A controversy is brewing inside the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) following accusations of selective enforcement against higher education institutions, with critics questioning why several allegedly non-compliant schools continue operating while long-established institutions face sanctions.
The issue relates to unresolved findings from CHED’s 2024 evaluation of teacher education programs nationwide. According to insiders familiar with the discussions, more than 100 institutions were flagged for failing to meet minimum standards, including low Licensure Examination for Teachers (LET) passing rates, inadequate faculty qualifications, weak academic leadership, and outdated curricula.
Despite the alarming scale of the deficiencies, and a thorough discussion of the evaluation by the Commission En Banc, critics say no decisive action has been taken by the current CHED administration. This inaction, observers argue, has raised troubling questions about consistency and impartiality within the commission, including CHED Chairperson Shirley C. Agrupis herself.
Particular attention has been drawn to CHED’s treatment of certain campuses of a renowned educational institution with nationwide presence, which some claim have been disproportionately targeted despite their long operational history and established infrastructure. The campuses reportedly under scrutiny have existed for an average of three decades and own both the land and buildings they occupy — with state of the art computer laboratories and international certification for students; characteristics supporters say distinguish them from “fly-by-night” institutions that continue operating despite alleged deficiencies.
Rumors circulating within academic circles suggest that politics may be influencing regulatory decisions. Some critics speculate that CHED Chairperson Agrupis’ perceived bias against the targeted institution stems from either the institution’s association with former CHED officials or Chairperson Agrupis’ own alleged ties to the said institution’s competitors, although no evidence supporting either has publicly surfaced.
What is clear, however, is the mounting frustration among stakeholders who believe CHED’s enforcement efforts have become uneven. The irony has not gone unnoticed: while the commission celebrated top-performing teacher education institutions through the 2025 EQUATE Awards, the long-promised crackdown on underperforming programs never materialized.
For many educators, the issue goes beyond institutional rivalries. It strikes at the credibility of CHED’s regulatory mandate and the broader quality of higher education in the Philippines. If standards are to mean anything, critics argue, enforcement must apply equally regardless of political affiliations, institutional size, or the regulator’s personal ties.
As calls for transparency grow louder, CHED may soon face pressure not only to explain its decisions, but also to prove that accountability in higher education is not being applied selectively.
