FULL TEXT: Q&A at CHED's hearing on GE overhaul

Upgrade to High-Speed Internet for only ₱1499/month!

Enjoy up to 100 Mbps fiber broadband, perfect for browsing, streaming, and gaming.

Visit Suniway.ph to learn

MANILA, Philippines — The Commission on Higher Education held on Tuesday, May 5, a public hearing on the proposed changes to its general education curriculum for colleges and universities.

CHED spent the bulk of the two-hour session outlining proposed changes to the general education curriculum and its legal basis amid public criticism of the draft curriculum.

Among others, debate has largely swirled around the removal of classes that promote critical thinking. There are also concerns of a mass displacement of college instructors.

The commission allotted nearly 45 minutes for faculty members of different universities to ask questions during a 'managed' Q&A session. 

Philstar.com is publishing the full text of the Q&A portion below, with minor edits only for clarity.

---

Erickson Reyes, CHED senior education program specialist and moderator of the public hearing: We'll start off with the dean of the arts of Silliman University.

Alana Leilani C. Narciso, dean of the Silliman University College of Arts and Sciences: Thank you, we appreciate the CHED’s calling us into this public hearing, making us feel that we're actually partners of educating our students. 

So, sir, my question is, the way I understand all this reframing, this interdisciplinary approach that we're having, but there are actually certain subjects that are important, like in the humanities, literature and philosophy, they are not actually in the core courses.

May I suggest, because you're listening to our side, may I suggest that we include a humanities subject in the GE curriculum, not as an institutional offering, but a mandated core subject… Because if we take a look at the strengthened SHS curriculum, there is a removal of the 21st-century Philippine literature and world literature. It's only an elective, and given that it's an elective, I don't think that everybody will take it. So, why not — and rightly so, because there are issues in literature, in philosophical discussions that are age-appropriate and need a particular or a level of maturity.

So, why not institute it in the GE curriculum as a humanities subject?

Reyes: We thank you so much, ma'am, for that feedback, and as a person in the humanities as well, there is a sense into what has been forwarded. We will put this in the roster of items to be further discussed by the technical panel. Thank you so much.

…

Reyes: Professor Bolanos, you have been recognized. You can unmute your microphone now.

Paolo Bolanos, faculty at the University of Santo Tomas Department of Philosophy: Yes, good afternoon, and thank you for accommodating me. I represent, well, I am from the University of Santo Tomas and a member of the Department of Philosophy, and I teach philosophy, and together with my colleagues in the department, we do offer ethics as a GE course in the current curriculum, although I am representing not only my department. I am representing the whole philosophical community in the Philippines.

First off, you mentioned that you consulted the relevant technical panels. I don't think that that's accurate, and I don't know how accurate that is. The technical panel for philosophy has not been consulted, so that's one.

Second is that you mentioned that the shift is from teacher-centric curriculum to student-centric curriculum and that it's outcome-based education. The elephant in the room is that I think it's market-based education. So that's one thing that we can perhaps debate upon.

Who are we satisfying and what are we satisfying? Which outcomes are we satisfying? Of course, I'm speaking on behalf of the humanities in general and philosophy in particular. 

You say that you are avoiding redundancies, but there are redundancies in the course offerings that you are presenting to us today. 

Secondly, I think the most important point that I would like to mention is that I've been listening to… I think it’s Dr. Guerrero who presented the course that mentioned ethics. 

Yes, there's mention of ethics everywhere. Ethics there, ethics here, ethics... But I think that the very understanding of what ethics is, it's very narrow. 

There's also this wrong assumption that philosophy is being taught in the senior high school. In the current or new curriculum, philosophy is just an elective. So if you think that the level or maturity of students in terms of their grasp of ethics is enough when they enter college, that's totally wrong. 

Another thing is that there's emphasis on a market integration after graduation.

But there seems to be this lack of understanding of the importance of content in teaching the general education courses. And that's quite frustrating on our part because I think content is very important. Kaya nga, when I was listening to the presenter on ethics and so on, parang, where's the content? What's ethics now? Ethics is reduced to, what, a response to fake news, and a tool for managing data? That's what ethics is in the current GE or in the proposed GE?

So, let's have a real discussion on this. You mentioned that stakeholders are being involved. We have not been invited to discuss this matter with you.

