As a Presidential Adviser on Education, make a comprehensive proposal on the

reforms, programs and policies that you would like to institute in the basic education
and/or higher education taking into consideration the various surveys and reforms that
were discussed in class.

Chapter I
Introduction
Access to education as a basic human right and the role of the state in delivering this
right is legally codified in Section 1, Article XIV of The 1987 Philippine Constitution, which
states that “the State shall protect and promote the right of all citizens to quality education at all
levels, and shall take appropriate steps to make such education accessible to all.” In the same
constitution, particularly in Article XIV, Section 4 (1), it also states that “the State recognizes
the complementary roles of public and private institutions in the educational system and shall
exercise reasonable supervision and regulation of all educational institutions.” The Philippines
is one of the few countries in the world with the most privatized education systems, which is a
kind of admission that the state is unable to completely provide the basic service of education
for its people. In order that education be “accessible to all”—as Section1 of the constitution
states—it is imperative that the public and private sector work together as these have
“complementary roles” to provide educational services. The law also says that the state should
also “exercise reasonable supervision and regulation of all educational institutions” in order
that quality be ensured. After all, quality of education is just as vital as access—arguably even
more so. It is very clear what the law states and what is expected of the government in terms
of providing education services to the people.
State Colleges and Universities (SUCs) and Local Colleges and Universities (LUCs)
have been established across the country, by the mandate of the government. These schools
provide education services including any or all of the following: elementary, secondary, tertiary,
and post-graduate levels. In these schools, tuition fees are very minimal as these are
subsidized by the government. There have been recent developments though as President
Rodrigo Duterte has signed into law R.A. 10931 or the Universal Access to Quality Tertiary
Education Act, making education in SUCs and LUCs free for all. This move does not solve any
of the Philippines’ education problems and might even be a compounding factor. While good in
theory or on paper, the reality is that the education system of the Philippines leaves much to
be desired.

The Problem of SUCs and LUCs

In July 2011, Janet S. Cuenca of the Philippine Institute for Developmental Studies
(PIDS) released a study entitled, “Efficiency of State Universities and Colleges in the
Philippines: A Data Envelopment Analysis” evaluating the performance of SUCs for the period
of 2006 to 2009 using Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA). In particular, it estimated the
efficiency of 78 SUCs based on available input data (i.e., expenditure data) and output data
(i.e., number of enrolled students, number of graduates, and total revenue). It also examined
productivity change in these institutions by applying the Malmquist approach on a four-year
panel data set of the 78 SUCs. The results of the analysis provided empirical data on the
inefficiency of the majority of the SUCs. The study showed that the year-on-year average
efficiency score of all SUCs was considerably low, indicating that “a substantial amount of
inputs that could have been saved if only the SUCs had operated efficiently” and in addition,
“productivity gains among the SUCs are found to be very minimal and they are attributed more
with technological change than efficiency change” (Cuenca 2011, p. 1). Cuenca (2011)
concluded that “given the limited government resources, it is only appropriate to ensure that
they are used efficiently to achieve their intended purpose” adding that “wastage of scarce
resources is inevitable especially when institutions such as SUCs fail to perform as expected”
(p. 2)
Similarly, the SUCs quality of instruction for the period 2004 to 2009 was studied in
Rosario G. Manasan’s January 2012 PIDS paper entitled “Rationalizing National Government
Subsidies for State Universities and Colleges.” Utilizing the passing rate of examinees coming
from SUCs in the Licensure Examination for Teachers (LET) as an indicator of the quality of
instruction, Manasan (2012) reported that “the advantage of the SUCs over other HEIs in the
elementary LET appears to have been eroded over time as indicated by the declining SUCs
passing rate to national passing rate ratio.” She added that “SUCs have persistently
underperformed other HEIs in 2004-2009 in the secondary LET” with the decline in passing
rate being significant “from 36% in 2008 to 29% in 2009 for elementary LET and from 32% to
27% in secondary LET.”
These two studies point only to the tip of the iceberg in terms of the problems plaguing
many of the SUCs and LUCs in the country.

