What is the meaning of Jeepgy?

Justice and Peace, Ecological Integrity, Engaged Citizenship, Poverty Alleviation/ Reduction, Gender
Equality and Youth Empowerment (JEEPGY) Framework vis-à-vis their skills and/ or. interests.
With the introduction of the JEEPGY Framework, The pillar programs of Justice. and Peace, Ecological
Integrity, Engaged Citizenship, Poverty Alleviation, Gender Equality, and Youth Empowerment (JEEPGY)
championed by the CEAP showcase Catholic values that encourage a strong commitment to effecting
change in society.
Transformative Education Program founded on JEEPGY – Justice and Peace, Ecological Integrity, Engaged
Citizenship, Poverty Alleviation, Gender Sensitivity and Youth Empowerment.
It is a privilege for me to stand here before you representing the 1,500 member schools of the Catholic
Educational Association of the Philippines (CEAP). I wish to contribute to this Lab from the experience of
Catholic education in the Philippines.

61902661_10156760866479051_675046594097184768_nThis is Lab 2, which focuses on the Christian

Identity of our schools and their evangelical roots. The relevance of this focus is presumably that there are
many Christian schools, or better Catholic schools, in name, but often unrecognizable as Catholic in
practice. We have had our share of that in the Philippines. With the onset of secularism, the Catholic
identity and mission of our schools have been put on the back burner. What is on the front burner is the
performance and prestige of the school in its rankings, levels of accreditation, its ability to draw paying
students, compliance with increasing government regulations – and in many cases – simple economic
survival. In the Philippines survival has recently become a major concern of many of our Catholic schools,
especially of our small mission schools, because of dramatically increased public funding for public
education. In basic education, this has close to trebled the salaries that private schools can normally pay. In
higher education, free public education in State universities has drawn paying students away from our
Catholic schools.

Advertisements

REPORT THIS AD

Also in the Philippines, as the number of vocations to religious orders and congregations diminished, the
participation in Catholic schools of religious personnel also dramatically diminished, leaving administration
and instruction in the hands of lay teachers, and in many cases forcing religious congregations to turn over
their schools to the Bishop, who in turn would turn them over to the leadership of a diocesan priest; this
priest typically would have had no training in the administration of a school, much less a Catholic school.
For that diocesan priest, it became a major challenge to understand what is required to maintain the Catholic
identity of his school.

From this context of the weakened Catholic identity of schools in a secular environment, but also of the need
of school administrators to understand what the characteristics, standards and benchmarks of a genuinely
Catholic school are, the CEAP in the past three or four years has in partnership with Phoenix Educational
Foundation articulated the Philippine Catholic School Standards for Basic Education (PCSS-BE) and has
adopted it for use and implementation in all Catholic schools of the Philippines, especially as an instrument
for the internal quality assurance of its schools. Meanwhile, the more challenging Philippine Catholic
School Standards for Higher Education (PCSS-HE) have been articulated and are now being prepared for
presentation and approval in the General Assembly of the CEAP this September.

In both the PCSS for Basic Education and the PCSS for Higher Education it is clear that an excellent
Catholic school is characterized by such as being centered in the person and message of Jesus Christ,
participation in the evangelizing mission of the Church, commitment to integral human formation,
engagement in the service of the Church and society with a preferential option for the poor, and promoting a
dialogue on faith and life and culture.

From these essential characteristics of our schools, the Catholic schools in the Philippines know that as
Catholic schools they are not abstractions isolated from a world in need of the transforming power of the
Gospel. As Catholic, our schools know that, touched themselves and transformed by the Gospel, they must
in turn as whole schools touch and transform their stakeholder communities – some of them neighborhood
communities, others regional, others global. Impelled by this mission, CEAP schools undertake to transform
themselves and transform their communities in “JEEPGY” – Justice and Peace, Ecological Integrity,
Engaged Citizenship, Poverty Alleviation and Youth Empowerment.

Because of the time constraints of this presentation, I cannot go into detail on what this encounters. CEAP
has however published a “JEEPGY Manual, 2018” to help guide the schools in living out its commitment to
transformative education. In this extremely useful manual, the context and challenge of each of the
JEEPGY areas is presented, the biblical and doctrinal foundations elucidated, the JEEPGY area’s
relationship to the PCSS articulated, the attributes of a teacher in the area provided, the civil mandates for
interventions in the area listed, and pedagogical helps, including sample lesson plans, provided.

Let me simply end by saying, because our schools are Catholic, we saw our students and teachers last year
organizing themselves to stop corruption in the Philippines, protesting against extrajudicial killings in the
Philippine Government’s war on drugs, working to right historical injustices committed against Filipino
Muslims by supporting the passage of the Bangsamoro Organic Law, volunteering to keep the recent local
elections free and safe, building houses to help victims of natural calamity, and going to the streets to keep
open-pit mining in the Philippines proscribed. We even saw graduates of our CEAP schools volunteer to
live for ten months in the villages of culturally-other Muslim Communities to teach secular subjects in their
Islamic schools (madaris) in a spirit of inter-cultural and inter-religious dialogue. They involved themselves
in these JEEPGY activities even when it embroiled the Catholic school in public controversy or cost the
school its friends or its benefactors. Why? In their Catholic school, they had encountered Jesus who had
preached the Kingdom of God and gave up his life that we might experience the reign of God not only in the
next life but already in this life. The reign of God, they knew, was incompatible with corruption, social
injustice, religious intolerance, violent extremism and war. This, they knew, they needed to transform. The
JEEPGY program has guided them in personal and social transformation.
Community Involvement Program
The Community Involvement Program of the school is designed to provide opportunities towards greater
involvement of both students and personnel in helping the less privileged of the society build up capabilities
to enhance their quality of life. Students and personnel are encouraged to be actively involved to enhance
their becoming “persons-with-and-for-others” who will devote their lives for humble service for the
common good.
The Community Involvement Office implements the approved services program by the school, aligned with
the vision-mission, core values and anchored on the (JEEPGY Justice and Peace, Ecological Integrity,
Engaged Citizenship, Poverty Alleviation, Gender Equality and Youth Empowerment)Program of the
Catholic Educational Association of the Philippines (CEAP)