We who will be teaching and we who can provide you with the content. So please. So hopefully this is not a pro forma discussion. I hope that there will be more discussion before we implement this. Thank you very much.

My two cents.  

Edizon Fermin, chair of the Commission on Higher Education's (CHED) Technical Panel for General Education: Thank you, Professor Bolanos. And we appreciate the actual submission that was made by, I'm sorry, sir. I just forgot the actual name of the professional organization of the instructors and professors of ethics.

We actually appreciate so much the way you articulated those items and we're very serious about taking note of them. I would just like to share something on the screen, if you may allow, Professor Bolanos, because this will be part of the ongoing discussions that we will make soon after this public hearing has ended. Eric, if I may just ask you to pull up the first supplemental slide, just so that we are able to underscore how the Commission on Higher Education would actually like to, Eric, can I just put it on the next slide, please?

How to actually make ethics a cross-cutting consideration in all the GE courses that we have just discussed. As far as we are concerned, the best people who can guide the framing and the real articulation of all these dimensions of ethics should be experts such as Professor Bolanos himself. And in the subsequent processes that we shall follow, rest assured that we will get in touch with the content experts and see how we can move the needle forward relative to this.

Please take note that there is a clear articulation of the ethical dimension of all these courses. Thank you so much. 

Eric, I think we have to respect also the inputs that were provided by our colleagues over our electronic platform.

So if we can just share some of those questions that my colleagues and I in the technical panel can respond to.

Reyes: So we'll now launch some of the questions gathered through the QR code presented and would like to request the members of the PQ to respond to the questions raised by our stakeholders. 

Okay, on screen you can see there's a comment to clarify the GE unit structure and ensure equity across HEIs. Check the HEI QA guide explaining the difference between the 18 unit minimum, possible 21-unit configuration and expanded GE offering for autonomous institutions.

This should include sample curriculum models so HEIs can understand how to distribute core institutional, elective, and program-related GE courses. 

Check, also ensure that reduced GE structure will not create academic inequality between students from autonomous and non-autonomous institutions.

So I guess this is more of a suggestion from our stakeholders.

So we'll take note of these and include this in the deliberation of the technical panel for GE.

Fermin: Eric, and if I may just add and I would ask Dr. Macayan if he has something to say after what I'm going to share. Take note, dear colleagues in general education or higher education in general, that the intent of the technical panel is to actually convene all the technical panels and explain how general education can be effectively programmed. 

Earlier, Professor Bolanos was saying that his technical panel was not represented in the earlier conversations there was an open call that was made back in 2024, sir, just to let you know:

We were of course hoping that all the technical panels would be present, but because most of the technical panels are panel members are working as volunteers technically, we were not able to get the other representatives, but we had the sizable population of the technical panels attending the initial conversations. 

But moving forward, and as we have committed, including the configuration of these subjects and the way we will guarantee what the other regulated and autonomous institutions are entitled to, we will be framing that within a very developmental approach. 

So that should be the guarantee that the commission shall provide to our ecosystem.

Dr. Macayan, would you like to add something to this?

Jonathan Macayan, co-chair of CHED's Technical Panel for General Education: Yes, thank you, Dr. Ed. And I really appreciate, we really appreciate your comments and suggestions and questions, and even some critical questions of our participants today. 

Let me just go back to the issue about content.

I believe it's from Dr. Bolanos. In outcome-based education, it doesn't mean that content is not important. That's the most basic, the most fundamental take-off point of all the outcomes.

So if you will only see how an outcome-based structure is truly designed at a course level, in a legit outcome-based education syllabus, you will see that contents actually has its place in the entire outcome-based education implementation in all courses. For example, what we are emphasizing here is that we have been too focused on market-driven, purely industry alignment, and we no longer give importance to content. Content will always be there as the fundamental, the most basic, and it's in fact a very important component or element, even in an outcome-based education structure or design.

Regarding the suggestions that we see here on the screen that is requiring us to clarify the GE unit structure, I think this has been clarified already a while ago, why we came up with the 18 units. I also explained that this is a floor. This minimum is sufficient, and this is satisfying the requirements in PQF Level 6.

But we respect and we really acknowledge all your suggestions and questions. Rest assured that we will sit together with all the technical panels again, technical panel members of the general education, to discuss all these inputs, questions, suggestions, and feedback. Thank you so much.

