Chapter 030: RESPONDING TO THE TERTIARY-EDUCATION NEEDS OF THE URBAN POOR:  The Cases of the City Governments of Marikina and San Juan by Prof. Toti Dulay

CHAPTER 1:

 INTRODUCTION

 Background of the Study

             The HEIs.  The higher education institutions (HEIs), or tertiary-education institutions, in the Philippines total 1,823 as of Academic Year (AY) 2010-2011.  Of these, 219 (12.01%) are public HEIs and 1,604 (87.99%) private HEIs.  Clearly, the tertiary education level is private-sector dominated.  Of the 219 public HEIs, 110 (50.22%) are state universities and colleges (SUCs), 93 (42.46%) are local universities and colleges (LUCs), and 16 (7.31%) are other HEIs or special HEIs.  As to the 1,604 private HEIs, 334 (20.8%) are sectarian and 1,270 (79.1%) are non-sectarian (CHED statistics, 2012).

            Table 1 presents the number of HEIs, by public and private categories, in selected years.

            Table 1.  Number of HEIs, public and private, 2000-01, 2005-06, 2010-11.

     Source:  CHED Statistics, 2012.

     Note: LUCs only comprise 5.15 percent in relation to the overall total of 1,823 HEIs in AY 2010-11.

            The LUCs.  According to CHED’s Memorandum Order No. 10, series of 2005, a local university and college is “a public higher education institution established by the local government through an enabling ordinance, and financially supported by the concerned LGU.”  The Memo Order adds that in Filipino, the translation of LUC is dalubhasaan for college and pamantasan for university.  

Some LUCs previously started out as community colleges. Even today, there are LUCs that call themselves “community colleges.” The former education secretary, Dr. Cecilio Putong, clarified in 1971 that a community school is one that is established “in the community, by the community, and for the community” (Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/>, on December 18, 2012). Indeed, past community colleges were created and funded by the local councils whether provincial, city, or municipal.  Such pattern has remained the same, with the same councils, now called Sangguniang Panlalawigan, or Sangguniang Panglunsod, or Sangguniang Bayan respectively, initiating the creation of the local university or local college, or community college, in their locality, and allocating funds for it.   

The first community college, the Urdaneta Community College, established in 1966 in Urdaneta, Pangasinan, is now the Urdaneta City University (UCU), a local university.  The first local university is the Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila (PLM).  It was first categorized as a state university being a creation of congress in 1965, but is now a local university as it is funded by the Manila city government.  Of the 93 existing LUCs, only 36 (38.7%) are members of the Association of Local Colleges and Universities (ALCU) (See Appendix 3 for list). UCU and PLM are ALCU-member schools.

The policy rationale and mandate of LUCs.  The LUCs, as educational institutions, draw their rationale, mandate, if not resource, from both the1987 Constitution and Republic Act 7160 or the Local Government Code (LGC) of 1991, both of which provide the public policy framework for public HEIs.  This framework was itself a product of the public reforms of the times, both nationally and internationally.  Economies stagnated or worsened in “under-developed” (now “developing”) nations, where populations were increasingly becoming poor. The old economic growth theories were not working and so other theories and explanations were sought for. One of these was human capital theory, as originally proposed by Schultz (1961). Schultz said that nations invest in their human capital or resources by educating and training them.

However, education systems can further reproduce inequities in inequitable societies, with the poor and other disadvantaged groups in society left out in the end. University education is expensive and the poor are the very first ones to drop out (Ziderman, 2005).  So strategies were conceptualized and planned to overcome the constraints facing the poor in their educational decisions. Access and equity, thus, became major elements not only in educational policy but also in the overall larger policy of poverty reduction.

Alongside the educational policy agenda was a complementary one endorsed by international donors and institutions.  This agenda was local autonomy and/or  decentralization, which was a reaction against excessive centralization and abuse by tyrannical leaders all over the world.  Local autonomy was also propped up by the agenda of participation, and the new international buzzword, governance. 

All these reform movements converged at the time when Pres. Corazon C. Aquino assumed power in 1986 and became the pillars of her new democracy. Her successor, Pres. Fidel V. Ramos, continued the momentum with a program on “poverty alleviation, social equity, and sustainable development” which emphasized human development and international competitiveness (Balisacan, 1995: 11).

The 1987 Constitution saw local autonomy as one of the tenets of the new republic.  Among the major policies was that the “State shall ensure the autonomy of local governments” (Article X, Section 3) which likewise provides that

…Congress shall enact a local government code which shall provide for a

more responsive and accountable local government structure instituted

through a system of decentralization…allocate among the different local

government units their powers, responsibilities and resources…and all

other matters relating to the organization and operation of local units.

             Decentralization through devolution enabled LGUs to have a free hand in charting the course of their own development.  LGUs were empowered as an extensive portion of the power, authority, responsibilities, and resources of the national government was devolved to them (Dayrit, 2005).

            Many local governments were encouraged to establish city-subsidized schools due to their increased share of taxes, which was from 11 percent to 40 percent given by the national government plus their own internally-generated revenues.  Marikina City was one LGU that decided to establish a university for the benefit of its low-income student population.  In an interview with Dr.  Nilda Garcia, Head Supervisor of the Division of City Schools, Marikina City, she said that although they do not have the exact figure because they have no budget to conduct a study about it, there are substantial number high school graduates who came from the poor families that did not enroll in college because of economic reasons. Through the efforts of Mayor Marides C. Fernando (MCF), Marikina City established its Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Marikina (PLMAR). On June 22, 2003, the city’s Sanggunian passed Ordinance No. 015 formally established PLMAR. (Retrieved from http://wiki.alumni.net/>, on November 24, 2012).  On its part, San Juan City established its Polytechnic University of the Philippines, San Juan City (PUP-SJ) via a memorandum of agreement between the PUP and the San Juan city government in 2008 under Mayor Joseph Victor (JV) Ejercito (Retrieved from http://light18.beythost14.com>, on December 24, 2012).  Today, many city and municipal governments are subsidizing tertiary-level schools. 

The problems and issues of LUCs.  Being part of the public educational system of the country, LUCs are vulnerable to the same issues and problems that beset the whole public education sector.  Demand and supply forces impinging on education affect them, just like other HEIs in the context of a poor, developing country like the Philippines.  In this vein, the operation of LUCs has not been without problems in relation not only to school administrations but also with the resources of their LGU partners.

One problem about LUCs is that while they have been established to serve access and equity goals, they must also be concerned with quality and excellence. On this matter, the CHED felt that their proliferation affected the quality of higher education in the country. As the CHED report (2012) states, the quality of education in LUCs remains sub-standard.  They generally lack adequate facilities like laboratory, library and other infrastructure and instructional materials.  They also lack qualified administrators and faculty resulting in the dismal performance of their graduates in professional licensure examinations.  In fact, the CHED had earlier declared on September 13, 2010 a moratorium on the creation and establishment of LUCs by LGUs.  Since then, no new LUC has been added to the list of LUCs in the Philippines (CHED, 2012). 

As a subject of study, few LUCs have been examined in how they have been faring with the management of the educational responsibility devolved to them.  The Philippine Institute of Development Studies (PIDS) has called attention to this, saying that no study, so far, has been done for an analysis and impact evaluation of education decentralization to the LGUs.  A study has yet to clearly show how the devolution of the responsibility of education to local-based schools and LGUs affects education outcomes (Development Research News, 2012).  In addit5ion, there is a lack of regular monitoring mechanism of the educative process in either public or private education sectors (Valisno (2004: 19).  This implies little information about the management/governance of universities, much more so for LUCs.

The same lack of studies somehow obtains in other developing nations even up to recent times.  Bjork (2006: 1) points out that a dearth of studies exists focusing on the implementation of educational decentralization policies. Lugaz, et al (2010: 17), who studied patterns and policy implications of schooling and decentralization in the French-speaking countries of West Africa, say that little has been known about the implementation of decentralization of education at the local level or its impact on the functioning of schools.

This study would thus pioneer the need to examine the management of decentralization via schooling in HEIs that are subsidized by Philippine LGUs, to analyze the strategies developed in implementing educational decentralization, to identify the difficulties LGUs have encountered in the management of the decentralization of education in the tertiary level, and to draw policy implications for public administration and governance from the findings.

Statement of the Problem

            The study deals with the problem of lack of access to education among the poor because of expensive private schools and lack of access to less expensive state schools because of their selective screening, that have forced students from poor families to drop out.  This study shows the LGUs’ concern for the tertiary-education needs of the urban poor youth in their respective communities, how they respond to these, and how they have been doing in managing the educational services devolved to them.  LGU officials know that there are poor families in their community which would like to send their children to college, pursue a degree, graduate, and be able to land a job.  The former Vice Mayor of San Juan, Leonardo Celles, was concerned that “out of 10 college students, only two finish their schooling and just one lands a job” (Retrieved from http://pupsj.webs.com/>, on December 24, 2012). 

            Statistics from the National Statistics Coordination Board (NSCB) showed that the number of poor Filipinos, or those subsisting on P46.14 or US$ 1.04 a day, is increasing. In 2006, 22.2 million (26.4%) Filipinos fell to the ranks of the poor.  The figures increased in 2009 with 23.14 million (26.5%) Filipinos becoming poor. One in four people in the Philippines lives on a dollar or less a day, the poverty line or threshold (Retrieved from http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/>, on February 4, 2013). 

            Poverty perpetuates inequity. The poor tend to be less educated.  The poor has lesser education compared to the non-poor, with participation rates lower for all education levels.  Poverty is severe among household heads with primary schooling or no schooling.  The poor also come from bigger families than do average ones.  Average size of poor families is 6.0 while it is 4.7 for non-poor.  Poverty incidence also increases as family size increases. The bigger the family size, the lower the progress on poverty reduction (Lam, 2005: 6).  Even if a family sends only one child to college, it appears that only households from the 7th-income deciles can afford to pay for just even the tuition in public schools.  This explains why the majority of tertiary students flock to low-cost, albeit low-quality, programs and schools (Orbeta, 2003).

            Although Marikina belongs to the 2nd district of NCR (Mandaluyong, Marikina, Pasig, Quezon City, and San Juan) which is the least poor among the provinces in the country in 2000 based on poverty incidence (NSCB, 2009), Marikina City had 35.6 percent depressed households in 2002.  In absolute numbers, it had 28,580 depressed households against a total of 80,160 households (Ragrario, 2002).  In 2006, Marikina City’s depressed households increased to 40 percent (99,421) (Marikina City, 2008).  If enrolling in public school in the Philippines (instead of in private schools) is an indication of a low economic status, among others, then the high school graduates of Marikina are not economically well off. There are 10 independent public high schools and 26 private high schools in the city, yet, 74% of students are enrolled in public high schools and only 26 percent are from the private high schools.(NSO, 2013) . 

The 2003 poverty incidence of San Juan City was 1.5 percent, the least among Metro Manila cities (NSCB, 2009). In 2011, it had only 8,821 informal settlers, which is just seven percent of its total population (San Juan City Government, 2011).

Nevertheless, the city mayors of these two cities are concerned with their poor youth constituents who, to them, must be given access to affordable yet quality tertiary institutions. To democratize access of the poor to higher education has been the reason for existence in establishing LUCs by LGUs.  For example, the Sanggunian of San Juan City in its City Ordinance No. 6, series of 2008, which formally established the PUP-SJ, anchored its rationale as follows: “to provide the constituents of San Juan, especially those who belong to the lower income group an affordable quality, responsive, and excellent college education” and “to give the less privileged but deserving students a chance to acquire quality and excellent collegiate education.”  The access goal targets the tertiary needs of the poor, in which the poor will not only be able to enroll in a college course, similarly as the rich, but will obtain as well good, quality education that would ensure the graduate equal chances to get a job in the future (CHED, 2008). 

But having established such LUCs is not enough.  Once the university opens, the problem of translating those rationales into action becomes a concern, which echoes the reminder of Balisacan (1995: 12) that development plans are one matter, the economic record is another. The operation and administration of the LUC must be aligned according to CHED’s agenda of access, equity, relevance, and responsiveness for the sake of the poor students.  The LUC must be able to continue what it has been professing and declaring in terms of a total pursuit of providing tertiary education services to the poor.  At the same time, the LUC must be financially stable, its sources of funds large and reliable, and the management of those funds must be sound, for it to translate these resources into the quality and excellence of education that it wants to be recognized of.

The two cases of Marikina City and San Juan City raise a few general questions:   How have these two city LGUs responded to and fared with the delivery of tertiary-education services to the urban poor youth in their respective cities?  Are they in the direction towards attaining their tertiary education goals in their localities?

            To answer the big question, some sub-questions have to be addressed in the process, namely:

1.      To what extent are the financial difficulties of the high school graduates that prevent them from going to the universities?

2.      In delivering tertiary education services to the poor via the city government-funded university (PLMAR of Marikina City and PUP-SJ of San Juan City), what have been the common and persistent problems in these two local universities to which their city LGUs must attend and solve?   Do the problems have to do with:

a.       poor student services and facilities,

b.      poor quality of teaching,

c.       less competitive salaries of the faculty,

d.      budget constraints,

e.       poor coordination between LGU and LUC, and

f.       employability of graduates? 

3.      To what may be attributed as the cause or causes of the above problems? 

4.      What creative and innovative ways and means have the city governments of Marikina and San Juan, in coordination with their respective local university, used in response to their own local university’s problems? What mechanisms and strategies did they harness to help solve the local university’s problems?

5.      To what extent have the following city LGU resources and capabilities played in responding to the problems of the local university, namely:

a.       city government leadership,

b.      quality and quantity of personnel and staffing,

c.       well-defined organization,

d.      managerial and technical expertise,

e.       funds and equipment availability,

f.       city government-local university relations, and

g.      relations with other public agencies, private sector, and civil society? 

6.      Given limits in resources and capabilities, have the responses of the two city governments to their local university’s problems been adequate and effective, resulting in positive outcomes such as:

a.       improved and responsive student services and facilities,

b.      better fiscal management,

c.       more competitive salaries of teachers

d.      harmonious coordination between LGU and LUC,

e.       majority of graduates passing the licensure examinations,

f.       majority of graduates getting a job, and

g.      contribution to city development. 

7.      Given the findings from the study, what lessons and insights may be gained for theoretical and practical purposes of the study?  What implications may be raised that bear on educational policy and public administration policy?

8.      What could be the probable contribution of this study the public administration discipline? 

Objectives 

            Given the general and specific problems as stated above, the following thus constitute the study’s objectives:

1.      Identify the extent to which the city governments respond to the problem of the tertiary education of the poor.

2.      To identify and describe the nature and magnitude of the problems of the local university of Marikina City  (PLMAR) and of San Juan City (PUP-SJ),

3.      To trace and analyze the roots of the problems in these two local universities, 

4.      To identify, describe and analyze the creative and innovative responses of the two city LGUs to the problems of their respective local university,

5.      To describe, determine, and analyze the extent that selected city LGU resources and capabilities have played in responding to the local university’s problems,

6.      To describe, determine, and analyze the outcomes yielded by the two city LGUs’ responses to their local university’s problems, and

7.      To gain lessons and insights from the two case studies that may be useful for theory development, models and conceptual analytic frameworks and for practical measures and recommendations that may serve as solutions to problems of the two LUCs covered in the study, as well as to raise educational policy implications in public administration and governance.

8.      To be able to, somehow, contribute to the public administration discipline? 

Significance of the Study 

            The study is unique being one of the first to fully appreciate the extent of tertiary education services delivery by the LGUs. While LGUs have been frequently studied as to their delivery of basic services in health, agriculture and fisheries, environmental sanitation, water supply, social welfare, this study examines how LGUs which have subsidized local universities are faring with and managing their tertiary educational services.

            How pioneering the study is may be gleaned from the call of the Philippine Institute of Development Studies (PIDS), as earlier mentioned, that an analysis and impact evaluation of education decentralization to the LGUs be undertaken.  The devolution of the responsibility of education to local-based schools and LGUs has yet to clearly show the effects on education outcomes (Development Research News, 2012).  In the specific context of PLMAR and PUP-SJ, the study will be able to hold up close the concrete face, nature, and magnitude of these problems and the responses of the LGUs.

An examination and analysis of the state of administration and management of the operations of some LUCs would be an eye-opener.  It would show how the same problems affecting SUCs and other public tertiary institutions also affect LUCs. It would also reveal how LGUs, which have been delivering basic services such as health, environment, peace and order, are doing in another service area – tertiary education services delivery.  Such delivery may be seen in the manner and extent of their responses in terms of plans, strategies, and other mechanisms done and produced to answer the higher education needs of the urban poor in their locality.

            Indeed, the study may yet be able to delve into the nature of the city hall-LUC relationship, the extent of dependence of the LUC on the LGU, and how such dependence may affect the creation of programs and projects in the school concerned or may affect the solution of the problems confronting the LUC.  In the first place, the city-funded university gets its budget from the city hall.  The local university’s employees and staff are likewise employees of the city LGU because they receive their salaries and wages from the city hall. In simple terms, the city hall holds the local university in its neck.  How it does this may be a significant finding of the study.

            Another significance of the study is that it provides some kind of additional perspective and explanation about human capital formation through educational investment by the government. It gives credence to the public education expenditure theory in economics as well as the equity-justice concerns of public expenditure investment by the government and the LGUs.  By studying just two cases of LUCs subsidized by LGUs, the study may help clarify and verify the extent of this reported long-term contribution of assisting the poor to climb the social and economic ladder towards stable job, permanent income, and lessen the gap in equity between the low-income and high-income classes in Philippine society.

            The more important significance is the process of how the city government has provided tertiary education services in the community.  To public administration researchers and students, the study shows how such support is manifested in various ways from policy-making through planning, then implementation, and monitoring and evaluation.  It enables researchers and scholars to determine the resources and capabilities and their variable combinations which LGUs must be able to mix and harness wisely to meet and solve the problems of their local university.

In this regard, governance within the compass of the decentralization environment of LGUs is deemed critical.  The city leadership has to tackle its education role with various stakeholders who include the city council, the local special bodies, the local university, the employees and staff, the students, their parents, donor agencies and institutions, among others.  Governance decisions and policies made by the city hall and the school are thus seen in the light of the dynamics of action exchanges among the actors/stakeholders involved in the process of delivering tertiary educational services. 

Scope and Delimitations 

            The study covers two city LGUs within the Metro Manila Area or National Capital Region (NCR). Within this area, educational institutions are numerous compared to those in other cities and regions in Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao.  PLMAR of Marikina City and PUP-SJ of San Juan City are, however, only two of the present total of 93 LUCs distributed throughout the country. This is a limitation of the case study as it does not cover the majority of the LUCs.  The findings herein may not be representative of other LUCs nor of other HEIs in the country.  Nevertheless, the twin cases may serve as eye-openers, if not a benchmarking exercise for similar future efforts to study other LUCs, especially those located in the rural poor regions. This study will provide deeper and more focused analysis than if we will study all the LUC’s, which might result in lighter and superficial analysis.

            The study also delimits itself to public tertiary institutions of learning.  The case studies of Marikina City’s PLMAR and San Juan City’s PUP-SJ represent public systems of tertiary education, but it does not cover SUCs even if these are public schools like the LUCs, nor the private HEIs as well as public secondary and primary levels of education.

            Time coverage counts as one more delimitation. The study confines the period covered within the three terms of former Marikina City Mayor Marides Fernando (MCF) and former Mayor Joseph Victor (JV) Ejercito of San Juan City.  This period is from 2001 to 2010, a total of nine years.  Though some key informants may no longer be incumbents, the data gathered from them through interviews are as recent as three years ago, and one political term away as of this writing.

            Main data sources are similarly limited to the respondents of the study who include one set of key informants working at the city hall during the above mayors’ incumbency and another set of key informants in the local university of these two cities within the same period. The researchers will also interview some alumni as key informants to learn insights from them. Again, the problem of recall is not deemed serious because the events that happened are only one administrative term away from the present.         

CHAPTER 2: 

THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC PROFILES OF MARIKINA CITY AND SAN JUAN CITY 

            This chapter on the profile of Marikina City and San Juan City includes their history, the social-economic and political statistics of these cities, a description of the city leadership and their achievements during the terms (2001-2010) of Mayor Marides C. Fernando (MCF) of Marikina City and of Mayor Joseph Victor (JV) Ejercito of San Juan City.  All data come from the official websites of these two city LGUs (Retrieved from http://www.marikinacity,gov.ph/> and http://www.sanjuancity.gov.ph/>, on March 6, 2012), related websites as well, and from books on the histories of the two cities.

 Marikina City Profile

            A prominent local historian of Marikina, Servando de los Angeles, said that one group of the pioneer inhabitants of Marikina were the descendants and followers of Lakan Dula of Tondo who settled in what is now known as Jesus de la Peña to escape from the bloody Spanish prosecution of the native aristocracy in Intramuros.  The recorded history of Marikina City, however, begins with the arrival of the Augustinian priests at a spot known as Chorillo (http://www.visitmyphilippines.com/>, retrieved on March 20, 2012), which is in Barangay Barangka today.  The Jesuits came next and they established in 1630 a settlement called Jesus de la Peña.  They also built a chapel there. The area was later called Mariquina (the original spelling using Spanish orthography) and a parish rose in 1687. In 1787, Mariquina was declared a pueblo (town).

Andres Bonifacio was said to have passed by Mariquina before he and the katipuneros went to the caves of Montalban.  The town had its share of revolucionarios against the Spaniards in 1896-1898, and guerrillas against the Japanese in 1942-1945.

            The town began its shoemaking fame through the efforts of Don Laureano "Kapitan Moy" Guevarra. He is considered as the founder of the country's footwear industry.  Gradually, Marikina emerged as a town of shoemakers. Honed by years in shoe manufacturing, the natives developed a work ethic that prepared them for the arrival of heavy industries in the 1950s. Long been famous for its export-quality shoes, Marikina received the monicker, “Shoe Capital of the Philippines.”  Shoe manufacturing in Marikina is the best in local craftsmanship and the city has become the largest producer of shoes in the country.  It produces 78 percent of the shoe production in the Philippines. All locally produced shoes are made in Marikina, from slippers to shoes. Marikina also produces shoes which are made of rubber, wood (bakya), and plastic.  Shoemakers in the city recently finished creating the world's largest pair of shoes and hopes to have the Guinness Book of Records recognize it. 