The Catholic Educational Association of the Philippines (CEAP) has launched a new document, Philippine
Catholic Schools Standards (PCSS) for Higher Education, an expansive and robust collection of 24
standards to provide Catholic Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) in the Philippines with the opportunity to
undertake self-assessment on their mission and identity. PCSS is a tool, a standard, a mission, and a vision
towards continued improvement as Catholic institutions of learning. Among the standards that emphasize
faith formation and moral guidance, Standard 16.1 affirms nonviolence as part of the curriculum of a
Catholic higher educational institution:

Standard 16. An excellent CHEI (Catholic higher educational institution), inspired by its vision and mission
and informed by evidence gained from research, prophetically and proactively engages in the advocacy for
justice and peace, ecological integrity, engaged citizenship, poverty eradication, gender equality, and youth
empowerment (JEEPGY).

16.1 The CHEI formulates and implements research-informed programs that provide opportunities for the
community to develop nonviolent perspectives, attitudes, and behaviors and to advocate for peace, justice,
tolerance, and social transformation.

16.2 The CHEI formulates and implements research-informed programs that engage the community in
learning experiences towards transforming beliefs and attitudes that bring about ecological conversion
manifested in actions for the protection and sustainability of God’s creation.

16.3 The CHEI formulates and implements research-informed programs that provide opportunities for the
community to actively participate in dialogues, movements, campaigns, and public actions that uphold the
sanctity of life, truth, justice, human rights, and the rule of law.

16.4 The CHEI formulates and implements programs aimed at empowering those at the margins of society
and campaigns for policies and initiates other activities that ensure inclusive sustainable economic growth,
eradication of poverty, respect for the rights and freedoms of the poor, and a fair and just distribution of
resources.

16.5 The CHEI formulates and implements programs that help promote equal rights of and equal access to
opportunities and resources for all persons.
16.6 The CHEI formulates and implements programs that build the capacities of the youth to become agents
of evangelization and societal transformation.

One of the most effective ways to integrate nonviolence into the life and identity of the Catholic Church is to
teach the beauty and gift of nonviolence to students at every stage of learning. CNI encourages all Catholic
school systems to incorporate nonviolence into their programs and curricula.

Catholic Higher Education in the Philippines: A Commitment to Quality Education in

