As one of the nation's most revered cultural leaders expresses concerns about the future course of Philippine education, the leadership of Commission on Higher Education (CHED) Chairperson Shirley Agrupis is coming under increasing scrutiny.
Kidlat Tahimik, a national artist who has long advocated for the preservation of Filipino identity and culture, has taken a strong symbolic stance against CHED's Reframed General Education Curriculum (RGEC). He has stated that he is willing to give up his National Artist medallion and the benefits that come with it in protest of what he sees as a potential weakening of the importance of culture, history, and the humanities in higher education.
The action has returned attention to CHED's leadership under Agrupis, turning the debate over curriculum into a more thorough discussion about education priorities, consultation, and the role of lawmakers in maintaining Filipino identity.
CHED's focus on competency-based learning, industry alignment, and workforce preparedness is at the heart of the issue. Despite the fact that these reforms are meant to prepare graduates for shifting global demands, critics and cultural advocates have voiced concerns that the change may lessen emphasis on courses that foster national consciousness, creativity, critical thinking, and appreciation of Filipino heritage.
The controversy surrounds the RGEC, which seeks to restructure college general education standards. The General Education (GE) curriculum, which was previously reduced from 72 units to 36 units under previous reforms, is undergoing another major overhaul due to concerns about plans that could further reduce GE courses to 18 units.
For many educators and activists, the question of whether CHED can pursue modernization without compromising the cultural and humanistic foundations of higher education has become a litmus test for Agrupis' leadership.
Kidlat, born Eric de Guia and deeply connected to Baguio and the Cordillera region, has spent decades defending Filipino stories, indigenous wisdom, and local perspectives through his films and advocacy.
Known as the “Father of Philippine Independent Cinema,” Kidlat built a career challenging cultural dependence on foreign influences while promoting the importance of Filipino identity.
His resistance carries a lot of weight because he is an artist whose life's work has concentrated on maintaining the very ideas that critics fear may become obsolete in Philippine classrooms.
In his position letter to Agrupis, Kidlat warned that an educational system that places a high priority on technical proficiency and preparedness for the workforce runs the risk of neglecting the more basic objective of education, which is to produce citizens with a strong sense of identity, cultural awareness, compassion, creativity, and critical thinking.
His willingness to give up his National Artist designation has become a symbolic challenge to CHED's position, which maintains that education reform should both prepare Filipinos for the workforce and preserve the traditions and values that make them distinct.
In 2018, Kidlat was awarded the Order of National Artists, the highest national distinction given to Filipinos who have made outstanding contributions to Philippine art and culture. The designation includes a medallion, a national honor, a lifetime monthly income, hospital and medical treatment, and other benefits.
For someone who is recognized by the nation for defending Filipino culture, CHED's decision to forgo these advantages sends a message that many believe cannot be disregarded.
The growing controversy has led to a closer examination of Agrupis' leadership, particularly in relation to how CHED plans to reconcile its responsibility to protect the intellectual, cultural, and historical foundations of higher education with its desire to remain globally competitive.
Advocates of modernization acknowledge the significance of innovation, technology, and workforce-ready skills. However, detractors emphasize that rather than only training students for the workforce, higher education should continue to develop Filipinos who understand their history, community, and role in nation-building.
As CHED under Agrupis moves on with its reforms, the commission's job is no longer limited to curricular changes. It has to do with determining the kind of graduates that Philippine education hopes to produce.
Agrupis claims that the growing criticism is a critical leadership test: would CHED consider and respond to the groups calling for a more balanced approach, or will it move forward despite concerns about the possible long-term effects on Filipino identity and culture?
A more thorough conversation on accountability, consultation, and the role of CHED leadership in influencing the next generation has developed from what began as a discussion about curriculum reform.
Agrupis and CHED now have the challenge of proving that Philippine education can grow and remain competitive on a worldwide level without compromising the history, culture, and Filipino identity that it is meant to uphold.
