguin Polytechnic
Dr Venus ILammawin Mambajao, Camiguin
State College
Caraga State University Dr Joanna B Cuenca Ampayon, Butuan City
Central Mindanao
DrMaria Luisa RSoliven Musuan, Bukidnon
University
Mindanao University of
DrRicardo ERotoras Cagayan de Oro City
Science and Technology

Misamis Oriental State

College of Agriculture DrRosalito AQuirino Claveria, Misamis Oriental
and Technology

Mindanao State
DrMacapado A Muslim Marawi City
University System

MSU – Iligan Institute of Dr Sukarno DTanggol,

Iligan City
Technology Chancellor

54
 FINAL REPORT

Zamboanga FGDs

NAME OF SUC HEAD OF INSTITUTION ADDRESS

Basilan State College DrHji Nasser A Salain Isabela City, Basilan
Mindanao State
University - Tawi-Tawi Atty Lorenzo R Reyes,
Bongao, TawiTawi
College of Technology Chancellor
and Oceanography
Sulu State College DrAbdurasa S Arasid Jolo, Sulu
Western Mindanao State
DrMilabel Enriquez-Ho Zamboanga City
University
Zamboanga City State
DrNora M Ponce Zamboanga City
Polytechnic College

Zamboanga State
College of Marine
DrMilavel D Nazario Zamboanga City
Sciences and
Technology

Jose Rizal Memorial Dapitan City, Zamboanga

Dr Edgar S Balbuena
State University del Norte

Josefina H Cerilles State San Miguel, Zamboanga

DrCarlicita ASaniel
College del Sur

Tawi-Tawi Regional
DrMohAsady MHussin Bongao, Tawi-Tawi
Agricultural College

Tacloban FGDs

NAME OF SUC HEAD OF INSTITUTION ADDRESS

Eastern Samar State
DrEdmundo A Campoto Borongan, Eastern Samar
University
Eastern Visayas State
Dr Dominador O Aguirre, Jr Tacloban City
University
Leyte Normal University Dr Jude A Duarte, DPA Tacloban City
Naval State University DrEdita S Genson Naval, Biliran
Northwest Samar State
Dr Socorro O Bohol Calbayog City
University

Palompon Institute of
Dr Delia T Combista Palompon, Leyte
Technology

Samar State University Dr Eusebio T Pacolor Catbalogan, Samar

VisayasStateUniversity DrJose L Bacusmo Baybay, Leyte

University of the
Dr Anita G Cular,
Philippines Tacloban Tacloban City
Dean
College

55
 FINAL REPORT

Isabela FGDs

NAME OF SUC HEAD OF INSTITUTION ADDRESS

Aurora State College of
DrEusebio V Angara Baler, Aurora
Technology
Benguet State University Dr Ben D Ladilad La Trinidad, Benguet
Isabela State University DrAleth M Mamauag Echague, Isabela
Kalinga-Apayao State
Dr Eduardo T Bagtang Tabuk, KalingaApayao
College
Quirino State University Dr Samuel O Benigno Diffun, Quirino

Apayao State College Dr Nieves A Dacyon Conner, Apayao

Cagayan State University DrRomero R Quilang Tuguegarao City

University of the Dr Raymundo D Rovillos,

Baguio City
Philippine Baguio Chancellor

Legazpi FGDs

NAME OF SUC HEAD OF INSTITUTION ADDRESS

Bicol University DrFay Lea Patria M Lauraya Legazpi City
CamarinesNortes State
DrMonsito G Ilarde Daet, Camarines Norte
College
Camarines Sur
DrDulce F Atian Nabua, Camarines Sur
Polytechnic Colleges
Catanduanes State
Dr Minerva I Morales Virac, Catanduanes
University
Central Bicol State
AttyMarito T Bernales Pili, Camarines Sur
University of Agriculture

Dr Emilio B Espinosa Sr
Memorial State College
Dr Erwin H Malto Mandaon, Masbate
of Agriculture and
Technology

