This statement is issued in response to the opinion of Mr. Art Besana, published in the Daily Tribune on 30 December 2025, entitled “CHED to be reverted to a bureau?”
A charge as serious as corruption and betrayal of public trust cannot stand on the basis of an allegation alone. If there is evidence to substantiate these allegations, and if they are directed at the present leadership of the Commission on Higher Education, let the evidence be made public so that the responsible public servants in the Commission on Higher Education can either admit to the charge or refute it.
As for malfeasance and misfeasance under previous leaderships of the Commission, the present leadership is firm in its resolve to determine whether the accusations are grounded in fact and whether there is reason to proceed against the responsible individuals. It is an elementary precept of administrative law that resignation from office, retirement, or any other form of separation from the service—such as the end of one’s term—does not automatically exonerate a liable party. The Commission welcomes whatever evidence might be adduced of wrongdoing by Commissioners or their subordinates so that the service may be rid of misfits and malefactors.
It is necessary to point out that the claim that higher education institutions in the Philippines are doing poorly is not borne out by the figures and records available to the Commission. That a growing number of colleges and universities in the Philippines score creditably in various international ranking systems is sufficiently evidenced by the recognition and/or awards the Commission has given to such institutions and their leaders. The records speak for themselves.
This is not to say that the Commission is content with what has thus far been achieved. There are indeed issues that must be addressed, in partnership with university and college presidents and their governing boards. It must also be remembered that the Commission can only work within a regulatory framework. It cannot usurp the academic freedom that the Constitution guarantees to all institutions of higher learning.
The allegation that no official of the Commission was in office on December 16 is simply UNTRUE. While it is possible that the specific individual being inquired of was not present, office records will show that officials of the Commission were in office, performing the duties of their office on that day.
As for the insinuation that the Commission may be reverted to the status of a bureau, similar to the scheme when the defunct Department of Education, Culture and Sports was divided into a Bureau of Elementary Education, a Bureau of Secondary Education, and a Bureau of Higher Education, it should suffice to say that, at the moment, this is purely a matter of speculation. Ultimately, it is the Legislature’s call, because it was Republic Act No. 7722 that legislated the Commission into existence. Until that time, the Commission will discharge its duties and exercise its powers under the law.