Within CHEd much corruption is visible

Even in a hundred years, no Philippine university will land in the Top 100 of the Times Higher Education (THE) Asia University Rankings unless the total abuse of power and misuse of public funds within the CHEd are properly and fully addressed by the national government.

As of now, only President Bongbong Marcos is showing grave concern for the problem, showing that the situation is very important and requires immediate attention.

On 14 April 2025, President Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr. approved an augmentation to the Commission on Higher Education (CHEd) fund to support the continuous delivery of free higher education to CHEd-recognized local universities and colleges (LUC). The President authorized P577,122,033.08 to address a deficiency in the funding for free higher education reimbursements.

In the same period, to address issues concerning teacher quality, the Commission on Higher Education and the Philippine Regulation Commission (PRC) partnered to deliver new specialization components in the licensure examination for teachers (LET). The President stood witness to the signing of the Joint Memorandum Circular (JMC) between the CHEd and PRC.

But allegations of corruption, the graver problem within CHEd, were said to be visible and so many.

CHEd commissioners can potentially engage in graft and corruption through various means, including, but not limited to, misusing public funds, awarding of contracts improperly, and influencing decisions related to accreditation or licensing for personal gain. There were cases of nepotism, abuse of authority, and obstruction of justice.

Here are the details on how these forms of corruption could be committed within CHEd:

Misuse of public funds through misappropriation. There were allegations that commissioners could directly divert public funds allocated for specific projects and programs within CHEd.

Public funds could be used for personal use such as buying property or assets or misappropriating them.

The commissioners could manipulate the budget to create opportunities for personal enrichment.

There were allegations of cases of improper awarding of contracts, resulting in kickbacks and bribes from contractors.

There were allegations or cases where contracts were awarded to favored companies or individuals, bypassing proper bidding procedures.

There were allegations of nepotism where a certain commissioner unduly favored relatives or close associates in the accreditation and licensing processes.

There were also allegations of commissioners manipulating contract prices to benefit themselves or their associates.

There were alleged cases of influence peddling. Commissioners leveraged their positions to influence decisions related to accreditation and licensing for personal gain.

The most common accusation was abuse of authority. There were allegations of commissioners using their power to harass, oppress, or intimidate individuals and institutions for personal gain.

There was an allegation that a commissioner interfered with investigations into corruption and other wrongdoings.

There has been an allegation of a commissioner rigging the bidding process for a CHEd project.

One case involved a commissioner accused of oppression and dishonesty for allegedly pressuring a construction company to give a 10-percent “SOP” to the university’s board of regents, which was ultimately terminated after the company refused.