Efficiency of Private HEIs

In the Philippines, privately-owned Higher education institutions (HEIs) are putatively
known to be more efficient than their government counterparts. While many factors have
contributed to this reputation, many consider the Private HEI’s better and immediate control of
their budget and management policies as their edge over the public educational bureaucracy.
Guzman and Cabanda (2009) conducted a study that provides empirical data to support
the claim to efficiency of private schools. Using academic data for the years 2001 to 2005,
Guzman and Cabanda (2009) measured the technical efficiency of 16 selected major private
colleges and universities in Metro Manila using Data Envelopment Analysis. The schools
included in the study were: Angelicum, Letran, University of Sto. Tomas, Sta. Catalina, Siena
College, S. Jude College, San Beda College, Centro Escolar University, University of the East,
Trinity College, Far Eastern University, Jose Rizal University, Mapua Institute of Technology,
De Ocampo, Don Bosco, and Ateneo de Manila University. The study revealed that: “the
private higher educational institutions in Metro Manila are 81% efficient, with 4 out of the 16
having “an average technical efficiency score between 99% - 100%, representing 25% of the
sample.”

The Disjointed Regulatory Framework

The Commission on Higher Education (CHED), created by Republic Act No. 8822 in
1994, is mandated to perform the function of setting the minimum standards for programs and
higher education institutions as well as to monitor and evaluate their performance, among
others. In other words, CHED’s main task is to regulate both public and private HEIs—to
ensure that they are meeting the minimum requirement of educational quality. However,
private and public HEIs are differently situated because of CHED’s limited jurisdiction over
public HEIs or SUCs.
To begin with, the creation and conversion of SUCs/LUCs are governed by a charter,
law, or a legislation that is passed by Congress hence, it is a political decision. Congress has
time and again created SUCs and LUCs without considering what is required for an institution
to function as a college or university. It is not unusual for a secondary school or a technical
institute to suddenly be upgraded as a tertiary institution by a legislative act, nor is it a surprise
for a state university to be legislated into existence while private schools can only aspire for

2
university status after at least 15 years and only after having gone through rigorous
assessments.
Aside from stringent and exacting standards set by schools upon themselves and
voluntary external accrediting agencies, HEIs are very strictly regulated by CHED in each
phase of its existence. CHED regulates schools upon establishment (issuing permits), for
operations (accreditation: outcomes-based and typology based QA; vertical and horizontal
typology); and even for performance such as passing percentages in board examinations. If
the HEI does not meet the standards in any of the phases, CHED reserves the right to impose
sanctions from suspensions to even as grave as involuntary closure. There is no such
regulation for SUCs and LUCs. In view of the legislated autonomy of SUCs and LUCs, they are
free to open curricula and programs and award degrees even without the prior consent of
CHED. They most often operate without quality regulation, offering programs without the bare
minimum of equipment or qualified teachers.
Despite manifest inequities, CHED is unable to close or even reprimand/suspend
SUCs/LUCs for such would require a legislative fiat. While efforts have been made to enhance
CHED’s regulation of SUCs, particularly through the enactment of Republic Act No. 8292,
which placed the CHED Chairman as the head of all governing boards of chartered SUCs, the
same nevertheless falls short of addressing the inability of CHED to fully regulate the SUCs in
the same manner that it regulates private HEIs. This gap, if not addressed would prove to be
detrimental for the Filipino student, and ultimately the future of the Philippines. In consideration
of all of the above, the overarching goal of this paper is to level the playing field in the
education sector presented in three specific proposals:.

Proposal 1: Create a policing body for SUCs and LUCs under CHED
As explained in the previous section, SUCs and LUCs suffer from problems of quality,
performance, and inefficiency. While there is the Accrediting Agency of Chartered Colleges
and Universities, Inc. (AACCUP) and the Association of Local Colleges and Universities
Commission on Accreditation, Inc. (ALCUCOA) which are voluntary accrediting agencies, the
current regulatory framework clearly is not effective in policing these SUCs/LUCs, some of
which have become diploma mills that churn out students who are ill-equipped to the work
force of the country much less the world. Private HEIs, as established above, perform better
than their state counterparts in part because they are highly regulated by government in every
turn. Hence, it is proposed that under CHED, a policing body be created solely for regulating
the quality and performance of SUCs and LUCs, effectively systematizing the efforts of
AACCUP and ALCUCOA.

Proposal 2: Legislate sanctions for ill-performing LUCs and SUCs

This proposal relates to the first, but it will require a separate law hence the distinction.
The expression, “fight fire with fire” comes to mind with this second proposal. It has thus far
been next to impossible to impose any sanctions on SUCs/LUCs because these are created
and protected by its own legislation. It will require legislation as well to reverse this situation
that gives rise to impunity, especially in terms of following rules such as minimum program
requirements and sustaining standards of quality. Sanctions for non-performing LUCs/SUCs
should be imposed by law, no matter the political toes that will be stepped on. This will
hopefully result to better quality of SUCs/LUCs.