the Spirit
Jul 30, 2022 | Columns
by Fr. Joel E. Tabora, S.J.
[ADDU University Lecture, July 29, 2022.]
Our University Celebration of St. Ignatius of Loyola today is occasion for reflection on Catholic Education
in the Philippines and how it is a commitment to quality education in the Holy Spirit.
Catholic education (CE) in the Philippines has a long and distinguished history. Augustinian missionaries
opened the very first Catholic school in Cebu in 1565.  The Jesuits opened the College of San Ignacio in
Manila in 1596 to educate priests.  The Dominicans established the University of Sto. Tomas in 1611, and in
1632 the Colegio de San Juan de Letran.  In 1632 the Colegio de Sta Isabel was founded as the first
women’s college which has been run by the Daughters of Charity of St. Vincent de Paul since 1632.  In
1859 the Jesuits returned from their suppression and opened the Escuela Municipal of Manila, the first
Ateneo.  In 1862 the Vincentians established Conciliar seminaries in in Manila, Naga, Cebu, Iloilo and
Vigan. In 1904 the sisters of St. Paul de Chartres opened the first Paulinian school in Dumaguete, Negros
Oriental. In 1911, the Brothers of the Christian Schools opened their first La Salle school in Manila[i]
In Mindanao the Jesuit missionary, Fr. Saturnino Urios, founded the all-boys parochial school in Butuan in
1901; this has since developed into the renowned Fr. Saturnino Urios University now run by diocesan
priests.  The Religious of the Virgin Mary founded the University of the Immaculate Conception in Davao
City in 1905.  The Jesuits founded Ateneo de Zamboanga in 1910, Xavier University in 1933, and our own
Ateneo de Davao University (ADDU) 75 years ago in 1948.
Advertisements
about:blank
REPORT THIS AD
In 1941, the Catholic Educational Association of the Philippines (CEAP) was founded. 
Behind these quality Catholic schools were religious orders or congregations with long-standing and revered
traditions in education, including the Augustinians, the Dominicans, the Sisters of Charity of St. Vincent de
Paul, the La Salle Brothers, the Religious of the Virgin Mary and the Jesuits.
But Catholic Education in the Philippines is not the monopoly of religious orders and congregational
schools.  As the membership of many teaching congregations diminished, their schools were turned over to
bishops, who in turn turned them over to diocesan priests whose seminary formation had prepared them to
lead parishes, not Catholic schools.  It was from these diocesan priests in the CEAP, many of them now
heads of or superintendents of diocesan Catholic schools, that the impetus for Philippine Catholic School
Standards (PCSS) came.  What is Catholic education in the Philippines?  What is the good Catholic school?
How is it achieved?  How does one know that it is being achieved.  With the support of the Phoenix
Publishing House Foundation, CEAP began answering these questions systematically in 2016 with the
Philippine Catholic School Standards for Basic Education (PCSS-BE).  Because of their well-researched,
systematic and compelling presentation they are now a powerful tool for the ongoing operation and renewal
not only of diocesan but also of congregational Catholic schools in the Philippines and even of Catholic
schools owned and run by lay persons.
Defining characteristics, standards, benchmarks, rubrics and domains.
The idea was simple, but thorough.  If there are Catholic schools in the Philippines, PCSS-BE asked what
are the characteristics which define them as Catholic?  What are their defining characteristics?   But if there
 are defining characteristics of Catholic schools, how do these generate statements of excellence to which the
Catholic schools aspire to be true to themselves.  PCSS-BE call these standards.  Here the articulation of
the ideal standard is not meant to remain in the ideal realm, but to trigger a self-realizing dynamic.  If there
are standards, what must be done in order to attain the standard?  These actual accomplishments the PCSS-
BE call benchmarks.  Given the benchmarks, how is the accomplishment assessed relative to its attainment
of the benchmark?  Does it only initially meet the benchmark, or partially meet it, or fully meet it, or even
exceed the benchmark?  These evaluative indicators the PCSS-BE calls rubrics, including suggestions as to
what in the school might evidence this achievement.  Finally, if there are standards, benchmarks, and
rubrics, how are these called forth not only by the defining characteristics of the Catholic school, but by the
essential operational aspects of each school, namely, its mission and identity, leadership and governance,
learner development, learner environment, and operational vitality.  These the PCSS-BE calls domains. 
From PCSS-BE to PCSS-HE
As schools in the Philippines under the supervision of the CEAP began to use the PCSS-BE as a tool for the
internal quality assurance of their catholicity, the CEAP embarked on a project that had not yet been
attempted among Catholic educational institutions worldwide, namely the articulation of the Philippine
Catholic School Standards for Higher Education (PCSS-HE).  This was challenging because the Higher
Education Institution (HEI), i.e., the University or the College, is generally understood to be a community
(universitas) of scholars who come together in academic freedom to search for truth.  The Philippine
Constitution guarantees HEIs academic freedom (Art. XIV, Sec 5.2); the Church’s Apostolic Constitution on
Catholic Colleges and Universities, Ex Corde Ecclesiae,  (JP II, 1990) guarantees academic freedom as well
“within the boundaries of the truth and the common good” (ECE, 29). What differentiates and distinguishes
HEIs from BE schools is academic freedom.  How would the PCSS-HE handle the academic freedom of the
HEI, first, relative to the government body mandated by law to enforce minimum standards of various
academic disciplines in HEIs but has had a record of “overreach” or administrative over-centralization,
undermining the academic freedom of the HEIs?  Or, second, how would PCSS-HE handle the academic
freedom of Catholic researchers searching for truth in such as in the contentious right to abortion based on
the right of a women to privacy, the LGBTQ+ community, clergy abuse, capital punishment, democracy vs
socialism or communism, individual freedom vs. coercion for the social good, the “just war” vs Russian
aggression, new scientific theories concerning the birth of the universe vs the biblical creation accounts, and
the persisting marginalization and oppression of human beings by human beings in a “Christian” culture
marked by self-interest, consumerism and corruption?  How can the academically-free search for truth be
guaranteed in the context of Government regulation and of Church authority?  In a post-truth context of
increasing secularization, how is the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ relevant to empirical and disciplined
research in a CHEI.?
Focus on PCSS-HE
As the title of my lecture indicates, without discounting the PCSS-BE, I would like to focus on the recently-
published PCSS-HE (2022), as a way of understanding CE in the Philippines but also as an invitation to its
use for internal quality assurance (IQA) in Catholic Higher Education Institutions (CHEIs), but particularly
in the Ateneo de Davao, which is not only a Jesuit and Filipino University but also a Catholic University.
What is CHE in the Philippines?  As explained above, based on the PCSS-HE we will try to answer these
questions by referring to the CHEI’s 8 defining characteristics, 23 standards, 106 benchmarks, each with
corresponding rubrics as applied to 6 domains.[ii]  In the little time we have today, however, we will
certainly not be able to go through all of this material, which could use a good semester of elucidation!  But
I do hope to be able, by choosing some examples of standards working within six domains, to present an
idea – a sampling – of how through the PCSS-HE a sizeable number of Catholic Educators in the
Philippines[iii] live the challenge and reality of CHE in the Philippines today – ultimately in the Spirit.  At
the end of this presentation, I will offer some reflections on the PCSS-HE.
The Defining Characteristics of Catholic Education
The eight defining characteristics of Catholic higher education for the excellent CHEI are as presented not