          Shortly after the United States took possession of the Philippines, its name officially became "Marikina," a town that was included in the newly created province of Rizal by virtue of Act No. 137 (June 11, 1901) of the First Philippine Commission, which then acted as the unicameral legislative body in the Philippines.  On November 7, 1975, 12 towns of Rizal, including Marikina, were made part of the new Metropolitan Manila Area (Presidential Decree No. 824).

         The city is bordered on the west by Quezon City, to the south by Pasig City and Cainta, Rizal, to the east by Antipolo City, the new capital of Rizal province, and to the north by San Mateo also in Rizal province. Also to the east are the Sierra Madre Mountains, the longest mountain range in the country. It is approximately 16 km. away from Manila, and lies within 14° 35' latitude and 14° 41' longitude. (See the Marikina Map below)

Map 1. The Location of Marikina within Metro Manila Area and the Map of Marikina

Marikina City lies in a valley with the same name.  Running through the valley is the Marikina River, which during the rainy season, especially when typhoons hit the area, overflows, flooding low-lying areas.  Marikina River is a tributary of the Pasig River. The original settlers were Tagalogs and so the main language is Filipino.  But throughout the centuries, there has been constant migration of the Visayans, Bikolanos, Ilokanos, Chinese, and Spaniards to Marikina.  The rise of the shoe and other industries in Marikina generated migration from other places.  Industrial plant workers who came in waves chose to stay.

          Marikina is classified as a highly-urbanized city.  It occupies a total land area of 2150 hectares which is 3.42% of the total area of Metro Manila, with a population of 419,659 people as of 2010.  As a city, it is made up of 16 barangays, and two congressional districts.

          During the Christmas season, Marikina River becomes the venue for the traditional Marikina Christmas Festival.  The city's former Bigasang Bayan is presently being rehabilitated to become the Shoe Museum, to showcase Marikina-made shoes.  Not only that, part of the shoe collection are the famous Imelda Marcos shoes, shoes of some world leaders, past presidents, famous celebrities and persons, shoes of different countries around the world.  It also contains the largest collection of pair of shoes in the world.

          The shoe industry is Marikina’s pride, but the city also boasts of hosting other big companies, multinationals and local, as well as leading exporting firms producing other products such as processed food, cigarettes, porcelain and chinaware, confectionery, automobiles and cars, and appliances.  Marikina is often cited for its vibrant economy, a highly-skilled and literate work force, an involved and enlightened business community, and a responsive local government that puts a premium on governance, sustainable urban development and public service.

The city was once a victim of runaway growth, resulting in the Marikina River being polluted by the factories and squatters along the riverbanks.  In 1992, the city found a new direction under the dynamic leadership of Mayor Bayani "BF" Fernando (later, Chairman of Metropolitan Manila Development Authority). By dint of hard work and discipline, guided by the vision of a modern, livable city, Marikina has since been transformed into the beautiful urban city that it is now.

Marikina was only a municipality of Metro Manila when it started to take notice, under the able leadership of former mayor Bayani Fernando.  His election in June 1992 gave Marikina the badly-needed turnaround.  In his own words,

            “Marikina . . .was murky, sinking and full of debris that clogged its flow; its

             banks teemed with squatter shanties; uncollected garbage, streets

             synonymous to anarchy; chaotic public markets that offers smell; vendors,

             hawkers, illegally parked vehicles, garbage cans and other obstructions

             dominated the sidewalk and forced pedestrians to walk on the streets

             adding woes to the already dreadful traffic situation; third class municipal-

             ity with unsafe and unsanitary surroundings” (Dannug & Campanilla, 2003:

             95). 

  Bayani Fernando’s efforts as mayor had much impact.  From Marikina’s previous lowly reputation, it became

            “…very organized;  well accomplished city since it was physically rehabi-

              litated, reformed, and spiritually invigorated; a realization of a friendly,

              happy working class community; industrial peace characterized by zero

              strike; growth in all facets of life; a sense of community among the people;

              and marked improvement in education, environment, infrastructure, peace

              and order, business and industry…” (Dannug & Campanilla, 2003: 95).

On December 8, 1996, the municipality of Marikina became a chartered city (Republic Act No. 8223).  This was the most important change coming only four years into Bayani Fernando’s nine-year mayorship.  His achievements paved the way for the old municipality of Marikina to become a city.  It was a quantum leap to what it had been for long in its history, as a pueblo in Spanish times, to a town in the American period, and a municipality under the Metropolitan Manila Authority. 

Positive proofs of the city's standing are demonstrated by the numerous awards and citations that have been bestowed to the city.  The most recent and most prestigious of which was the 2003 Most Competitive Metro City in the Philippines award. Marikina City served also as one of the hosts of the 23rd Southeast Asian Games 2005 in the Philippines.  SM Prime Holdings constructed a 124,000 sq. m floor area of a new SM City Marikina, constructed along Marcos Highway.  This SM mall is elevated many meters up from the ground to avoid the problem of flooding when the nearby Marikina River inundates during the rainy and typhoon season  

            The city government’s mission is to be “a Little Singapore.”  Marikina has chosen Singapore as its benchmark for a variety of reasons, foremost of which are Singapore’s noteworthy attributes of:  discipline, self-sufficiency, effective governance, work ethics, environmental soundness, economic dynamism, and corrupt-free government. Its mission is to make the city a place for living, for work and business, for history, socializing, entertainment, for the arts, culture, tourism and sports, for education, and for religion.  In a nutshell, Marikina hopes to imbue itself with elements that will transform it into a little Singapore.

            Marikina City offers various landmarks.  They include Marikina Sports Park, Marikina Hotel, Marquinton Place, Loyola Memorial Park, Our Lady of the Abandoned Shrine, Kapitan Moy, Riverbanks Center, Guinness Book of Records biggest pair of shoes in the world located inside Riverbanks Mall in Riverbanks Center and some biggest malls in the metropolis near Marikina City, like Sta. Lucia East Grandmall and Robinson’s Place Metro East, which is along Marcos Highway.

The population of Marikina increases by 0.81 percent while the population density increases at 8.43 percent. The average household size stands at 4.6 persons and increases at 8.82 percent, more females than males. The dependency ratio was 47 percent.( NSO,2013). Marikina City had 35.6 percent depressed households in 2002.  In absolute numbers, it had 28,580 depressed households against a total of 80,160 households. Its unemployment rate is 11.6% and the underemployment rate is 14.4%. (Marikina City (2012). Other data  includes: population (as of May 1, 2010):  424,610 (http://en.wikipedia.org/>, retrieved on January 5, 2013); total households (2002):  80,160 http://en.wikipilipinas.org/>, retrieved on January 3, 2013); labor force participation rate (2003):  61.8% (ILO, 2010).

Efforts are not lacking in improving the lives of the poor of Marikina City.  One is the alleviation of urban blight through poverty reduction programs. One example of which is a program that provides at least one job per urban poor family.  These are multifarious, encompassing, and basically poverty-focused. Eradication of poverty is, thus, the focal point of everything that the city sets out to do in the long term. 

         Under the urban renewal program of the incumbent administration, some of the public markets had been refurbished and given a fresher look, like the Marikina Public Market also known as Marikina Market Mall (or People's Mall), the biggest and cleanest market in Metro Manila. One of the popular malls is the Riverbanks Center.

            Thriving proof of the city's continued quest for excellence is the Marikina River Park.  Spurred by the death of natural resources resulting from the continuous growth in residential area, Marikina City took pains in rehabilitating and converting the 220-hectare Marikina River bank into a sports and recreational park. 

          As for the city’s banking services, almost all of the major commercial banks in the Philippines operate a branch in the city.  Today, there are 50 banking institutions offering banking services to businesses and residents. Marikina has emerged to reap various national awards for excellence in local governance and environmental preservation.

            The development advance of Marikina City has been short of phenomenal.  In terms of awards it received from award-giving institutions and bodies, Marikina received

the following:

1994:   Best Local Government Unit in the NCR, awarded by the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) and the then Presidential Assistant on Community Development (PACD)

1995:   1)  Best Local Government Unit in the Philippines, awarded by the DILG, and      

2)  Galing Pook Award for its Save the Marikina River program

1996:   1)  Hall of Fame, Search for the Cleanest and Greenest Town in the NCR,             awarded by the DILG-NCR

            2)  Hall of Fame, Search for the Cleanest Inland Body of Water in the NCR, awarded by the DILG-NCR

            3)  Most Outstanding Local Chief Executive in the Philippines

1997:   1)  Best Public Wet Market in the NCR, awarded by the Department of Agriculture (DA) and the National Consumers Council

            2)  Most Outstanding City in the Philippines, awarded by the DILG

            3)  Productivity Excellence in Leadership Award, given by the Asian Productivity Organization Society of the Philippines

            4)  Galing Pook Award for its Pulitika sa Bangketa (red sidewalk), Simula ng Pagbabago program

1998:   1)  Outstanding Filipino (TOFIL) Award for Government Service

            2)  Best Managed Public Market in the Philippines and NCR, awarded by the Department of Health (DOH)

            3)  Galing Pook Awards for two programs:  Barangay Talyer and Squatter-free Marikina

1999:   1)  Best Managed City in the Philippines, DILG

            2)  Cleanest Market in the NCR, Gawad Pangulo sa Kapaligiran, awarded by the DILG, DOH, MMDA, and the Philippine Tourism Authority (PIA)

3)  Two Philippine Quality Awards, given by the Development Academy of the Philippines (DAP) and the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI):  

a)  Silver Award, proficiency level for organizational excellence, and  b)  Bronze Award, commitment level for organizational excellence

4) Galing Pook Award for Five-minute Quick Response Time program

            On education, it won the Gawad Pangulo sa Kapaligiran in 1999 as the Cleanest School in the NCR, courtesy of Parang Elementary School. On tertiary education, it won the Kabalikat Award in 2006 given by TESDA. (NSO, 2013)                                       

Bayani Fernando (BF) was succeeded by his wife, Maria Lourdes Carlos Fernando (MCF) in 2001.  MCF also served as Marikina City mayor for three full terms up to 2010.  During her term, Marikina City won additional awards and the more that the city became known as a multi-awarded city with programs that have benefited the people and the business sector of Marikina. As MCF said it, “BF built the house, I transformed it into a home.”  As a result, she went on to reap the following distinctions (http://www.visitmyphilippines.com/>, retrieved March 6, 2012; http://www.world mayor.com/> retrieved March 7, 2012):

2002:   Clean and Green Awardee, by the Gawad Pangulo sa Kapaligiran.  The city was the first one to be awarded as the cleanest and greenest city not only in Metro Manila but also in the entire Philippines.  The city is already a Hall of Famer in this category

2003:   1)  Most Competitive Metro City in the Philippines, awarded by the Asian   Institute of Management (AIM) Policy Research Center, Asia Foundation, International Labour Organisation (ILO), German Technical Foundation, and Konrad Adenauer Stiftung..         

            2)  Ten Outstanding Local Government Programs Award for Continuing Excellence (ACE), conferred by Galing Pook Foundation to LGUs which have sustained and demonstrated significant achievements along the various Galing Pook (GP) local governance criteria.  The ACE is given to an LGU that must have at least three GP-awarded programs.                                                                                                

2005:   Galing Pook Award for the Bicycle-friendly City program    

2006:   One of the Healthiest and Most Livable Cities in Asia-Pacific, as cited by the World Health Organization (WHO)                             

2007:   Galing Pook Award for the EcoSavers program                                   

2008:   1)  Galing Pook Award for the program Service without Delay through  Centralized Warehousing   

            2)  Finalist for the World Mayor Award                                                                           

2009:   Galing Pook Award for the program Promoting Healthy Living through Clean Food and Water Laboratory

           Marikina has also been honored to be included in the Global 500 Roll of Honor of the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP).  Mayor MCF sustained fundamental services to her constituents such as health and hospitalization, education, and cultural development.  The land use development plan of the city was updated and real property classification and taxation are strictly enforced.  The effective execution of the taxation measures enabled the city to generate income and sufficient funds to support the fundamental programs that she established.  The city’s waste management program was an exemplary accomplishment that set a standard in good urban management.  MCF proved that if only leaders have the political will to enforce discipline and consistently implement programs, the city’s vision will be attained (http://www.worldmayor.com/, retrieved on March 7, 2012).

The people of Marikina are among the most disciplined in the Philippines.  It is considered one of the healthiest and livable cities in the Asia-Pacific area.  Marikina City is one of the wealthiest LGUs in the Philippines in terms of current assets, cash in banks, share of internal revenue allotment, gross income and gross net income.  Most of the city is classified as residential.  Though ravaged by Typhoon “Ondoy” in 2009, the city got back to its feet easily with the partnership of the city government officials and its active civil society sector.

In education, the city government prides itself in giving quality free education to its constituents through its 14 primary schools and six secondary schools including one science high school, the Marikina Science High School.  Marikina has many colleges and universities, like the city-owned Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Marikina (PLMAR) and formerly Marikina Institute of Science and Technology and now Marikina Polytechnic College. The private ones are AMA Computer University, STI College, St. Scholastica's Academy, National Christian College, Roosevelt College, Our Lady of Perpetual Succor College (OLOPS), and National Cottage Technology Center.

The inclination of Mayor Marides Fernando towards education and youth welfare can be summed up in her own words: “We hope that when the children have grown up, perhaps gained fame and fortune around the world, they could look back to Marikina with fond memories of and gratitude for having spent their childhood in a child –friendly city” . Her term  paved the way for  the establishment of day – care centers, high schools, a university and technical college. (Lorenzo, 2009). She also sent undergraduate city hall employees to college under a scholarship program.

Through Mayor MCF’s efforts, Marikina City was able to establish its Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Marikina (PLMAR) on June 22, 2003 when the city’s SP passed Ordinance No. 015, formally establishing PLMAR. Today, PLMAR offers 12 four-year courses, three diploma courses (caregiving, computer technology, and computer programming) all accredited by the Technical Education Skills Development Authority (TESDA), the Master of Arts in Education major in educational management and the Master of Business Administration, as well as the Doctor of Public Administration, Doctor of Business Administration, and the Doctor of Educational Management (Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki>, on November 24, 2012).

            How PLMAR and other public tertiary schools in Marikina City can play a role in alleviating poverty has to be seen against the backdrop of some relevant statistics about the city, to wit:

2003-2004 enrolment against 2008-2009 enrolment (ILO, 2010)

                                                            2003-2004

    Level                        Public           Private               Total            % of total in

                                                                                                         public educ.

Pre-school                                           5,117               5,117

Elementary                  42,760           13,915             56,675               75.4                

            Secondary                   22,054             8,883             30,887               71.4

            College                          1,200             3,601               4,801               25.0

            Vocational/Technical    3,345                876               4,221               79.2

                                                                        2008-2009

            Pre-school                      1,402            4,459              5,861               23.9

            Elementary                  46,296           14,122            60,418               76.6

            Secondary                   26,737            8,488            35,225               75.9

            College                           5,570            1,176              6,746               82.5

            Vocational/Technical     1,770            1,663              3,433                  -

            Post-graduate                    148                                       148                  -

Top five industries of Marikina (2008) (ILO, 2010)

           Industry cluster                                  No. of establishments       % of total

1.      whole and retail trade including

motor vehicles and sari-sari stores             11,368                           57

2.      real estate, resting and related

activities                                                        3,345                          17

3.      hotel and restaurant including food

carts and refreshment stands                        1,702                            8

4.      community, social and personal

services including salons and

entertainment (billiard) centers                    1,189                            6

5.      manufacturing dominated by footwear,

luggage, handbag sectors                              1,106                            5          

            As can be seen in 2003-2004 versus 2008-2009 enrolment figures, there has been a shift towards public education in Marikina City and a decline in the enrolment in the private colleges. This is attributed to the presence of LUC PLMAR, and SUC Marikina Polytechnic College which offer quality college education in very affordable tuition fees. Apparently, the college degrees are not the ones needed in the local industries in Marikina.

            The youth from poor households cannot afford the high costs of education in college.  Local tertiary schools have become insufficient to accommodate the increase if high school graduates were to continue going to college.  To address this concern, the city government of Marikina has prioritized the use of its education and training funds to support high school graduates through scholarships for them enter and then finish their college education (ILO, 2010: 11-12). 

San Juan City Profile

In the pre-Hispanic period, the village of what is now San Juan was part of the Kingdom of Namayan.  When the Spaniards took over the kingdom, they re-christened it as Sta. Ana de Sapa.  The village became a small encomienda by 1590. The Dominicans constructed a convent and a stone church dedicated to the Holy Cross. To this day, the thrice-rebuilt church of Santo Cristo stands on the same site, adjacent to the Aquinas School and the Dominican College. In 1783, San Juan became independent of Santa Ana but it was still then a barrio.

Historically, San Juan’s original name was San Juan del Monte ("St. John of the Mountain"). It is named in honor of St. John the Baptist, the city's patron saint.  San Juan holds its place in Philippine history for it was here that the first battle between the katipuneros and the Spanish soldiers took place, an event which has gone down in Philippine history as the battle of Pinaglabanan.  The exact place of the battle is now a shrine, located at the corner of N. Domingo St. and Pinaglabanan St. in Barangay Corazon de Jesus.

San Juan became a town of Rizal Province with the coming of the Americans.  Currently, it is a city within the metropolitan area of Metro Manila.  It is one of the smallest among the cities of Metro Manila, second only to Pateros.  It is bordered by Quezon City on the north and east, Mandaluyong City on the south, and the City of Manila on the west.  It covers a total area of 7.77 sq. kms. (3.00 sq. miles). As of 2007, the city population reached 125,558.  In 2010, the population declined to 121,430. (See Map below.)

Map 2: The Map of San Juan

The territory of San Juan was once much larger than it is presently, stretching all the way to Caloocan City.  Some parts of Quezon City, as well as parts of Mandaluyong, were originally within the San Juan territorial boundaries. This explains why the San Juan Reservoir is in the nearby Horseshoe Village, a subdivision now under the jurisdiction of Quezon City.  The city has 21 barangays.

Due to San Juan’s progress, it became a highly urbanized city on June 16, 2007 by virtue of Republic Act 9388 ("An Act Converting the Municipality of San Juan into a Highly Urbanized City to be known as the City of San Juan”). Congressman Ronaldo B. Zamora sponsored the cityhood bill at the House of Representatives.  Voters in San Juan ratified the legislation.  The relevant provision of RA 9388 is Section 11 on the Sangguniang Panglunsod (SP).  The SP shall

“subject to the availability of funds and to existing laws, rules and

regulations, establish or maintain, and/or provide for the operation of a

city college, vocational and technical schools and similar post-second

institutions, and with the approval of the DepEd; the Commission on Higher Education, or the TESDA, as the case may be, and subject to existing laws

on tuition fees, fix and collect reasonable tuition fees and other school

            charges in educational institutions supported by the city government.” 

“ensure the physical maintenance of educational institutions under the

operational control of the city and the provision of books and other capital

equipment for the same.”  (http:www.philippinelaw.info/statutes/ra9388-

san-juan-city-charter.html, retrieved on January 6, 2013) 

San Juan City ranked fourth among the top 10 cities in terms of per capita income.  Overall, the Philippines had a P3,951 per capita income in 2009.  Makati City, first in rank, had P16,535 per capita income.  Tagaytay City followed, then Pasig, and San Juan with P7,367 per capita income, higher than the figure for the entire Philippines.  The other cities in the top 10, after San Juan, were Paranaque, Olongapo, Mandaluyong, Muntinlupa, Santiago City (Isabela Province), and Sta. Rosa City of Laguna (Retrieved from http://www.pinoymoneytalk.com/>, on January 5, 2013).  San Juan also ranked seventh in the list of top 10 most self-reliant Philippine cities in 2008.  The top 10 were Makati (92%), Pasig (87%), Paranaque, Pasay, Manila, Mandaluyong, San Juan (79%), Quezon City, Marikina (74%), and Cebu (http://www.nscb.gov.ph/>, retrieved on January 5, 2013).

San Juan also happens to be part of the second district of Metro Manila, comprising Mandaluyong, Marikina, Pasig, Quezon City, and San Juan, rated the lowest poverty incidence area of the Philippines because its general poverty incidence is only 4.1 percent (http://www.bukisa.com/>, retrieved on January 6, 2013).  San Juan ranked fifth among cities with big expenditures on education, culture, sports and manpower development in 2008. The first was Makati which spent P2,677 per person on education.  Tagaytay followed with P1,374, then Pasig, Urdaneta, San Juan, Pasig, Mandaluyong, Calamba, Manila, and Batangas in that order (http://www.nscb.gov.ph/>, retrieved on January 6, 2013).

San Juan has a small number of poor or depressed households compared to other Metro Manila cities.  In 2011, its informal settlers only number 8,821 (7 %).  Table 2 breaks down the number of informal settlers by barangay and location within the barangay.

Table 2. Informal settlers of San Juan city, by location in barangay, 2011.

  Source:  San Juan City Statistics, 2011. 

