Why we must modernize CHEd’s charter
When Republic Act No. 7722 established the Commission on Higher Education (CHEd) in 1994, the Philippine higher education landscape looked markedly different. Enrollment stood at approximately 1.7 million students. Today, that figure has grown to nearly 3.8 million. Yet the institution entrusted with ensuring the quality of their education continues to operate under a legal framework designed for a different time and a far smaller system.
As the Second Congressional Commission on Education (Edcom 2) approaches the final phase of its work, one finding has emerged with unmistakable clarity: CHEd is severely overburdened and critically understaffed. Since its founding, at least 164 laws and policies have progressively expanded its mandate, transforming what was originally conceived as a lean policymaking body into a large-scale scholarship administrator and social policy implementer. Over the past decade, CHEd’s budget increased by more than 600 percent, while its permanent workforce grew by only 22 percent. To fill the gap, the agency has long depended on hundreds of contract-of-service personnel, an arrangement that is neither sustainable nor consistent with the standards we expect of a national regulatory body.
The consequences of this imbalance are measurable and serious. In the National Capital Region, a handful of personnel are expected to monitor thousands of programs, making meaningful oversight a mathematical impossibility. Nationwide, CHEd is often able to monitor only a fraction of its targeted programs in any given year, and many of those reviewed are found to have deficiencies. This limited oversight has allowed substandard programs to persist despite consistently poor licensure examination outcomes. The state’s obligation to protect the quality of education cannot be met under these conditions.
To address this, Edcom 2 has championed the filing of Senate Bill Nos. 1036 and 1427 to modernize the CHEd Charter. The measure reorients how the commission fulfills its mandate by shifting from a rigid, one-size-fits-all regulatory model to one that is responsive, outcomes-based, and adequately resourced, thereby supporting innovation, access, and excellence.
Our recommendations are grounded in four areas of reform. First, CHEd must be given an institutional structure commensurate with its responsibilities. This means building a professional, permanent workforce with clear authority to enforce quality standards, rather than continuing to rely on contract-of-service personnel for core functions.
Second, we propose a “differentiated” regulatory framework. Higher education institutions vary widely in performance and capacity. High-performing and accountable institutions should be granted greater academic and administrative autonomy, allowing CHEd to focus its resources where risks to quality are greatest.
Third, the curriculum review process must be future-proof. Evidence shows that updating certain policies, standards, and guidelines can take more than a decade under the current system. In a period of rapid technological and economic transformation, this delay is unacceptable. A regular and programmed review cycle must be institutionalized to ensure that graduates enter the workforce with relevant and competitive qualifications.
Fourth, faculty development must be treated as a sustained national investment. Dedicated resources should be directed toward the training and advanced education of educators in both public and private institutions.
Ultimately, this legislative effort is about accountability to the Filipino student. Every enrollment carries an implicit commitment from the state: that the years of study and the financial sacrifice of families, or the taxpayers’ investment through free tuition, will lead to a meaningful and productive future. When quality assurance fails, that commitment is broken. Graduates enter the workforce credentialed but inadequately prepared, perpetuating underemployment and weakening national competitiveness.
We cannot expect a system to guarantee quality if the institution charged with enforcing standards is not structured to carry the weight of its mandate. Modernizing the CHEd Charter is how we ensure that the promise of higher education is not merely offered, but delivered.
—————-
Sen. Loren Legarda is a cochair of Edcom 2. She is also the chair of the Senate committee on higher, technical, and vocational education.