Partido State University Dr Nita V Morallo Goa, Camarines Sur

Sorsogon State College Dr Antonio E Fuentes Sorsogon, Sorsogon

University of Eastern Catarman, Northern

Atty Mar P de Asis, PhD
Philippines Samar

Bicol State College of

Applied Science and Dr Richard H Cordial Naga City
Technology

56
 FINAL REPORT

Appendix 8

LIST OF STATE UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES WHO PARTICIPATED

IN THE VALIDATION FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION

NAME OF SUC HEAD OF INSTITUTION ADDRESS

Bicol University Dr Fay Lea Patria M Lauraya Legazpi City

Central Bicol State

Dr Georgina Bordado Pili, Camarines Sur
University of Agriculture

Central Mindanao
DrMaria Luisa RSoliven Musuan, Bukidnon
University
Don Mariano Marcos
Memorial State AttyBenjamin P Sapitula Bacnotan, La Union
University

Mariano Marcos State

Dr Miriam Edulian-Pascua Batac, Ilocos Norte
University

MSU – General Santos DrAbdurahman T Canacan,

General Santos City
City Chancellor

Nueva Vizcaya State Bayombong, Nueva

Dr Florentina S Dumlao
University Vizcaya

Palawan State University DrJeter S Sespene Puerto Princesa City

Polytechnic University of
Dr Emanuel C De Guzman Sta. Mesa, Manila
the Philippines

Rizal Technological
Dr Jesus Rodrigo F Torres Mandaluyong City
University

University of Rizal
DrMarita R Canapi Tanay, Rizal
System

Visayas State University DrJose L Bacusmo Baybay, Leyte

West Visayas State

Dr Luis M Sorolla Jr Iloilo City
University

Western Mindanao State

DrMilabel Enriquez-Ho Zamboanga City
University

57

BREAKDOWN OF COMPETENCIES FROM THE FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS
COMPETENCIES for PRESIDENTS
GROUP A
 Academic leader
 Academically prepared
 Age
 Agenda setting
 At least with doctoral
degree
 CESO eligible
 Character leadership
 Communication skills
 Conceptual skill
 Development oriented
 Diagnostic skills
 Educator
 Eloquent
 Emotional Quotient (EQ)
 Familiar with Civil Service
Rules and Regulations
 Financial management
skills
 Firm
 Flexible personality
 Good academic
background with good
school
 Good connections to
centers of resources
 Good managerial and
leadership abilities
 Good moral character
 Good planner, steward
 Good Political Skill
 Have linkages with other
government agencies
 Honest
 Innovative
 Institutional builder
 Integrity and ethics
 Intrapersonal skill
 Know government rules
 Know how to establish
GROUP B
 8 years administrative
experience
 A good follower
 Ability to manage
 Articulate/eloquent
speaker
 Be above situations
 Behavior sensitive
 Collaborative
 Committed to service
 Competent
 Critical thinker
 Decisive
 Doctor in
management or its
equivalent
 Doctoral degree in
management
 Effective controller
 Excellent in
personality
 Firm in decision
making
 Flexible personality
 
God-fearing
 Good communication
skills
 Good with
interpersonal
relationship
 extension oriented
Great patience
 
Has a heart for people
 Has good grasp of
theories and practices
of leadership
 Have management
qualification/experienc
e
 High management
qualification
 High motivation to
58
FINAL REPORT
Appendix 9
GROUP C
 Conflict management
 Flexible in decision
making
 Good leadership
 Has both technical and
administrative skills
 Has the bird’s eye view
of the whole
organizational system
 Intellectual
 Knowledgeable and
good leadership
 Knows how to manage
resources
 Manipulative (hands-
on) skills
 Morally upright
 Must at least have few
trainings on financial
aspect
 Must know financial
management
 Not a politician
PhD or doctorate
degree
 Possess human skill
 Problem solver
 Pro-human resource
 Research and
Servant leadership
 Technically oriented in
finance, research and
extension
 FINAL REPORT