essentially different from those of basic Catholic education.  In considering them, however, we should be
wary of reducing them to slogans, or to a mere check-list facilely ticked off in a superficial review. 
“An excellent CHEI is:
1. Centered on the person and message of Jesus Christ
2. Participating in the evangelizing mission of the Church
3. Animated by the Spirit of communion
4. Established as an Ecclesial Institution.
5. Distinguished by a Cultural of Excellence
6. Committed to Integral Human Formation
7. Engaged in the service of the Church and Society with Preferential Option for the Poor
8. Promoting Dialogue on Faith and Life and Culture” (pgs. 9-11)
In the self-realizing dynamic of the PCSS-HE,  they are listed and attributed to the excellent CHEI as an
invitation, if not an imperative, to realization in actual CHEIs.[iv]  The day-to-day Catholic atmosphere of
the school sometimes wears down, gets tired, and no longer animates the members of the CHEI to their
catholicity.  “Identity” becomes just a workplace, and “mission” becomes just another job.  Here the
defining characteristics can act as a constant call to the school community to be defined anew by such as the
person and message of Jesus Christ, the call to participate in evangelization, or to be open to the Christian
communion that only the Spirit effects.
The 24 articulated PCSS-HE standards are distributed among six domains – six essential areas of the CHEI’s
operation.  These are:
1. The Catholic Identity and Mission (IM, pg 12 ff)
2. Leadership and Governance (LG, pg 38 ff)
3. Learner Development (LD, pp 53 ff)
4. Research and Community Engagement (RCE, pg 76 ff, or R and CE)
5. Learning Environment (LE, pg 101 ff)
6. Operational Vitality (OV, pg 124 ff.)
The fourth domain, Research and Community Engagement, is proper to the PCSS-HE, so not included in the
PCSS-BE.
All the Standards, Benchmarks and Rubrics are listed under their respective domains in the table of contents
of the PCSS-HE (ix-xix).  It is a convenient way of getting a quick overview of the PCSS-HE.
So let us look first at:
Domain 1.  Catholic Identity and Mission
PCSS-HE lists 5 standards for this domain with 24 benchmarks. 
Brief summary of standards:  An excellent CHEI is “animated and driven by a PVMGCV [philosophy,
vision, mission, goals, and core values]” that manifest its “identity as HEI and as Catholic HEI” (1), is
“dedicated to the search for truth” (2), “is an evangelizing community” (3), is “faithful to the Church’s
preferential option for the poor” (4), is a community of scholars from diverse disciplines “who witness to the
unity of truth” (5).
Let us take a closer look at the first two::
Standard 1. “An excellent CHEI, as a community, is animated and driven by a philosophy, vision, mission,
goals, and core values (PVMGCV) that embrace, preserve, renew, and promote its identity as HEI and as
Catholic HEI.”
The formulation of Standard 1 under the Domain IM in the self-realizing dynamic of the PCSS-HE calls
forth not only the articulation of a PVMGCV but also its implementation.  Cf Benchmark 1.3: “Members
of the CHEI community share, adhere to, and realize the PVMGCV[v] and communicate these effectively to
the public.
It is similar with Standard 2:
Standard 2: “An excellent CHEI is dedicated to the search for truth, committed to the building of
a civilization of love, and strengthened by members of the community who nurture and advance faith
formation, integral development of persons, intercultural dialogue, academic formation and community
engagement.” (pg 19)
Standard 2 under Domain 1 already involves all the other domains:  LG in determining how the “search for
truth” is demanded, initiated, sustained, evaluated, and advanced, LD in those who provide for ordered
“faith formation” and “integral development of persons” among learners and external stakeholders, R in
those truly engaged in the “search for truth” and CE in the “building of a civilization of love” and in other
 “community engagement” activities, LE  in “the search for truth” in academic freedom, and OV in the
search for truth and instruction and formation that is sustained.  The “civilization of love” mentioned is a
technical term referring to social conditions which “allow various cultural expressions to co-exist and to
promote dialogue so as to foster a peaceful society” (cf. pg 128). Using another lens, this standard under the
Domain of IM, involves the domains of administration, formation and instruction, research and extension.
What must be done to achieve this standard?  There are eight benchmarks also involving different domains. 
These indicate how the standard is attained under different domains.
2.1  The CHEI engages in a continuous search for truth about nature, human person, common good, and
God, and in finding truth communicates, celebrates and lives it. [R, LD, LE]. 
The rubrics say this benchmark is achieved when “The CHEI establishes policies and systems that call on
the community to discover new understandings in the light of the Catholic faith about nature, the human
person, the common good and God through research and interdisciplinary dialogues.  The new
understandings are communicated, celebrated and lived.”
2.2  The CHEI establishes and develops harmonious relations with people of other cultures and faith
traditions through sustained dialogue and meaningful partnership.  [LG, LD, CE]
2.3  The members of the CHEI community build a culture of peace, justice, charity, integrity, mercy, and
compassion.  [LD, LE, CE].
2.4.  The CHEI integrates faith formation into the curriculum, governance, learning environment, and
partnership with stakeholders.  [LG, LD, LE, CE]  
2.5.  The CHEI creates and sustains a distinctively Catholic environment that provides varied
opportunities where Jesus is encountered and experienced, esp. in the Eucharist, by persons and
communities.  [LG, LE]
2.6  The CHEI formulates and implements program and activities that address and advance the physical,
economic, intellectual, psychological, emotional, relational, social, political, cultural, moral and spiritual
development of the stakeholder  [LD, LE, CE]. 
2.7. The CHEI aligns the curriculum and instruction, research and community engagement agenda with its
philosophy, vision, mission, goals, and core values.  [IM, LD, RCE]
Let us now look at Domain 2, Leadership and Governance, under which there are three  standards and 13
benchmarks.
Domain 2. Leadership and Governance
Brief summary of standards:  The standards speak of “transformational leaders who are witnesses to
Catholic discipleship…and [are] recognized by competent Church authority” (6); they follow “relevant
government and higher education standards and policies and [that are] consistent with Gospel values and
teachings of the Church” (7).
Standard 8:  An excellent CHEI is governed and administered by visionary leaders who are innovative and
creative in their work, resilient, and committed to the pursuit of the institution’s philosophy, vision,
mission goals, and core values and the formation of an authentic Christian community and
the achievement of wholeness and holiness among is personnel and other stakeholders. 
The leaders are visionary, but their vision pursues with “a sense of ownership” the PVMGCV of the
institution which involves instruction, research and community service.  They are committed to its
realization which again involves the different other domains: 
The benchmarks of this standard with the domains they affect are:
 The leaders of the CHEI manifest a sense of ownership of the institution’s philosophy, vision, mission,
goals, core values (PVMGCV) [IM, R, CE] , programs and activities [LD], and exercise accountability at
their respective levels of responsibility [LE]
Rubric. Level 3. The benchmark is achieved if leaders take the initiative in the articulation of the
institution’s PMVGCV, ensure the implementation of the programs and activities across the institution, and
accomplish their duties and responsibilities with dedication and commitment.  They report on how they
meet established goals, find ways to facilitate the attainment of these goals, evaluate their performance, and
take responsibility for decisions and actions made. 
 The leaders of the CHEI build a Christian community marked by worship, joy, charity, integrity, and
solidarity [LE] through a holistic formation program [LD]. 
 The leaders of the CHEI implement policies and code of ethics for its personnel that uphold personal
