The Second Congressional Commission on Education (EDCOM II) has flagged the sluggish pace at which higher education curricula are updated in the Philippines.

EDCOM II revealed that the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) takes an average of 11 years to review and update policies, standards, and guidelines for bachelors degree programs.

These policies, standards, and guidelines are the official rules that define how each degree program offered by any college or university in the country must be designed, delivered, and assessed. Said guidelines cover details on curriculum structure, faculty qualifications, needed facilities and resources, requirements for internship, among others.

In its Final Report, Turning Point: A Decade of Necessary Reform (2026-2035), EDCOM II highlighted that these updates are rarely proactive. Instead, they are typically in reaction to major reforms in basic education—such as the K to 12 implementation following the passage of Republic Act 10533—rather than due to the agency’s efforts to keep abreast with emerging knowledge as well as evolving industry demands and technological advancements.

Citing an analysis by RTI International, EDCOM notes that this decade-long interval between updates renders curricula unresponsive to the rapid changes in the workforce.

“Higher education curricula must not only be reactive to changes in the basic education curriculum, but must also be responsive to the evolving needs of learners and the workforce,” the report stated.

Further analysis exposes that this "reactive" cycle is compounded by a curriculum structure that remains rigidly "GE-heavy, internship light," partly due to subjects mandated by law. The Commission found that even after the K to 12 reforms reduced general education units from 63 to 36, this did not result in shorter or more focused degree programs.

Instead, the freed-up units were often filled with additional professional courses, reinforcing a long-standing pattern where Philippine degrees are heavier in coursework than global norms. This structural rigidity is exacerbated by fixed legislated subjects—such as the Life and Works of Rizal (RA 1425, 3 units), Physical Education (RA 5708, 8 units), and the National Service Training Program (RA 9163, 6 units)—which consume significant unit allocations and limit the flexibility needed to update programs swiftly.

Citing the study by Larzoga and Fernandez (2025), EDCOM highlights that when benchmarked globally, the Philippine curriculum stands as an outlier for its excessive academic load paired with insufficient practical application. The report highlighted stark contrasts against international standards: while Philippine programs require significantly more total units than their ASEAN and European counterparts, they fall short in experiential learning.

A glaring example cited by the Commission is in Teacher Education, where CHED requires only six units each for Field Study and Practice Teaching—totaling roughly 360 hours. This is less than half of the international benchmark and far below the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development norm of approximately 800 hours of supervised practice, leaving Filipino graduates academically overloaded but under-prepared for actual work environments

EDCOM also identified the long-standing vacancy of technical panels as a primary cause for these delays. Under Republic Act 7722, CHED technical panels are experts tasked with reviewing and setting standards for degree programs.

The report revealed that for seven years, the reconstitution of these panels was delayed, leaving many on "hold-over" status since 2018.

However, the Commission noted significant progress under the new CHED leadership. As of October 2025, 89 out of 91 Technical Panels have finally been reconstituted. CHED has also committed to establishing new panels aligned with EDCOM II’s priority sectors, such as Artificial Intelligence and Data Analytics.

To ensure Philippine higher education catches up, CHED must institute a regular, programmed review cycle for policies, standards, and guidelines, ensuring updates are driven by industry forecasting rather than just legislative compliance; regulations should provide ample space for higher education institutions to innovate, moving away from rigid, prescriptive standards; and calls for building the in-house expertise of the CHED Office of Programs and Standards Development to support the technical panels effectively.