Proposal 3: Extend free tuition subsidy to Private HEIs through the voucher system
The complementarity of public and private schools has been unwittingly showcased by the
senior high school voucher system, where the DepED is able to shift the burden of
3
accommodating the unprecedented number of senior high school students to the private
sector. It is proposed that this voucher system be extended to tertiary education. RA 10931
becomes problematic especially in light of the quality and inefficiency of SUCs/LUCs.
Leveraging private sector infrastructure and capital is one that can be extended to the propose
Private schools can provide better services, which can be made available to impecunious
students through government subsidy. After all, as Fr. Tabora has said, “no iskolar ng
bayan ought have to suffer a poor quality school” (Taboras, 2017). The choice of where to be
educated is left to the student, which means enhanced access to quality education—the goal
of the State. After all, it is the mandate to provide an inclusive system of grants and subsidies
for both public and private schools, made clear in Section 2, Article XIV of the 1987 Philippine
Constitution which states that the “State shall establish and maintain a system of scholarship
grants, student loan programs, subsidies, and other incentives which shall be available to
deserving students in both public and private schools, especially to the under-privileged.”

Chapter II Implementation and Evaluation (max 20 pages)

Implementation of the proposals presented will be contingent upon the designation of

the proponent. For example, a teacher might take a different approach to implementing a
proposal as the Secretary of the Department of Education, as they have different avenues
available to them to create a change. In this exercise, I take on the role of Presidential Adviser
to the President, which means that my proposal will reach the desks and ears of the people
already in power. I will not need to take the long route which would have involved agenda
setting and drawing attention to my causes by writing media, special interest groups, and
legislator staff officials. I will no longer need to petition citizens to support my causes. I take on
the position that these proposals are ready for implementation and will no longer need to be
lobbied in order to be supported.

Legislative Process
All three proposals will require the support of legislation. Hence, I shall first begin with a
brief discussion of the legislative process in the Philippines, which will be the step prior to
implementation of the proposals. In this country, the branch of government tasked with
creating laws is the Congress, made up of the Lower House, or the House of Representatives,
and the Upper House, or the Senate. Individual members of Congress propose bills for
approval by the majority; these bills usually originate from the members themselves, from non-
government actors/ special interest groups, or from constituents—either as individuals or
groups.
Following is a description of how a bill becomes a law in the Philippines, based on the
Senate of the Philippines website (https://www.senate.gov.ph/about/legpro.asp, accessed
November 2017): The proposed bill is signed by its author and filed with the Secretary of either
the Lower House or the Senate. The bill will go through 3 readings: on the first reading, the
number and title of the bill is read, followed by its referral to the appropriate committee for
study. On the 2nd reading, the bill is read in full along with amendments proposed by the
committee who studied it. After extensive discussion, the bill will be voted on. If approved, it
would go through a third reading. On third reading, the bill will be submitted for a final vote. If
approved again, it shall be transmitted to the other House for concurrence (same process).
If the other House introduces amendments and the origin House does not approve, the
differences will be settled by a meeting of the Conference Committees of both Houses, whose
recommendations will have to be approved by both Houses. Once the bill is approved, it is
transmitted to the President. The President may then either sign the bill to indicate approval, or
4
veto the bill to indicate disapproval.  If approved, the bill officially becomes a law. If the
President decides to exercise his veto powers, the Congress may re-pass the vetoed bill if two-
thirds of both Houses, voting separately, approve its enactment. In this case, the bill also
officially becomes a law.
This paper assumes that Proposal 1, 2, and 3 have gone through this legislative
process and are now laws that have been passed and are ready to be implemented. According
to Fowler (2000), implementation is the stage of the policy process in which a policy formally
adopted by a government body is put into practice in the field. The implementation stage
follows three general phases: (1) mobilizing, which involves laying the groundwork; (2)
implementation proper; and finally, (3) institutionalization, or “the period during which an
innovation is incorporated into the organization” (Gross et al., 1971, p.17, in Fowler, 2000).
This paper will focus upon the implementation proper then proceed to a proposed evaluation
strategy—or the “systematic investigation of the worth or merit of an object” (Joint Committee
on Standards for Educational Evaluation 1994, p.3, in Fowler, 2000).