Fermin: Thank you, Dr. Makayan. We have a colleague from UP Los Baños, Professor Contreras, you are acknowledged.

Antonio P. Contreras, professor at the University of the Philippines Los Baños School of Environmental Science and Management: First of all, let me just state that the technical panel on environmental science just met earlier, and we are coming up with a statement about our problem is with the content. So we will input into the process, but what I'm going to say today is my individual point, position. 

Let me just preface that I was a bit unsettled by the opening of the ED, because I got the feeling na naging defensive agad, that of course, ang naging parang dating sa akin, I might be wrong, is that ‘yes, we hear you, but we are not going to listen, because probably your assumptions are flawed.’ And she touched on the issue of constitutionality. 

Actually, the issue before us is not whether GE needs reform, because it does.

The issue is whether this reform respects the constitution. And on this point, the draft PSG [policies, standards and guidelines] fails. 

Academic freedom is not an abstract idea, I tell you.

It is a constitutional guarantee under Article 14, Section 5.2. The Supreme Court has been clear from Garcia v. Faculty Admission Committee to Pimentel v. Legal Education Board.

Universities have the right to determine what may be taught, how it shall be taught, and who may teach. And the draft PSG intrudes into all three. It fixes 18 GE units and then prescribes 16 of them through specific courses from professional communication, global trends, data and ethics, Rizal, and labor education. What remains is a token three-unit space for institutional identity. This is not flexibility, this is centralization. 

It goes further. It mandates outcome-based education structures, prescribes assessment systems, and standardizes pedagogical design across all institutions. This is no longer setting minimum standards. This is dictating how teaching must occur.

It even shapes who may teach by imposing uniform qualifications and pedagogical orientations. Jurisprudence tells us this belongs to the university and not the state. 

Let me be clear. The Constitution allows regulation. But the Constitution is a limit on state power. It does not allow control.

And this is where the claim that arts and social sciences were not removed but merely reframed must be confronted. Because the claim sounds very reassuring until we ask a more uncomfortable question. Who has the authority to do the reframing?

Because the Constitution is clear. Academic freedom belongs to institutions, not regulators like CHED. It includes the right to determine what to teach and how to teach it.

CHED is empowered to set minimum standards, not to redesign the intellectual architecture of a curriculum. Because the distinction is not just technical and academic. It is, for all intents and purposes, constitutional.

So reframing becomes problematic the moment it ceases to be guidance and becomes prescription. If arts and social sciences are folded into broad skills-based courses, stripped of their disciplinary identity, and made to fit a uniform template imposed across all institutions, then CHED is no longer setting standards. It is deciding what knowledge counts and in what form it should exist.

This is precisely the terrain that academic freedom protects. So finally, let me just wrap this up. The issue then is whether the courses were removed or reframed.

It is whether universities still retain the meaningful ability to decide how these fields are taught, or even whether they exist as distinct domains under GE programs. If that discretion has been narrowed to the point of irrelevance, the constitutional line has already been crossed. When the state through CHED determines a curriculum, prescribes pedagogy, and reduces institutional autonomy to compliance, it does not merely supervise higher education.

It governs and controls it. So call it reframing if you want. But when institutions can no longer teach arts and social sciences on their own terms, the effect is indistinguishable from removal.

And this is precisely what academic freedom is meant to prevent. So that's all I can say. Thank you.

Fermin: Thank you, Professor Contreras.

All well noted. We will move towards picking up one more question from the submissions because we are down to our last eight minutes. After the next question has been flashed, we will be calling on our colleague, Victor Aguilan, to manifest his feedback.

Eric, the next question, please.

Reyes: Thank you, Professor Contreras. Okay. On screen is a comment from our stakeholders.

Protect academic freedom while maintaining national standards. CHED may prescribe minimum GE outcomes and quality standards, but detailed syllabi, teaching methods, activities, assessment tools, and classroom strategies should remain flexible and institution-based. An accessory sample syllabi should be treated as illustrative guides, not mandatory templates.

So HEIs can contextualize delivery based on their mission, faculty expertise, student needs, and regional realities. May we hear from our TPGE members?

Fermin: Eric, I'll respond to this because this is actually the essence of drafting the exemplars. We do not call them the mandatory syllabi. They are actually exemplars from which our higher education institutions can find a starting point in their journey towards ensuring that all the other contextual considerations are accounted for.