San Juan City showcases an LGU good governance model.  Less lionized by the media compared to that of Marikina City, San Juan City as much vigorously as Marikina implemented programs that demonstrated good governance.  In 2001, the new city mayor elected was Joseph Victor Gomez Ejercito, the son of Joseph Ejercito and Guia Gomez, the current mayor of the city.  From 2001 to 2010, a whole nine years of service to the people of San Juan, JV implemented the following programs that also served notice to the public, and were eventually recognized (http://sanjuandemo.wordpress.com/>, retrieved on March 7, 2012; http://www.sanjuancity.gov.ph/>, retrieved on March 7, 2012; http://www.jvejercito.com/>, retrieved on March 7, 2012):

2001:   1)   Most Peaceful Municipality, awarded by the DILG and the National                   Police Commission (Napolcom)

2)      Best Drug-free Municipality, conferred by the Metro Manila Drug Enforcement Group

3)   Double A rating in recognition of its being the most financially stable LGU in the country, given by the LGU Credit Corporation

2002:   1)  Most Outstanding Municipality in the Implementation of Population Programs in Empowering Filipino Families, given by the National Commission on Population (NCP)

2)      Green Banner Award for Nutrition

3)      Gawad Pangulo sa Kapaligiran Award

4)      Most Peaceful Municipality, awarded by the DILG and the Napolcom

5)   Double A rating in recognition as the most financially stable LGU in the country, given by the LGU Credit Corporation

2003:   1)  Most Outstanding Municipality in the Implementation of Population   Programs in Empowering Filipino Families, given by the National Commission on Population (NCP)

2)      Green Banner Award for Nutrition

3)      Gawad Pangulo sa Kapaligiran Award, in recognition for San Juan’s Linis Bayan program, efficient garbage collection, and clean facilities

                        4)   Most Peaceful Municipality, awarded by the DILG and the Napolcom

5)   TROY Awards for Clean and Sanitized Public Toilets

6)   First LGU to Create a Municipal Focal Point for Gender Equality 

7)   Double A rating in recognition as the most financially stable LGU in the country, given by the LGU Credit Corporation

 2004:  1)  Consistent Regional Winner in Nutrition (CROWN) Award

            2)  Most Peaceful Municipality, awarded by the DILG and the Napolcom

 2005:  1)  Most Peaceful Municipality, awarded by the DILG and the Napolcom

2)      Best Municipal Peace and Order Council in the entire NCR, given by the Metro Manila Peace and Order Council     

3)      Best Municipal Fire Station of the Year, awarded by the Bureau of Fire Protection, DILG

2006:  1)   Best Municipal Peace and Order Council in the entire NCR, given by the Metro Manila Peace and Order Council     

2)  Most Progressive Municipality as adjudged by the Commission on Audit.  San Juan was the number one municipality in terms of Cash in Bank with P526.65 M and had the Highest Gross Income of P686.56 M.

2007:   Best Municipal Peace and Order Council in the entire NCR, given by the Metro Manila Peace and Order Council     

2008:   Best Municipal Peace and Order Council in the entire NCR, given by the Metro Manila Peace and Order Council     

            In the new administration of Mayor Guia Gomez, San Juan City won second best city in 2010 in the DILG awards. Valenzuela City beat it by just a matter of points.  Valenzuela scored 4.877 while San Juan earned 4.875.  In 2011, it was San Juan’s turn to be honored as the best city.  It scored 4.90 points out of a possible 5.0.  Second place went to Puerto Princesa City with 4.88 points, then Iloilo City with 4.87 points (http://www.manilatimes.net/>, retrieved on January 6, 2013).

The Polytechnic University of the Philippines – San Juan (PUP-SJ) was established through the efforts of Mayor JV.  On September 24, 2007, Mayor JV created a Special Committee to study and prepare the ground works for the establishment of a public college.  He had two options:  to start from scratch with the ownership of the local university solely in the hands of the city government, or to coordinate with PUP by using the PUP approach in helping local governments acquire their own college/university (http://light18.byethost14.com/PUP/History.html, retrieved on November 26, 2012).

            The formula adopted by some LGUs was to establish a public college in the local community through the help of PUP.  This has been a tested blueprint to emulate.  Mayor JV decided for the second option.  So he instructed the Committee to negotiate with PUP.  On September 28, 2007, Mayor JV and the San Juan Special Committee met with their PUP counterparts (http://light18.byethost14.com/PUP/History.html, retrieved on November 26, 2012).

            On December 13, 2007, the Sangguniang Panglunsod of San Juan through City Resolution No, 32, Series of 2007, authorized Mayor JV to sign the memorandum of agreement with PUP.  Then the same body enacted on January 21, 2008, City Ordinance No. 6, Series of 2008 titled, “An Ordinance Establishing a Polytechnic University of the Philippines (PUP) Annex in the City of San Juan, Metro Manila, and Appropriating Funds Therefore.”  On the part of PUP, its Board of Regents also approved and ratified the MOA through Board Resolution No. 613, Series of 2008, on March 14, 2008 (http://light18.byethost14.com/PUP/History.html, retrieved on November 26, 2012).

            Barangay Addition Hills Elementary School became the PUP-SJ campus.  The renovated elementary school building became the classrooms of the first batch of 391 students who enrolled in June 2008 (http://www.sanjuancity.gov.ph/>, retrieved on November 26, 2012).  The San Juan city government announced in April, 2009 that it was allocating P50 M for the year’s operations of the local university.  Another P50M would also be allocated next year, in 2010 (http://allvoices.com/news/>, retrieved on November 26, 2012).

            San Juan City has its own public and private schools.  Despite the city’s status as one of the richest, it has a few tertiary-level HEIs (http://en.wikipedia.org/>, retrieved on January 6, 2013):

Map 3 shows the location of both Marikina City and San Juan City.

           Map 3.  Location of Marikina City and San Juan City within the Metro Manila Area.

                                                                                                                  CHAPTER 3: 

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE 

            This chapter presents past published literature on the topic of education in the Philippines.  While the education sector has a lot of studies on the primary, elementary, high school, the SUCs and private schools, the literature on the LUCs is scarce.  Nevertheless, the review proceeds based on sources about public and private tertiary-education systems in general.  The other levels of education are not fully discussed, but sometimes they are because of the interrelationships among these levels.

            The first section deals with the history of the education system in the Philippines.  This is followed by the review proper. 

History of Education in the Philippines 

A.  The educational system under Spain.  Even despotic colonial governments, such as what the Philippines had during the Spanish regime, supported the need to educate the Filipino population, albeit in nominal terms.  King Philip II’s Leyes de las Indias (Laws of the Indies) mandated Spanish authorities in the Philippines to educate the natives, teach them how to learn, read, and write Spanish.  The encomenderos in the first phase of Spain’s colonization of the country were instructed by the king to take care of their native wards (Alzona, 1932: 18-21; Andrade, 2001; De Dios, 2011: 57).

            Though the Spanish friars/missionaries established schools, the king’s laws went for naught for only the children of the colonizers – or maybe, sons of the native political elite went to school. Instead of educating the natives, the encomenderos abused their rights and freedoms (Neira, 1994: 11, 140). Education was, however, religion-oriented (Isidro, 1949: 204)

Among the colleges and universities that the friars founded were Colegio de Santa Potenciana, the first one, in 1589; the Universidad de San Ignacio in 1590 which in time became a component College of Medicine and Pharmacy of the Universidad de Santo Tomas founded in 1611, the latter being granted university status only by a royal decree in 1645; the Universidad de San Carlos in Cebu City founded in 1595 but closed in 1769 and reopened in 1783; the Universidad de San Felipe de Austria, the first public university, which later closed in 1643.  The Spaniards later opened medical and pharmaceutical schools, a nautical school, a school of commercial accounting, the Manila School of Agriculture in 1887, and vocational schools (Alzona, 1932:  24-45; Caoili & Valenzuela, 2004; http://en.wikipedia.org/, retrieved on December 14, 2012). 

            It was only with the Educational Decree of 1863, after almost 300 years of colonization and only 33 years before the Philippine revolution broke out, that Filipino natives gained access to education during the Spanish regime.  The decree provided to all Filipinos free and compulsory public education and the teaching of Spanish.  It gave to Filipinos a complete educational system of primary, secondary, and tertiary educational institutions.  The 1863 decree required that each pueblo or town in the Philippines establish one primary school for boys and another for girls.  Primary instruction was thus the responsibility of the municipal government.  The public primary education system was open to all inhabitants in the islands regardless of race, gender, or financial status, which made it the first of its kind in all of Asia. The 1863 decree also established a free public normal school to train men as teachers at the Escuela Normal de Maestros de Manila, and its counterpart for women, the Escuela Normal de Maestras de Manila (Alzona, 1932: 24-43; Andrade, 2001; Isidro, 1949). 

            In 1867, four years after the implementation of the educational decree, the elementary schools under the auspices of the municipal governments in the Philippines totaled 593 with a combined enrolment of 138,990 boys and girls.  In 1898, the last year of Spanish rule, the number of elementary schools went up to 2,160 with 200,000 children enrolled (Zaide, 1959: 121, cited by Neira, 1994).

But the educational system was, in the overall, defective, according to our national hero, Jose Rizal.  In 1882, Rizal, only 21 years old, wrote La Instruccion where he attributed the root cause of indolence in the Philippines to poor education, which was by rote, and not understanding. This was fatal to the country because to him education was the solution to the country’s problems (Africa, 1961). In 1891, his ideas now fully developed in his essay Sobre la indolencia de los Filipinos, Rizal criticized the training received by the Filipino natives under the educational system of Spain as brutalizing, depressive and anti-human.  Though some priests like the Jesuits and some Dominicans did a great job by founding colleges and schools of primary instruction, the five or ten years during which the Filipino youth came in contact with books selected by priests who proclaimed that it was an evil for the natives to know Castilian, that he should not have aspirations, all those five to ten years amounted to nothing (Rizal, 1891).

In Rizal’s novel, Noli Me Tangere, the character of the friar curate advised the teacher to emphasize religion more than any subject of practical value. Through his characters, Rizal commented that too much emphasis had been placed on religious subjects and little time given to science.  The faculty had no academic freedom and Spanish authorities had strict censorship of books, magazines and other publications.  Students memorize whole texts without understanding a single word (Alzona, 1932; Africa, 1961: 4-5, 7).

B.  The educational program of the First Philippine Republic.  The defeat of Spain by the Filipino revolucionarios in 1898, the second phase of the fight for independence against Spain, paved the way for the first but short-lived Philippine Republic.  Through Aguinaldo’s decrees, schools were established such as the Burgos Institute, the Military Academy, and the Literary University of the Philippines. The Malolos Constitution which was ratified in January 1897 provided for a system of free and compulsory elementary education.  The schools maintained by Spain were closed during the revolution but reopened by the first Philippine Republic authorities on August 29, 1898 (Alzona, 1932: 177-187; Torres, 2007). Hardly had these schools operated when the United States came in as another colonizer that would rule the Philippines for about 43 years more.

C.  The educational system under the United States.  The Americans brought an adequate secular, free, and centralized public school system as installed in 1901 by virtue of Philippine Commission Act No. 74. The shortage of teachers, first filled by soldiers during the “pacification” phase, led sooner to the mass recruitment of teachers from the USA.  These were the “Thomasites,” so-called because the ship that brought them to the Philippines was the USS Thomas (Alzona, 1932; http:/www.scribd.com/>, retrieved on January 8, 2013).   

The American educational system saw the birth of high schools supported by provincial governments, special educational institutions, school of arts and trades, agricultural schools, and commerce and marine institutes. In 1908, the Philippine Legislature approved Act No. 1870 which created the University of the Philippines. (Alzona, 1932; Caoili & Valenzuela, 2004; Isidro, 1949; http:/www.scribd.com/>, retrieved on January 8, 2013).   

In 1925, a survey was made of the educational system put up by the Americans in the Philippines.  This was the Monroe Survey by virtue of Philippine Legislature Acts 3162 and 3196.  Its findings pointed out that while every child from the age of seven was required to register in schools where school materials were given for free, 82 percent of the pupils did not go beyond Grade Four.  Filipino students could be said to be on the same level as their American counterparts in Mathematics or Science, but they lagged far behind in the English-related subjects.  The survey theorized that the Filipinos were handicapped as they were trying to learn new concepts in a foreign language.  Moreover, teacher training was inadequate (Alzona, 1932; http:/www.scribd.com/>, retrieved on January 8, 2013).   

D.  Educational system during the Japanese occupation.  The Japanese occupation effective from January 1942 to May 1945 also had its educational policies which were embodied in Military Order No. 2 in 1942. The Philippine Executive Commission established the Commission of Education, Health and Public Welfare. Schools were reopened in June 1942.  Under the Japanese regime, the teaching of Tagalog, Philippine History, and Character Education was reserved for Filipinos. Love for work and dignity of labor was emphasized.  On February 27, 1945, the Ministry of Education became the Department of Instruction (Santiago, 1951).

E.  The state of the educational system from 1946 to the present.  A series of name-changing of the national government agency in charge of education occurred after World War II in 1946 up to the EDSA People’s Revolt in 1986.  From the name Department of Public Instruction, it became the Department of Education, then the Ministry of Education during the martial law years.  In 1987, the same department was renamed as the Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS) by virtue of Executive Order No. 117. The structure of DECS remained unchanged until 1994 when trifocalization of the educational system was implemented.  DepEd has been the name since then (CHED, 2004, 2008), while the entity in charge of tertiary education was named the Commission on Higher Education.

The Role of Education in Society:  Productivity, Employment, Income, Growth, Poverty Reduction

            The view that education is a form of investment in human capital has been around since the 1960s. The theory has been called human capital formation, or human capital investment, or simply human capital theory.  As investment, returns are only expected at future dates (McMahon, 1974: 1). The returns are spelled out in inter-weaving strands.  Accordingly, a nation’s progress hinges on the education of its people (Schultz, 1961).  The more and better educated a people, the greater the chances of economic development (Meinardus, 2003).  Elementary schooling makes people more productive at work and in the home.  More years and higher quality schooling makes an even greater contribution (Solmon, 1986: 7-8).  Higher education contributes to both individual and national growth (Valisno, 2000: 3).  Improvements in education have positive effects on productivity, entrepreneurial skill, and technological innovation that are crucial to building a dynamic economy (Balisacan, 1995: 26). Of all sectors in education, higher education has a more direct effect in the economy’s resources (Lazaro & Lontoc, 2012: 13)

In the Philippines, the decision to invest in education is a family affair, with the children accepting the advice of their parents or the parents sharing their opinion with the children but it is the latter who decide what career to choose.  The essence is that there is a sharing of views, dialog and communication, consultation, all of which occur because Filipino families are characterized as close-knit. (Khalid, 2003).

            The family decision is of course based not just on what their college-bound child wants.  It is also based on household capacity to pay.  A low-income earning family compared with a high-income earning one will have different decision outcomes:  the former will choose low-cost degrees and schools while the latter opts for expensive degrees and schools (Balmores, 1990).

            Education is considered as an investment because present opportunities for work (if their child stops) are abandoned in favor of a sacrifice in which education becomes a regular expenditure in their budget competing with other household expenditure costs.  Families look at education as yielding a flow of future private satisfactions.  The family looks forward to the returns from education to be received in future periods in their lives (McMahon, 1974: 1-2; 13).  Current income opportunities are renounced in exchange for better income prospects in the future (Checchi, 2006: 18).

            The future returns may be: good prospects of college graduates to land a good, high-paying job, to have a secure employment, and if they find themselves sticking to their jobs, they may be able to grow in their career, be promoted, and earn more. That prospect is for the graduate.  Having just a job is important to a guarantee of maybe a lifetime income (McMahon, 1974: 73). If the graduate is an excellent hire because he/she comes from a school prestigious for its academic excellence and top quality, then school quality and college credentials pave the way for a lifetime of earnings (Solmon, 1986: 4).  Just some schooling makes people productive at work in the home, and so more years of schooling promotes labor market participation, employability, and with higher expectations to gain higher incomes in the course of one’s life (Checchi, 2006: 7).

The other prospect, which is for the Filipino family, is to have a son or daughter help back in adding household earned incomes, to increase the household’s income, to help in the expenses of the household, and to help in the further schooling of younger siblings, if not to take over the breadwinning tasks from the parents (Dulay, 2003).

The Long-Term Higher Education Development Plan 2001-2010 sums up the key role of the higher education system in the Philippines:  as a contributor to the education and integral formation of professionally competent, service-oriented, principled, and productive citizenry (Garcia, 2004: 1).  Poverty reduction, according to UNDP (1997: 77) requires three basic elements:  empowerment of the people through education to ensure access to opportunity, social investment, and sustained livelihoods. Greater access for the poor to the educational system can reduce poverty and inequality

Educational Services Provision by the State/Government

            The modern theory on why the State or national government is in the provision of educational services from the primary, through the secondary, up to tertiary educational levels, is that of education as a merit good.  Education is a merit good, just as health is.  Merit goods are provided free for the benefit of the entire society by a government.  This is because they would be under-provided if left to the market forces or private enterprise (Lazaro & Lontoc, 2012: 8; http://www.businessdictionary.com/>, retrieved on December 14, 2012). 

            Merit goods are those goods that the government feels people will under-consume and which ought to be subsidized or provided free at the point of use so that consumption does not depend on the ability to pay for the good or service.  Consumption of merit goods is believed often to generate positive externalities – where the social benefit from consumption exceeds the private benefit.  Government is acting paternally in providing merit goods, for individual citizens may not act in their own best interests due to imperfect information (Retrieved from http:://www.tutor2u.net/>, on December 14, 2012).

            Governments need to provide goods and services, like law and order, that only the state can provide.  There are areas where neither the government nor private sector can carry the entire responsibility.  These are in health, education, infrastructure, and agricultural research and extension.  For social reasons, governments need to protect the weak and vulnerable members of society and provide safety nets for the poor (WB, 1995: 7).

State of Higher Education in the Philippines:  Problems and Issues

After World War II, the first to conduct a comprehensive study on the postwar education system in the Philippines was Dr. Antonio Isidro. In his 1949 report submitted to the Joint Congressional Committee on Education, Isidro pointed out that college opportunities expanded beyond the resources of these colleges to provide adequate facilities.  The college courses increased three times more than pre-war offerings but the number of instructors with proper training decreased.  Some colleges were created with minimum facilities.  Only a few institutions had large enrolments but the great majority (66.48%) had less than 200 students. Many of them may be considered glorified high schools.  In view of this, Isidro recommended that the Department of Education be sparing in permitting individuals and corporations to organize colleges and universities.

            Tan & Miao (1971) described the educational system as dominated by private schools with small enrolments.  More than half of them offered very few fields of specialization concentrating on just three fields:  education, liberal arts, and business.  Balmores (1990) used 1987-1989 data and found that the top three fields of specialization chosen by students were commerce and business management (29.17%), engineering and technology (20.25%), and teacher training/education (18.02%). 

In AY 1995-96, the three most chosen disciplines were:  business administration and related areas, engineering, and education and teacher training (Ibe, et al, 2004: 108).  Business administration attracted around 22 percent of the total number of students in AY 2004-05. This was followed by medical sciences (17%), education (16%), and engineering (14%) (CHED, 2010: 9).

The Task Force on Higher Education or TFHE (1995) explained that science and mathematics education attracted few students since the labor market for scientists had not been developed.  Research opportunities in the sciences were too limited.  The supply of graduates always exceeded the number employed. Unemployment was a serious problem among the poorer quality graduates since employers preferred the better quality ones.

The TFHE summed up the higher education indicators in AYs 2000-01 and 2004-05, as Table 3 shows.

Table 3.  Higher education indicators, AY 2000-2001 and AY 2004-2005.

  Source: CHED (2010).  Medium-term Development Plan for Higher Education 2005-2010. 

The Issue of Access to and Equity of Higher Education

            Poverty due to a sluggish economic performance of the country lies at the bottom of access and equity in education policy-making.  Indeed, the economy has failed to grow rapidly (Balisacan, 1999), and most Filipinos have become poor.  The Philippine poverty incidence is worse compared to her Southeast Asian neighbors, as seen in Table 4

            Table 4.  Poverty estimates, based on national and international poverty lines,

                           Philippines and other countries, various years.

Source:  Lam(2005).  Human resource development and poverty in the Philippines.

Note:  HCR or head count ratio is the proportion of a population that lives below the poverty line. 

At US$ 1 per day, poverty incidence in the Philippines was 15.5 percent in 2000, while in Malaysia, it was 0.2 percent in 1999, in Thailand, Indonesia and Vietnam, 1.9 percent, 7.5 percent, and 13.1 percent respectively in 2002 (Lam, 2005: 1).  Annual per capita poverty threshold in 2009 was P16,841 or P1,403 a month (NSO, 2009).

            The poverty situation in the Philippines is also reflected in the rising Gini coefficient such that the poor gets poorer and the rich gets richer. The Gini coefficient has increased from 0.47 in 1985 to 0.51 in 2000.  More than 70 percent of the poor live in rural areas. Poverty is widespread among household heads with only primary education or no schooling.  Poverty has increased for the ones with no schooling from 55.9 percent to 60.5 percent in the period 1985-2000 (Lam, 2005: 5-6). The poor has much lower access to education compared to the non-poor and the disparities become wider when the education level gets higher. 

The Congressional Policy and Budget Research Department (CPBRD) of the House of Representatives found the chronic poor (consistently poor) as comprising 47 percent of all poor in 2003-2004.  Some 47 out of every 100 poor families were consistently poor, mostly with incomes far below the poverty line.  The chronic poor also had an average household size of 6-7 members (CPBRD, 2012).  Table 5 shows the highest educational attainment among the chronic poor compared to other categories.

Table 5.  Highest educational attainment among the chronic poor, transient poor,

                           previously poor, and never poor.

Source:  CPBRD (2012). Addressing the chronic and transient natures of Philippine poverty.

              CPBRD Forum, No. 2012-02.

Survival rate of students in college is low. On average, those who survived the first year of tertiary education constituted 26.51 percent; 20.21 percent in the second year; 11.10 percent in the third year; and 11.05 percent in the fourth year (Balmores, 1990).  Data on enrolment in AYs 1990-91, 1991-92, and 1992-1993 compared with graduation statistics in AYs 1994-95, 1995-96, and 1996-97 show that the overall cohort survival rate in public HEIs appears to average  at 25.6 percent from first year to fourth year college (Ibe, et al (2004).  This is seen in Table 6.