Proposal 1: Create a policing body for SUCs and LUCs under CHED
Assuming that the law supporting this proposal had already been passed in congress,
this proposal would now need to be implemented. The executive agency tasked to prepare the
Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) for this proposal-turned-law is the Commission on
Higher Education (CHED). Following are some of the details that would be included in the IRR.
The proposed policing body shall be called the Public Universities and Colleges Quality
and Reform Board (PUC-QRB), and its director shall report directly to the CHED
commissioner. The PUC-QRB shall be tasked to ensure the quality and sustainability of SUCs
and LUCs in the following stages: establishment, operations, and performance. In
establishment of SUCs or LUCs for example, the PUC-QRB shall be consulted by Congress
when intending to put up a school. The board shall assess the need for a school in the
community, the viability, the budget, and the programs to be offered. The board shall have veto
powers, which will ensure that congressmen or other public officials will not be allowed to put
up schools only to garner votes and further their selfish political agendas.

CHED Manual of Regulations for Private Higher Education, 2008, p. 16

The regulation process of public higher education institutions shall mirror that which is
imposed upon private schools, as outlined in the Manual of Regulations for Private Higher
Education (MORPHE) and the CMO No. 46, series 2012, “Policy-Standard to Enhance Quality
Assurance (QA) in Philippine Higher Education through an Outcomes-Based and Typology-
Based QA.” CHED’s handbook on Outcomes-based and Typology-based QA (2014, p. 12)
states that quality is premised on the: “alignment and consistency of the learning environment
with the HEI’s VMG; demonstration of exceptional learning and service outcomes; and
development of a culture of quality.” The first two, according to CHED, relates to the horizontal
type of the HEI while the last two are related to the excellence of the programs offered and the
institutions. Public colleges and universities should also be categorized based on horizontal
5
typologies according to their purposes: Universities, colleges, and professional institutions. If
this classification is imposed upon private schools for the purposes of establishing the purpose
of schools and making this known and identifiable to the public, it is only logical for public
schools to follow suit. In the same way, public HEIs should also be expected to uphold
program and institutional excellence. The PUC-QRB shall ensure that this will happen. It is in
the best interests of the Filipino students and therefore of the entire country that the schools in
the state shall undergo stringent regulation, because real education is equivalent to quality
education.
Following is a hypothetical project budget overview (typically subsumed in the budget
proposed along with the law but detailed here for the purposes of this exercise) as well as a
project plan overview for the establishment and initial activities of the PUC-QRB:

Budget Overview
Name of Project: Establishment of Public Universities and Colleges Quality and Reform
Board (PUC-QRB)
For general administration, support, and operations (based on DBM appropriations):
Total (in millions of
Programs Items
pesos)
1. Administrative Basic Salaries 100
and personnel
services Benefits and other allowances 20
Travelling expenses 15
Training expenses 3
3. Maintenance and Supplies and materials expenses 10
other operating Utility and communication expenses 5
expenses Survey and research expenses 25
Rent/lease expenses 20
Repairs and maintenance 1
Property, transportation and machinery
10. Capital outlays 15
equipment outlay
TOTAL 214 M

The figures above are rough estimates but these satisfy the initial needs of putting up a
specific body under the current system. The PUC-QRB shall be headed by a director, who
must be Filipino, with a doctoral degree in education or equivalent, must have extensive
educational management knowledge, and must have at least 20 years working in the public
education sector. Manning the office under the director are officials, all of whom must be
educational practitioners. Under the director, the officials, will be tasked to deliver on the goals
of the PUC-QRB. Personnel shall be involved in office maintenance and other clerical duties.
Now that the office has been set up, the following general tasks are lined up for the
PUC-QRB for its first and second year of operations.

6
 Project Plan Overview- Year 1 & 2 (2018 and 2019)

Name of Project: Establishment of Public Universities and Colleges Quality and Reform
Board (PUC-QRB)
Purpose: To ensure quality and efficiency in the establishment, operations, and performance
of all State and Local Colleges and Universities.
Scope of powers: Regulatory over all the SUCs and LUCs; the board director reports directly
to the CHED commissioner
Budget
Person(s) Venue/
Activities Schedule (in M of
Responsible Locale
pesos)
1. Creating a comprehensive database
of all SUCs and LUCs: (including February
PUC-QRB CHED
enrolment data and trends, number of 2018 to
director & main 100
faculty and personnel, programs February
officers office
offered, board exams performance, 2019
annual budget, etc.)
PUC-QRB
CHED February-
2. Constructing and publishing a manual director and
main October 40
of regulations for public HEIs officials, with
office 2018
stakeholders

3. Briefing of teachers, principals, and November

PUC-QRB Across
other stakeholders of published 2018-May 50
director Phils.
regulations 2019

PUC-QRB
4. Monitoring of SUCs and LUCs for Across Start: June
director and 150
compliance of standards Phils. 2019
officers
TOTAL 3.4 Million

