INTRODUCTION

Background of the Study

In accordance to the Republic Act No. 7722, the Commission on Higher Education

(CHED) has the ability to provide subsidies for scholarship and other educational

programs. It is evident to its section 8 paragraph i., which states that CHED shall have

the power to “develop criteria for allocating additional resources such as research and

program development grants, scholarships, and other similar programs.” With that, it is

justifiable that there are various educational assistance coming from the said commission

like Tulong-Dunong Program, Tertiary Education Subsidy (TES) and other scholarship

programs that is inclusive in the commission like Students Financial Assistance Program

(StuFAP).

These programs are dependent to the General Appropriations from the National

Expenditure Program (NEP) annually. The number of grantees of the said scholarship

programs and educational assistances are dependent to the budget given by the annual

general appropriations. In this situation, there numerous college freshmen and other

eligible individuals sees this mechanism as their opportunity to avail college degrees

without the option to worry in their financial matters. Therefore, the current college

students are encouraged to pursue their desire career path.

However, on September 2019, Senator Ralph Recto (2019) announced that there

is a proposed budget cut of approximately Php 11.6 Billion. According to Ralph Recto

(2019) that CHED’s proposed budget for 2020 was P40.78 billion. About 80 percent of

the 2020 appropriations for CHED was earmarked for the implementation of the program

1|Page
mandates of Republic Act 10931 or the Universal Access to Quality Tertiary Education

(UAQTE). This budget cut is not new to CHED. In fact, there were budget cuts on their

fund during 2018.

Some lawmakers, particularly the Makabayan bloc, condemned this budget cut on

CHED (Galvez, 2019). Kabataan Partylist Representative Sarah Elago blamed CHED for

its low utilization rate of fund as a cause of budget cut for the commission. She said,

“Kailangan managot itong CHED pagdating doon sa mga kakulangan sa pagpapa-abot

ng mabilis at maaasahan na serbisyo sa mga scholarships at financial assistance”

(Galvez, 2019).

Transparency is one of the factors that could answer the questions that most critics

ask. However, a study by Halili (2014) stated that CHED should improve their

transparency especially in the mechanism of evaluating scholarship grantees. The

commission should incorporate policies with regard to it to prevent conflict of interest

through the practice of proper disclosure of information (Halili, 2014). It means that before

the issue of budget cuts, there were already conflicts on the budget transparency of

CHED. But, despite of criticisms that CHED and the congress have received in this

reduction of funds for the agency, there was still no research that will prove that there will

be a significant difference on the general appropriations of CHED from 2018 up to the

proposed general appropriations on 2020. There was also no correlation established by

other researches when it comes to years stated.

Hence, the researchers analyzed the significant difference of General

Appropriations of CHED from FY 2018-2019, and to know whether there is significant

2|Page
difference and relationship on the General Appropriations FY 2018-2019 and proposed

General Appropriations for FY 2020.

Statement of the Problem

Generally, the researchers wanted to know the difference and relationship of the

proposed General Appropriations of CHED for FY 2020 to General Appropriations of

2018-2019.

To dissect the main problem, researchers came up with different questions to

answer the general goal of the study. The said sub-problems are as follows:

1. Is there a significant difference on the allotted fund for operating expenditures of

CHED when grouped according to:

• Year

• Programs

2. Is there a significant difference between allotted fund for Monitoring and Evaluation

of Performance of Higher Education Programs when grouped according to:

• Year

• Region

3. Is there a significant difference between the allocation of fund for program activities

when grouped according to year?

4. Is there a significant difference between the allocation of fund when grouped

according to program activities?

5. Is there a significant relationship between the operating expenditures?

3|Page
 6. Is there a significant relationship between the operating expenditures and year?

7. Is there a significant relationship between the fund for Monitoring and Evaluation

of Performance of Higher Education Programs and year?

8. Is there a significant relationship between the funds for program activities?

Hypotheses of the Study

Below are the null hypotheses of the study based on the problems stated on the

Statement of the Problem. These hypotheses will be accepted or rejected depending on

the results of the tests that will be presented on Results and Discussion.