Table 6. Cohort survival in public HEIs, by enrolment in AYs 1990-91, 1991-92,

              1992-93 and graduation statistics in AYs 1994-95, 1995-96, 1996-97.

Source: Ibe, et al, (2004: 110). 

            Licuanan (2012) gave a recent picture of the low participation rate of higher education. Out of 9.6 million 15-19 year olds in AY 2009-10, only 27 percent (2,687,771) go to college.  In this academic year, the 2,687,771 college student population is distributed as follows:

                        Public                          1,083,194 (40.3%)

                               SUCs                       942,077

                               LUCs                      134,871

                               Other/Special              6,246

                        Private                         1,687,771 (59.7%)

                                             Total:      2,687,771                       

                The cost of higher education is formidable to poor families.  Tan & Miao (1971) used 1965 data and found out that 90 percent of families spent from 1.4 percent to 5.0 percent of average income to education. With the enormous tuition fees charged by schools, a large proportion of the lower 90 percent of families could not afford to send their children to school beyond the elementary level.  Financial constraints were the reasons for the lack of response among students to avail of better opportunities in some fields of specialization which were however costly.

The large majority of students go to low-cost programs since these are what they can afford (TFHE, 1995).  Tan (1995: 79) explained why few families can afford high-cost education. The costs of education consist of school fees, foregone income, and transport and extra living cost. Additional transport and living costs are incurred for enrolling in a distant place.  As the level of schooling rises, schools become increasingly concentrated in populous centers. High schools, colleges and universities are located mostly in capital towns and cities.  At the same time, the cost of instruction generally increases with the level of education.  Tertiary instruction requires more expensive laboratories and libraries, as well as teachers with higher educational attainment.  College textbooks also tend to be more expensive than the lower levels.

            Alonzo (1995: 31) discussed that limited and unequal access to schooling opportunities may simply foster more pronounced inequities.  This may be made clear in how access is defeated even in the presence of programs of scholarships and other forms of financial assistance.

            Financial assistance to students in private colleges and universities had been, however, minimal (TFHE, 1995). This is corroborated by the study of Ziderman (2005) which included the Philippines as a case.  The Philippines has a national loans scheme but he rated it as small and marginal in terms of total size and impact. The percent of poor students receiving a student loan was marginal; the loans covered tuition only and not living expenses, and the loans were insufficient to cover other college expenditures of poor students.

            Scholarships and student assistance programs comprised the biggest utilization of the Higher Education Development Fund (HEDF). Student financial assistance programs (STUFAP) are for poor but deserving students. These include:  scholarships, grants-in-aid, and the student loan program called Study Now Pay Later Plan.  Funding for STUFAP comes from the HEDF and the General Appropriations Act.  In 2008 and 2009, HEDF contributed 42 and 63 percent respectively for total CHED spending on STUFAP (Manasan, 2012: 6-7).

STUFAP beneficiaries remain small however. Grantees comprise 25 percent of poor HEI students in 2008, 26 percent in 2009, and 18 percent in 2010.  Grants-in-aid beneficiaries totaled 20 percent of the poor students in HEIs in 2008, 19 percent in 2009, and 12 percent in 2010.  Also, grants-in-aid programs are not well-targeted, particularly for the household income cut-off for STUFAP grant-in-aid of P300,000 annually, which is 3.5 times as high as the poverty threshold for 2009. The funding practice is irregular which made the selection of beneficiaries to be based on political intervention and influence (Manasan, 2012: 7). 

The Issue of Quality of Education

            Tan & Miao (1971) showed that the academic attainment of teachers in Philippine colleges and universities, including the University of the Philippines, was low inasmuch as more than half held a bachelor’s degree only.

            The Task Force to Study State Higher Education (1987, cited by Balmores, 1990: 16) reported that the creations of SUCs were made without planning for an integrated system of higher education.  These SUCs seemed to have been established only from local or political interest.  About 68 percent of them were created or converted by statute or legislature while 25 or 32.05 percent were created or converted by executive orders or presidential decrees.

Balmores (1990) focused on the quality of higher education in the Philippines. He said that many factors brought about the decline in quality of Philippine higher-level schools.  To measure quality in higher education, Balmores used nine indicators categorized in five areas:  student quality, faculty quality, library quality, financial capability, and institutional size (class size and faculty-student ratio).  On the basis of these quality markers, the lack of quality was reflected in college graduates performing unsatisfactorily in licensure examinations, with a percentage passing of only 38.41 percent in 11 licensure examinations in a period of five years; about 69 percent of the faculty in all private colleges and universities only had a bachelor’s degree; and there was a low quality of library resources in majority of the institutions, a function of the low budgets received by them.  As to financial capability, the Philippines spent less per student than do other countries. The Philippines spent about S40 while Thailand and Singapore spent $500.

The TFHE (1995) also reported that the chartering of new universities and colleges out of previous secondary and vocational schools was undertaken without putting in place measures for training qualified faculty and developing necessary laboratory and library facilities.  With a few exceptions, the TFHE rated the quality of education in the SUCs as low.  Political expediency was the driving force for their establishment and their survival. Factors affecting the quality of education in Philippine tertiary institutions included faculty qualifications, publications and research, library resources, funding and resource allocation, administration and management, physical facilities and resources, and student admissions. 

            The poor quality of education is seen in the large majority of colleges and universities offering low-quality, low-cost programs since these are what the majority can afford (Tan, 1995: 80-81). Licuanan (2012) sums up the deteriorating quality of higher education in the Philippines. This includes:  poor performance in licensurer examinations, inadequate faculty credentials (54% bachelor’s degrees, 36% Master’s, and 10% PhDs), only 100 or 5.6 percent have adequate facilities out of 1,800 + HEIs, and programs have increased beyond the original mandate.

Evolution of Some LUCs 

            According to CHED (CMO No. 10, series of 2005), a local university and college refers to “a public higher education institution established by the local government through an enabling ordinance, and financially supported by the concerned LGU.” In Filipino, an LUC may be referred to as “dalubhasaan” for college and “pamantasan” for university. 

            It must be recalled that before the words local university and college came into use, the term previously used was “community college.”  In the Philippines, a community school functions as elementary or secondary school at daytime and towards the end of the day convert into a community college. This type of institution offers night classes under the supervision of the same principal, and the same faculty members who are given part-time college teaching load (http://en.wikipedia.org/>, retrieved on December 18, 2012).

The concept of community college dates back to the 1950s.   The community college approach gained ground with the establishment of the first community college in the Philippines – the Urdaneta Community College (in Urdaneta, Pangasinan) with Dr. Pedro Orata as founder.  Patterned after the community colleges in the United States, Dr. Orata believed that rural people in the Philippines were entitled to equal access to higher education as those living in the cities.  The first 144 students when the UCC opened in 1966 with a permit for a two-year general education course were from the rural areas.  Soon, a four-year educational program was offered, then a non-formal education program with short-term courses on agriculture and retail business for adults.  The UCC later became the City College of Urdaneta and then the present Urdaneta City University (UCU) (http://en.wikipedia.org/>, retrieved on January 6, 2013).  Just like UCC, many former community colleges before have also transformed themselves into local universities and colleges.

In the United States, community colleges take other names such as junior colleges, technical colleges, or city colleges.  Before the 1970s, community colleges in the United States were more commonly referred to as junior colleges, and that term is still used at some institutions. However, the term "junior college" has evolved to describe private two-year institutions, whereas the term "community college" has evolved to describe two-year institutions that primarily attract and accept students from the local community, and are often supported by local tax revenue (http://en.wikipedia.org/>, retrieved on December 18, 2012).

All are primarily two-year public institutions providing higher education and lower-level tertiary education, granting certificates, diplomas, and associate's degrees. Many also offer continuing and adult education.  After graduating from a community college, some students transfer to a four-year liberal arts college or university for two to three years to complete a bachelor's degree (http://en.wikipedia.org/>, retrieved on December 18, 2012).

Problems of Higher Education Institutions: Foreign Studies 

            The problems facing Philippine higher education institutions are also the same problems confronting higher education institutions in both developed and developing countries around the world.  Alexander (2006: 337), writing in the concluding chapter of the book, What’s Happening to Public Higher Education?, says that that while higher education systems have become an economic and social necessity, many policy makers have not demonstrated much interest in providing the requisite public funding needed by them.  This places a difficult dilemma as demands of aspiring students swell up enrolments and legislators insist greater performance and productivity of the institutions themselves.  He is worried how long these higher education institutions would remain public and open. Present trends indicate that they are in serious trouble because in most of public colleges and universities, hard decisions have to be made about student tuition, academic offerings, and admission restrictions.

            Much earlier, a Malaysian educator, M.N.N. Lee (1997: 195), narrates about the Malaysian experience, and the same woes are played out.  She says that the expansion of higher education has brought about many unfavorable consequences, especially in the developing countries.  Enrolment has grown at a faster pace than resources, resulting in the decline of teaching and learning quality, and low internal and external efficiency.  The scarcity of public funds for higher education has been due to inter-sectoral competition.  The decrease in resources and the inefficiency in their utilization have led to deteriorating infrastructure, inadequate staffing, overcrowded classrooms, and poor maintenance.

            In the late 80s, the problems of education – referring to all educational systems – were already common the world over.  These included:  teachers need to be trained, paid, and supervised; reading materials, newsletters, reference books to be provided (Solmon, 1986: 3) 

Problems of Higher Education:  Local Studies

            In the Philippines, many educators and researchers have touched on the problems of higher education.  Balmores (1990: 63-64) found the twin problems that characterized higher education in the Philippines were inequity and low quality.  He precisely mentioned library quality, seeing that many schools had no sufficient library resources to support the learning needs of the students.  This is caused by low budgetary allocations for library development, which amounts to only five percent or less to the annual budget. 

            The Congressional Commission on Education or EDCOM (1990-1992), as condensed in Cortes & Balmores (1992) identified five problems in higher education. These were:  1) large enrolments, 2) imbalanced distribution of both institutions and course programs, 3) poor quality of graduates, 4) lack of fit between graduates and needs of the labor force market; and 5) limited and underdeveloped graduate programs.

            The large college population or size is meaningless if the institutions are not equipped with adequate resources.  The private HEIs derive their financing from tuition fees.  Public HEIs are funded by the national government (for SUCs) or by LGUs (for LUCs) in addition to tuition and other fees paid by students but they have to compete with other government agencies for funding (EDCOM, 1990-1992).

            Greater school resources would have a positive impact on school outcomes.  Greater expenditures per student have positive effects on educational attainment and earnings. The Task Force on Higher Education of 1995 found that SUCs were not internally efficient (De los Santos & Garcia, 2002:  4-5).

            The second problem of imbalanced distribution of higher education institutions across regions is a direct result of the commercial and private nature of higher education in the Philippines. These private schools operate like business organizations and must locate near where their clients are.  Thus, a big number of them are in Metro Manila.  The imbalanced distribution of students across programs may be a function of the state of economy of the country.  Schools have to offer inexpensive programs such as business administration and commerce and teacher education, which students from the lower economic stratum can afford (EDCOM, 1990-1992).

            The problem of poor quality is reflected in the performance of graduates in professional board examinations.  Results from 1985 to 1989 data showed low average passing rates. In accountancy, it was 21 percent; in teaching, 11 percent; in law, 22 percent (EDCOM, 1990-1992).  The same dismal record persisted in the licensure examinations across all disciplines in AY 2000-2001 and in AY 2004-2005. The overall average passing rate declined from 45.35 percent in AY 2000-2001 to 39.83 percent in AY 2004-2005 (CHED, 2010: 10).  This means that more than 60 percent of college graduates are not qualified to practice their chosen profession (Orbeta, 2003).

            The problem of lack of fit refers to a mismatch between college education and employment, a direct consequence of irrelevant degree programs instituted in complete disregard of the needs of the labor market.  Finally, the problem of limited and underdeveloped graduate programs draws attention to the concentration of graduate education in the area of teacher training (42%) and the arts and sciences (30%). A weak graduate program connotes a weak top-level manpower resource for the country (EDCOM, 1990-1992).

On the other hand, the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) identified the top ten in-demand jobs for the next three years, namely:  call center agent, customer service assistant, technical support staff, forklift operator, accounting clerk, mechanical engineer, sales clerk, driver, cashier, and production worker (Lazaro & Lontoc, 2012: 14).  So far, only UMak, among the LUCs, has taken a realistic and systematic look at labor market needs and trends, as reflected in their course programs and curricula.

            As a whole, the EDCOM Report (1990-1992) recommended 10 policy measures categorized in three themes:  1) the need to specify an agenda to rationalize a model of Philippine higher education (e.g., creating CHED), 2) the need to specify an agenda for instituting and sustaining quality education at the tertiary level (e.g., improving quality of teachers through high salaries and a career path; setting up a Higher Education Development Fund); and 3) the need to specify an agenda for instituting curricular relevance.

            Valisno (2004: 14, 18) traces the roots of poor quality of education to information and financing problems faced by students who decide on the basis of the career opportunities that they expect to obtain from a particular school.  Students’ decisions are, however, constrained by financial capabilities and the information they possess about the programs and school in which they may enroll.  The poor of course cannot choose expensive schools/programs.  Consequently, higher education choices tend to concentrate in cheaper programs.  Poor information and poor financing conditions of students lead to a large majority of them going to low-cost programs since these are what they can afford.  Poor information also allows schools to operate inefficiently, which is evident in the weak correlation between school fees and professional board examinations ratings.

Orbeta (2003) says the same quality problems in education.  Students are going to schools where enrolment fees are low; where 58 percent of the faculty only has bachelor’s degrees; where less than 40 percent of graduates cannot pass the licensure examinations, and therefore cannot enter the labor force.

            On the problem of governance, Valisno (2004: 14, 18) points to one cause:  the expansion of colleges into universities without putting into place measures to train faculty and to acquire the laboratory and library facilities.  With low quality teaching due to untrained teachers and deficient laboratory and library facilities, the system produces graduates who cannot be absorbed in the labor market.  There is a mismatch between the graduates’ professional preparation and the requirements of the job.  There are overcrowded courses in relation to demand.  The generally low quality of college education does not equip the graduates with adequate knowledge and skills.

Sharing parallel views are Biglete, et al (2004:37) who dealt with the quality issue in higher education institutions.  They described the quality of graduates as generally poor, an outcome attributable to the poor quality of teachers, inadequate teaching and learning facilities, ill-structured curricular offerings, among others.

Problems of the Local Universities and Colleges

            The status report of CHED (2012) on the existing 93 LUCs underlined the fact that the number of LUCs have proliferated and is reaching an alarming level. LUCs provide access to the disadvantaged but deserving students, and yet, the quality of their education is best described as sub-standard.  They lack adequate facilities like laboratory, library and other infrastructure and instructional materials, lack qualified administrators and faculty, all of which result in the dismal performance in the licensure examinations.

            Generally, the status report noted that most of the deficiencies are observed under the areas of facilities and equipment, faculty, administration and library holdings. Most alarming is the dismal performance of LUCs in the licensure examinations.

            The CHED’s Status Report abovementioned identifies the steady rise in the number of LUCs as alarming.  Although LUCs provide access to the disadvantaged but deserving students, the quality of education therein remains sub-standard.  There are inadequate facilities like the laboratory, library, and other infrastructure and instructional materials, lack of qualified administrators and faculty which oftentimes result in the dismal performance of their graduates in the licensure examinations. The report closes that, generally, the deficiencies of these LUCs are under the areas of facilities and equipment, faculty, administration and library holdings.

            In an interview with a CHED middle-management staff, many LUCs are hard-headed which do not follow regulations from CHED.  As LGUs, they more follow the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) regulations.

Local Government

            Local government consists of all units of government under the national level in unitary states and under national and state levels in federal system. Complete coverage will include all levels: provinces, districts, subdistricts, municipalities, villages – whatever their functions maybe. (Alderfer:2-3). Local governance is the corresponding processes and structures at sub – national levels. Local government is a means of dividing functions, powers and services by area. (Carino,1998:11). Education is one of the services of the local governments to their constituents. Former Senator Aquilino Pimentel, author of the LGC said that three major powers have been devolved to the LGU but education is not one of them. Pimentel also added that the specialized curriculum in senior high school can devolve to the LGUs for context and relevance. (Hernandez. 2013). The local governments organize and fund LUCs. They are operating under the Office of the Mayor, but under the supervision of Commission of Higher Education. 

Governance

The tertiary education initiative of the local governments is basically intended to help the poor constituents to earn a college education. This is a manifestation of governance as the “exercise of political, economic and administrative authority to manage a nation’s affairs” in the local level. (UNDP, 1997: 9).  Domingo (2004: 11) cited the Asian Development Bank definition that governance is “the manner in which power is exercised in the management of a country’s economic and social resources for development” purposes and truly, the LGUs that put up the LUCs are allocating resources to it.  In the Philippines, the leading national planning body which is the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) added to the above UNDP definition that governance is “all the mechanisms, processes, and institutions through which citizens and groups articulate their interests, exercise their legal rights and obligations, and mediate their differences” (NEDA, 1998, cited in Brillantes, Jr., 2001: 19). LUCs are the LGUs response to the articulated interest and needs of the constituents in their desire to have access to affordable college education.

Tigno (2003:  25-27) amplified on the concept of governance.  He referred to it as “that process of crafting and finalizing public policy taking into account the interest of different stakeholders.”  He also pointed out that governance was “the process of prudent intervention, coordination, and control to achieve the public good.”  Bautista, et al  (2002) defined governance as one aspect of poverty reduction.  Good governance involves the design, processes, and strategies of implementing and managing government-driven programs for poverty reduction.  UNDP (1997: 9), again, asserted that sound governance exists where public resources and problems are managed effectively, efficiently, and in response to critical needs of society such as education, which is a merit good. 

On the other hand, poverty is the manifestation of poor governance.  Failed programs are due to poor governance. Sound development is sound governance. Mendoza (2000: x) viewed that governance failures stemmed from inadequacy of rules.  Breaking rules also breaks the institutions.  Institutional weaknesses explain the failures. Governance can be either good or bad (Cariño, 2003: 75).

Alonzo (1995: 32) pointed out that the pursuit of educational objectives entails the commitment of scarce resources.  Education competes with other social objectives such as health and nutrition, housing, and the like.  It competes with physical infrastructure investments like roads, irrigation, power facilities, etc. He posed two questions relevant to governance:  Are the resources put into education being utilized in the most efficient and effective manner?  How much of the public resources are allocated to education? 

            Governance and financing constitute concerns about HEIs. Way back in 1995, the TFHE recommended the reorganization of the governing boards of SUCs whose representatives would include those from the student body, faculty, alumni, parents, nonacademic personnel, business, industry, and professional groups. The other recommendation was fiscal reform.  All incomes of SUCs from tuition and auxiliary enterprises were to be retained by them.  They are to be fiscally autonomous, but they have to specify the purposes for which incomes may be used, the manner of retaining the funds, and the accounting and budgeting rules for internal control.

            The so-called “rationalization” of higher education concerns the funding sources of public HEIs and the efficiency of their use. Ordoña, way back in 1965, already evaluated the financing of public education as inadequate and unstable. In terms of government expenditure on education, this went down from 3.6 percent of GDP in 1998 to 2.4 percent in 2005 and 2006.  In 2009, education expenditure slightly rose to 2.8 percent due to improvements in the revenue effort of the national government.  For public HEIs, the big pie of expenditures went to the SUCs, at 93 percent from 1995 to 2009 (Manasan, 2012: 2).  SUCs lament the government’s inadequate financial aid.  In AY 2003-2004, SUCs got P16.87 B; in 2008, they got P20.8 B (Lazaro & Lontoc, 2012: 12).

            LUCs source their funds mainly from the LGUs.  So in relation to this study, none yet has examined how LGUs subsidizing their local university/college allocate spending to the LUC concerned, or what formula is used in the allocation.  Lazaro & Lontoc (2012: 25) say that in the case of PLMAR, the school does not have the means to equip itself with proper facilities for science and research.

The Higher Education Act of 1994 (RA 7722) which created the CHED also established the Higher Education Development Fund (HEDF).  Its aim was to strengthen higher education in the Philippines by assisting universities/colleges to address the need for equitable resource allocation.  HEDF relies on government contributions from the equivalent of 40 percent of annual share in the total gross collection of travel tax, the equivalent of 30 percent annual share of the collection of the Professional Regulation Fee, and the equivalent one percent gross sale of the lotto operations of the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO).  It is used for student financial assistance and scholarships, research development, and institutional development (e.g., faculty development).  HEDF spending averaged P200 M every year from 1995 to 2001.  It rose to P430 M annually in 2002-2005, continuing to rise to P742 M in 2006-2010 (Manasan, 2012: 5-6).

            In relation to this study, poor governance also stems from the ugly head of politics, a sign of weak governance.  Tan (2011) pointed out that “the unfettered growth of SUCs championed by incumbent congressmen to enhance their political power came at the expense of quality.”  Lazaro & Lontoc (2012: 25) added that PLMAR of Marikina City is one university that was set up as a political tool for incumbent congressmen to boost their influence. PLMAR does not have the sufficient means to equip itself with the proper facilities for science, research, and the like.  As a result, PLMAR offers the same courses that are usually offered by other schools, with PLMAR graduates taking low skill and low-paying jobs.

Decentralization

            Decentralization may be defined as the dispersal of authority and responsibility and the allocation of powers and functions from the center or top level of the government to the lower levels, from the central government to regional bodies or special purpose authorities, or from the national or subnational levels of government. It may take the form of administrative decentralization, or deconcentration in which a national government or central government agency shares its responsibilities with, and delegates authority to, ,its field offices to perform certain government functions and services. It may take the form of  devolution or political decentralization which involves the granting of authority and power to the provincial, city and municipal governments to manage their own affairs, which process in a way partakes the nature of what is commonly referred to as local autonomy.(de Guzman,1992:159)    

The LGUs involved in tertiary-education services delivery cannot be fully understood without going into the context of local government autonomy.  When the set-up was yet a centralized structure, community colleges came into the picture already. These were public education institutions created by the local councils.  As the drive for local autonomy increased, new democratic ideas also cropped up about access to education and providing the educational needs of poor and disadvantaged sectors of the Philippines.   This concern became a reality in the 1987 Constitution and then the Local Government Code of 1991.  With local autonomy enshrined in a solid constitutional-legal framework, LGUs got the longed-for entitlement to decide on their own without consulting anymore with the central government in Metro Manila.