Evaluation
According to Fowler (2000), all policy implementation evaluations follow the same
general procedures, no matter the scope. First, is to determine the goals of the policy.
Following is to select indicators and then select or develop data-collection instruments. Data is
collected thereafter, and then the data is analyzed and summarized. Evaluation reports are
prepared and then presented to significant stakeholders. Finally, an appropriate response to
the evaluators’ recommendations is prepared. In this case, the general goal of the PUC-QRB
is to ensure and monitor the quality and sustainability of SUCs and LUCs in the following

7
stages: establishment, operations, and performance. Ensuring the regulation for quality and
sustainability of these schools is a long-term process, so only the immediate activities for the
first year of operation will be assessed. Each activity is an entire project on its own, so only
general indicators are identified. The following instruments are sample evaluation measures
which can be used for this project:

PUC-QRB Year 1 & 2 Activities

General Goal of the PUC-QRB
Ensure and monitor the quality and sustainability of SUCs and LUCs in the following stages:
establishment, operations, and performance.
Specific Goals for year 1 & 2
1. Create a comprehensive database of all
SUCs and LUCs: (including enrolment
data and trends, number of faculty and
personnel, programs offered, board
exams performance, annual budget, etc.) and analyzes the available data.
3. Construct and publishing a manual of
regulations for public HEIs
4. Brief of teachers, principals, and other
stakeholders of published regulations
5. Monitor of SUCs and LUCs for
compliance of standards
Major Indicator for Success
By Feb 2019, 90% of all SUCs and LUCs
should be listed with up-to-date information.
Custom software should have been
developed that classifies, makes accessible,
By October 2018, a manual of regulations for
the PUC-QRB roles, duties, policies, and
regulations for SUCs and LUCs must have
been constructed, reviewed, written, and
published for public consumption.
By May 2019, all stakeholders nationwide
must have been briefed as to the purposes
and aims of the PUC-QRB as well as the
rules and regulations for SUCs and LUCs to
follow.
By June 2019, all SUCs and LUCs must be
ready for PUC-QRB requirements for initial
processing of horizontal and vertical
typologies.

Each of these goals are broad projects in themselves and will require specific evaluation
instruments for each of the smaller tasks subsumed. Below is a sample evaluation instrument
just for one phase of the specific goal of creating a database of SUCs and LUCs, which is a
major project on its own and will require several phases to be fully implemented.

8
 Project: A Comprehensive Database of all SUCs and LUCs

Recommendations
Impact evaluation*
Accomplishment*
Major Objectives

Quality of work*

Cost efficiency*

delay/deviation
Reasons for
Timeliness*

Analysis*
Actual

1. Create a project
committee
2. Develop and create
software and
database model
3. Gather and collect
current and
historical data on
SUCs
4. Gather and collect
current and
historical data on
LUCs
5. Encode data into
software
*Rating scale:
5- Excellent
4- Very good
3- Good
2- With some
progress/ Needs
improvement
1- No progress/ Poor

Proposal 2: Legislate sanctions for ill-performing LUCs and SUCs

The first proposal is tied to this second one, in the sense that this second proposal will
give bite to the bark of the hypothetical body created to regulate and police SUCs and LUCs.
Historically, previous attempts to impose standards of quality on SUCs and especially on LUCs
have had little bearing since they are special political creations immune and unsusceptible to
any such punitive actions. If a law is passed allowing SUCs and LUCs to be subject to
9
sanctions—in the same way that private schools are subject to penalties or suspensions or
even involuntary closure if found to be nonperforming or failing—these schools will be forced to
conform to authorities and follow quality standards and reform efforts. A special ruling is
required because the situation shall call for a reversal of a previous law (i.e., the creation of an
SUC or LUC); the new law of sanctioning SUCs and LUCs with closure if the need arises shall
override the law creating it.
This proposal will require legislative backing, as in the first proposal. Assuming that the
requisite law has been passed, the implementing rules and regulations must be constructed.
The proposed Public Universities and Colleges Quality and Reform Board (PUC-QRB) shall be
in charge of constructing the IRR and these will be included in the Manual of regulations that
needs to be published, included in the plan in proposal 1.

