The Commission on Higher Education (CHED) is debating allegations of selective enforcement against institutions of higher learning. Critics question why long-standing schools face punishment while some seemingly non-compliant institutes continue to operate.
The issue stems from unresolved findings from CHED's 2024 evaluation of teacher education programs nationwide. According to people familiar with the discussions, over 100 institutions were singled out for failing to meet minimum standards, such as low passing rates on the Licensure Examination for Teachers (LET), insufficient faculty qualifications, poor academic leadership, and outdated curricula.
Despite the startling extent of the shortcomings and a thorough discussion of the Commission En Banc's conclusions, critics contend that the current CHED administration has not acted effectively. This inactivity, according to observers, including CHED Chairperson Shirley C. Agrupis herself, has cast doubt on the commission's objectivity and consistency.
Particular emphasis has been paid to how CHED handles certain campuses of a reputable university with a national prominence. Despite their well-established infrastructure and long history of operation, some claim that these institutions have been disproportionately targeted. The campuses under review, according to advocates, have been in operation for an average of thirty years, own the buildings and land they occupy, and have cutting-edge computer laboratories and worldwide certification for students. These characteristics distinguish them from "fly-by-night" establishments that carry on despite alleged shortcomings.
There are whispers circulating in academic circles that suggest politics may be impacting regulatory decisions. Some critics speculate that CHED Chairperson Agrupis' perceived bias against the targeted institution is caused by either the institution's affiliation with former CHED officials or Chairperson Agrupis's alleged connections to the institution's rivals, despite the lack of public evidence to support either theory.
But it's clear that stakeholders are growing more and more irritated because they believe CHED's enforcement activities have grown erratic. The irony has not gone unnoticed: while the commission recognized top-performing teacher education institutions with the 2025 EQUATE Awards, the long-promised crackdown on subpar programs never materialized.
For many educators, the issue goes beyond institutional rivalry. Both the credibility of CHED's regulatory authority and the general standard of higher education in the Philippines are compromised. If standards are to be meaningful, critics argue that enforcement must be consistent regardless of the regulator's political sympathies, institutional size, or personal ties.
In addition to offering an explanation for its decisions, CHED may soon face pressure to show that accountability in higher education is not being applied selectively as calls for transparency grow.
.jpg)
.jpeg)