The 1987 Constitution declares local autonomy as one of the policies of the State.  Section 25 of Article II (State Policies), says that “The State shall ensure the autonomy of local governments” and education being a basic service of the state is one of the expected subject of this drive for autonomy. Article X devotes a whole separate article on local autonomy fleshed out in 21 sections, the first 14 sections of which consist of general provisions and the next sections (Sections 15-21) pertain to autonomous regions.      

Section 2 of Article X provides that the LGUs “shall enjoy genuine and meaningful local autonomy to enable them to attain their fullest development as self-reliant communities and make them more effective partners in the attainment of national goals.”  This local autonomy was all the more strengthened with the passing of RA 7160 or the Local Government Code of 1991.  In the LGC, services and functions are now the responsibility of LGUs.  Section 17 of the LGC states that “LGUs shall endeavor to be self-reliant and shall continue to exercise the powers and discharge the duties and functions invested upon them.  They shall also discharge the functions and responsibilities of national agencies and offices devolved to them.  They also exercise such powers and discharge such functions and responsibilities as are necessary, appropriate, or incidental to efficient and effective provision of basic services and facilities.”

Article XIV of the 1987 Constitution is reserved entirely for Education, Science and Technology, Arts, Culture, and Sports.  Section 2 (1) therein provides that “The State shall establish, maintain, and support a complete, adequate, and integrated system of education relevant to the needs of the people and society.”  More importantly, Section 5 (1) of the Constitution says that the State “shall encourage local planning in the development of educational policies and programs.  Moreover, Section 5 (5) mandates that “The State shall assign the highest budgetary priority to education and ensure that teaching will attract and retain its rightful share of the best available talents through adequate remuneration and other means of job satisfaction and fulfillment.”

            In pursuit of the constitutional proviso that a local government code be enacted by congress, RA 7160 or the LGC was subsequently passed in 1991. The LGC’s Book III (Local Government Units) provides in Section 447 (a) (5) (x) for the Sangguniang Bayan, Section 458 (a) (5) (x) for the Sangguniang Panglunsod, and Section 468 (a) (4) (iii) for the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, that subject to the availability of funds and to existing laws, rules and regulations, LGUs shall “establish and provide for the operation of vocational and technical schools and similar post-secondary institutions and, with the approval of the Department of Education, Culture and Sports and subject to existing law on tuition fees, fix and collect reasonable tuition fees and other school charges in educational institutions supported by the local government” (LGC, 1991; CHED, 2012).

The above mandate prompted many city governments to establish and operate LUCs. Of course, not all LGUs have done so. Only those LGUs that have the wherewithal or can financially afford to run and operate tertiary-level schools can.  Another factor may be the development orientation of the local chief executive (LCE). 

The 1987 Constitution declared that “the state shall ensure the autonomy of local governments.”  Decentralization through devolution was the strategy adopted in the LGC to make local governments autonomous.  The LGC transferred certain powers from the national to the local levels, increased the financial capacity of the LGUs, and gave greater voice to these LGUs and the people as well (Cariño, 2002). 

Local autonomy was a strategy to enable LGUs to attain development and democracy goals (Cariño, 2002).  Section 2 of the LGC declares it a policy that

            …territorial and political subdivisions of the State shall enjoy genuine and

            meaningful local autonomy to enable them to attain their fullest development

            as self-reliant communities and make them more effective partners in the

            attainment of national goals.  Toward this end, the State shall provide for a

            more responsive and accountable local government structure instituted

            through a system of decentralization whereby local government units shall

            be given more powers, authority, responsibilities and resources. 

            The Code is intent in mandating the transfer of national powers to LGUs by the provision in the General Welfare Section where LGUs can strengthen and expand their powers. Thus Section 16 mandates that:

            Every local government unit shall exercise the powers expressly granted,

            those necessarily implied there from, as well as powers necessary, appropriate,

            or incidental for its efficient and effective governance, and those which are

            essential to the promotion of the general welfare.  Within their territorial

            jurisdictions, local government  units shall ensure and support, among other

            things, the preservation and enrichment of culture ,promote health and safety,

            enhance the right of the people to a balanced ecology, encourage and support

            the development of appropriate and self-reliant scientific and technological

            capabilities, improve public morals, enhance economic prosperity and social

            justice, promote full employment among their residents, maintain peace and

            order, and preserve the comfort and convenience of their inhabitants.           

In agreement with Cariño (2002), the process of decentralization through devolution sets local governments free to do all that is in their power to work with the people in attaining democracy and development in their particular local community. It is an empowerment of the governments closest to the people that will bring them as close to self-rule and autonomy as they can. 

            On the basis of the twin goals of democratization and development via the strategy of decentralization, the LGC devolved or transferred the powers, responsibility, and resources for the performance of certain functions from the national government to the LGUs (De Guzman & Reforma, 2002:  22-23).  The LGC devolved to LGUs the responsibility for the following (Brillantes, Jr.,2002: 33-37):

1.      The delivery of basic services in

- health,

- social services (social welfare),

- environment (community-based forestry),

- agriculture,

- public works (funded by local funds),

- education (school-building program),

- tourism (facilities, promotion, and development),

- telecommunications service,

- housing projects in provinces, cities, and

- other services, such as investment support.

            2.   The enforcement of certain regulatory powers such as the

                   - reclassification of agricultural lands,

                   - enforcement of environmental laws,

                   - inspection of food products and quarantine,

                   - operation of tricycles,

                   - processing and approval of subdivision plans,

                   - establishment of cockpits and holding of cockfights.

              3.  Augmenting their own financial resources,

              4.  Laying the foundation for the development of an entrepreneurial orientation

                   through the build-operate-transfer scheme, bond flotation, and loans from

                    local private institutions, and

5.      Involving the participation of the NGO-PO sector through mandatory

      membership of this sector in LGU special bodies. 

Responses to the Problems of Higher Education Institutions           

            In 1992, the Congressional Commission on Education (EDCOM) recommended reforms in the educational system and structure of the country in its Philippine Agenda for Educational Reform.  It reviewed that quality of education and analyzed it as full of issues in terms of equity, access, relevance, responsiveness, efficiency, effectiveness, and of course, quality of the products of education – the students as revealed in the professional licensure examinations (CHED, 2004).

            The EDCOM reform was a trifocalization of the structure such that basic education would be the responsibility of DepEd, vocational and technical education that of TESDA, and tertiary education, that of CHED.  A law was thus passed, Republic Act 7722, establishing the CHED for a more focused, rational, and systematic improvements in the higher education institutions (CHED, 2004: 2).

            The Long-Term Higher Education Development Plan (LTHEDP) of 2001-2010 served as a guide to the curricular directions of SUCs and LUCs.  The LTHEDP envisioned higher education to:  a)  offer programs and services that meet the demands of an industrializing economy within the context of sustainable development and a culture of peace, as well as the challenges of a diverse and globalized society, b) nurture an academic environment that fosters integrated learning, creative and critical thinking, appreciation of cultural diversity and national identity, and inculcates moral values, c) conduct research to support instruction, create new knowledge, and enhance the quality of life in society, and d) undertake extension programs and services that facilitate the transfer of technology, foster leadership, and promote self-reliance among the less privileged in Philippine society (Garcia, 2004: 1-2).

            CHED had a four-point formula to solve the problems of tertiary education.  These included:  1) promoting access and equity, 2) promoting quality and excellence, 3) ensuring relevance and responsiveness, and 4) improving efficiency and effectiveness. To promote access and equity, CHED had the following programs readied (CHED, 2008):

-          student financial assistance via scholarships, grants-in-aid, and student loans,

-          student services through the promotion of students’ rights and welfare, student governance, career counseling, drug education, and campus journalism, and

-          alternative learning systems such as the Expanded Tertiary Education Equivalency and Accreditation Program (ETEEAP), the Ladderized Education program (recognition of units earned in technical-vocational programs in TESDA-registered schools for equivalent academic units in CHED-recognized programs and institutions), and Distance Education. 

To promote quality and excellence, CHED pursues the updating of policies, standards and guidelines, issuance of permits and recognition, conferment of titles such as Centers of Excellence or Centers of Development, institutional monitoring and evaluation for quality assurance, and faculty development program.  To ensure relevance and responsiveness, CHED had its Best HEI Research Program Award, Outstanding HEI Extension program Award, and the Zonal Research Center Program.  To improve efficiency and effectiveness, the agency offers its HEI management development program, integrated research utilization program, and management information system (CHED, 2008).

However, there are violations.  Although CHED has jurisdiction over all public and private higher education institutions, including local universities and colleges, programs are offered by some without permission from CHED.  One glaring example is an ALCUCOA member school, Mandaue City College, whose program offerings were ordered closed by CHED as of July 4, 2011 (CHED, 2012). 

The Association of Local Colleges and Universities (ALCU)

            Through the efforts of the Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila (PLM), along with other schools, the move to establish an association among local universities and colleges gained ground in 1995.  The next year, 1996, the Association of Local Colleges and Universities (ALCU) was born (http://www.plm.edu.ph/>, retrieved on December 15, 2012).  The vision ALCU has formulated to itself is to become the fulcrum for the attitudinal transformation, knowledge generation and skills development.  This mission is embodied in five target concerns:   

            1.  Develop quality and excellent faculty members and students;

            2.  Offer relevant and responsive curricular programs;

            3.  Provide competitive physical facilities and equipment;

            4.  Promote functional research programs; and

            5.  Facilitate timely and operative extension services.

From the vision and mission statements, one can see that the primary thrust of ALCU is to improve the quality of instruction, research, and extension of its member schools and to provide value public tertiary education, especially to the poor and disadvantaged youth. 

Membership in ALCU is institutional in nature. A locally-funded college or university may apply for membership before the organization’s membership committee. Representation is made by the incumbent president or equivalent school head (i.e., college administrator).   ALCU is composed of 36 local colleges and universities of the Philippines (see Appendix 3 for list).  

ALCU works closely with the Senate Committee on Education, which is headed by Senator Alan Peter Cayetano, in legislations that benefit existing LUCs.   The Association has created in the later part of 2003 the Commission on Accreditation, Inc., which also partners with the Accrediting Agency of Chartered Colleges and Universities in the Philippines, Inc. (AACCUP). Atty. Adel A. Tamano, then PLM president, mentioned a plan to draft the best-practices manual for local colleges and that it would be a project of ALCU.

            In terms of accreditation standards, the ALCUCOA, together with the Accrediting Agencies of Chartered Colleges and Universities of the Philippines (AACCUP), formed the National Network of Quality Assurance Agencies (NNQAA) in 2004 to ensure quality higher education among public HEIs. With the help of AACCUP, and the PAASCU executive director, ALCU member schools immersed themselves in quality assurance activities involving the following areas of accreditation:  employability, community service, curriculum and instruction, research, faculty, student services, administration, physical plant and facilities, library, and laboratory.

Many ALCU members are now aiming for accreditation to uplift the quality of their program offerings.  To uphold quality higher education, ALCU partnered with the CHED as part of the Technical Working Group in drafting three ordinances, namely CHED Memorandum Order (CMO) No. 32, series of 2006, and CMO Nos. 1 and 10, series 2005.

Selected Local Universities

            The University of Makati.  One of the most successful of the LUCs is the University of Makati (UMak).  It began in 1972 as the Makati Polytechnic Community College (MPCC) offering technical and vocational courses.  In 1987, MPCC was renamed Makati College (MC).  More courses were offered including education, arts and sciences, business administration, and industrial technology.  In 1992, MC was merged with the Fort Andres Bonifacio College to form a university initially called Pamantasan ng Makati.  A graduate school was added and more courses were offered.  In 2002, it assumed a new name – as the University of Makati.  It had six colleges and two centers.  Two additions were the College of Nursing and the College of Governance and Public Policy (Montes, 2011: 96).

            UMak is fortunate that its LGU – the Makati City Government – is in a location often called as the business and financial hub of the Philippines.  It possesses, thus, a large tax base.  It is able to rely on a big locally-sourced budget and to pursue its philosophy of ensuring that children of low-income families in the city will have access to quality tertiary education and skills training. Makati City can afford to provide the necessary funding.  It gives its less privileged citizens the chance to compete for high-paying job opportunities in the city’s businesses and industries (Montes, 2011: 96).

            UMak caters to make education accessible to the poor, less privileged students of Makati. Filipino families are indeed hard-pressed to send their children to college or university which is not covered by the free education policy.  Makati’s Charter specifically states that it was established for Makati residents.  UMak charges a token amount of P1,000 for each semester of study.  The 15 percent non-Makati residents who are studying in UMak pay a slightly higher tuition of P3,000 per semester.  Many of UMak’s non-Makati students come from the neighboring cities of Pateros, Taguig, and Mandaluyong, and from sister cities and municipalities. They study in UMak because they have scholarships in UMak (Montes, 2011: 101).

            UMak, under the leadership of Pres. Tomas Lopez, Jr., has invested in modern buildings and facilities.  It has also developed a unique mix of traditional and non-traditional curricula that are responsive to the trends in college education as well as the demands of industries and businesses in the Makati area.  By linking the design of some of its courses to the needs of businesses in Makati, UMak has offered a wide array of choices for college applicants who may opt to take a full four-year bachelor’s degree program or accumulate units under the “ladderized” program with corresponding certification for each year completed.  A quick review of a few course offerings of UMak tells about its responsiveness to the unique needs of the city’s economy.

1.      Supply Chain Management and Building and Property Management Majors under the Bachelor’s in Business Administration program.  The building and property management major responds to the skyline of Makati with its multi-level buildings built in the central business district.

2.      Associate degrees in Contact Center Services and Customer Service Communication.  These two-year programs are responding to the growing demand for call center agents.  Out of 849 call centers in the Philippines, 289 are in Makati.  The two associate degree form part of the ladder-type program for the Bachelor’s degree in Organizational Communication.

3.      Retail Management major in the marketing degree program.  Makati is the location of the country’s top shopping malls (Montes, 2011: 97).

Other unique courses are the 3-year Diploma in Sports Recreational Facilities Management which is part of the ladder-type program of the BS in Physical Wellness or the BS in Building Technology Management.  Some courses like the Bachelor’s degree in Avionics, Digital Arts, or Computer Networking Management are geared to enhance the employability of its graduates (Montes, 2011: 97-98).

To avoid the mismatch with industry needs, UMak designed a program called Dualized University Education System (DUES).  In DUES, students in four programs undergo coursework in the university and an almost equal amount for on-the-job training in UMak’s partner companies.  Some graduates are eventually hired by the companies that trained them.  The College of Technology Management has many courses with equal periods of in-school and in-plant training (Montes, 2011: 98)

The most successful dual training by far is UMak’s Business Process Outsourcing Training Center (BPOTC).  The BPOTC houses the call center courses.  The arrangement is a minimum of 72 hours call center training for graduating students or as an elective subject, a 200-hour training for Makati residents, and a short-term course for non-Makati residents. The BPOTC’s main industry partner is People Support which developed the modules on English language Enhancement, Customer Service, American Accent, Communication and Culture, and Typing.  The BPOTC’s employability rate is 100 percent with graduates finding jobs in partners like People Support, Q-Interaction, Ambergis Solutions, and Accenture (Montes, 2011: 98-99). 

Macasaet-Barro (2001, cited in Dulay, 2003: 105) studied the innovative educational strategies which UMak implemented to ensure graduate employability.  UMak came up with specific courses which may be considered as innovations because they depart from the traditional concepts of college course offerings.  The President, Tomas Lopez described the old courses as all alike and not worth much.  He did not see the point in maintaining a course that produced hundreds of graduates but could not pass the board examination, much less, land in jobs. After seeing one course outline, he used it as a mold for a new type of educational system. This saw the beginning of the school’s specialized curriculum that offered customized majors such as Retail Management, Direct Selling and Market Research Administration, to name a few.

UMak has its usual menu of problems such as retention of faculty.  This is due to less competitive salaries that are limited by government salary standardization. As compensation, UMak officials enjoy additional benefits not usually accorded to usual state university professors.  These include the 13th and 14th month pays, overtime pay and honorarium for only 18 units maximum load (three of those for advising).  Graduate program professors are paid higher than UP professors.  There are now moves to exempt LGU-owned universities and colleges from the salary standardization law if and when its local government can already afford to pay higher salaries for its faculty (Montes, 2011: 101-102).

In spite of the support from the city government, and private sector partners, UMak has problems in relation to laboratories and materials for technical courses which are often limited and stifled by government procurement laws.  Even good teachers have a hard time producing prototypes with their classes.  UMak is trying to address this issue by accessing national government grants (e.g., TESDA vouchers; P600,000 grant for a state-of-the-art kitchen); fund-raising with private donors; and establishing a foundation that can have a trust fund for procurement of materials and equipment (Montes, 2011: 102).

The successful example of UMak presents a story of how a city LGU was able to make its local university rank among the schools that responded positively for the sake of the poor students in the city.

The Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila (PLM).  The PLM is a pioneer, a leader, and a model institution of higher learning in the Philippines.  The CHED has cited it as a model for public institutions across the country.  Further, it has cited several PLM programs and departments as Centers of Excellence. DepEd and CHED statistics show that PLM is among the top five schools nationwide in terms of board exam passing rate.  It is also rated as one among three public universities in the top ten category of HEIs (http://www.plm.edu.ph/>, retrieved on December 18, 2012).

PLM is a chartered institution created by the Congress of the Philippines by virtue of Republic Act No. 4196.  This law was approved by the President of the Republic of the Philippines on June 19, 1965, coinciding with the day of birth of Jose Rizal.  PLM opened on July 17, 1967 with 556 pioneer freshmen coming from the top 10 percent of the graduating class of Manila’s public high schools (http://www.plm.edu.ph/>, retrieved on December 18, 2012).

PLM is also the first university funded solely by a municipal government in the country.  For this matter, it is the first university in the country that is involved in the multifarious activities of a local community, which is the City of Manila, hence, the first multiversity. It is the first community university ("communiversity") as well as the first socially-conscious university in the country (http://www.plm.edu.ph/>, retrieved on December 18, 2012).

The PLM has its Antonio J. Villegas Leadership Forum, an academic development program initiative of the PLM Alumni Association, Inc. (PLMAAI) and PLM Scholars Foundation, Inc. in partnership with the Office of Student Development and Services (OSDAS) of PLM. The Leadership Forum aims to:

-          Promote partnership between the PLM alumni community, PLM administration, faculty and students through a series of lectures, dialogs, symposia, conferences, panel discussion and assembly topics of mutual interest, and substance;

-          Promote academic freedom, freedom of expression and broader knowledge, awareness and information for the students and faculty;

-          Empower PLM students and faculty for greater participation and role in the academic affairs of PLM;

-          Identify, harness, and encourage greater participation of students, faculty and professionals who distinguished themselves in various fields and expertise both in public and private enterprises, on subjects that are timely and relevant;

-          Promote and support the development of PLM students as future transformational leaders of the community and enables for change and development; and

-          Promote and support the development of PLM students, faculty and leaders of PLM (http://www.plm.edu.ph/>, retrieved on December 18, 2012).

Other LUCs.   There are no available studies about the great majority of LUCs. There are promotions in their own websites, detailing their history and courses offered, but complete studies are nowhere available whether in UP library units or in the National Library. 

Summary

            The above review points out the larger policy rationales of educational institutions especially in the context of developing country of the Philippines, where poverty is worsening. Among the problems in tertiary education are access and equity, quality and excellence, relevance and responsiveness, and efficiency and effectiveness.      

            The problems in tertiary education as identified in the literature, as well as the responses to these problems by responsible national and local agencies provide the basis for raising the problem of the study and in organizing the conceptual framework of this study.

CHAPTER 4:  CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK 

            This chapter presents the conceptual framework of the study.  The context, the different components of the subject matter at hand, their various dimensions, and their inter-relationships with each other are illustrated as well as described.  At the last section, the operational definitions are presented. 

The Conceptual Framework

            Figure 1 presents the conceptual framework of the study.   As can be seen in the Figure, Box 1 on the top left represents the overall economic context of the Philippines which includes the increasing poverty which results into the poor not being able to afford the rising costs of the tertiary education.  Box 2 is the overall policy environment that affects all HEIs, which include the policies enunciated in the 1987 Constitution, the Local Government Code of 1991, the CHED directives and circulars to local universities and colleges, as well as standards and guidelines of ALCUCOA member-schools.

            The third box at the center represents the city government that is operating and subsidizing the local university.  The city government encounters problems common among higher educational institutions such as:   poor student services and facilities, less competitive salaries of teachers, limited budgets or income constraints, and employability of students.  The fourth box, center left, represents the responses of the city government leadership to the problems as mentioned.  The fifth box, center right, represents the resources and capabilities of the stakeholders concerned.  The last box at the bottom center represents the outcomes of the responses.

                                  Figure 1: Conceptual Framework of the Study.   

Overall Policy Environment

            Following the education-economic growth linkage as both the cause of and solution to the problems in the educational system of the Philippines, the framework looks at the economic status of the country as the trigger and determining factor of what ails its education sector.  The Philippines is a poor and developing country.  As such, it operates within a context that is filled with extreme scarcity of resources, where constraints, disadvantages, and weaknesses are realities. From where it is now, the Philippines has to make do with low or inadequate budgets, a lot of poverty, and short supply of services, and yet, think of policies and measures to make the economy grow and to reduce poverty in the country. The economic context in the framework is seen in the first box at top left of Figure 1. With national policy tilting towards autonomy and decentralization on a lot of functions, including education, the LGUs were given enough elbow room to solve the problems of constituents not being able to access to a tertiary education because of rising costs.