CHED Manual of Regulations for Private Higher Education, 2008, p. 16

Examples of transgressions that shall warrant sanctions for SUCs and LUCs and their
officials include (based on CHED’s MORPHE, 2008, p. 49): “fraud or deceit committed by the
institution” in this case in matters relating to PUC-QRB; “mismanagement or gross inefficiency
in the operation of the institution or its degree programs or courses of study”; “gross
inefficiency of the academic personnel in the discharge of their assigned functions”; “transfer of
the institution to a site or location detrimental to the operation of its programs, or the transfer of
which resulted to failure to maintain compliance with minimum requirements for the operation
of its programs”; and, “permission, approval, or commission of practices or activities that are
contrary to law, public policy, public order, or morals, or inimical to the integrity of the Philippine
educational system.”
A budget would have been passed along with the law including appropriation for a
committee to construct sound Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) and to enforce such.
The body responsible for this matter would be CHED, specifically our hypothetical PUC-QRB.
For the purpose of this exercise, a budget overview as well as a project plan overview is
presented below:

Budget Overview
Name of Project: Preparation and Enforcement of Implementing Rules and Regulations
(IRR) for Sanctions of SUCs and LUCs
Items Budget (in M of pesos)
1. Technical Working Group honorarium 5
2. Research and writing expenses 3
3. Travel, venue, and other expenses 2
4. Production and other expenses 8
5. Enforcement, legal, and other expenses 12
TOTAL 30 Million

10
 The technical working group for this proposal shall be an ad hoc committee composed
of selected officials from CHED and the PUC-QRB. Below are some activities that might be
undertaken in the preparation and enforcement of the law’s IRR.

Project Plan Overview

Name of Project: Preparation and Enforcement of IRR for sanctions toward failing SUCs and
LUCs
Purpose: To ensure that failing SUCs and LUCs or those with transgressions shall be
sanctioned commensurate to the gravity of the offense committed.
Budget
Person(s) Venue/
Activities Schedule (in M of
Responsible Locale
pesos)
1. Research, preparation and Ad hoc technical PUC-QRB January-
3
writing of IRR working group office Sept 2018
February-
2. Consultation with Ad hoc technical CHED
October 2
stakeholders with IRR draft working group main office
2018
November
Across
3. Publication and release of IRR PUC-QRB director 2018-May 6
Phils.
2019
4. Enforcement of rules and PUC-QRB director Across Start: June
12
regulations and officers Phils. 2019
TOTAL 23 Million

Evaluation
Each of the activities above are projects on their own, and should have their own
evaluation tool. The following instrument shall measure the success of one aspect of the
general plan above, the enforcement of rules and regulations. The timeline for this evaluation
is long-term, as most of the effects and the effectivity of the project can only be felt after a
number of years have passed.

Evaluation of Enforcement of the IRR

General Goal
Ensure and monitor the effectiveness of the implementation and enforcement of the IRR.
Specific Goals Major Indicators for Success
By June 2020, 90% of all complaints targeted to nonperforming or
1. Ensure
failing SUCs and LUCs shall have been investigated.
compliance of
SUCs and LUCs By February 2020, PUC-QRB inspections shall turn up 100%
for minimum compliance among schools visited.
standards of By June 2030, 100% of failing SUCs and LUCs warned in the first
institutional and year which have not made any effort to comply with minimum
quality. standards shall be served with suspension and possible closure,
11
 depending on the gravity of the circumstances.
By June 2030, 80% of SUCs and LUCs should have seen a 10%
4. Improve quality
increase in their students’ performances in board examinations from
and performance
previous years.
of all SUCs and
By June 2030, 90% of SUCs and LUCs should have seen a 30%
LUCs
increase in their effectiveness.

Proposal 3: Extend free tuition subsidy to Private HEIs through the voucher system

“You must remember that this program was designed to give students and their families options in
deciding the SHS that is most relevant to their needs and career goals. With 4,486 private schools
offering SHS, compared to 220 non-DepEd public schools, it is not surprising that there are more
enrollees in private schools, thus needing higher budget for the voucher program.” –DepEd
Secretary Leonor Briones (Sept. 17, 2016, DepEd Press Release)

The DepEd Secretary in the quote above is justifying the allocation of P24 billion in
2017 to the SHS Voucher Program in private schools, twice the previous year’s budget. For
2018, a 31% increase is expected. In the same press release, Dr. Briones says: “In the next six
years, I intend to enhance the complementarity of public and private institutions. This is in
recognition of the private sector’s vital contribution in achieving education for all in the country.”
The complementarity of the public and private education systems in delivering quality
education for Filipino students, emphasized by Dr. Briones, is also well-established in the
Philippine constitution and in other state documents such as the CHED’s MORPHE, as shown
in the following excerpt:

