Overlapping mandates of the Commission on Higher Education (CHED), Professional Regulation Commission (PRC) and Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA) are creating significant barriers to the professional growth of Filipino learners and workers, according to a study by the Second Congressional Commission on Education (EDCOM 2). This finding will be included in its final report on January 26. The lack of clear hierarchy and coordination leads to duplicative regulation and inconsistent enforcement.
According to EDCOM 2, while the CHED, PRC and TESDA were established to regulate distinct segments of the education-to-employment pipeline, their enabling laws grant parallel and, in some cases, competing regulatory powers. For instance, Republic Act 7722, or the Higher Education Act of 1994, vests the CHED with authority over higher education programs, curricula and quality assurance. RA 7796, or the TESDA Act of 1994, mandates the TESDA to set competency standards, regulate technical-vocational education and training and issue national certifications. Meanwhile, RA 8981, or the PRC Modernization Act of 2000, expanded the PRC’s role beyond licensure to include oversight of professional standards, continuing professional development and coordination with educational institutions.
There is an absence of a clear hierarchy and regular coordination in implementing these laws, resulting in blurred delineations of authority, particularly where academic programs, skills standards and licensure requirements intersect. This has translated into duplicative regulation, inconsistent enforcement and conflicting policy guidance for institutions and students. The statutory ambiguity is compounded by older professionalization laws, such as the Civil Engineering Law of 1950 and Medical Act of 1959, which were among 11 laws enacted decades before the creation of the CHED and TESDA in 1994.
“Because these provisions were crafted in the absence of a national higher education and skills regulator, they result in conflicts with contemporary standards and quality assurance frameworks issued by the CHED and TESDA,” EDCOM 2 said. Even in the more recent legislation of 34 professional boards, the failure to specify which agency’s rules prevail when standards diverge has left institutions navigating multiple, uncoordinated audits of the same programs, laboratories and faculty.
While RA 7722 authorizes the CHED to prescribe minimum standards for higher education programs, nine professional laws prescribe program length, structure and required facilities. Meanwhile, 36 professional laws detail actual topics to be covered by licensure exams, giving the CHED and TESDA little legroom to adjust the curriculum and training programs to changing industry needs. Graduates of TESDA-regulated programs often face barriers when transitioning to CHED-regulated degree programs, as competencies acquired through national certificates are not consistently credited.
“Our graduates are paying the price for regulatory overlap. EDCOM 2’s review shows that unclear and competing mandates among the CHED, TESDA and PRC delay student progression, restrict credit recognition and prevent programs from adapting quickly to labor market demands,” said EDCOM 2 executive director Karol Mark Yee.
