HATAW! D'yaryo ng Bayan hatawtabloid.com
A GROUP of concerned employees of the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) has filed administrative and ethics complaints against Chairperson Shirley C. Agrupis, raising questions about governance, policy making, and leadership practices within the agency.
The complaints, reportedly submitted to the Office of the President, cite concerns involving appointments, workplace management, administrative procedures, and the use of official programs and activities. Complainants are seeking a review of several decisions made during Agrupis’ tenure, arguing that these warrant closer scrutiny in light of CHED’s mandate to oversee the country’s higher education system.
Among the issues raised is a National Directorate Meeting held in January at Mariano Marcos State University (MMSU), attended by CHED directors, state university and college (SUC) presidents, and representatives from the Department of Education (DepEd) and the Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA).
According to the complaint, officials from across the country were required to attend the weeklong gathering, during which a biographical video entitled “Shirley” was allegedly screened. The video reportedly highlighted the chairperson’s life and
accomplishments. Critics questioned whether the use of government resources, personnel time, and official activities for such a presentation was appropriate, arguing that agency events should remain focused on institutional priorities and the pressing challenges facing higher education.
The complaint also revisits the proposed revision of the General Education (GE) curriculum, which sought to reduce GE units to 18. The proposal faced significant opposition from educators, universities, and academic organizations, ultimately prompting CHED to suspend its implementation pending further consultations. For critics, the controversy underscored the importance of stakeholder engagement in policymaking, particularly on reforms with far-reaching implications for higher education institutions nationwide.
Employees likewise questioned what they described as inconsistencies in the implementation of travel policies. According to the complaint, restrictions were imposed on SUC presidents regarding official travel, while the CHED chairperson continued to undertake various local and international trips during her tenure. Critics argued that the perceived disparity raised concerns about fairness, consistency, and leadership by example.
More broadly, complainants contended that CHED should remain focused on addressing core challenges in higher education, including curriculum development, quality assurance, accreditation, and educational outcomes. They expressed concern that branding and image-building initiatives may have diverted attention from these priorities at a time when the sector continues to face significant policy and institutional challenges.
As of this writing, CHED has yet to issue a comprehensive public response to the allegations. The complaints are expected to undergo the appropriate administrative and legal processes, during which all parties will have the opportunity to present their respective positions and evidence.
Beyond the allegations themselves, the controversy has renewed discussions within the higher education community about transparency, accountability, and stakeholder participation in governance. Educators, university leaders, and academic groups have long emphasized that meaningful consultation and institutional integrity are essential to the success of reforms affecting millions of Filipino students.
For many observers, the issue extends beyond the conduct of any single official. Instead, it highlights broader questions about how public institutions are governed and how major policy decisions are developed and implemented. As the complaints move through the appropriate channels, the outcome may serve as a test of the mechanisms designed to ensure accountability within one of the country’s most important educational agencies.