linkages, networking lead

 Know how to generate  Honest
additional  Humane
resources/funds  Knows his job
 Know how to use  Knows his job
resources efficiently  Knows how to solve
 Knowledge management the problems of the
skills university
 Knowledgeable in  Leader manager
administrative and  Leadership
academic governance experience
 Local and institutional  Management oriented
linkages  Morally upright
 Management  Not corrupt
 Management and  Objective
leadership skills  Organization person
 Mapping Political Terrain  People centered
 Objective and  Person oriented
professional  Planner
 Organization person  Resourceful
 Organizing strategist  Resources finder
 Political will  Resources
 Political will seeker/generator
 Professionalism  Risk taker
 Programs marketer  Seeks for quality non-
 Researcher superficial
 Resource generator  Should at least have
 Risk taker experience in
 Strict policy implementer teaching; with
executor in nature minimum number of
 Systems thinking ability years in teaching
 Technical skill  Slow to anger
 Transparent  Stewardship
 Values oriented  Strategic planner
 Visionary  Substantial
 Visionary administrative
 With administrative experience
experience  Sufficient
 With competence administrative
especially with good experience
moral reputation  Sufficient teaching
experience
 Therapeutic
communication skills
 Transformative
 Understand people
 Unquestionable
character and

59
 FINAL REPORT

reputation
 Very professional
 Visionary; vision-
oriented
 With appropriate
educational
qualifications
 With good moral
character
 With good outlook on
social responsibility

60

COMPETENCIES for VICE PRESIDENTS
GROUP A
 Academic vision;
management skill
 Academically prepared
 Academically prepared
 Adaptiveness
 Analyst
 Competent
 Competent with full trust
of the President
 Directly links with industry
and community (re:
innovations and resource
generation
 Excellent in IT
governance
 Excellent policy
interpreter and executor
 Excellent strategic
planner
 Familiar with Civil Service
rules and regulations
 Familiar with COA rules
and regulations
 Familiar with the
research-instruction link
 good academic
background
 Good leader and follower
 good track record
 Human relationship
 Knowledgeable in
aspects of the
academic/administrative
matters
 Knowledgeable on the
academe-industry link for
HRD
 Leadership ability
 Management skill or
leadership with
commitment
 Management skills
 motivational
 Oral and written
communication
 Patience
FINAL REPORT
GROUP B GROUP C
 Academically competent  Better
 Academically prepared communication skills;
 Behavior sensitive not just confidence
 Competent  Communication skills
 Decisive  Excellent
 Development needs implementor of
sensitive academic programs
 Dynamic  Good mentor or
 Equality in all coach
 Expert in his her  Has technical and
position/field as VP administrative skills
 Faculty-student friendly,  Intellectual
approachable  Knowledgeable in
 Good educational the functions as VP
background  Linkages
 Good in human relations
 Have managerial  Must a Dean before
experiences/qualificatio this position
ns
 High academic  Risk taker
qualification  Student-friendly and
 Holder of a PhD degree should address
 Intellectually superior problems of students
 Knowledgeable in  Technically
instruction, research knowledgeable
and extension  With manipulative
 Knows how to deal with skill
the crisis of moral
values
 Knows the craft/job
 Leadership experience
 Leading with grace
 Manager motivator
 Managerial skills-
decision making
 Matured
 Motivator/instigator
 Must be able to
represent his/her
constituents
 Must not be a “Yes”
person
 Output oriented
 Personnel development
oriented
61
 FINAL REPORT

 Policy evaluation and  Planner

formulation  Principled
 Possess  Principled individual
managerial/leadership  Quality-oriented
skills  Resource manager
 resourceful  Same qualification as
 Sensitivity the president
 Service for others  Should at least serve a
 Strategic planner minimum number of
 Understands the link years as Dean
between research and  Strategic planner
instruction  Strong supportive skills
 Supportive
 Team player
 Visionary
 Visionary
 With 8 years experience
 With Good judgment
 With good leadership
and supportive