integrity and are rooted in spiritual values [LE] common to all belief systems. 
 The leaders of the CHEI seek new ideas [R], formulate new policies, and implement systems that enable
the institution and its community to move forward in the attainment of its philosophy, vision, mission,
goals and core values [IM, LD, R and CE, OV]
 The leaders of the CHEI ensure the continuity of learning in times of crises, disasters, disruption and
emergencies. [IM, LD, LE, OV]
Domain 3.  Learner Development.
In Domain 3, Learner Development, there are 4 standards and 19 benchmarks.
Brief summary of standards:  An excellent HEI ensures the “integral formation of the human person” (9),
“provides…a community of professionally qualified, competent, scholarly, socially engaged and committed
faculty” (10), employs “relevant assessments” (11), “establishes linkages with industries, government, non-
government, Church and other organizations for learner development” (12).
Standard 9.  ”An excellent HEI ensures the integral formation of the human person through a robust
curriculum and quality instruction that will enable them to succeed professionally and engage in the service
of the Church and society.”
We are focused here on what is done by the CHEI in the service of the learner.  Integral formation involves
instruction, delivering knowledge to the mind, and formation, forming the heart through values, convictions
and commitments.  It benefits the Church and society. The benchmarks, involving different other domains,
are:
9.1  The curriculum is relevant, transformative [CE] and competency based [CE].
9.2   The curriculum develops the learners’ intellectual, creative and aesthetic faculties for the formation of
reflective judgement, the endowment of a high level of professionalism and rich humanness and skills that
are part of the service of the common good [CE].
9.3  The curriculum is meaningful and responsive to the needs of the learner for effective professional and
social engagement [CE].
9.4.  The curriculum is directed towards the formation of learners to become catalysts for societal
transformation [CE] and Church renewal [CE]. 
9.5  The curriculum is informed and enriched by the contents and methods of various disciplines towards
integrative knowledge and learning [MI].
9.6  The curriculum  is aligned with national standards and international quality frameworks [OV].
9.7  The curriculum integrates the Gospel values of justice, peace, compassion for the poor, servant
leadership and care for creation [LE, CE]
9.8  The CHEI utilizes various instructional resources and technology in guiding and engaging learners to
think critically, reflect on and solve problems creatively, work collaboratively, communicate effectively, and
demonstrate skillfully the competencies required by the profession [CE].
9.9.  The CHEI provides programs, offers services, and builds an atmosphere that empowers learners to be
resilient in times of crisis, disasters, disruptions and emergencies (LE, OV)
Domain 4:  Research and Community Engagement.
Brief summary of standards:  An excellent CHEI “engages in research to examine critically and
systematically the problems and realities of the human condition … in the light of God’s revelation and
Church teachings” (13), “cultivates a sense of global citizenship and understanding of the diversity of
cultures and faith traditions in the light of its Catholic identity and mission…” (14), “pursues and commits
itself to community engagement …in accordance with its identity and mission” (15), “engages in the
advocacy for justice and peace, ecological integrity, engaged citizenship, poverty eradication, gender
equality, and youth empowerment (JEEPGY)” (16), sponsors “research-based programs that provide
opportunities for the community to actively participate in [activities] that uphold the sanctity of life, truth,
justice and human rights and the rule of law: (17).   With these five standards there are 19 benchmarks.
We may note that Standards 13 and 14 deal more with Research while Standards 15-17 deal more with
outreach or Community Extension.  We sample a standard from each and, because of our time limitations,
only briefly describe their benchmarks:
Standard 13.  An excellent CHEI engages in research to examine critically and systematically the problems
and realities of the human condition towards the discovery and dissemination of new knowledge, solutions,
and perspectives that uplift human life and reflect on their meaning and significance in the light of God’s
revelation and Church teachings. 
         The corresponding benchmarks provide, among others, that the CHEI articulates an inter- and multi-
disciplinary “research agenda  guided by ethical norms and provides for innovative practices and answers
to contemporary problems affecting the quality of human life”… (13.1); “uncovers the transcendent and
Christian dimensions in the findings of its various researches and relates their impact and oral implications
on the integral development of the human person … and the advancement of the Kingdom of God” (13.2);
“using research methods that adhere to academic excellence and ethical standards” “offers faculty and
learners the opportunity to generate new knowledge and perspectives in the continuing pursuit and
elucidation of the truth about God, [the] human person, society and nature” (13.3).
         The “contemporary problems” referred to are not to be glossed over in “uncovering the Christian and
transcendent aspects of the problems.”  This has everything to do with CEAPs this-worldly outreach agenda
expressed in the acronym, JEEPGY:  justice and peace, including the problems of historical injustice
inflicted by the State on the Bangsamoro; engaged citizenship, including citizen responses to such as
authoritarianism, populism, state violence; ecological integrity, including issues relevant to climate change
due to the abuse of the environment due to human consumerism and due to unbounded human habitats
destroying the  habitat and extinction of other species; poverty eradication, including the problem of the
worst poverty in the Philippines still in Mindanao and especially in the communities of the Bangsamoro;
gender equality, including not only the equality between males and females in such as the right to life,
housing rights, the right to education, the right to vote, but also the human and social rights of members of
the LGBTQ+ in contemporary society, and youth empowerment, including enabling the youth to shape
society according to the rational and religious values they hold.   AS JEEPGY calls forth profound research,
so does it call forth courageous advocacy as provided for in the following standard. 
Standard 16.  An excellent CHEI, inspired by its vision and mission and informed by evidence gained from
research, prophetically and proactively engages in the advocacy for justice and peace, ecological integrity,
engaged citizenship, poverty eradication, gender equality, and youth empowerment (JEEPGY).
         The corresponding benchmarks provide, among others, that the CHEI provide activities “that promote
international perspectives and partnerships marked by inclusiveness, interdependence, global equality, social
justice and peace” (14.1); provide for “learners experiences that develop sensitivity to and appreciation for
the diversity of identities, cultures and faiths, the capacity for intra-faith, interfaith, and cross cultural
dialogue and reflection, and the discernment of spiritual values that permeate all faith traditions” (14.2)
Domain 5.  Learning Environment
The Domain “Learner Development” is complemented by this fifth Domain.  It has five Standards and 21
Benchmarks.
Brief summary of standards:  The Standards provide that the excellent CHEI “sustains a culture conducive
to lifelong learning and a living and growing encounter with Jesus Christ” (18); “is a life-giving community”
benefitting the learners (19); is “an inclusive community … promoting… respect, understanding and
appreciation for varied worldviews and human expressions” (20), “accompanies the learners and develops in
them a virtuous character to live and work ethically according to the demands of their profession and faith”
(21); and “as a community of scholars upholds and cultivates academic freedom and autonomy within the
confines of truth and [the] common good” (22).
Let us sample two of these standards.