1. There is no significant difference on the allotted fund for operating expenditures of

CHED when grouped according to:

• Year

• Programs

2. There is no significant difference between allotted fund for monitoring and

evaluation of performance of Higher Education Programs when grouped according

to:

• Year

• Region

3. There is no significant difference between the allocation of fund for program

activities when grouped according to year.

4. There is no significant difference between the allocation of fund when grouped

according to program activities.

4|Page
 5. There is no significant relationship between the operating expenditures.

6. There is no significant relationship between the operating expenditures and year.

7. There is no significant relationship between the fund for Monitoring and Evaluation

of Performance of Higher Education Programs and year.

8. There is no significant relationship between the funds for program activities.

Scope and Delimitation of the Study

The research was conducted on the University of La Salette, Inc., Dubinan East,

Santiago City during the academic year 2019-2020, first semester. This study focused on

the appropriations given from 2018 to 2020 for CHED only. It did not include the budget

for state universities and colleges (SUCs) since there is a separate budget for each SUCs

in the Philippines.

This study focused only on the difference and relationship on the CHED’s provided

appropriations between 2020 and 2018-2019. It did not discuss the general

appropriations from 2017 and below.

The researchers based their data from the Department of Budget and

Management (DBM), specifically on NEP for 2020. It did not cover the data given by the

other government agencies, nor the NEP for 2019 and below.

The research gave attention only to the allocation of fund that was related to the

budget cut, curriculum development, international linkages in connection with curriculum

development, financial assistances and scholarships, and not on other allocation of funds

that does not have any effect to the problems stated on Statement of the Problem.

5|Page
Significance of the Study

This study is significant to the following stakeholders:

• Commission on High Education (CHED). Through this research, they can look

on the difference and relationship between the appropriations for 2018, 2019 and

2020. With that, they may create a framework or paradigm that will help them

budget the given fund despite of the proposed budget cuts if the result that will be

gathered will prove that there is a significant difference on the allocation of fund if

the budget cut is implemented. They may also use this research as their guide for

developing or creating a proposal to the congress to halt the budget cut.

• Scholarship Grantees and Other Eligible Students under Scholarship

Programs of CHED. This study will serve as their guide and assessment on the

status quo of the scholarship programs of CHED in terms of its budget.

• Department of Budget and Management (DBM). This study will help them

review their decision on their suggested allocation of fund since this government

agency, alongside with the congress, has the control on the funds that will be

distributed to different government agencies.

• The Congress. Since the congress has the final verdict to the budget of various

government agencies, this study will help them review their decision with regard to

the budget cut for CHED since this study will give them the view whether there is

a significant difference or relationship on the general appropriations for CHED for

2018, 2019 and 2020.

• Future Researchers. This study can be used as the future reference of the future

researchers. They may also use this research to validate some of their findings or

6|Page
 reject some of their results. They can also grasp some knowledge through the

results that will be provided.

Conceptual Framework

This study follows the Input-Process-Output paradigm to accomplish the research

and to provide accurate data that may be used by the stakeholders stated on the

Significance of the Study.

The Input part of the framework underlies the provided general appropriations for

FY 2018, 2019 and 2020 from NEP. This will serve as the raw data that will be analyzed

by the researchers.

The Process section of the paradigm provided the tools, specifically statistical tools

that will be using during the analysis of the data. The output of the research will depend

on the statistical tools shown on the framework.

The Output region of the paradigm will show that there will be results that may

compose of a graph and tools that will be accompanied by tables.

INPUT PROCESS OUTPUT

• GA - FY - 2018 • Analysis of • Statistical

• GA - FY - 2019 Variance Results with
• GA - FY - 2020 (ANOVA) Tables
(proposed) • Pearson-r • Line Graphs

Figure 1.0: Paradigm of the Study

7|Page
Definition of Terms

These are the following definition of the significant terms that will be used

throughout the study:

• General Appropriations/Appropriations – in accordance to the section 1 of

Presidential Decree No. 1777, it “is an authorization under Acts of Congress,

Presidential Decrees, or other legislative enactment, allowing obligations to be

incurred and payments to be made with funds of the government under specified

conditions and/or for specified purposes.” The projected data on Results and

Discussions are based on the appropriations given by the congress to CHED.