            The economic context, despite the 6.6 percent GDP growth posted by the Philippines, as published in the newspapers recently, does not augur well for the end of the educational woes of many Filipinos. These woes, when viewed in the local level redound into the poor constituents settling in low – income employments resulting in poverty which eventually become one of the reasons for their children not being able to afford a tertiary education .  In the meantime, Filipino top executives working in the colleges and universities and in the LGUs that have created and funded local universities have to exercise the wise management of meager resources.  LGUs have to keep on pursuing the support of the poorest and to ensure equal access as an important pillar in an inclusive education policy and strategy (OECD, 2012).

It was the economic growth aspect that pushed for the pursuit and implementation of the local autonomy and decentralization policies of the national government.  LGUs have been given the leeway to decide on their own, e.g., to create and fund a local university or a local college.  This policy context is seen in the second box at top right in Figure 1.

The Problems of Operating/Managing a Local University

            Schools are beset by various problems. City-operated schools are public schools, and are in one way or another prone to the same problems plaguing public schools from the elementary to the tertiary level.  In the first place, public schools are not supposed to charge very high tuition and miscellaneous fees to their students.

            Although school problems are almost known by any Filipino parents and their son or daughter whom they have sent to college, the study drew from literature on education.  Because the information from the literature reviewed were for all public HEIs, and studies on LUCs have been few so far, another data set had to be sought to see what the actual problems are of LUCs.   Through an informal interview of selected students of PLMAR and PUP-SJ and some parents, some problems of city-operated schools cropped up.  These were listed down as basis of what LUCs face as problems that they have to attend to and solve.  These problems are represented in the third box at the center of the conceptual framework, namely:

- poor student services and facilities,

- poor quality of teaching,

- less competitive faculty salaries,

- budget constraints,

- poor coordination between LGU and LUC, and

- employability of graduates.    

Poor student services and facilities.  Student services comprise a lot of concerns for the LUC.  These problems range from indicators like availability of study grants and scholarships, loans favorable to students, affordable tuition and other school fees, safety and security for students, good guidance and counseling services, among others.  A PLMAR student commented that the tuition fees in the university were unreasonable.  The charge of P150 per unit was not followed because once the student takes up more than 12 units, the amount he must pay is automatically P3,000. Another student commented that the enrolment process was long (http://www.marikinalife.com/, retrieved on December 22, 2012).

As to facilities, the campus must have well-ventilated if not air-conditioned classrooms, clean toilets, adequate library holdings, adequate and clean canteens, among many others, for the comfort of the students. What’s more, the facilities demand daily maintenance and upkeep in cleanliness and sanitation. It is assumed that there are budgets and that money is spent well.  Without such good services, the school declines in quality and many complaints about the school arise. Their upkeep also demands frequent supervision and monitoring.  A PLMAR student commented that laboratories are not used (Retrieved from http://www.marikinalife.com/, on December 22, 2012).

            Inadequate facilities and equipment was cited as one of the problems of schools in the Philippines (World Data on Education, 2006-2007).  The preliminary interview of students to generate data on school problems also mentioned the same inadequacy.  The lack of these may have prompted the legislation of Ordinance 12001 by the Marikina City Sanggunian in 2012 which authorized PLMAR to use available and existing facilities and amenities of the city government to further enhance the university’s quality of education (Retrieved from http://www.syncsysph.com> on December 22, 2012).

            Poor quality of teaching.  Teachers need to be encouraged to teach excellently.  Some teachers are not permanent but casually hired.  Some are hired because they are recommended by some high official in the city hall.  They start as casuals and then sooner or later are given permanent items or are promoted earlier than older faculty members who have no political pull in the city hall. These are disincentives to having quality faculty members. 

            The World Data on Education, 2006-2007 (http://wwwibe.unesco.org/>, retrieved on December 22, 2012) identified problems like unqualified and poorly trained teachers, coupled with lack of adequate instructional materials (textbooks and teacher’s manuals).

            Less competitive faculty salaries.  Allied to low status and lack of promotion is the factor of low salaries.  Being city government-subsidized, the LUCs depend on the budget set by the city government.  Politics also rear up its ugly head.  Faculty members or administrative personnel may distinguish themselves as those having influence at the city hall and those without the same influence.  Because many teachers are hired on casual basis, they are thus given low salaries.

            Budget  constraints.  Enrolment should be occasions for increasing income sources.  However, schools cannot arbitrarily hike tuition fees.  Such unilateral actions are usually met by protests from parents and students who complain about new tuition fee hikes.  Even if prices of products and services have gone up in the entire economy, the schools seem to be constrained to stick to old school fees.

            City governments have other services to do to which money will have to be allotted. Although the Constitution provides that education be given the priority, still there are other critical services that compete with education and cannot just be sidelined or deferred. 

            Poor coordination between LGU and LUC.  This may be reflected in inadequate information exchange among LGU and LUC officials that may result in delays of an activity.  Political interests may intrude in the LGU-LUC relationship such that some of the stakeholders concerned may refrain in giving their part or inputs in implementing what would have been a joint program or project. 

            Employability of graduates.   Most graduates who enter the labor force upon graduation face bleak prospects of employment.  There is a mismatch between what the school is offering and what the industry needs are.  Offered courses are the overcrowded ones.  With poor teaching quality, the graduates fare poorly in licensure examinations.

City LGU and Local University Responses to Tertiary Education Service/Development

Faced with the above problems, the city governments and local universities have responded in various ways.  They resort to initiatives or efforts in thinking and crafting devises, mechanisms, and strategies.  It is expected that because Marikina City and San Juan City were governed by conscientious mayors from 2001 to 2010, the city government drew on creative and innovative ways by the leadership to meet the city-operated schools’ problems.  Among the responses could be: 

- convening the Education Committee or the Oversight Committee (in the case of

   PUP-SJ) for meetings/dialogues,

- consultation with CHED and ALCU officials,

- passage of relevant ordinances,

- petitions or requests for budget increase,

- funds campaign for external support,

- reorganizations,

- improving instruction quality through accreditation, and

- capability-building, etc.

Meetings/dialogues.  The officials of the LUC may meet and plan if problems are internal; if external and a serious problem is involved, meetings may include the Education Committee of the Sanggunian or even the LGU officials themselves. The number of meetings, number of attendees convened within a year, and agenda items agreed on may gauge the diligence of stakeholders in ironing out ways and means to resolve problems.  Meetings serve as venues to jointly tackle and anticipate problems and issues of the LUC.

The city government leadership may convene the Education Committee of the Sanggunian to discuss matters pertaining to problems of the local university.  The frequent communication and consultation between the stakeholders concerned, with participation from the clients such as the parents of the students, may be of critical value to the solution of problems in the school.  For example, the need to hike tuition fees may have to be communicated and consulted with the parents. A practice in the private universities regarding tuition fee increases does not include consultations with parents, but with student representatives only.

Consultations with CHED and ALCU officials.  Consulting with the CHED or the ALCUCOA may be another response of the school leadership.  If matters come to a stalemate or inaction due to political pressures from some sectors, the city leadership may have to consult these higher bodies for advice on what the appropriate action to do.  The CHED has supervisory jurisdiction over all public HEIS, which include LUCs.  The CHED has issued memo orders and circulars on the pressing issues of LUCs such as access and equity, quality and excellence, relevance and responsiveness, and efficiency and effectiveness.  Matters touching on these issues are appropriate for consultation with the CHED. 

            If the LUC is an ALCU member, consultations may be made also with the officials of ALCU before matters are elevated to CHED.  If problems can be resolved within ALCU, then consultations with CHED may not have to be done.

            Passage of relevant ordinances.  The Sanggunian may resort to passing council resolutions and ordinances to make things legal and formal in case the action of the city government is required.  The LGU through its Sanggunian may deliberate on matters for the resolution of problems plaguing the LUC.  The number of ordinances passed about resolving LUC problems may indicate how the council is attending to the needs of their local university.

            Petitions or requests for budget increase or budget support.  The city leadership may need to respond to requests for additional budget allocations for certain services and programs of the local university.  The response must be timely so that the service/program in question will be delivered without delay.  This assumes that the city has access to financial resources and funds that can be channeled to the provision of educational services.

            In relation to this, especially in the case of fund shortages, the city leadership itself may have to conduct fund campaigns or source the funds from banks, government financial institutions, from the Special Education Fund (SEF), or the Priority Development Assistance Fund of this or that legislator, or the Higher Education Development Fund (HEDF) managed by the CHED, or use alternative strategies and mechanisms to be able to enhance the funds of the city government.

            Funds campaign for external support.  Budgetary allocations from the national government are of course not adequate. With costs rising in a poor country like the Philippines, there is a need for LUCs and their funding LGU to seek for external funds.  They may have to scout for donors, charitable institutions, and NGOs. Many LUCs have been established only in the 1990s such that their alumni may not have launched full careers yet to be depended on as donors.

            The funds campaign may be a periodic exercise brought about by a school landmark celebration.  It may also be done yearly, with the LUC tracking friends here and abroad, alumni, and charitable individuals and institutions.

            Reorganizations.  Another response is reorganization although this is perceived on the whole as negative to those who are going to be affected.  This is because reorganizations may result in reshuffling staff from one office to another or even retrenchment due to phase-out or mergers of redundant offices/units.  But if communication and dialog is made use of, the negative perceptions may be minimized and taken care of.  Reorganizations are done for clearer delineation of responsibilities and tasks. The  LUCs are under the supervision of the Office of the  Mayor.

            Improving instruction quality through accreditation.  One more response is the improvement of teaching through use of hiring standards using the guidelines of the ALCUCOA and increase of salaries of the faculty to a satisfactory and competitive level.  The strict adoption of hiring standards may be the key to attaining excellence in teaching. The ALCUCOA also has standards on various areas to attain quality and excellence. Teachers however are protected by the Magna Carta of Public School Teachers.

            Capability-building, etc.  These include all training and development programs and packages for both LGU and LUC staff as well as for LUC faculty.  The development of human resources through capability building is an investment for a future return:  quality productivity and excellent capability and capacity from among the service providers.  Technical staff as well as the faculty may have to undergo a well-rounded series of training and development via seminar-workshops to acquire skills and attitudes for them to contribute to the productivity of the organization.

            The record of capability-building exercises by both national and local governments has been tarnished in the past by lackluster training seminars and workshops. LGUs are however flexing muscles to make their employees and staff provide services to clients and stakeholders efficiently and with a smile. Among the capability-building programs are strategic planning workshops, computerization of data procedures and systems, full disclosure, and citizens’ charter orientations.

Resources and Capabilities

            To meet the problems and to succeed in resolving them depends on certain factors.  These are the resources and capabilities of the institutions/offices concerned, which in this study refer to the city government and the local university.  The resources/capabilities more or less correspond to the strengths and competencies of an organization (Bateman & Snell, 2011: 133-141).  These factors include:  

- the city government leadership,

- quality and quantity of personnel, staffing,

- existence of a well-defined organization,

- managerial and technical expertise,

- funds and equipment availability,

- city government-local university relations, and

- relations with other public agencies, private sector, and civil society.

City government leadership.  The city government leadership must be capable of being responsive in the first place.  The leadership must have that desire or dream as embodied in the vision and mission of the city government towards improving the conditions of the poor in the city. The leadership must have governance skills and thus must be accountable, transparent, and participative in his dealings with people. 

            In terms of indicators, the support of the city government leadership may be measured according to: number and kinds of initiatives proposed and implemented, number of meetings called, number of planning sessions presided, number of committees and task forces created and organized, number of dialogues spearheaded; the incremental increase of the resources committed. Brillantes, Jr. (2001: 27) adds similar and other indicators. These are: participatory approach, leadership by example, visibility in all LGU affairs, openness to suggestions and ability to act on feedbacks, attainment of planned targets despite constraints, and ability to harness civil society and business sector for support.

            Quality and quantity of personnel/staff.  The excellence of the LGU and LUC personnel and staff is spelled out in their capable preparedness to meet crises within and without their respective organization, their willingness to anticipate and resolve problems

A personnel/staff force that has been trained, given career privileges and awards, will be able to   translate visions and plans into concrete action. 

Well-defined organization.  Another resource is a well-defined organization.  The city government organization must be structured in such a way that every employee therein knows his role and responsibilities, must be part of a team in which every member must coordinate with each other, and must have the knowledge, skills, and attitudes to translate everything to action.  The indicators of a well-defined organization may include:

clearly defined roles/assignments, streamlined and functional organizational chart,  adequate provision of necessary units/offices, complete staffing of units/offices, and

mechanisms for open lines of communication provided and in place.

            Managerial and technical expertise.   This component must be able to meet and solve the problems of the local university.  Both types of expertise are needed to affect a balanced approach to problem-solving.  The indicators of this resource include:  academic-non-academic personnel have good credentials, balanced specializations from different but relevant disciplines, and being equipped with adequate knowledge, attitudes, and skills.

            Funds and equipment availability.  The city government must have its words in guaranteeing funds and equipments for the LUC’s.  What it says and promises must be backed up in cash or in kind, (e.g., equipment).  The hard data however is that the share of education in total LGU spending has contracted from 7.6 percent in 1992-2000 to 6.2 percent in 2001-2005 (Manasan, et al, 2008: 14).  Availability of funds and equipment may be indicated by:  increase in enrolment, increase in government outlay, and increase of other sources of funds besides the government outlay, well-maintained equipment, and number of equipment used or ready for use.

            City government-local university relations.     Certainly, the success of the resources and capabilities of the organization has to bank on the cooperation between the stakeholders concerned.  The city leadership actions must be aligned with that of the local university and vice versa.  Wherever there is non-coordination, especially when inflated egos and political interests come in, the problems of the local university will aggravate to the students’ disadvantage.  It is imperative therefore that both stakeholders strike a middle balance, understand each other’s position, and make compromises.  The indicators of this resource/capability are: existing organizational climate supports coordination, team-working skills exist, and attainment of VMG valued highly over personal interests.

Outcomes

Outcomes may also be the equivalent of effective results of the responses/actions taken by the LGU.  According to Bateman & Snell (2011: 133-141), resources and capabilities more or less correspond to strengths and competencies of an organization. 

Granted that the two city governments have been successful in their efforts to solve the problems of the city-operated schools, outcomes may include:

- improved and responsive student services and facilities,

- better fiscal management,

- improved quality of teaching,

- more competitive salaries for teachers,

- harmonious coordination between LGU and LUC,

- majority of graduates passing the licensure examinations,

- majority of graduates getting a job, and

- contribution to city development. 

Improved and responsive student services and facilities.  Improved student services and facilities could be measured in terms of more study grants and scholarships available to students, greater amounts of loans available for student lending, more equitable arrangements in the payment of tuition and other school fees, more preventive actions against violence inside the campus through increase of security guards, more and cleaner toilets, more air-conditioned classrooms, more classrooms provided with television sets, more comfortable and cleaner canteens, more janitors to clean the inside and outside of buildings, easier and faster enrolment through complete computerization of student records and payment systems, among many others.

            Better fiscal management.  The outcome of better fiscal management could be measured in greater income, greater savings, greater investments plowed back for school improvement.  Good fiscal management results from a combination of inputs:  city government leadership, more training and development in resource management, awards and recognitions, investment in modern and efficient systems and procedures of doing things, among others. 

            Improved quality of teaching.  The improved quality of teaching is measured in the passing average of its graduates who take up licensure examinations, or the number of teachers who have been sent for further advance study in the master’s or doctorate degrees, or knowledge-enhancement short courses.  The more the number of successful examinees in licensure examinations from among the graduates, the more that the quality of teaching in the local university concerned has increased.  Also, the more the number of faculty members sent for advance studies in their fields, the more that their teaching is expected to have improved. The more professors with master’s and doctoral degrees, the better the quality of teachings.

            More competitive salaries of teachers.  More competitive salaries for the faculty may be measured in comparative terms with the salaries of teachers of the model local university, which is UMak. Indeed, teachers in universities must be encouraged to teach excellently. If salaries are low, it may prove a disincentive to their teaching.

            Harmonious coordination between LGU and LUC.  Responses such as frequent meetings and dialogues between LGU and LUC officials will result in increased communication and increased understanding among each other.  Of course, harmony also means setting aside petty partisan politics, personal intrigues and squabbles, for the sake of excellent educational services.  The number of capability-building programs provided to personnel and staff will contribute to harmonious behavior of employees and faculty in consonance with the code of ethics, good conduct of public servants, as well as other yardsticks such as the anti-red tape act, the balanced scorecard, the citizens’ charter, and the full disclosure policy.

            Majority of graduates passing the licensure examinations.  HEIs have been branded as producing graduates who cannot pass professional licensure examinations. Excellent quality teaching by encouraged teachers given various privileges and awards by the university, as well as learning-conducive classrooms and environment, might just make for the difference.  The increase of the number of graduates passing these licensure examinations will be the result of the responses of the LGU to problems of the LUC.

            Majority of graduates getting a job.  The most favorable outcome is the maximum employability of the local university’s graduates.  This could be measured in the percentage of its graduates who have already been employed.  The findings of tracer studies by the local university’s alumni relations office, if any, may be availed of to see how the responses of the city government have been contributing to the local university’s objectives of turning out the youth previously without access to quality education into productive manpower of the country. A complete tracer study of graduates may not have been done by the concerned schools, but a deeper interview on their offices of student affairs may provide reliable information.

            Contribution to city development.  Having the existence of a school, let alone a tertiary-level institution within the community is already enough contribution.  But other positive contributions by the LUC to city development result.  Through tax support, donor support, student spending, school personnel spending in the local area out of their wages and salaries, contribution to city development may include:  increase of sales transactions with small and big business establishments in the community, job orders, increase of income among businesses in the community, rise of property values, and other ways in which the LUC brings wealth into the community (Leslie & Brinkman, 1988: 90, 102).

Operational Definitions

Local universities and colleges (LUCs) – These are public HEIs.  According to CHED (CMO No. 10, series of 2005), an LUC refers to “a public higher education institution established by the local government through an enabling ordinance, and financially supported by the concerned LGU.”

The difference with state universities and colleges (SUCs) is that LUCs get their funding from the local governments while SUCs get theirs from the national government.  Sometimes, the distinction is blurred by some HEIs which before were classified as a SUC but later were categorized as LUC (the case of PLM).  Some were previously private and by some change became an LUC (the case of Pamantasan ng Cabuyao).  It should also be distinguished that some were previously called community colleges.  For example, we have the City of Malabon University (CMU) which began as Malabon Community College in 1993.   

            In the literature, one can also find the name “local colleges and universities” or LCUs.  CHED, however, uses “local universities and colleges” or LUCs.  Lastly, LUCs may be funded by a provincial government, by a city government, or a municipal government. Mabalacat College is an LUC funded by the municipal government of Mabalacat, Pampanga. Most LUCs are funded by city governments inasmuch as cities collect more revenues than municipalities. 

            There are now a total of 93 LUCs in the Philippines (CHED, 2012).  In the case of PLMAR, the faculty and employees of the local university are city hall employees.  They get their salaries from the city hall treasury.  In sum, PLMAR is “owned” by the Marikina city government.  This is not the case with PUP-SJ.  The faculty and employees are selected and managed as PUP employees but it is the city government of San Juan that pays their salaries.

Urban Poor - This is a category of the poor in the Philippines who live in cities and urban municipalities and earning low-incomes that are considered below the poverty line.  The NSCB (2009) defines the “urban poor” as “those residing in an urban area whose income falls below the official poverty threshold.”  The urban poor is one of the 14 sectors classified by the NSCB as the disadvantaged sectors of Philippine society.  The magnitude of the poor population for all sectors increased from 2003 to 2006.  Children, women, and the urban poor were the three sectors that accounted for the largest number of poor population in the Philippines at 14.4 million, 12.8 million, and 6.9 million respectively in 2006.

City LGUs – These are city local government units.  In the Philippines, the number of cities have increased to 143 as of August 12, 2012.  Cities are classified into highly urbanized cities (HUCs), independent component cities, and component cities.  HUCs are “LGUs that are autonomous from provinces and they have a minimum population of 200,000 with an annual income of at least P500 M” (at 1991 constant prices).  Cities are also classified from first class to sixth class according to average income earned.  First class cities have an average income of P400 M.  Marikina City and San Juan City are both classified as HUCs and first-class cities (http://www.cityblogs.nfo.ph/>, retrieved on January 8, 2013).

Policy environment – This refers to the body of laws and legal principles declaring mandates and provisions that pertain to the operations of city LGUs and their subsidized/funded LUCs.  This body of laws includes the 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, the Republic Act 7160 or the Local Government Code, the Republic Act 7722 or the Higher Education Act of 1994, CHED memorandum orders, and city resolutions and ordinances.  Altogether, they provide direction and guide to LUCs.

Local university problems – These refer to administrative and management areas in running the LUC where major issues and concerns have emerged that are critical to the long-term survival of the LUC as an institution of learning. These problems could be:  poor student services and facilities, poor quality of teaching, less competitive salaries for the faculty, income constraints, bureaucratic mindsets of employees, and employability of its graduates. 

City government and local university responses – These refer to the unilateral or joint responses of either the city government and the local university officials to remedy and solve the problems in the university.  These responses are measures, strategies, mechanisms, and other creative and innovative ways and means by which both officials of the city government and the university tackle the problems.  Among these innovations, strategies and measures may be the convening of the education committee of the city council or oversight committee (in the case of PUP-SJ), consulting with the CHED or the ALCU (in the case of PLMAR), legislating relevant resolutions and ordinances by the city council, petitions or requests for budget increases, funds campaign to look for alternative financing, reorganizations, improving instruction quality through accreditation and selective hiring of faculty, and capability-building programs.

Capabilities and resources.  These are the core competencies and strengths of both the city government and the local university (Bateman & Snell, 2011). Given the problems of the local university, city hall leaders harness these capabilities and resources to help them solve the problems of the local university.  These capabilities and resources include:  the quality of leadership of the city mayor as well as of the city council and the local university officials, the clear definition of roles and responsibilities as these are well-delineated in the organizational structure, the managerial and technical expertise of support and technical staff, the availability of funds and other resources, the cooperation between the city government and the local university, and the intergovernmental relations with outside agencies such as the CHED.