Standard 18: “An excellent CHEI creates and sustains a culture conducive to lifelong learning and a living
and growing encounter with Jesus Christ that leads to a life of personal commitment and witnessing to
Him and the service of the Church”
The corresponding Benchmarks provide, among others, that the CHEI community “foster
the internalization of the Catholic faith that affirms its identity, vision mission and core values” (18.1);
“puts up signs and symbols related to the Catholic faith and its identity … to enhance the learners’
appreciation of them” (18.2); provides for “experiences of God’s presence in self, others and creation”
(18.3); “builds and maintains facilities” appropriate “to the learners’ professional and spiritual growth”
(18.4); ensures “a resilient environment that will sustain teaching and learning” (18.5) 
While the standard provides for a culture conducive to lifelong learning (in the awareness that today one
cannot frontload learning sufficient for life in a vuca world), the benchmarks support the living and growing
encounter with Jesus Christ.
Standard 22:  “An excellent CHEI, as a community of scholars, upholds and cultivates academic freedom
and autonomy, within the confines of truth and the common good.”
The Benchmarks provide that the CHEI support the “faculty’s autonomy and freedom in research and
teaching according to the methods of each individual discipline in their search of all aspects of truth and in
the pursuit of the common good” (22.1) and guarantee “the learners’ autonomy and freedom in research
and study according to the standards and requirements of their degree programs” (22.2)  They do not
mention institutional academic freedom.
Domain 6.  Operational Vitality
In this last and final domain there are 2 standards and 8 benchmarks.
Brief summary of standards:  The Standards provide that the excellent CHEI ensures “the institution’s
sustainability and continuous improvement” (23) and develops and maintains “partnerships for its
sustainability, advancement of its vision and mission, and societal transformation of the common good.”
(24).
Standards 23.  An excellent CHEI effectively and efficiently directs its resources in the spirit of stewardship
to ensure the institution’s sustainability and continuous improvement in its pursuit of quality instruction,
responsive community engagement, and rigorous research.
The Benchmarks provide that the CHEI have “a strategic plan that facilitates … management of its human,
financial and physical resources in the spirit of stewardship” (23.1); “provides living wages and other social
benefits” (23.2), “designs and implements training programs to advance its PVMGCV and to ensure the
continuous professional development and holistic formation of its human resources” (23.3); “observes sound
principles … in the management of its finances” (23.4);  “sets up appropriate physical plant facilities” to
support the institution’s ends (23.5); operates “a quality assurance management system and utilizes data
generated therefrom to foster its identity and mission” (23.6); utilizes an appropriate “Management
Information System” (23.7) and “effectively communicates to its publics” (23.8)
Personal Reflections
I have sought to present to you an idea of what Catholic Education is in the Philippines through a very
imperfect presentation – a sampling – of the recently-formulated PCSS-HE.  Educators representing 1520
Catholic schools of which 320 are CHEIs including 40 seminaries would say Catholic Education in the
Philippines is in the self-realizing dynamic of the PCSS-BE and PCSS-HE.  CHEIs are Catholic through
eight defining characteristics, 23 standards of excellence, 106 benchmarks with accompanying rubrics for
six major operational domains of the CHEI.  Catholic education defies facile conceptual definition being
very much this work in progress not only of the schools’ respective communities and of the organized
community of these communities in the CEAP, but also, as I would like to stress, of the Holy Spirit.
An Invaluable Guide.  A Daunting Challenge.
To those who would like to run a Catholic Higher Education Institute in the Philippines, or work at the
ongoing improvement of one, the PCSS is an invaluable guide.  As well as a daunting challenge.  In basic
education heavily determined and regulated by the Department of Education (DepEd) and in higher
education where the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) determines and enforces the institutional
and program minimum standards, the Defining Characteristics and Standards of Catholic Education are
signposts of excellence – standards that in and of themselves exceed the required or minimum standards of
state governance.  In the Philippines, it is the state that is responsible for the integrated national educational
system in which public and private educational institutions [supposedly] function by mandate of the
Constitution in complementarity. 
A Tool for Internal Quality Asurance
The PCSS-HE are presented to the Catholic educator as a tool for internal quality assurance (IQA).  In the
academic freedom of the CHEI, however, with the collaboration of other CHEIs, they could also be used as
a tool for external quality assurance in order to improve one’s realization of the PCSS-HE.
In the PCSS-BE, following recent DepED terminology, those who learn are referred to as learners.  In the
PCSS-HE, this reference is carried over.  However, in HE, “student(s)” may be more appropriate. 
HEI vs CHEI
It is to be noted that except for the reference to the “HEI” and the “Catholic HEI” in Standard 1, the PCSS-
HE does not distinguish systematically between the noun “HEI” or “University” and the adjective
“Catholic” as applied to the HEI.  The PCSS view is understandable.  The CHEI does not operate in
abstraction from its catholicity.  Thus, even such as the characteristics “Distinguished by a Culture of
Excellence” or “Committed to Integral Human Formation,” which are numbered among the defining
characteristics of Catholic education, can characterize a purely secular HEI, e.g., an HEI whose identity and
mission is to make quality higher education accessible to the Lumad. 
Nevertheless, the clear articulation of what is meant by the noun “university” or “HEI”, such as a
community (“universitas”) of scholars who come together in academic freedom to search for and transmit
truth in the service of human beings, can in effect highlight what is distinctly the adjective, Catholic, in the
CHEI, e.g. “centered on the person and message of Jesus Christ,” “participating in the evangelizing mission
of the Church,” “animated by the spirit of communion” and “established as an ecclesial institution.”  In the
Philippines, as Sen. Sherwin Gatchalian once remarked, among the strongest arguments for private
education is that it can deliver Christian education.  Public education cannot.  Delivery of quality Catholic
education is a contribution to the common weal. 
Academic Freedom Essential to the HEI and CHEi
At the same time, academic freedom which is an essential and constitutive characteristic of the HEI, is in the
CHEI only an excellence standard – the 22nd of the PCSS-HE’s 24 provided under the domain, Learner
Environment.  In the level-1 rubric, where the CHEI but initially meets the benchmark, “the CHEI … [has]
plans to uphold academic freedom.”  Possibly here the commitment to the Christian message may be
keeping academic freedom on the level of a mere plan, an intention.  In such a case, where actual academic
freedom is not a minimum requirement of the CHEI, can it still be considered an HEI?
In this light, for the CHEI, “a community of scholars exercising academic freedom in the search for truth” –
or the HEI as such – may even need to be numbered among the defining characteristics of CHEIs.  The
Philippine Constitution provides, notably with the mandatory “shall”, that “Academic freedom shall be
enjoyed in all institutions of higher learning” [Art. XIV, Sec. 5 (2)].  Because of the CHEI’s identity and
mission, it would be clear that the constitutionally-guaranteed institutional academic freedom is exercised
towards attaining the standards of CHEIs which realize the HEI’s PVMGCV. 
No Reference to Institutional Academic Freedom
However, it is to be noted here, not without a certain trepidation, that the benchmarks of Standard 22
“guarantee the faculty’s autonomy and freedom in research and teaching according to the methods of each