• Current Operating Expenditures – includes personnel expenditures,

maintenance and other operating expenditures and capital outlays for the

programs of the agency for the given fiscal year in accordance to general

appropriations act.

• Personnel Services - includes the salary, wages, contributions and allowances

that CHED grants to their manpower.

• Maintenance and Other Operating Expenses – includes expenses in travel,

training, supplies for foods, drugs and instructional materials, equipment, utility,

professional services, repairs and maintenance and/or rents, whichever is

applicable to CHED in the said fiscal years.

• Capital Outlays – appropriations spent for the purchase of goods and services,

the benefits of which extend beyond the fiscal year and which add to the assets of

government, including investments in the capital stock of government-owned or

8|Page
 controlled corporations and their subsidiaries (Department of Budget and

Management, 2019).

• Programs – includes general administration and support, support to operations

and operations.

• General Administration and Support – the general fund that is used for

administering the service and duties of CHED to their stakeholders.

• Support to Operations – the fund that is used to either make the operations

feasible and smooth-sailing in CHED or to supplement the needs of the operations

in any specific areas needed.

• Operations – the fund allocated by CHED to do perform their operations in

accordance to the program activities of CHED.

• Program Activities – includes Development of Standards of Excellence for Higher

Education Programs and Institutions, Development of Strategies and Schemes to

Establish Linkages with International Institutions of Higher Learning, Universal

Access to Quality Tertiary Education, Provision of Assistance and Incentives,

Scholarships and Grants through Student Financial Assistance Program,

Development of Policies for Unified Student Financial Assistance System in

Tertiary Education Program, Research and Scholarship Project and Subsidy for

Tuition Fees of Medical Students in State Universities and Colleges.

• Monitoring and Evaluation of Performance of Higher Education Programs –

the fund allocated by CHED to monitor the competency of the performance of both

SUCs, private universities and colleges and LUCs in the programs/courses that

they are offering to the people.

9|Page
• Development of Standards of Excellence for Higher Education Programs and

Institutions – the fund needed by CHED in order to develop the curriculum or the

education programs to be administered to the tertiary students.

• Development of Strategies and Schemes to Establish Linkages with

International Institutions of Higher Learning – the fund allocated by CHED to

ensure the global competence of their learning materials and to establish

collaboration with other international entities with various learning institutions.

• Universal Access to Quality Tertiary Education – in accordance to Republic Act

No. 10931 or the Universal Access to Quality Tertiary Education Act, is a fund

allocated by CHED to make the legalization of Tertiary Education Subsidy (TES)

and other educational assistance programs implemented.

• Provision of Assistance and Incentives, Scholarships and Grants through

Student Financial Assistance Program – the fund provided by CHED to the

provision that gives incentives and educational assistance to eligible individuals.

• Development of Policies for Unified Student Financial Assistance System in

Tertiary Education Program – fund allocated by CHED to Unified Student

Financial Assistance System for Tertiary Education (UniFAST), an inter-agency, in

accordance to Republic Act No. 10687 that regulates Student Financial Assistance

Program (StuFAP) - a system of Scholarships, Grants-in-Aid, Student Loans,

subsidies and other incentives which are or shall be made available to eligible

students.

• Research and Scholarship Project – subsidy given to institutions related to

CHED that focuses, but not limited, on research in various aspects covered by

10 | P a g e
 CHED like curriculum development. It also pertains to the fund that are allocated

for the support for scholarship projects given to the eligible individuals.

• Subsidy for Tuition Fees of Medical Students in State Universities and

Colleges – the fund given to the students from state universities and colleges to

support their studies and other expenses in taking medical courses available in

their institution.