Let me tell you where we are coming from. The experience of the Technical Panel for Teacher Education, as they wrap things up in the reframing of its own pre-service teacher education curriculum, has found the crafting of these syllabi exemplars to be very useful to ensure that the quality parameters that are required for assuring general education as a curriculum component may be established. But please take note that once these exemplars have been issued, the academic freedom actually rests upon the institution to make the necessary refinements.

At the end of the day, the outcomes that we have declared will matter. Now we turn to our colleague, Professor Victor Aguilan, you are recognized, and you have two minutes.

Victor Aguilan, professor at Silliman University and convenor of the Council of Teachers and Staff of Colleges and Universities of the Philippines: Thank you for giving me this opportunity to share the position of CoTesCUP. 

Our concern is really the impact of displacement because of the reduction in the general education courses from 1936 to 1918. In the private school, loading and work is determined by the number of units and the number of sections.

The guideline does not provide anything about possible displacement. Second, there is actually a Republic Act in the Philippine Education Act of 1982 where if there is an impact on the labor relation aspect involving teachers, it's mandated that CHED or the Department of Education or CHED should actually involve the Department of Labor, and it's not clearly stated in the guidelines. That is actually in the law, and since that is missing, that may actually raise certain questions on the compliance with our existing law.

So the issue here is how do you guarantee the tenure, those who are actually, that no GE teachers would be displaced when this new reframing of the GE will be fully implemented after three years. Now, our comments regarding the timeline, it's that you're going to test it this year, the pilot test, yet I'm concerned, we are concerned, how come if you're just testing it, how come you already have the draft guidelines, a draft policy standard and guidelines? In other words, you're still piloting it.

You want to determine the impact of the change in the GE, and yet you already have the policy. I think you can actually carry out the pilot without the guidelines. Sorry, yes, without the PSG, and after you have tested it, then we can come back together and ask, what happened?

What's the result of the pilot testing? So that the policy would be really based on concrete evidence, based on those institutions that tried to implement or practice or try the new GE course. But because if this policy is already implemented, or you implement it, and later we discover there are actually negative or harmful effects, especially the displacement of teachers, then it would be too late.

Fermin: Okay, sir, thank you so much. And we look at CoTesCUP as a source of other major considerations as we move forward.

So I will try to respond to you with the last item first that you mentioned. 

So sir, to your point, there is a draft because we need to tell the public what is the general intent. But if our orientation is to actually do a small scale pilot, we will consider and see how we can do that without necessarily issuing the guidelines to the public ahead of time. That's something that we could discuss. That's why we are in this hearing. 

The second point, sir, that you pointed out, that's the reason there is a legal team that is actually working with the Technical Panel for General Education and the Office of Program Standards Development to check on those parameters, along with the other items raised by our two colleagues earlier, including the constitutional side of it, which Executive Director Jaro will respond to in a little while. 

But sir, your first point is something that the Technical Panel for General Education has been seriously looking at.

If you remember, sir, back in 2016, when we implemented the Project Management Unit of K-12 within CHED, there was actually provision for the massive training and transitioning of who will actually be displaced.

Aguilan: But it's not in the guidelines. It's not there. It's not in the guidelines.

That's basically what we're saying.

Fermin: If you could let me finish, I will proceed to answering the question. Thank you, sir, Vic. I hope that you understand that there's time that we're dealing with.

I'll show you something that will eventually form part of the annexes of this draft PSG. Eric, if we could just show that supplemental slide, please. Last time, we did not have any systematic way of identifying how to transition the GE faculty members from the old CMO to the new.

This time around, we were able to map out the qualifications required in the existing GE and the reframed GE course and codified it to determine how we are going to optimize the current set of faculty members that we have. 

If you notice, the colored boxes here, there are faculty members who are directly qualified to teach the corresponding reframed GE course in the classification of the existing GE courses. But with adequate retooling, which is the commitment of the Commission on Higher Education, everyone else in the existing cohort, with the exception of art studies, will likely be able to get on board one of the reframed GE courses.

But this doesn't mean that the art studies or art appreciation, sorry, art appreciation GE teachers will not have a chance to teach the other disciplines. If they're actually open to the upskilling that will be provided by the CHED and designed by the technical panel, notice that this framework gives you an idea how we will optimize the current workforce. 