individual discipline in their search of all aspects of truth and in the pursuit of the common good” (22.1) and
“guarantee the learners’ autonomy and freedom in research and study according to the standards and
requirements of their degree programs” (22.2).  There is no reference to institutional academic freedom, the
ability of the  university to determine for itself on academic grounds who may teach, what may be taught,
how it shall be taught, and who may be admitted to study.[vi]  Whether the benchmarks for faculty and
learner academic freedom are sufficiently formulated so that the PVMGCV can be safeguarded through the
governance of the CHEI in exercising its institutional academic freedom against excesses in the exercise of
the academic freedom of faculty or of students is unclear.  In a Catholic HEI the institutional academic
freedom guides the research and instruction of its faculty members and the research of its students and
confirms the methods of their disciplines as consistent with the Catholic PVMGCV of the CHEI.  It engages
positions inconsistent with or contrary to the PVMGCV of the CHEI in a relentless and ongoing search for
truth.
Obligations in Academic Freedom for CHEIs in R and CE
In the PCSS-HE the standard of excellence is what “the excellent CHEI” achieves.  It is the articulation of
the ideal in 24 standards that responds to 6 operational domains.  There is however nothing sacred about the
number 6, so nothing that confines the domains to 6.  Indeed, the PCSS-HE’s finality of quality
improvement through self-assessment may have been better served if “Research and Community
Engagement” were two distinct domains.  This would have allowed for a deeper understanding of standards
for both R and CE in the light of the essential academic freedom in the CHEI.  How is academic
freedom positively embraced by the CHEI in the search for new knowledge, the development of innovative
programs of instruction against a given educational landscape, the development of genuine responsiveness to
stakeholders in need?  How from the heart of the Church does the CHEI in academic freedom necessarily
embrace the imperative to theology that is responsive to the particular context of the CHEI and articulates
how God continues in the truth of the Spirit to reveal himself blessing, redeeming, guiding and transforming
the local or global situation in which the CHEI is called. 
Indeed, when all the standards are introduced by “the excellent CHEI” and the implementation of a standard
involves many domains that appear to overlap in a type of dialectical circularity between “the excellent
CHEI” and the actual, striving CHEI, which member(s) of the community is or are mainly responsible for
the realization of the standard is blurred.  Another way of applying standards to the CHEI’s operations may
be to use the domains: Administration, Formation, Instruction, Research and Extension (AFIRE) that
implement a vision and mission, as is our wont at ADDU. 
I have referred to the self-realizing dynamic of the PCSS-HE.  This is true only if the Catholic educators
within the community of the CHEI commit themselves in academic freedom to meet, if not surpass, the 24
standards.  Such would presumably be the highest form of exercising academic freedom communally in a
particular CHEI.  Through this exercise of academic freedom, the CHEI is realized.
Two Major Limitations: The Public Educational Landscape
But there are two major limitations on the community’s ability to achieve the excellent CHEI in the
Philippines.  There are realities essential to this achievement that are beyond the CHEI’s control, no matter
the intense dedication and vowed commitments of the CHEI community to achieve the standards.
One is the public educational landscape that conditions the CHEI’s operation and the ability of the State to
kill private CHEIs and Catholic schools and universities through its one-sided support of public schools. 
This happens through legislation and public administrative policies which are insensitive to the operational
limitations of the private schools.  Private schools run on tuition and fees dependent on market conditions,
which enable or limit the ability of students or their parents to pay tuition and fees, whose collection
determine such as teacher salaries and educational facilities.  Public schools run on legislated government
budgets allocating taxpayers’ money for the support of the public schools.  The Constitution provides for the
“complementary roles of public and private institutions in the educational system” [Art XIV, Sec. 4 (1)]. 
While this ought to mean that both operate complementing the other,[vii] it is now being exercised so that in
time the strengths of one will annihilate the other.  No matter the commitments of the CHEI community to
its sustainability and continued improvement in the service of the students and of the community (Standard
23), government can erode and kill the operations of the CHEI by not seriously attending to the
complementarity of public and private schools and bullying the private schools out of the market and
therefore out of existence.  Under the domain OV, a more robust articulation of the imperative for the CHEI
to engage in organized advocacy in collaboration with the private sector to ensure the sustainability of CE
vs. killer national and local legislation is warranted.  This may be considered in the light of the right of
Catholic citizens to Catholic education as articulated by Gravissimum Educationis.[viii]
The Holy Spirit
The other limiting factor is more profound.  In a CHEI community that is centered on the person of Jesus
Christ, participates in the evangelizing mission of the Church, is animated by the Spirit of communion, is
engaged in the service of Church and society with a preferential option for the poor, and promotes inter-
religious and inter-cultural dialogue concerning faith and life and culture, none of this is achieved through
the sheer willfulness and rationality of administrators, faculty members, staff and students.  None of it is
possible without the Holy Spirit and grace.  The CHEI is not a proprietor of the Holy Spirit; it does not
govern the Holy Spirit, a sine qua non in the faith life of each and every Christian member of the CHEI and
indeed in the lives of members of the university of other religions or beliefs seeking truth.  The shift from
the articulated “defining characteristics” like “centered on the person of Jesus Christ” to an actual
centeredness on Jesus that is life giving for a particular CHEI is not achieved by educators and students
alone but granted by the Holy Spirit, not in the approved timeframe of a strategic plan, but in the Holy
Spirit’s own time.  Not all the members of the CHEI find their center in Christ Jesus at the same time, with
the same intensity, with the same consequentiality, so that the realization of a CHEI’s vision and mission
may often need to wait for the Holy Spirit to move, to inspire and to transform.
The “limitation” is instructive.  Working with the PCSS-HE, perhaps, need not end in an exclamation,
“Thank God we are not like the rest of the CHEIs since we have achieved at least Level 3 in all 24
standards!” but “Have mercy on us, Lord, in our shortcomings and failures!” (cf. Lk 18:9-14).   Especially in
our shortcomings in faith.  “I believe in you, Lord.  But help my unbelief” (Mk 9:24).  In administration and
governance, “I am anxious and worried like Martha, Lord” but help me to see “the better part” that Mary
preferred.  Help me find the distance from the endless chores and tasks and pressing deadlines to find the
quiet to sit at your lap and converse with you, Lord (cf. Lk 10:38-42).  Where it is clear, Lord, that separated
from you I can do nothing, “Lord, teach me to pray” (Lk 11:1-13).  Teach me on my knees to search for
truth even knowing you as the font of truth!  In becoming more aware of God’s grace actually working in
the dedicated talents and skills and struggles of people in the CHEI community, or in the real situations of
human and environmental emergency the CHEI addresses, one may progress not just through greater
degrees of excellence but through greater degrees of humility.  And gratitude.
In the end, the self-realizing dynamic of the PCSS-HE is not just the commitment and work in progress of
“the excellent CHEI’s community” and of the community of these communities providing quality Catholic
education to the Philippines.  It is the work of the Holy Spirit. 