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES

Budget Cut for 2019

A budget cut on CHED is not strange; it was reported on September 2018 that

more than 359,459 scholars may be affected by the proposed P3-billion budget cut in the

financial assistance program for college students of CHED (Mateo, 2018). Prospero De

Vera III (De Vera, 2018), the officer-in-charge and spokesperson of the commission

stated that those students receiving P12,000 per year will be affected since budget for

“Tulong Dunong” financial assistance program decrease from P4.1 billion to the proposed

P1.1 billion for 2019. However, De Vera (2018) assured that Tulong Dunong is not needed

anymore since Republic Act 10931 or the Universal Access to Quality Tertiary Education

law will be implemented on 2019.

The said law established TES which aims to provide financial support to college

students, including those in private universities (Mateo, 2018). TES prioritizes potential

recipients from financially-challenged college students, giving Php 40,000 for state

universities and colleges grantees and Php 60,000 for private universities and colleges.
11 | P a g e
However, TES and Tulong Dunong Program have different qualifications (De Vera, 2018).

On the Notice of Public Consultation of Licuanan (2017), the commissioner the agency

stated that in Tulong Dunong Program, the recipient must be a Filipino citizen; graduating

high school students, high school graduates, with earned units in higher education with

at least a passing general weighted average (GWA) or passer of ALS/PEPT, and;

combined annual gross income of parents/guardian not to exceed Php 350,000.

On the other hand, the TES program, according to Section 7 of RA 10931

emphasized that TES grantees are “Filipino students who shall enroll in undergraduate-

post-secondary programs of SUCs, LUCs private HEIs and all TVIs.” From the same

section of the law, The TES may, among others, and to support the cost of tertiary

education or any part or portion thereof, cover the following: (a) Tuition and other school

fees in private HEIs, and private or LGU-operated TVIs, which shall be equivalent to the

tuition and other school fees of the nearest SUC or state-run TVI in their respective areas;

(b) All allowance for books, supplies transportation and miscellaneous personal expenses

including a reasonable allowance for the documented rental or purchase of a personal

computer or laptop and other education-related expenses: (c) An allowance for room and

board costs incurred by the student; (d) For a student with a disability, an allowance for

expenses related to the student's disability, an allowance for expenses related to the

student's disability including special services, personal assistance, transportation,

equipment, and supplies that are reasonably incurred: and (e) For a student in a program

requiring professional license or certification, the one (1)-time cost of obtaining the first

professional credentials or qualifications, which may include the following: application

fees, notarial fees, review classes fees, insurance premium fees and documentation fees:

12 | P a g e
Provided, That the amount of subsidy shall be based on the guidelines set forth by the

UniFAST Board and on the annual budgetary appropriation for this purpose.

It was also mentioned on 2018 that aside from Tulong Dunong, CHED has also

lost funding for the scholarship programs for medical students and children of rebel

returnees in the proposed 2019 budget (Mateo, 2019). But, the fund for the

implementation of the free higher education law would increase by as much as P11 billion.

Actually, De Vera (2018) denied the allegations from major television networks and

other news platforms that there were budget cuts proposed during 2018. On August 2018,

he stated that, “almost all of the 112 state universities and colleges (SUCs) have been

reimbursed for the first and second semesters of academic year 2017-2018. However,

Philippine Merchant Marine Academy and Adiong Memorial Polytechnic State College

have received no reimbursements because the former has a separate budget allocation

for tuition in the General Appropriations Act (GAA) 2017, while the latter was not able to

report income in their Budget Expenditure and Sources of Financing (BESF) for 2017.

The balance left from the P8B fund are being processed for reimbursements for the

summer or midterm of AY 2017-2018 claims of SUCs, and those that have appealed and

presented additional billings based on actual enrollment numbers in said academic year

(De Vera, 2018).”

He also stated that there is no reduction of budget for the implementation of R.A.

10931 for Academic Year (AY) 2019-2020 (Romero, 2018). But the winds have changed

on September when he warned scholars, especially in private schools that they may be

heavily affected in a Php 32.6 billion budget cut. He said that even if the tuition and

13 | P a g e
miscellaneous fees are free, it will be a continuing problem of poor students. (De Vera,

2018). “The impact will be less on scholars who are enrolled in public universities kasi

libre na ang tuition at miscellaneous.” Merit scholarships (scholarships where bright

students compete) got a 2 percent decrease from P459,205,000 in 2018 to P451,782,000

for 2019, while SIDA (scholarships for the children of sugarcane workers) got a 20 percent

decrease from P78,490,000 in 2018 to P65,147,000 for 2019 (Romero, 2018).

