Following earlier complaints about the agency's governance, policy direction, and leadership practices, the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) is once again being scrutinized for what stakeholders believe to be its lack of decisive action on issues pertaining to student welfare, safety, and institutional accountability.
The recent tragedy involving two Ateneo de Manila University student-athletes who drowned during a school-related activity has sparked questions about the responsibility of educational institutions and governmental organizations to ensure that students are adequately protected.
In response to requests for clarity, the Philippine Sports Commission (PSC) has looked into the circumstances surrounding the event and addressed athlete welfare concerns.
However, education stakeholders questioned why the government agency directly in charge of higher education institutions, CHED, hasn't yet demonstrated the same level of urgency.
“Why is another agency moving while CHED remains silent?” critics asked, pointing out that while PSC’s actions show concern for student-athletes, the responsibility of ensuring compliance, accountability, and safety protocols among colleges and universities ultimately falls under CHED’s mandate.
Stakeholders also expressed concerns about the "inconsistent enforcement of accountability mechanisms," citing previous cases when institutions and authorities were held responsible for violations related to student activities.
The men's basketball team at the University of Santo Tomas (UST) was penalized for training in Bicol during the COVID-19 pandemic, and National University (NU) received a similar punishment for continuing to train in Calamba despite the ban.
There were no fatalities or serious injuries from these incidents. However, violations of CHED Memorandum Orders (CMOs) and Inter-Agency Task Force (IATF) laws resulted in penalties, including the suspension of sports-related activities.
After these examples shown that transgressions involving student-athletes were previously dealt with with firm action, stakeholders questioned why a disaster involving fatalities has not yet received the same level of attention.
They also brought up the instance of Dr. Cecilia Gascon, the former president of Bulacan State University, who was dismissed following the deaths of seven students on a Madlum River field trip.
The incident showed that students were allowed to participate without adequate preparation or risk assessment. The disrespect for established safety norms resulted in serious administrative consequences, including Gascon's termination from office.
Critics claim that these past cases show that accountability methods exist when student welfare is at risk, which makes CHED's current silence all the more concerning.
For education stakeholders, the question of whether CHED consistently fulfills its duty to protect pupils and enforce accountability among the institutions it supervises has grown beyond a singular incident.
They emphasized that an agency tasked with overseeing higher education cannot stand by when problems with student safety, institutional responsibility, and compliance arise.
According to stakeholders, CHED's capacity to uphold the same standards of accountability demanded of the authorities and schools under its supervision will depend on its response—or lack thereof.
In addition to outlining how this problem is resolved, CHED's response in the coming days will send a clear message to many in the education sector regarding whether accountability is still expected of all institutions or if it is only applied in specific circumstances.
At the center of the issue are students and families who depend on universities to provide both a top-notch education and a safe environment where all safety precautions are taken. Stakeholders stressed that when that trust is violated, action, transparency, and leadership are required; being silent is not an option.
.jpg)
.jpg)
