I have written several columns on the challenges of governing the ever-increasing number of local colleges and universities (LUCs) in the country and have asked: is there hope for LUC reforms to make them viable agents of change for access and equity in higher education?
Yes, hope exists, but the journey is challenging, and no shortcuts are available because reforms demand a paradigm shift in local colleges and universities. An essential first step is for Congress to enact a law governing LUCs.
The House of Representatives has been working to pass a law on LUC governance since the last Congress. In 2023, 271 legislators approved the Local Universities and Colleges Governance Act during Third Reading. However, the Senate did not pass a counterpart bill.
The current Congress recently approved Committee Report 454 (on House Bill 9812), which consolidates 11 bills into the Guidelines for the Establishment of Local Colleges and Universities.
So is this good news?
Yes and no.
LUC enrollment has increased quickly due to the demand for free higher education. Students unable to secure spots in state universities and colleges (SUCs) because of limited capacity tend to enroll in LUCs. However, only around 100 of the over 150 LUCs have obtained CHED’s Institutional Recognition, indicating they meet the required minimum standards.
So the good news is that there is still an effort to establish a governance framework for LUCs, many of whom continue to operate without complying with minimum standards yet are not closed by CHED.
It is also good that the bill expands the scope of LUC reform to include technical and vocational education and to bring TESDA into the governance of LUCs.
HBM 9812 follows established CHED guidelines, which include conducting feasibility studies before establishing a new LUC, analyzing human resource supply and demand and demonstrating financial capacity to sustain operations. It also calls for a project development plan that addresses the availability of a school site and the procurement of educational and training materials aligned with CHED and TESDA standards. Moreover, it requires a five-year development plan approved by the Sanggunian, outlining budget allocation, organizational structure and personnel systems.
The bill grants CHED and TESDA authority to supervise, monitor and visit LUCs, and reestablishes the LUC Board to include sectoral representatives (faculty, students, staff), the business sector and members from CHED and TESDA. However, it does not include the DILG to facilitate enforcement in LGUs.
The powers and functions of the LUC Board, its operations, the search process for the LUC president and general operations are patterned after those of SUCs as provided in RA 8292 (Higher Education Modernization Act of 1997).
Now the bad news.
It does not resolve ongoing problems impacting LUC governance, such as protecting the LUC president from being replaced unilaterally by mayors after elections in favor of political supporters, the absence of a specific plantilla position for the LUC president and the lack of a structured career progression and promotion system for faculty and staff.
The bill also does not categorically mandate that LUCs cannot start operating programs without prior approval from CHED and TESDA.
The worst provision in the bill is downgrading the qualifications for a LUC president from a PhD to a master’s degree. I don’t know why politicians dislike PhDs. I remember having a serious debate with a ranking member of Congress who had the audacity to say, “Bakit kailangang PhD ang presidente? Gaya-gaya lang tayo sa ibang bansa (Why do we need a PhD to become a university president? We are just copycats of other countries).”
I had to patiently clarify that a PhD is crucial for university presidents since they are mainly academic leaders. How can a president expect faculty to earn their graduate degrees if they themselves do not hold a PhD? How can they require research and publications for promotions if they haven’t published anything themselves? Additionally, how can they represent the university on the international stage without their peers’ credentials?
We are a credentialed society, and one’s value is often determined by the letters that follow our name. This is particularly valued in academic settings.
Lowering the requirement will worsen the perception of LUCs as second-class public institutions. Politicians might want it, and aspiring presidents without PhDs will welcome it, but it will only further diminish the stature of LUCs and their presidents.
Many LGUs are violating the rule that LUC presidents must hold a PhD. Several LUCs, including key institutions in Metro Manila, are not meeting this requirement. Unlike in 2022, when 19 LUCs were delisted, UNIFAST and CHED have not taken corrective action. The UNIFAST Board and CHED officials are cautioned that COA can detect this non-compliance and penalize those responsible for approving tuition and fee reimbursements.
While HBN 9812 makes some progress, it isn’t comprehensive. Legislators still haven’t recognized that the over 150 LCUs differ greatly in shape, size, geographic location, scale, governance, degree programs, funding requirements and quality of education.
Congress must stop issuing “one-size-fits-all” measures that fail to capture the different dimensions of LUCs in its governance bill. There is a wealth of studies and best practices worldwide that can help them craft a better law.