It was also revealed that the University of the Philippines taking the biggest chunk.

25 percent of Php 16.4 billion for CHED goes to UP system, while other 112 SUCs have

to divide the other 75 percent (Romero, 2018). But he claimed that there should no

reduction of budget for UP; there must also increase to other SUCs.

Proposed Budget Cut for 2020

The budget fiasco on CHED is not yet over; on August 2019, it was reported that

2018 Commission on Audit (COA) annual audit report (Montemayor, 2018) recently

showed the CHED was unable to spend funds due to delays in the approval of guidelines

for the law, non-submission of billing statements of state universities and colleges (SUCs)

and local universities and colleges (LUCs), delays in the release of the Tertiary Education

Subsidy (TES), and in the implementation of the Student Loan Program (SLP). In other

words, the commission delayed some of their implementation that affects the budget that

is directly related to the students (Montemayor, 2019). But, De Vera (2019) stated that

“The alleged 'underspending and 'low absorptive capacity of CHED is the result of

14 | P a g e
budgeting and audit practices that has been affecting CHED operations for the past

years.” He also said that there is no synchronization between fiscal year and academic

year. Therefore, more than 100 SUCs have shifted their academic calendar to AY 2019-

2020 or by AY 2020-2021 (Montemayor, 2019).

On September, De Vera (2019) revealed that there will be no additional Tunong

Dunong beneficiaries, no new scholarship grants for faculty members under the K-12

Transition program and no new medical student scholars (Colcol, 2019). The

manifestation that there was no fund for medical scholars for SUCs and LUCs are evident

on the proposed general appropriation for CHED on 2020. De Vera (2019) also admitted

that their capacity of admitting TES scholars will be limited for 2020 (Colcol, 2019). The

Unified Student Financial Assistance System for Tertiary Education officer-in-charge Atty.

Carmelita Yadao-Sison said that the agency needs additional Php 10 billion for next

year’s program activities. This includes the budget for TES (P8.54 billion), the K-12

Transition program (P680 million), and scholarship for medical students (P167 million).

But this amount of fund is not absolute if it will be restored to the commission’s budget

from budget cut or not (Colcol, 2019).

Baguio City Rep. Mark Go, on October demanded the restoration of close to P11

billion slashed allotments for the commission (Cahinhinan, 2019). In his letter to House

appropriations panel chair Isidro Ungab (Davao City), Go said congress should restore

CHED’s original allocation since it would severely hamper the implementation of the law

that grants free tuition to state universities and colleges and technical-vocational

institutions nationwide (Cahinhinan, 2019).

15 | P a g e
 Until now, there is no response from the congress if they will reevaluate their

decision on the appropriation of the commission.

METHODOLOGY

Research Design

There are various types of research design that were used to make this study

feasible, understandable and reliable. The first type of design that is manifested by this

study is the quantitative design of study. Lucas (2015) said that in this type of research,

it can be used on measuring variables using a numerical system, analyzing the

measurement using any of a variety of statistical model. Thus, the researchers use

quantitative approach since there is a need to know the effectiveness of CHED budget

for the year 2020 and to compare and contrast the gathered data based from the General

Appropriations Act for CHED.

This study is descriptive in nature. This type of research method is not simply

amassing and tabulating appropriations of CHED, but includes proper analysis,

interpretation, comparisons, identifications of trends and relationships with other

allocation of funds. Hence, this design is highly applicable to this study.

Researchers also use correlational research. According to McCombes (2019)

correlational research establishes the relationship between the two variable changes in

the same direction without the researcher controlling of them. The budget stated in the

16 | P a g e
general appropriations are the variables that can be correlated with one another, but it

cannot be controlled or manipulated by the researchers.

Lastly, the researchers also adopted the comparative model of research. In this

model, researchers compare two groups of data from the general appropriation to draw

conclusion from it. Take note that the researchers do not manipulate the data from the

act (Richardson, 2018). In this manner, researchers attempt to identify and analyze

similarities and differences between groups.