Manual of Regulations for Private Higher Education, CHED, p. 91

This shows that provisions for public schools “may be equally availed of” by private
schools, which is the foundation of proposal 3. The recent RA 10931 or the Universal Access
to Quality Tertiary Education has made tertiary education free in SUCs and LUCs; government
will subsidize students’ tuition fees to ensure that the Filipino youth will have access to quality
education. On top of the Student Loan Program for Tertiary Education, which enables students
to enroll in private schools via a student loan, it is proposed that to support the essence of the
law providing Universal Access to Quality education, the opportunity for students to enroll in
private schools should they choose would be made available and subsidized by the
government. As in the SHS voucher system, the amount of the voucher is aligned to how much
it would cost government to support the schooling of a student, which means that whether a
student decides to enroll in a public or private school does not matter—the government’s
investment in his or her education is the same. A working model for this proposal can be found
in the K-12 voucher system.
Mirroring some of the details of DepEd’s SHS voucher system, this proposal will require
this significant amendment to the provision of RA 10931: that the subsidy be extended to
private HEIs. The implementation will be much the same as the SHS voucher system merged
12
with RA 10931. Some details lifted from RA 10931, which will be carried over for this proposal:
The tertiary education voucher system will be intended for all Filipino students who wish to
pursue continuing education after high school, provided they pass admission and retention
requirements. Students with the financial capacity to pay may opt out or make a contribution to
the school. The amount required to implement the free tuition and other school fees in SUCS
and LUCs as well as private HEIs shall be determined by school officials based on the
projected number of enrollees for each academic year, which shall serve as a baseline during
the annual preparation of the national budget. Students under the Listahan 2.0 shall be given
priority. Schools, including private HEIs, are expected to establish a learner information system
in accordance with the guidelines developed by CHED in order to facilitate the tracking of
students and their performance. All schools who intend to participate in the voucher program
shall submit to CHED within five days after the last day of late registration for each semester a
report detailing the names of students eligible for the voucher program. The amounts
necessary to carry out the provisions of this amended act should be included in the General
Appropriations Act, appropriated under SUCs, and CHED for private HEIs.
More implementation details based on the SHS Voucher program, with modifications
(Voucher Program FAQs, DepEd website, January 29, 2016): (1) The voucher subsidy is not
given to students directly in the form of cash but will be disbursed by CHED to the non-DepEd
SHS where he or she enrolls; (2) the amount of the vouchers will depend upon the location of
the schools where the student will enroll; (3) The voucher amount covers the tuition and other
school fees. Should the total school fees exceed the voucher amount, the beneficiary is
expected to shoulder the top-up, i.e. the difference between total school fees and the voucher
amount applicable to the student. A system in which all students have a unique identifier used
to track their enrolment, and to facilitate payment of the voucher amount to the school of their
choice should be developed.
This proposal is much too expansive for a detailed budget, so the budget requirement is
based on the proclamation of CHED Commissioner Prospero De Vera III, who intends for RA
10931 to be implemented starting June 2018 with a little over P20 billion as budget (Viray,
2017). This budget will be disbursed to SUCs/LUCs, to CHED for the private HEIs, and to
TESDA for TVET enrollees. A general overview of this proposal’s goals is presented below:

Voucher System in Tertiary Education

General Goal
To provide a truly universal access to quality education, free tuition subsidy through a
voucher system is granted to Filipino students wishing to enroll in continuing education in
SUCs/LUCs, private HEIs, and TVET programs.
Specific Goals Major Indicators for Success
By June 2018, 100% of incoming freshmen shall be accommodated
by accredited TVET schools, SUCs/LUCs, and private HEIs.
1. Ensure By May 2018, 100% of all schools participating in the voucher
compliance of all program must have established a Learner Information System and a
schools to the student identifier in accordance with the guidelines set by CHED.
voucher By 2018, the budget for the voucher system in tertiary education must
program. be included in the General Appropriations Act (GAA). This must be
hereon included in subsequent national budgets, a confirmation of its
institutionalization.
4. Ensure universal By March 2020, 80% of the pioneering batch enrolled in the voucher
access to quality system should have graduated from their chosen programs.
13
 By March 2024, 90% of the second batch enrolled in the voucher
education for all system should have graduated from their chosen programs.
students. By March 2028, 100% of students enrolled in the voucher system
should have graduated from their chosen programs.

The table above shows general goals of the proposal with major indicators for success.
Based on DepEd Order No. 66, s. 2012, monitoring of this program shall consist of CHED and
the Private Education Assistance Committee (PEAC) conducting random checks on all schools
and students to ensure voucher program compliance and any violations may disqualify a
school or a student from further participation in the tertiary education voucher program. PEAC
shall “monitor processes in the voucher applications so as to meet standards on turnaround
times and data integrity. It shall prepare and submit interim reports as may be required by
[CHED] to improve further implementations” of the voucher program.