            The more excellent the capabilities and resources of the city government are, the better that it can meet the problems of the local university.  Poor capabilities and resources cannot hope to solve the abovementioned problems.

Outcomes.  This is the longer-term results wherein objectives are achieved and problems are effectively solved.  The study proposes the following outcomes: :  improved and responsive student services and facilities, better fiscal management, improved quality of teaching, more competitive salaries of teachers, majority of its graduates pass the licensure examinations, majority of its graduates landing a job, and contribution to city development. 

Access.  The formal definition of “access” is “the right to participate in an educational programme” (European Commission, 2005). Lack of access is the result of inequity, which refers to “the presence of systematic and potentially remediable differences among population groups defined socially, economically or geographically” (Starfield, 2011).  In the context of the present study, access is equal opportunity of the poor to be admitted into tertiary institutions. Indicators of access would be: admission requirements, costs of attending college, and financial support to students (scholarships, grants, loans). The poor have to be given access to education because it is also within their democratic right to have a college education (UNESCO, 2000: 6; Co, et al, 2007)

CHAPTER 5:

 METHODOLOGY

            This chapter on methodology embraces the research design, data sources, key informants as primary sources and archival documents as the primary and secondary sources respectively, the interview guide as instrument, data gathering procedures, and data analysis technique.

Research Design

            The study is classified as a qualitative study and it uses descriptive, analytical and explanatory approach in the investigation of the data.  The research design used is the case study, which is the appropriate approach to examine a pioneer research subject, which is the city government’s educational services provision in the tertiary level, yet an unstudied area.

            The first step in the research design was the selection of case study or case studies. After consultation with the dissertation adviser, two city governments – Marikina City and San Juan City – were chosen as twin case studies.  Of the various levels of the local government system, the city level was selected because cities are the more affluent LGUs and therefore their fiscal status affords them to establish educational institutions.  Among the cities, the selection narrowed down to NCR cities, specifically, two particular city LGUs – Marikina City and San Juan City. 

Several reasons form the basis for the selection of these two cities:

1.      The two cities represent unique and special cases.  Marikina and San Juan represent cities that received awards in the delivery of basic services, such as the environment, health and nutrition, in safety and protection, in fiscal strengths. However, their accomplishment in educational services provision has not been examined yet.  It is assumed that because of their record in the basic services delivery, the logic is that they have also done the same in educational services provision in the tertiary level.

2.      The two city mayors enjoy popular prestige and status even at the start of their first term.  MCF is the wife of Bayani Fernando, whom she succeeded in 2001. JV is the son of former city mayor of San Juan, Joseph Estrada, who went on to become senator, vice president, and president of the Philippines.  He thus shares the popularity of his father and of his half-brother, Jinggoy Estrada, whom he succeeded as San Juan mayor in 2001.

3.      Both MCF and JV, started and ended their terms at the same time, implemented programs and projects that redounded to the benefit of the city residents, who became very satisfied with their handling of the city government.

4.      Both are relatively young and new mayors who despite their relative inexperience, they have produced good programs and projects.  Young as they are, they may be considered neophytes in the game of politics and public administration.  They made it good and delivered the services in contrast to local executives who had had years of experience behind them but were not able to do what MCF and JV had done in a short time.

5.      The two cities rank as progressive cities in Metro Manila.  The improvement and development of the two cities are very phenomenal, and many of the reasons forwarded both by academics and non-academics is all about good performance or good governance of these two city mayors.

The big difference between the two is that PLMAR is a local university fully owned by the city government of Marikina.  PUP-SJ, on the other hand, was created following a division of labor between the city government of San Juan and the PUP whose main branch is in Sta. Mesa.  The San Juan city government provides the full funding while the PUP provides the management of the local university.   How this big difference translates to how both city governments respond to the problems of their respective local university is an interesting angle to see and analyze.

The second step in the research design is the review of the literature.  This entailed library research in several units of the University of the Philippines Library, namely, the NCPAG library, College of Education library, and School of Economics library, as well as that of the CHED which was also located within the UP Diliman campus. Internet research also yielded valuable data from various websites. The findings from the literature furnished information on what the LUCs are, their history, profiles, the ALCU, problems of LUCs, and what have been the responses from the viewpoint of the CHED.

Not content with the above information from the literature, the third step in the research design was to include data from an informal interview of a few currently-enrolled students of PLMAR, PUP-SJ, and of other schools, as well as of a few employees at the city hall of both cities. The intention is to identify and list down the problems that the students have with their schools, including the problems that city hall employees have identified as regards the local university budget and management.  For this, the research design went into the fourth step:  the construction of an interview guide basically asking students what their problems had been with their school (See Appendix 2 for the contents and question items of the interview guide).

The fifth step was to determine who the main respondents are.  The consultation with the adviser yielded the need to interview key informants at the city hall and at the local university.  These were identified with the help of the adviser.  The sixth step was logically to construct the formal questionnaire to be used in the interview with the key respondents.  It is expected that their responses would form the bases of the answers to the stated problem of the study. Each of the elements of the framework will be included in the interviews and surveys.

Data Sources

            Two general categories of data sources are made use of:  the primary and the secondary data sources.  The primary sources of data in this study are the responses of top city hall officials and top local university officials to the questions posed to them in the questionnaire. Interview with the key informants will be arranged for this matter.  The preliminary interviews with students and selected employees at the city hall will be conducted, with the questions centered on what problems they perceived in the local university funded by the city LGU.

The secondary data sources involve the content analysis of the document files and records available at the relevant offices of the city hall and the local university.  From the city hall, the secondary sources gathered included annual reports, receipts and expenditures, the budget, proceedings of the Sangguniang Panglunsod (SP), proceedings of meetings between the city hall officials and the local university officials, of the Education Committee of the SP and of the Oversight Committee for PUP-SJ, employment of graduates, among others.  From the local university, the materials sourced were brochures, minutes of meetings, enrolment figures, total school charges during enrolment, and annual reports.

            Secondary data sources also came from CHED and from journal articles, books, theses and dissertations from various library units in the University of the Philippines, notably from the NCPAG and School of Economics unit libraries.

            Analysis of secondary data should be done first so it could help in the research on primary data. 

The Respondents 

            A preliminary set of respondents for the primary data consisting of students of the local university under study and selected employees of the city hall was asked via an informal interview to identify the problems of the local university.  The problems identified formed the bases of the conceptualization of the framework of analysis as well as the formulation of the statement of the problem of the study.

In the data gathering proper, the study will have two sets of respondents.  They consist of key informants from both the city hall and the local university.  The key informants are top officials in these public offices.  At the city hall, the key informants are the current city mayors, the former city mayors, the vice mayors, selected members of the Sangguniang Panglunsod, the chair of the Education Committee of the Sanggunian, the treasurer, including in the case of PUP-SJ, the Oversight Committee.

            At the local university, the key informants are the university/college president, vice president for academic affairs, the vice president for administration, the human resource development officer, the treasurer, selected students and alumni.

            As key informants, they possess important knowledge of the organization and are privy to the concerns of this study.  Hence, their responses are considered reliable and substantial for purposes of the study.  

The Instruments 

            The study makes use of various instruments.  The first one is the content analysis of documents gathered and collected.  The second is the interview guide as a preliminary instrument and at the same time supplementary instrument to the main instrument, the questionnaire.  The interview guide is for students of the local university and for the employees at the city hall, and conducted preliminary to the questionnaire.  The latter instrument is for the key respondents. 

            In the preliminary interview of a few selected students and employees, the aim is to identify the problems of the local university.  The respondents were asked to identify the problems they perceived and observed in the local university (See Appendix 2).  Although HEI problems are almost the same, the preliminary interview of selected students will provide a grounded and school-specific perspective of the most pending problems of the two LUCs covered in the study.

In the study proper, the main instrument used will be the structured questionnaire designed to get the responses of key informants.  The researcher’s own background and familiarity with city hall affairs guided him to initially draft and organize the questionnaire.  This was refined after consultation with the adviser.  The refinement came in the form of deletion of some original question items, or merging some of those that seem to ask the same question.

The questionnaire is made up into two parts.  One is the socio-economic profile of the respondent.  The other is the set of questions relevant to the study.  The latter portion (the question set) is composed of open-ended questions.  For convenience, it is subdivided into the responses at the time that the university was about to be established, followed by responses at the time that the local university is already in operation.  They all ask the key informant what the city hall or local university has done to answer the tertiary-education needs of the city’s residents in two different phases of the local university’s existence. 

The Data Gathering

            The secondary sources, that is, the secondary materials, were the first gathered from relevant offices.  It is expected that the researcher will encounter difficult time with approaching city hall offices even if the information sought is for public use and despite the implementation of the anti-red tape law and the full disclosure policy of the government.  To avoid such difficulties, a formal letter from the researcher’s adviser that is addressed to the official concerned may be of great help. 

            The secondary sources of data provide valuable information that may only be waiting to be confirmed and validated with the findings from the questionnaire.  They triangulate with the other kinds of data generated from other sources.

            In administering the questionnaire, the researcher will have to seek the permission of the respondents.  This is because the interview takes time from their work at the city hall or at the university. A research aide will have to be hired to take down the responses while the researcher is communicating with the respondents.  The time that it will take for the interview to finish is estimated to be 30 minutes.  In case that some responses may appear vaguely responded to, the researcher may have to conduct a follow-up interview for those few question items where the response of the informant was vague.

            The timetable for data gathering is one month.  Two weeks is the length of time reserved for the interview of the city hall key informants, and another two weeks for the local university key respondents. 

The Data Analysis

            After all the data have been gathered, the data analysis begins.  Responses are grouped according to common themes.  Frequency in terms of number of responses and the corresponding percentage are made use of.  Only the first ten common responses are tabulated, the rest whose frequency counts only up to one count are all lumped up as “others.”

            Data may also be displayed not just in tabular form but also in pie charts or bar charts for an alternative way of displaying and interpreting the data. 

Time Frame and Research Schedule 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Africa, B. (1961).  Rizal and education.  Tondo, Manila:  Juan Luna Printing Press.

Alderfer, H (1964). Local Government in Developing Countries. New York

Alexander, F.K. (2006).  Concluding Remarks.  In What’s happening to public higher education? (337-344). Boston, Mass.: MIT Press.   CHED Library

Alonzo, R.P. (1995).  Education and national development:  Some economic perspectives.  In If we’re so smart, why aren’t we rich?  Manila and Quezon City:  Congressional Oversight Committee on Education and Congress of the Republic of the Philippines.

Alzona, E. (1932).  A history of education in the Philippines (1565-1930).  Manila:  University of the Philippines Press.

Andrade, P. (2001). Education and Spanish in the Philippines.  Madrid, Spain:  Asociacion Cultural Galeon de Manila.  See also Domecq, J. (2012).  Education in the Philippines during the Spanish colonial era.  Retrieved from http://www.galeondemanila.org/>, on December 18, 2012.

Aquino, S. & Bagcal, C. (1981). Tuition fee control, equalization of educational opportunities, and quality of education.  LG 993.5   1981  E2   A686  Econ

Balisacan, A.M. (1995).  Poverty, inequality, and public policy.  In If we’re so smart, why aren’t we rich?  Manila and Quezon City:  Congressional Oversight Committee on Education and Congress of the Republic of the Philippines.

Balmores, N.R. (1990).  The quality of higher education in the Philippines.  Quezon City: UP-Center for Integrative and Development Studies.

Bateman, T.S. & Snell, S.A. (2011, 9th Ed.).  Management; Leading & collaborating in a competitive world.  New York:  McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

Bautista, V.A., Alfiler, M.C.P., Reyes, D.R., & Tapales, P.D. (Eds.) (2002).  Introduction to public administration in the Philippines:  A reader (66-76).  Quezon City:  NCPAG, University of the Philippines.

Biglete, A.A., Garcia, L.S., Bustos, A.S., & Salazar, R.C., Jr. (2004).  Strategies for quality and excellence.  In M.D. Valisno (Ed.), Commission on Higher Education:  A decade of service to the nation (37-    ). Pasig City:  CHED.

Bjork, C. (Ed.) (2006).  Educational decentralization (Education in the Asia-Pacific Region:  Issues, Concerns, Prospects).  Dordrecht, The Netherlands:  Springer.

Blaug, M. (Ed.) (1992).  The economic value of education:  Studies in the economics of education.  Aldershot, Hants, England:  E. Elgar Publishing Co.

Brillantes, A.B., Jr. (2001).  Developing indicators of local governance in the Philippines:  Towards an “ISO” for LGUs.  Philippine Journal of Public Administration, 45 (1 & 2): 18-34.

_______. (2002). Decentralized democratic governance under the local government code:  A governmental perspective.  In Tapales, P.D. & Brillantes, A.B., Jr. (Eds.) Local government in the Philippines:  A book of readings, Vol. III. (27-48).  Quezon City: Center for Local and Regional Governance, National College of Public Administration and Governance, University of the Philippines-Diliman.

Caoili, O.C. & Valenzuela, E.A.P. (2004).  Internationalization of higher education:  Patterns, trends, status, and direction.  In M.D. Valisno (Ed.), Commission on Higher Education:  A decade of service to the nation (153-     ). Pasig City:  CHED.

Capuno, J.J. (2008-2009).  A case study of the decentralization of health and education services in the Philippines.  HDN Discussion Paper Series No. 3.  School of Economics, University of the Philippines-Diliman, Quezon City.

Capuno, J.J. & Orbeta, A.C., Jr. (Eds.) (2008).  Human capital and development in the Philippines:  A festschrift in honor of Alejandro N. Herrin.

Carino, L.V. (1998). Governance in Local Communities: Towards Development and Democracy. In P.D. Tapales, J.C. Cuaresma & W. Cabo (Eds.), Local Government in the Philippines;  A book of readings, Vol. I. Quezon City: Center for Local and Regional Governance, National College of Public Administration and Governance, University of the Philippines-Diliman.

Cariño, L.V. (2002).  Devolution for democracy and development.  In P.D. Tapales & A.B. Brillantes, Jr. (Eds.), Local Government in the Philippines;  A book of readings, Vol. III (5-26).  Quezon City: Center for Local and Regional Governance, National College of Public Administration and Governance, University of the Philippines-Diliman.

Checchi, D. (2006).  The economics of education; Human capital, family background, and inequality.  Cambridge, Mass:  Cambridge University Press.

Co, E.E.A., Fernan, R.L. III, & Sta. Ana, F. III (2007).  Philippine democracy assessment: Economic and social rights.  Pasig City:  Anvil Pub.

Commission on Higher Education (CHED) (2004).  Commission on higher education:  A decade of service to the nation.  Pasig City:  CHED.

Cortes, J.R. & Balmores, N.R. (1992).  State of Philippine education:  Tension between equity and quality.  Quezon City:  UP-CIDS.

CHED (2004).  Annual Report 2004.  Pasig City:  CHED.

CHED (2008).  Annual Report 2008.  Pasig City: CHED.

CHED (2012).  Status report of 93 existing local universities and colleges.  Quezon City: CHED, UP-Diliman.

Dannug, R.R. & Campanilla, M.B. (2003).  Politics, governance and government with Philippine constitution.  San Juan, Metro Manila:  C & E Publishing, Inc.

De Guzman, R.P. & P.L.Padilla (1992) “Decentralization: Concept and as a Local  Deve

            lopment Strategy”,  in Padilla, P. (ed.) Strengthening Local Government Administration and Accelerating Local Development, Quezon City: LGC, CPA-UP

De Guzman, R.P. & Reforma, M.A. (2002).  Decentralization towards democratization and development in the Asian Pacific Region.  In Tapales, P.D., Cuaresma, J.C., & Cabo, W.L. (Eds.), Local government in the Philippines:  A book of readings (21-66).  Quezon City:  CLRG, NCPAG, UP.

De los Santos, A.B. & Garcia, S.F. (2002).  The internal efficiency and effectiveness of state colleges and universities in the Philippines.  Undergraduate research seminar.  School of Economics, University of the Philippines, Quezon City.

 “Does formal education alleviate poverty in the Philippines?” (1996, June). Philippine Journal of Education, 75 (1):  6-8.

Domingo, M.O.Z. (2004).  Good governance of civil society organizations and the role of the boards.  Dissertation submitted for the degree of Doctor of Public Administration.   NCPAG, University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City.

Dulay, S.C. (2003).  A strategy for the Institute of Accounts, Business and Finance of the Far Eastern University.  A Management Research Report submitted for the degree of Master in Development Management, Asian Institute of Management, Makati City.

_______. (2011).  The emergence of Marikina way.  Retrieved from http://marikina ideology.blogspot.com/>, on April 7, 2011.

Ernst & Young (2012).  University of the future:  A thousand year old industry on the cusp of profound change.  UK:  Ernst & Young Global Limited.  Retrieved from http://www.ey.com/, on December 27, 2012.

European Commission (2005).  Study on access to education and training.  UK: ECOTEC Research and Consulting Ltd.

Garcia, E.A. (2004).  Rationalization of the public higher education system.  In Garcia, E.A. (Ed.), Managing a modern university in the Philippines (1-25). Quezon City:  The University of the Philippines Press and the UP Center for Integrative and Development Studies.

Gonzalez, D.T. (Ed.) (1999).  The will to change; Marikina and its innovations.  Marikina City:  City Government of Marikina and the Ateneo School of Governance.

Hernandez, B (2013). More Public Spending for Private Education.PDI. Makati. March 2013.

Ibe, M., Perez, R.P., & Quebengco, C.P. (2004).  Meeting the challenge on access and equity of higher education.  In M.D. Valisno (Ed.), Commission on Higher Education:  A decade of service to the nation (107-152).  Pasig City:  CHED.

ILO (2010).  Local economic development and youth employment in the Philippines:  The case of Marikina City.  ILO Asia-Pacific Working Paper Series.  Manila:  ILO Subregional Office for Southeast Asia and the Pacific.

Isidro, A.S. (1949).  The Philippine educational system.  Manila:  Bookman.

_______. (1949a).  Some problems of higher education in the Philippines.  A report submitted to the Joint Congressional Committee on Education.  Manila: s.n. 

Lam, L.T.A. (2005, August).  Human resource development and poverty in the Philippines.  Discussion Paper Series No. 2005-17.  Makati City:  PIDS.

Lazaro, M.S.R. & Lontoc, M.C.A. (2012).  Are state colleges and universities worthwhile public investments?  Thesis submitted for Economics 199.  School of Economics, University of the Philippines, Quezon City.

Leaño, R.D., Jr. (1992).  Community colleges in Region 1:  An assessment.  Thesis submitted for the degree of Master of Arts in Education, National Teachers College, Manila.

Lee, M.N.N. (1997).  Reforms in higher education in Malaysia.  In R. Barnett (Ed.), Reforms in higher education (195-205).  London: Cassell.

Leslie, L.L. & Brinkman, P.T. (1988).  The economic value of higher education.  New York:  American Council on Education/Macmillan Publishing Co.

Licuanan, P.B. (2012).  Challenges in higher education. Retrieved from http://www.aaccupqa.org.ph/, on December 27, 2012.

Local Government Center, College of Public Administration, UP (1994).  Report on the administrative capability of the municipal government of San Juan.  Quezon City:  UP-Diliman.

Lorenzo, Carmelita (2009). Marikina City: The Past 15 Years. Marikina: Public Information Office.

Lugaz, C., et al. (Eds.) (2010).  Schooling and decentralization:  Patterns and policy implications in Francophone West Africa.  Paris:  UNESCO.

Macasaet-Barro, M.M. (2001).  Pamantasan ng Makati:  Innovative educational strategies to ensure graduate employability.  Case study, Asian Institute of Management, Makati City.

Marikina City (2008).  City Development Strategies Report, Marikina City.  Marikina City Government.

Marikina City (2012). Facts and Figures, Marikina City. CPDO

Manasan, R.G. (2012).  Rationalizing the public higher education service.  Development Research News, 30 (2): 1-7.

Manasan, R.G., Cuenca, J.S., & Villanueva-Ruiz, E.C. (2008).  Benefit incidence of public spending on education in the Philippines.  PIDS Discussion Paper Series.  Makati City:  Philippine Institute of Development Studies.

Medina, C.H. (1991).  The academic governance of state institutions of higher learning in the Bicol Region.  PhD dissertation.    Diss. 378.101  M468a  1991   Nat’l Lib

Meinardus, R. (2003).  The crisis of public education in the Philippines.  Retrieved from http://www.fnf.org.ph/>, on January 3, 2013.  Business World Internet edition (June 30, 2003).

Mendoza, M.L. (Ed.) (2000).  Measuring good governance in the Philippines.  Pasig City:  Development Academy of the Philippines.    JQ 1431  M43   NCPAG, Econ, Educ, MLib Fil

_______ , Gonzalez, E.T., III, & Gaffud, R.. (2000).  Between good management and good governance:  The case for the Philippine Quality Award.  In Mendoza, M.L. (Ed.) (2000).  Measuring good governance in the Philippines (347-375).  Pasig City:  Development Academy of the Philippines.   

Montes, R.N. (2011).  Injecting competition in service delivery in Makati.  In Brillantes, A.B., Jr., et al (Eds.), Reinventing a local government in the Philippines:  The Makati experience (85-118).  Center for Local and Regional Governance, National College of Public Administration and Governance, University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City.

National Statistics Coordination Board (2009).  Poverty statistics for the basic sectors.  Retrieved from http://www.nscb.gov.ph/>, on January 6, 2013.

_______ (2009).  2003 city and municipal level poverty estimates.  NSCB:  Makati City.

_______ (2012).  Metro Manila has the ‘least poor’ localities.  Retrieved from http://www.manilatimes.net/>, on February 5, 2013.