Subject

The subject of the study is the General Appropriation Act for CHED from 2018 to

2020. The General Appropriation Acts of different government agencies has a legal basis

– Presidential Decree No. 1777.

In the said decree, it was stated that it was promulgated “to improve national

budget policy practice, to institutionalize budgetary reforms and innovations realized

during the New Society and to put into effect changes in budget principles embodied in

the Constitution of 1973.” Also, this decree “further clarify certain provisions of the decree

in order to further improve the budget process and procedures in the light of experience

in the application” of the said decree.

17 | P a g e
Data Gathering Procedure

The researchers gathered the raw data through the access in the website CHED.

This data was provided by the Department of Budget and Management (DBM). This

government agency disclosed the liquidation of the budget in the appropriation of every

executive offices in accordance to the Executive Order No. 2 series of 2016 of President

Rodrigo Duterte and in Article II Section 28 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution.

In their downloadable files, the researchers confirmed first whether the

downloaded files are relevant to the research topic or not. When they confirmed the files

for their data analysis, they started tabulating the data through the use of Statistical

Package for Social Science. It will be practical for the researchers to tabulate data in the

said software rather than using Microsoft Excel first.

Data Analysis

The researchers used various tools that helped them to obtain, project and

interpret data obtained from the appropriation of CHED.

Statistical Tools

To interpret the raw data provided by the appropriations of CHED from 2018 to

2020, the researchers used two statistical tools. The following are as follows:

1) Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). This statistical tool measures the significant

difference between three or more quantitative groups of data. This statistical

18 | P a g e
 formula computed the data to answer the problems 1-4 (see Statement of the

Problem).

𝑴𝑺𝑩𝒆𝒕𝒘𝒆𝒆𝒏
𝑭=
𝑴𝑺𝑾𝒊𝒕𝒉𝒊𝒏

2) Pearson-r. This statistical tool measures the significant relationship between two

quantitative groups of data. This statistical formula computed the data to answer

the problems 5-8 (see Statement of the Problem).

𝐧(𝚺𝐱𝐲) − (𝚺𝐱) (𝚺𝐲)

𝒓=
√[𝐧 𝚺𝐱𝟐 − (𝚺𝐱)𝟐][𝐧 𝚺𝐲𝟐 − (𝚺𝐲)𝟐]

Where:

r= Pearson-r

n= the sample size

x= independent variable

y= dependent variable

Σ= summation

Software Tool

Since the data provided by the appropriations for CHED contains lengthy and

numerous amounts, it will be impossible to compute those data within a short span of

time. Hence, with the use of a software tool named Statistical Packages for Social

19 | P a g e
Sciences (SPSS), the ANOVA and Pearson-r results that contributed meaningfully to the

results are possible in a given time.

SPSS Statistics is a software from IBM Corporation which is intended for managing

and calculating a wide variety of statistics. This software has many versions, but the

researchers made use of their 23rd version of the package.

20 | P a g e
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Table 1.0: Significant Difference Between the Allotted Fund for Operating

Expenditures of CHED According to Year

Operating Sources Sum of Squares df Mean Square F- P- Decision

Expenditures of value value

Variation

Personnel Between 135740818666667.22 2 67870409333333.61 0.002 0.998 NS

Services Groups

Within 220584525657333312 6 36764087609555552

Groups

Total 220720266475999968 8

Maintenance Between 92900374463462050000 2 46450187231731020000 0.083 0.921 NS

and Other Groups

Operating Within 3352164400932552000000 6 558694066822091960000

Expenses Groups

(MOOE) Total 3445064775396014000000 8

Capital Between 12332106181555558 2 6166053090777779 0.696 0.535 NS

Outlays Groups

Within 53155625441333328 6 8859270906888888

Groups

Total 65487731622888888 8

This table shows the computation result using the Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)

when the data are grouped according to year. It is evident that with the use of 0.05 as the

margin of error, there is no significant difference between 2018, 2019 and 2020 on the

allotted funds in terms of personnel services, maintenance and other operating expenses

and capital outlays.