Conclusions

In attempting to level the playing field, I have proposed changes for the Philippine
education system that are based on the public sector adopting current practices and
regulations applied in the private sector (Proposal 1 and 2) as well as support for the individual
student to have a truly universal access to quality education by being able to study in the
school of his/her choice—whether this will be in a private or a public school (Proposal 3). While
the benefits of adopting these reforms are numerous as stated previously, it is unfortunate that
it will be next to impossible to see these proposals implemented anytime in the near future. For
proposals 1 and 2 to be implemented, for example, would require an enormous quantity of
political will—so much more than what our current politicians have in them. There have been
previous efforts to regulate SUCs and LUCs but with no lasting effects since these efforts have
been thwarted primarily by corruption. Officials, even until today, create schools in their locales
without proper consultation in order to curry votes for future positions or establish their legacies
as they see the end of their terms—all by spending people’s money. Permutations of proposal
3, on the other hand, was being lobbied by groups such as the Philippine Association of
Colleges and Universities (PACU) or the Catholic Educational Association of the Philippines
(CEAP) and even some officials of The Philippine Association of State Universities and
Colleges (PASUC) but with the release of the IRR for RA 10931, support for private HEIs and
especially for students wanting to be educated in a private school is limited to Tertiary
Education Subsidy (TES) or the Student Loan Program, which are much more limited in scope.
There is little possibility that a truly universal access to quality education for Filipino students
will be delivered, especially with the many issues plaguing SUCs and LUCs.
While the future of these proposals seems bleak, there is still room for wishful thinking.
There must always be room for optimism for there is nothing to be gained from submitting to
hopelessness and the perils of circumstances. Especially when it comes to the education of
our youth, we as educators should always be thinking of the future and imagining creative
ways to improve our system. There is still much to learn and much to do, but it must be
conceded that the Philippine education sector has grown so much since its inception. With
research, critical thinking, and a heart and mind for the general good, it is possible for
educators and policy makers to be able to truly deliver quality education for all Filipinos—a
requirement if the Philippines will ever break through the barriers of being a developing nation.

References:
14
Briones, L. Department of Education Press Release, Sept. 17, 2016, DepEd website
http://www.deped.gov.ph/press-releases/voucher-program-ensures-better-student-
access-senior-high-school-%E2%80%93-briones)

Cuenca, Janet S. 2011. Efficiency of State Universities and Colleges in the Philippines: A Data
Envelopment Analysis. Philippine Institute for Development Studies, Discussion Paper
Series No. 2011-14, p. 1-34. PDF downloaded at
http://dirp3.pids.gov.ph/ris/dps/pidsdps1114.pdf.

De Guzman, Ma. Corazon Gwendolyn N. and Cabanda, Emilyn. 2009. Selected Private Higher
Education Institutions in Metro Manila: A DEA Efficiency Measurement. American
Journal of Business Education. Vol. 2, Number 6. Pp. 97-108.

Fowler, F. C. 2000. Policy Studies for Educational Leaders: An Introduction. Prentice-Hall, Inc.
New Jersey, USA.

Handbook on Typology, Outcomes-based education, and Institutional sustainability

assessment. (2014). Commission on Higher Education. Philippines.

Legislative Process. Senate of the Philippines website accessed October 2016 at

https://www.senate.gov.ph/about/legpro.asp

Manasan, Rosario G. 2012. Review and Assessment of Programs Offered by State

Universities and Colleges: Inception Report. Philippine Institute for Development
Studies, Department of Budget and Management. PDF downloaded at
http://www.dbm.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/DBM%20Publications/FPB/ZBB-2012/g.pdf

Manasan, Rosario G. 2015. K to 12 Reform: Implications of Adding Grades 11 and 12 on the

Higher Education Subsector. Philippine Institute for Development Studies Policy Notes
No. 2015-06, pp. 1-6.

Tabora, Joel, S.J. The UniFAST Board Must Implement RA 10931 In Its Entirety. August 17
2017. Accessed https://taborasj.wordpress.com/2017/08/16/the-unifast-board-must-
implement-ra-10931-in-its-entirety/

Viray, P. L. Gov't eyes implementation of free college tuition by June 2018. August 10, 2017.
Philstar Global website at http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2017/08/10/1727544/govt-
eyes-implementation-free-college-tuition-june-2018

Voucher Program FAQs, January 29, 2016, DepEd website at http://www.deped.gov.ph/k-to-

12/faq/voucher-program

15