National Statistics Office, National Capital Region – District lll (2013). Marikina City, a Profile.Quezon City, March 2013

Neira, E. (1994).  Glimpses into the history of San Juan.  San Juan, Metro Manila:  Life Today Publications.

Ocenar, Remigio D. (2001).  Policy and planning responses to solid waste management (SWM) problems in two municipalities in the Philippines:  A case study.  Dissertation submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Urban and Regional Planning, School of Urban and Regional Planning, University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City.

Orbeta, A. C, Jr. (2003).  Education, labor market, and development:  A review of the trends and issues in the Philippines for the past 25 years.  PIDS Discussion Paper Series No. 2002-19.  Makati City:  PIDS.

OECD (2012).  Education spending rising but access to higher education remains unequal in most countries, says OECD.  In Education at a Glance (Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/>, on February 11, 2013).

Philippine Institute of Development Studies (2011).  PIDS economic policy monitor, education for development.  Makati City:  PIDS.

Ranson, S. (1992).  The role of local government in education:  Assuring quality and accountability.  Harlow, Essex, England:  Longman.

Republic Act No. 7160 (1991). An Act Providing for a Local Government Code of 1991. 

Rizal, J.P. (1890).  Sobre la indolencia de los Filipinos.  In La Solidaridad (July 15, 1890, July 31, 1890, and August 31, 1890 issues).

Santiago, D.B. (1951).  Philippine education during the Japanese occupation.  Master of Arts thesis, University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City.

Solmon, L.C. (1986).  The quality of education and economic growth:  A review of the literature.  In The quality of education and economic development (7-16).  Washington, D.C.:  WB.

Starfield, B. (2011).  The hidden inequity in health care.  International Journal for Equity in Health, 10: 15.

Tan, E.A. (1973).  Causes of unemployment of educated labor.  Philippine Economic Journal, 12 (Nos. 1 & 2):  607-626.

_______. (1995). The education-labor market of the Philippines.  In If we’re so smart, why aren’t we rich?  Manila and Quezon City:  Congressional Oversight Committee on Education and Congress of the Republic of the Philippines.

_______. (1983).  The Philippine educational system:  The case of unplanned education.  Paper presented at the RIHED-ARTEP workshop on manpower planning in ASEAN countries in RIHED, Singapore, December 13-15, 1983.  Singapore:  ILO-ARTEP/RIHED.

_______. (2011).  What’s wrong with the Philippine higher education?  Retrieved from http://www.econ.upd.edu.ph/>, on January 3, 2013.

_______ & Miao, E. (1971).  The structure and performance of Philippine educational institutions.  Discussion Paper No. 71-12.  Quezon City:  School of Economics, University of the Philippines.

Task Force on Higher Education (TFHE) (1995).  Philippine higher education in the 21st century:  Strategies for excellence and equity.  Manila:  TFHE.

Tigno, J.V. (2003).  Governance and public policy in the Philippines:  Republic Act 8042 and the deregulation of the overseas employment sector.  Dissertation submitted for the degree of Doctor of Public Administration.  NCPAG, University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City.

Torres, J.V.Z. (2007).  In transition, the University of Santo Tomas during the American colonial period (1898-1935).  Manila:  UST Publishing House.

Travina, M. (1980).  Returns to educational investment in the Philippines    LG 993.5   1980  E2  T73  Econ

UNDP.  (1997, January).  Governance for sustainable development:  A UNDP policy document.  New York:  UNDP.

UNESCO.  (2000). The reform and development of higher education in the Philippines (2000).  Manila:  Department of Foreign Affairs, Philippine National Commission for UNESCO Education Committee.   LA 1298   R43   Econ

Valisno, M.D. (2004).  Introduction.  In Commission on Higher Education:  A decade of service to the nation.  Pasig City:  CHED.

World Bank (1995).  Advancing social development.  Washington, D.C.: WB.

Zaide, G.F. (1959).  History of the Filipino people. Manila.

Internet sources:

http://www.plm.edu.ph/, retrieved on December 15, 2012.

http://dokumentaryonijuantagalog.weebly.com/san-juan.html, retrieved Nov. 24, 2012.

http:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/>, retrieved on November 25, 2012.

http://www.sanjuancity.gov.ph/>, retrieved on March 6, 2012.

http://www.worldmayor.com/>, retrieved on March 3, 2012.

http://www.jvejercito.com/>, retrieved on March 3, 2012.

http://joshweinstein.wordpress.com/>, retrieved on January 3, 2013.

http://philippineconstition.1987.wordpress.com/>, retrieved on November 25, 2012.

http://light18.byethost14.com/PUP/Facilities.html, retrieved on December 26, 2012.

http://light18.byethost14.com/PUP/History.html, retrieved on November 25, 2012.

http://www.facebook.com/>, retrieved on January 6, 2013.

http://www.nscb.gov.ph/>, retrieved on January 6, 2013.

2012 approved ordinances.  Retrieved from http://www.syncsysph.com/>, on December 22, 2012.

Already no. 1, san juan redesigns itself as the city of the future (2012).  Retrieved from http://www.manilaltimes.net/>, on January 6, 2013.

City of San Juan.  Tagumpay ng San Juan.  Retrieved from http://sanjuandemo.wordpress.com/>, on March 7, 2012.

Comments in support of Marides Fernando.  Retrieved from http://www.worldmayor.com/>, on March 7, 2012.

Comments to Marikina life:  PLMAR turns seven!  Retrieved from http://www.marikinalife.com/> on December 22, 2012.

Higher education in the Philippines.  Retrieved from http:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/>, on December 22, 2012

Local college and university (Philippines).  Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/>, on December 29, 2012.

Magna Carta for Public School Teachers, Republic Act # 4670.Retrieved from http://www.slideshare.net/jaredram55/republic-act-no-4670-magna-carta-for-public-school-teachers /> on March 26, 2013

Ocampo, A. (2008).  Real challenge in Philippine education.  Philippine Daily Inquirer (Jan. 17, 2008).  Retrieved from http://www.aocampo@ateneo.edu.com/

Philippine education ranked poor (2011).  Retrieved from http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/>, on January 3, 2013.

Philippines – educational system – an overview.  Retrieved from http://www.education.stateuniversity.com/>, on December 30, 2012.

Poverty, hunger prevent Filipino kids from getting basic education.  Retrieved from http://www.gmanetwork.com/>, on January 3, 2013.

Poverty statistics for the basic sectors (2006).  Retrieved from http://www.nscb.gov.ph/>, on January 6, 2013.

PUPSJ celebrates 1st anniversary.  Retrieved from http://pupwsj.webs.com/>, on December 24, 2012.

RA No. 9388, San Juan City Charter.  Retrieved from http://philippinelaw.info/statutes/

            ra9388-san-juan-city-charter.html, on January 6, 2013.

San Juan city government allocates P50M for PUP-San Juan campus.  Retrieved from http://allvoices.com/news/>, on November 26, 2012.

San Juan city mayor accomplishments (2001-2010).  Retrieved from http://www.jvejercito.com/>, on March 7, 2012.

San Juan provides 300 scholarships.  Retrieved from http://www.mb.com.ph/>, on December 24, 2012.

Teope, R.J.O.  (2008). The problems and issues in the Philippine educational system.  A six-minute lecture.  Retrieved from http://www.google.com.ph/

The current problems in Philippine education.  Retrieved from http://filipinianastuff.blogspot.com/, posted by Archer’s Mind on February 23, 2008.

The historic city of San Juan.  Retrieved from http://www.sanjuancitygov.ph/>, on March 6, 2012.

The top 10 richest Philippine districts and provinces.  Retrieved from http://www.bukisa.com/>, on January 6, 2013.

Top 10 best cities to live in the Philippines.  Retrieved from http://www.trifter.com/>, on January 6, 2013.

Urdaneta City University.  Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/>, on January 6, 2013

WB:  Poor education holds back Philippines (2012).  Retrieved from http://business.inquirer.net/>, on January 3, 2013.

World Data on Education (2006/2007).  Philippines.  Retrieved from http://wwwibe.unesco.org/> on December 22, 2012)

APPENDIX 1. THE QUESTIONNAIRE

Dear Sir/Madam,

            This is a questionnaire of a study for the degree of Doctor of Public Administration (DPA) at the National College of Public Administration (NCPAG), University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City.  The title of the study is:  “The City LGU and Its Local University:  Marikina City and San Juan City Responses to Tertiary-Education Services and Development.”

            The objective of the study is to identify and determine the responses of the city hall and the local university to the needs and problems of tertiary-education in the respective cities covered.

            Please spare some time for answering this questionnaire, whose findings will go a long way in looking at how local universities and colleges may be assisted.

            Thank you.

                                                                                                            Sofronio C. Dulay

                                                                                                            DPA Student

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Part 1.  Socio-Economic Profile of Respondent

Name: _________________________

Position: _______________________

Length of service with the city hall (for city hall respondents): ________________

Length of service with the university (for university respondents): _____________

Part 2.  The Responses to Tertiary-Education Needs and Problems

A.  Establishing the University

      1.  Why did the city hall leadership decide to establish a local university?

• 1. Who were the people that the city leadership consulted with in the decision to establish the local university?   How and where were the consultations/meeting sessions held?  How many consultations/meetings were held?

• 1. When the decision to establish a local university was made, what policies were ironed out in

     1. selectivity of students?

• • 1. pricing tuition and other school fees?

• • 1. teacher qualifications?

• • 1. curricular offerings?

• • 1. sources of income?

• 1. (Only for San Juan respondents)  What were the terms of agreement between the city government of San Juan and the PUP in the abovementioned areas?

B.   Maintaining the University

• 1. What may have been the “birth pains” or the problems that cropped up during the first year of operation of the university?

• 1. How were these resolved?

• 1. How much is the budget given by the city hall to the local university?  How much percentage is this to the total budget of the city hall, and its percentage to total budget for services?

• 1. Are there budget shortages?  How have these been resolved?

• 1. To what extent has the city hall and the local government responded to other problems such as:

     1. student services and facilities?

• • 1. low competitive salaries of teachers?

• • 1. poor quality of teaching?

• • 1. employability of its graduates?

• • 1. traditional bureaucratic mindsets of employees?

• 1. What roles did the following responses played in the solution of the problems in tertiary-education services delivery?:

      a.   Education Committee of the Sanggunian?

• • 1. consultations with CHED/ALCU officials?

• • 1. passage of responsive Sanggunian ordinances?

• • 1. petitions for budget increase?  

• • 1. funds campaign for increase of budget or for external assistance?

• • 1. reorganizations?

• • 1. improving instruction quality through accreditation?

• • 1. benchmarking?

• 1. To what extent did the following internal capabilities and resources of the city hall and the local university helped in the solution of the concerns in tertiary-education services delivery?

a.       city leadership?

b.      university leadership?

c.       coordination between the city hall and the local university?

d.      availability of funds and equipment?

e.   managerial and technical expertise?

APPENDIX 2.

INTERVIEW GUIDE

(Preliminary interview of students and city hall employees)

Instructions:  The questions are open-ended.  Please supply your own opinion on the problems of the local university in your city.  For Marikina City, the school is PLMAR; for San Juan City, the school is PUP-SJ.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1.  Of the many school-related problems that can be identified in your local university, name the top three school problems which you think the city hall leadership must attend to as its priority.

     a.

     b.

     c.

2.  Can you explain why these problems occur in your local university?

3. How much tuition fee is charged per unit?  Is the school’s tuition fee affordable to poor students?

4. Name some problems related to

    a.  classroom size

    b.  classroom ventilation (windows, electric fans, air-conditioning)

    c.  classroom chairs

    d.  classroom board

    e.  classroom audio-visual equipment (TV screen, sound system)

    f.   speech laboratory facilities

    g.  computer laboratory facilities

    h.  science laboratory facilities

    i.   library materials

    j.   access/availability of scholarships

    k.  access/availability of student loans

    l.   security and safety to students

    m. enrolment and paying processes

    n.  quality of teachers

    o.  shortage of city hall funds

    p.  work diligence and commitment of employees

    q.  employability of graduates

    r.   salaries of teachers

    s.   career growth and development of teachers

APPENDIX 3.  ALCU Member Schools

The following is the list of 36 local universities and colleges or LUCs (out of a total of 93 LUCs in the Philippines) that are members of the Association, as of 2011.  These include:

1.      Mabalacat College (established 2007), Dr. Leonardo Canlas, College President

2.      Bacolod City College (established 1997), Engr. Reynaldo P. Parrenas, College Administrator

3.      Bago City College (established 1988), Dr. Ramona C. Lamo, OIC College Administrator

4.      City College of San Fernando, Pampanga (established 2009),Dr. Lourdes M. Javier, College President

5.      City College of Oliver Dizon (established 2002), Dr. Oliver G. Dizon, College President

6.      Bulacan Polytechnic College (established 1971), Dr. Gerardo C. Cruz

7.      City College of Calapan (established 2008), Dr. Rene M. Colocar, College Administrator

8.      City College of Tagaytay (established 2003), Prof. Aurora T. Malabanan, College Administrator

9.      City of Malabon University (established 1994), Atty. Ramon M. Maronilla, Acting President

10.  Dr. Filemon C. Aguilar College (established 1998, Las Pinas), Prof. Conrado C. Aguilar, President

11.  Gordon College (established 1999), Prof. Arlida M. Pame

12.  Gov. Alfonso D. Tan College (established 1984, Tangub City, Misamis Occidental), Mrs. Jennifer W. Tan

13.  Mandaue City College (established 2005), Dr. Paulus Mariae L. Canete, Regional Coordinator, replaced by Dr. Susana B. Cabahug, OIC

14.  La Carlota City College (established 1966), Dr. Fatima Bullos, replaced by Lydia V. Penafiel, President

15.  Laguna University (established 2006), Dr. Bonifacio E. Umaclap, VPAA, replaced by Hon. Teresita S. Lazaro

16.  Mariano Quinto Alarilla Polytechnic College (established 2003, Meycauayan City), Dr. Elena D. Cuvin, then Ms. Josefina Clave-Acala.

17.  Navotas Polytechnic College (established 1994), Ms. Francisca S. Roque, President

18.  Pamantasan ng Bayan ng San Mateo (established 2004), Ms. Elisa A. Carpio, President

19.  Pamantasan ng Cabuyao (established 2003), Mr. Roberto C. Atmosfera, President

20.  Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila (established 1965), Atty. Rafaelito M. Garayblas, replaced by Dr. Benjamin G. Tayabas, President

21.  Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Marikina (established 2003), Dr. Nilo L. Roque, replaced by Dr. Dalisay G. Brawner, President

22.  Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Muntinlupa (established 1991), Dr. Fe Nazareno-Martinez, President

23.  Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Pasay (established 1994), Iris Leonore Ostrea, rreplaced by Ms. Yolanda F. Cruz, President

24.  Pamantasan ng Montalban (established 2004), Dr. Domingo B. Nuñez, replaced by Mr. Pedro C. Cuerpo

25.  Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Pasig (established 1999), Hernando Gomez, OIC, replaced by Dr. Rosalinda V. Tirona, President

26.  Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Taguig (established 2006), Ms. Anna Maria Theresa N. Umali, VPASA, replaced by Fr. Rolando Dizon, President

27.  Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Valenzuela (established 2002), Dr. Nedeña C. Torralba, Prersident

28.  Paranaque City College of Science and Technology (established 2000), Dr. Isabel R. Reyes, College Administrator

29.  Passi City College (established 2005, WV), Mayor Elyzer C. Chavez, Acting College Administrator

30.  Quezon City Polytechnic University (established 1994), Sec. Salvador M. Enriquez, Jr., OIC, replaced by Dr. Ofelia M. Carague, President

31.  Quirino Polytechnic College (established 1998), Mr. Edilberto S. Acio, College Administrator

32.  Tagoloan Community College (established 2003), Hon. Yevgeny Vincent Emano, Chair, Board of Trustees, replaced by Beatriz G. Bentuzal, Center Administrator

33.  Universidad de Manila (established 1999), Dr. Albert Fernando Patrick Dusaban, replaced by Justice Rodolfo G. Palattao, President

34.  University of Caloocan City (established  1971), Dr. Ederlinda Fiesta, University Administrator, replaced by Hon. Enrico Echiverri, President

35.  University of Makati (established 1972), Prof. Tomas B. Lopez, President

36.  Urdaneta City University (established 1966), Dr. Elizabeth A. Montero, President

   APPENDIX 4.  DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

                OPINION ON CHED JURISDICTION AND AUTHORITY ON LUCS

                                                                                                 November 24, 2008

Hon. Emmanuel Y. Angeles

Chairman

Commission on Higher Education

5/F upper DAP Bldg.

Ortigas Center, Pasig City

Sir:

            This has reference to your request for opinion on the issue of jurisdiction and authority of the Commission on Higher Education (CHED), insofar as “the exercise of supervision and reasonable regulation of public higher education institutions specifically local universities and colleges (LUCs) and other non-chartered schools operating as higher education institutions that are established/created by Local Government Units (LGUs)” through corresponding local Ordinances passed by the appropriate Sanggunian concerned (i.e., Panlalawigan, Panglunsod, and Sangguniang Bayan).

            The provisions of Republic Act No. 7722, pertinent to your query provide, to wit:

                          xxx                                                                xxx

Section 3.  Creation of the Commission on Higher Education – In pursuance of the abovementioned policies, the Commission on Higher Education is hereby created hereinafter referred to as the Commission.

-- The Commission shall be independent and separate from the Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS), and attached to the Office of the President for administrative purpose only.  Its coverage shall be both public and private institution of higher education a well as degree-granting programs in all post-secondary educational institutions, public and private.

                        xxx                                                                  xxx

Section 8.  Powers and Functions of the Commission – The Commission shall have the following powers and functions:

     xxx                                                                  xxx

d.  set minimum standards for programs and institutions of higher learning recommended by panels of experts in the field and subject to public hearing, and enforce the same.

e.  monitor and evaluate the performance of programs and institutions of higher learning for appropriate incentives as well as the imposition of sanctions such as, but not limited to, diminution or withdrawal of subsidy, recommendation on the downgrading or withdrawal of accreditation, program termination of school closure;

     xxx                                                                  xxx

g.  recommend to the Department of Budget and Management the budgets of public institutions of higher learning as well as general guidelines for the use of their income;

h.  rationalize programs and institutions of higher learning and set standards, policies and guidelines for the creation of new ones as well as the conversion or elevation of schools to institutions of higher learning, subject to budgetary limitations and the number of institutions of higher learning in the province or region where creation, conversion or elevation is sought to be made;

     xxx                                                                  xxx

m. review the charters of institutions of higher learning and state universities and colleges, including the chairmanship and membership of their governing bodies and recommend appropriate measures as basis for necessary action;

n.  promulgate rules and regulations and exercise such other powers and functions as may be necessary to carry out effectively the purpose and objectives of this Act, and

o.  perform such other functions as may be necessary for its effective operations and for the continued enhancement, growth or development of higher education.

            Basic is the rule in statutory in statutory construction that when the law is clear plain and free from ambiguity, it must be given its literal meaning without attempted interpretation.  Known as the plain meaning rule, or verba legis, this rule, which was derived for the maxim index animi semo est (speech I the index of intention), rests on the valid presumption that the words employed by the legislature in a statute correctly express its intent or will and preclude a different construction.  The rationale is because the legislature is presumed to know the meaning of the words, to have used the words advisedly, and to have expressed its intent by the use of such words as are found in the statute.  Verba legis non est recendendum, or from the words of a statute there should be no departure.

            Traversing the earlier-quoted legal provisions, in the light of the foregoing, the authority jurisdiction of the CHED over both public and private higher education institutions of learning, including the imposition of reasonable regulations, cannot be doubted.

            Insofar as Local Universities and Colleges (LUCs) established by LGUs are concerned, we will revisit the relevant provisions of RA 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991.

            Section 447 (a) (5) (x) which is applicable for Sangguniang Bayan, Section 458 (a) (5) (x) for Sangguniang Panglunsod and Section 468 (a) (4) (iii) for Sangguniang Panlalawigan, all cover a uniform provision for the creation or establishment by the LGUs of local institutions of learning.  The provision, insofar as material, reads:

                        xxx                                                                  xxx

                  Subject to the availability of funds and to existing laws, rules and

                  regulations, establish and provide for the operation of vocational

                  and technical schools and similar post-secondary institutions and,

                  with the approval of the Department of Education, Culture and Sports,

                  fix and collect reasonable fees and other school charges on said

      institutions, subject to existing laws on tuition fees:

            xxx                                                                  xxx

            As rightfully claimed, the power of LGUs is limited to the creation and operation of vocational and technical schools and similar post-secondary institutions, subject to the approval of DECS.  While the provision does not absolutely prohibit LGUs from establishing higher education institutions, the same can only be done with the approval of the CHED and subject to the provisions of R.A. No. 7722.

            Please be guided accordingly.

                                                                                                Very truly yours,

                                                                                                RAUL M. GONZALEZ

                                                                                                      Secretary

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Delmar Topinio Taclibon 

"My deepest gratitude to Hrh Prince Omar Kiram and His Majesty Sultan Fuad A. Kiram I of the Royal Hashemite Sultanate of Sulu and Sabah for this conferment as one of the Datu(k) of the Royal Dominion."

Message of Hrh Prince Omar Kiram:

"The Hon. Datuk Sir Delmar Topinio Taclibon, KRSS, we wish you and your family and all our beloved members a blessed and prosperous joyful new year. Let us continue our resolve, commitment, dedication, true faith and allegiance to our beloved anointed Sultan Fuad A. Kiram I, to realize our advocacy of Sabah and Spratlys against Malaysia's land grabbing for the benefits of the Tausugs and the Filipinos. God Defend the Right!"

Toti Dulay : "congrats insan Delmar Topinio Taclibon and mabuhay ang Magat Salamat lineage ni Lakan Dula ng Tondo..."

Delmar Topinio Taclibon : "Thank you too Modern Day Grand Patriarch of the Lakan Dula Clan Sir Toti Dulay!"