62

COMPETENCIES for DEANS/DIRECTORS
GROUP A
 (Directors): organizing
strategies; IGP
orientation; academic
vision
 Academic vision;
familiarity with circulars
and/orders
 action oriented
 Administrative and
management skills
 Committed
 Competent
 conflict management
 decision making skills
 doctorate degree
 emotional quotient
 empowered
 ethics
 Excellent in programs,
activities and projects
planning and
implementation
 Generally acceptable by
the constituents and with
president’s support
 good academic
background/graduate with
good school
 good communicator and
resourceful
 good managers with
leadership skills
 High in emotional quotient
 Management skills and
leadership
 motivated
 personal qualities
 Policy evaluation and
formulation
 senior in terms of
academic rank
 Supervisory skills
 work ethics
FINAL REPORT
GROUP B GROUP C
 Approachable  5 years admin
 Competent experience
 Conflict management  Academically prepared
 Cooperative  Admin/teaching
 Good attitude and experience
character  At least an MA in
 Good supervisor management holder or
 Intellectual its equivalent
 Interpersonal skills  Can command respect
 Knows how to  Effective communicator
prioritize things
 Leadership  Expert in his field
 legalistics  Good educbackground
 Good leadership
 Level-headed  Good/competent in
 Managerial skills- management of faculty
decision making  Has been a Chair for at
 Manipulative skills least 5 years
 Must have at least 5  Have management
years experience as qualification/experience
Chairman of the  Manager and
department; a PhD implementor
 Openness to  Motivator
alternatives  MS (in his field of
 Sensitive to needs specialization)
 Specific qualification  Must first be a teacher
should fit the before becoming a
designation be Dean
followed  Must know his/her job
 Stress management  Observant to
 Support the needs of organization processes
the subordinates and protocols
 Understand students  Open-minded
needs  Research leader
 Whole brain leader  Sensitive implementor
 Strategic planner
 Supportive and with
management skills
 Technically
competent/proficient
 Understands the link
between academic and
admin
 Understands the
teaching-learning
continuum
63
 FINAL REPORT

Appendix 9

OUTPUT OF THE SEMINAR-WORKSHOP ON THE NBC 461: REVISITING THE CCE AND QCE INSTRUMENT
(28-30 May, 2012, Cebu City)

1. Who should evaluate the QCE of a faculty?

DIMENSION SUGGESTED EVALUATORS ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES REMARKS
INSTRUCTION Retention of existing set of Buddy-buddy system for Appropriateness of
evaluators: peer evaluation and items with respect to
supervisor, some who evaluates and
Self students put down good who should
Peer and strict teachers and administer the
Students are not objective in their evaluation.
Immediate Supervisor evaluations

Self Self-serving Bias

Peers Collegial The whole process is
subjective and may
strain relationship

Students The real barometer Inadequate knowledge of The administration of

of instruction the instruments the instruments
should be done by
the authorized
personnel.

64
 FINAL REPORT

DIMENSION SUGGESTED EVALUATORS ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES REMARKS

RESEARCH Immediate supervisor More objective A means to retaliate Deans are more
knowledgeable on
the thrusts of their
respective units.
Retention of existing set of
evaluators with the inclusion of
the Dean under Leadership
Research Directors Know something Bias for administrative Experimentals and
Chairs/Coordinators about the research aspects other basic
researches can be
evaluated by the
Director/Chair
Program Project Leader Well-oriented about
the research
Linkage Partner Existing
Research Clientele
Peers/ Self
Research Assistant
Technology Expert

Clientele Direct beneficiaries 30%

Research Director of the research 40%
Research Coordinator activity; more 30%
Research Expert by Discipline objective because
they know the nature
of the study
Dean/Supervisor
Director of Research
Res. Coordinator

65
 FINAL REPORT

DIMENSION SUGGESTED EVALUATORS ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES REMARKS

EXTENSION Retention of existing set of
evaluators
Community 25%
Clientele 25%
Peers 25%
Self 25%
Research Assistant
Research Staff
Technology Expert
Dean/Supervisor
Director of Extension
Extension Coordinator
Clientele

PRODUCTION Retention of existing set of

evaluators
Clientele
IGP Director
Peers/ Self
Linkage
Production Staff

66
 FINAL REPORT

2. How should the QCE of a faculty be evaluated?

DIMENSION CURRENT SYSTEM SUGGESTED REFINEMENT

INSTRUCTION Retention of existing guidelines Modifypoint allocations assigned to raters:
Supervisor 20%
Self 20%
Peer 20%
Students 40%

Observe random sampling; guidelines in

the instrument should be simplified

Commitment 25% Same Areas with Twenty (20) students per

Knowledge of Subject 25% semester
Teaching for Independent Learning 25%
Management of Learning 25%