[i] Cf. Pastoral letter of the CBCP on the Occasion of the 400 th Anniversary of Catholic Education in the
Philippines, 2012:  https://cbcponline.net/a-pastoral-letter-of-the-cbcp-on-the-occasion-of-the-400-years-of-
catholic-education-in-the-philippines/
[ii] The PCSS-BE has 8 defining characteristics, 15 standards, 62 benchmarks and 5 domains.
[iii] “As regards CEAP Membership, our official number is 1520 schools and 120 superintendents. Our
number of HEIs including seminaries is 321 but without them, we have around 270+ colleges and
universities” (Allan Arellano, CEAP Executive Director).
[iv] Appreciating the defining characteristics, they are not only willed outcomes of of a CHEI’s community,
but the product of the Spirit “who blows where he will.”  The PCSS needs prayer.  Conversion.  Mission
from God.
[v] Indeed, if already in Standard 1 the PVMGCV of the CHEI is realized, one would wonder why there is
need for other standards.  But the PCSS-HE is a circle of circles, a self-realizing dialectic between the ideal
and the real, between the whole concept and the particular details.
[vi] In Philippine jurisprudence, Garcia vs. Loyola School of Theology (Nov 28, 1975) was decided in favor
of LST with reference to the US Justice Frankfurter, concurring in Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 US 234,
236 (1957).  Justice Frankfurter, with his extensive background in legal education as a former Professor of
the Harvard Law School, referred to what he called the business of a university and the four essential
freedoms in the following language: “It is the business of a university to provide that atmosphere which is
most conducive to speculation, experiment and creation. It is an atmosphere in which there prevail “the four
essential freedoms” of a university — to determine for itself on academic grounds who may teach, what may
be taught, how it shall be taught, and who may be admitted to study.”  This “business of the university” is
institutional academic freedom.
[vii] This has been the object of intense and enlightening research.  Cf. Paqueo, et al., Making Public and
Private Sectors Work Complementarily in Education: A Strategic Framework (Manila: Philippine
Association of Colleges and Universities with funding from the Philippine Educational Assistance
Committee and the Department of Education, 2022).  “This study seeks to contribute to the clarification and
operationalization of the concept of public and private education complementarity.  Specifically, it aims to
address the following questions.  How can the govern, public schools and private education sector be made
to work complementarily?  What does complementarity mean in the first place?  And how can the
Philippines build a Constitutionally mandated tentgrated national education system (iNES) that  is highly
motivated and able to maximize its performance?” (pg.1).
[viii] Paul VI, Gravissimum Educationis, Encyclical (Vatican: 1965).  No. 1 asserts the Universal Right to
Education.  No 2 asserts the right of the Catholic to Catholic education.