So I could talk lengthy about this, but the annexes to what will become a refined version of our ESGs will direct higher education institutions to tell CHED the assessment of your current workforce for GE.

I now call on…

Aguilan: Yes, but just one comment. Please do not transfer the burden to the higher education institution. That is our experience in the K-12.

We actually lobby for scholarship. We talk to Congress to provide funding. Your guidelines does not provide any source of funding.

Fermin: Thank you, sir. We have taken note of that. We will now ask ED Jaro to proceed to her explanation. Thank you, sir.

Cinderella Filipina S. Benitez-Jaro, CHED executive director: Thank you, Dr. Fermin. I would like to make, to respond to the questions on the constitutionality and the basis for this.

This reframing of our GE, it has been mentioned as an issue of academic freedom. And if we take a look at the Constitution and our legal basis for this reframing of the GE curriculum, it is not contrary with each other. Our legal basis with our reframing of this GE curriculum, of course, stems from the responsibility of the state to supervise higher educational institutions, which include public and private.

And in order to operationalize that constitutional provision, we have the CHED Charter. Under the CHED Charter, or RA-7722, it specifically provides that the CHED may formulate minimum standards, may set minimum standards for programs and institutions of higher learning, recommended by a panel of experts. So in reframing the GE curriculum, even before, that has been raised in another forum, in the court.

So the reframing of the GE was also questioned. When we first, when we issued CMO No. 20s, years of 2013, there has been question also as to our basis for the issuance of GE.

And based on that Supreme Court jurisprudence, I'm talking here of Supreme Court GR No. 216930, it specifically provides that at that time, what we are talking about is CMO No. 20, years of 2013.

But the issue is the same. The issue is the same with respect to the issuance or the basis of the commission with respect to the issuance of reframing of the GE. It specifically provides under that that CHED may provide minimum standards for the GE component of all the degree programs.

And it also, the court has also ruled out in that Supreme Court jurisprudence that CMO No. 20, which is the reframing of the GE, does not contravene any other laws. At sinabi rin po dito, that it is within the authority of the commission to determine the GE distribution requirements.

So we are not trying to interpret on our own the constitutional provision. We have the legal basis based on the Supreme Court jurisprudence, based on our charter also with respect to this. Thank you.

Reyes: Thank you so much, Atty. Jaro, and also to Dr. Fermin. So we will be accommodating one question from the digital platform.

We request Secretary to show on screen. Okay. On screen, you can see the comment.

They suggested that review the merging of Rizal, Philippine History, Ethics, STS, Mathematics, and Humanities related courses. Many comments raise concern that merging several disciplines into a broad three-unit courses may dilute depth, especially for Rizal’s life and works under Republic Act 1425, Philippine History, Ethics, STS, Mathematics, Literature, Art, Appreciation, and Philosophy. 

This recommended that CHED clarify the rationale for the merger and consider retaining or allowing separate stand-alone courses for legal mandates, disciplinary depth, or student formation required deeper treatment.

May we hear from the members of the TPGE?

Fermin:  Thank you, Eric. I will just mention once again that we're not operating in this context on stand-alone subjects because we're working on outcomes. Take note that CMO No. 20 Series of 2013 was not yet crafted within the actual context of outcomes-based education. Although it did mention the term outcomes, take note that the actual OBE and typology handbook was issued only in 2014 and its implementation at scale was done in 2015. The merging of the outcomes is what we need to focus on and later on see how much of content will drive those outcomes so that once and for all, what we have been mouthing as the multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary nature of study in general education as we envision it may once and for all be met.

Please take note that specific technical experts in these disciplines will be convened to actually help frame what will become the initial guidance on the description, the competency framework, and the outcomes orientation of each of the six courses will be like. Please stay tuned. This level of engagement assures the technical panel that this time around, the reframing of general education will be as meaningful as possible.

Thank you so much, everyone.

Reyes: Thank you so much, Dr. Fermin. I guess that's the end of the open forum that we have. 

…

Again, CHED is very serious on taking note of all the comments and recommendations and in addressing all the issues and concerns relative to the proposed GE. In fact, the Commission on Higher Education has already set a meeting or called for an agency meeting with TEPED, TESDA, and other partner agencies. Together, we're represented from legislative bodies to discuss further this proposed reframing of the general education curriculum.

END