RESEARCH Clientele Satisfaction 25% The same areas depending on the type of
Leadership 25% research: basic, applied and also the
Partnership Development 25% status (on-going) and developmental.
Community Responsibility 25%

EXTENSION Clientele 25% None

Leadership 25%
Partnership Development 25%
Community Responsibility 25%

PRODUCTION Retention of the existing guidelines

67
 FINAL REPORT

3. How should the CCE and QCE results be treated?

DIMENSION CURRENT SYTEM SUGGESTED REFINEMENT

INSTRUCTION Assignments of points in QCE especially Revisit QCE points especially the 96%
in the higher points: requirements

Instructor II 80
III 82

Asst Prof. I 84
II 86
III 88
IV 90

Min Max
Professor I 61 65
II 66 70
III 71 75
IV 76 80
V 81 85
VI 86 90

College Professor 91 95
University Professor 96 100

RESEARCH
EXTENSION
PRODUCTION

68
 FINAL REPORT

REFERENCES

Career Executive Service Board. (2010, October 26). Resolution No. 905: Rules And
Procedures Implementing Executive Order No. 891, Directing All Departments,
Agencies Of The National Government, And Government Owned And/Or
Controlled· Corporations With Original Charters, To Submit To The Career
Executive Service Board For Its Attestation, All Appointments Or Appointees
Occupying Career Executive Service and/or Third Level Positions. Quezon
City.
Civil Service Code, P.D. No. 807.
Cohen, David M. (1996). Amateur Government: When Political Appointees Manage
the Federal Bureaucracy (CPM Working Paper 96-1). Washington D.C.: The
Brookings Institution.
Covenant on Philippine Public Higher Education Reform. Signed by the presidents of
the 110 State Colleges and Universities in the Philippines, 17 May 2012, Higher
Education Development Center, Diliman, Quezon City.
De Trejo, Esperanza Hirsh (1994). Improving Managerial Effectiveness of Higher
Education Institutions: the case of UNAM, Mexico. Monograph from the series
Improving the Managerial Effectiveness of Higher Education Institutions. Paris,
France: United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization –
International Institute for Education Planning.
Department of Budget and Management (1998, 1 June). National Budget Circular
No. 461: Revising and Updating the Compensation Plan for Faculty Positions
Embodied in National Compensation Circular (NCC) No. 69. Manila.
Hölttä, Seppo J. and KyöstiPulliainen (1994). Improving Managerial Effectiveness at
the University of Joenssu Finland. Monograph from the series Improving the
Managerial Effectiveness of Higher Education Institutions. Paris, France: United
Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization – International
Institute for Education Planning.
House Bill 3740.Explanatory Note by Hon. Rene Lopez Relampagos, 1st District,
Bohol.
Milton Smith, John and ErlindaEchanis (2001). Management Development in Higher
Education. Technical Report HE-8 from the series Education Sector
Development Program. Manila: Asian Development Bank.
Mishra, Sanjaya. (2007). Quality Assurance in Higher Education: An Introduction.
Bangalore, India: National Assessment and Accreditation Council.
Padua, Roberto. (28 May 2012). Historical Perspectives from CHED (Lecture).
Training-Workshop on NBC No. 461: Revisiting the CCE and QCE Instrument
and New Software Utilization. May 28-30, Cebu City.
Peron, J. and Tucker, L. (2003). An Exploration of Triangulation of Methodologies:
Quantitative and Qualitative Fusion in an Investigation of Perceptions of Transit
Safety. A final report submitted to the Center for Urban Transportation
Research at the University of South Florida, April 2003. Florida: University of
South Florida

69
 FINAL REPORT

Revised Guidelines on the Administration of the Career Executive Service Officer

(CESO) Pool. CESB Joint Circular No. 2, Series of 2002.
Senate Bill No. 15. Explanatory Note by Senator Antonio F. Trillanes IV
Vroeijenstijn, A. I. (2003). Towards a Quality Model for Higher Education in Journal
of Philippine Higher Education Quality Assurance 1(1). Quezon City:
Accrediting Agency of Chartered Colleges and Universities in the Philippines.

70