21 | P a g e
 It means that the projected deduction of fund in 2020 will not affect the budget for

personnel services, maintenance and other operating expenses and capital outlays in a

financial matter.

Table 1.1: Significant Difference Between the Allotted Fund for Operating

Expenditures of CHED According to Programs

Operating Sources of Sum of Squares df Mean Square F-value P-value Decision

Expenditures Variation

Personnel Between S
220274921174000000 2 110137460587000000
Services Groups
1483.848 0.00
Within
445345301999999.94 6 74224216999999.98
Groups

Total 220720266476000000 8

Maintenance Between S
3166840349110228000000 2 1583420174555114000000
and Other Groups
34.147 0.001
Operating Within
278224426285785320000 6 46370737714297550000
Expenses Groups

(MOOE) Total 3445064775396013600000 8

Capital Outlays Between NS

34838156864222232 2 17419078432111116
Groups

Within 3.410 0.103

30649574758666664 6
Groups 5108262459777777

Total 65487731622888896 8

This table, through the use of ANOVA stated that there is a significant difference

on the allocation of fund for personnel services and maintenance and other operating

22 | P a g e
expenses if grouped according to programs. To complete the decision, a post-hoc test is

required. The type of post-hoc test to be used was the Scheffé Test to assess the data in

a wider scope. However, the capital outlays part is not subject to post-hoc test since there

is no significant difference on the allocation of fund when grouped in accordance to the

programs.

23 | P a g e
Table 1.2.1: Post-Hoc Test Computation on the Significant Difference Between the

Allotted Fund for Operating Expenditures of CHED According to Programs

(Personnel Services and MOOE)

Operating Comparison Mean Difference p-value Decision

Expenditures

Personnel General 53229000 0.001 S

Expenditures Administration

and Support

vs. Support to

Operations

General -302038000 0.00 S

Administration

and Support

vs. Operations

Support to -355267000 0.00 S

Operations vs.

Operations

Maintenance General NS

and Other Administration

Operating and Support -124249333.33 1.00

Expenses vs. Support to

(MOOE) Operations

24 | P a g e
 General S

Administration -
0.001
and Support 39854191666.67

vs. Operations

Support to - 0.001 S

Operations vs. 39729942333.33

Operations

Since the result from the computation of ANOVA on Table 1.2 is vague since there

is a significant difference between the operating funds for CHED when grouped according

to programs, this table, through the use of post-hoc test shows that in the aspect of

personnel services, the operations have the greatest fund, followed by the support to

operations. In can be inferred that in personnel services, the general administration and

support is prioritized the least in terms of funds.

On the other hand, there is no significant difference between the general

administration and support and support to operations in terms of maintenance and other

operating expenses. However, there is a significant difference between the general

administration and support and operations, and general administration and support and

support to operations. Through the data given, it can be concluded that the operations

have the highest fund over the other two programs.

25 | P a g e
 Table 2.0: Significant Difference Between the Allotted Fund for Monitoring and

Evaluation of Performance of Higher Education Programs when Grouped

According to Year

Allocation of Sources Sum of Squares df Mean Square F- P- Decision

Fund of value value

Variation

Monitoring Between NS
55799499041666.66 2 27899749520833.33
and Groups

Evaluation Within
610887724437499.90 45
of Groups
2.055 0.140
Performance
Total
13575282765277.78
of Higher
666687223479166.50 47
Education

Programs

This table shows that there is no significant difference on the allotted fund for the

Monitoring and Evaluation of Performance of Higher Education Programs from 2018 up

to the proposed budget for 2020. It means that even though there is a budget cut for FY

2020, the fund for the said activity will not affect it significantly.

26 | P a g e
 Table 2.1: Significant Difference Between the Allotted Fund for Monitoring and

Evaluation of Performance of Higher Education Programs when Grouped

According to Region

Allocation of Sources Sum of Squares df Mean Square F- P- Decision

Fund of value value

Variation

Monitoring Between S
572441251479166.80 15 38162750098611.12
and Groups

Evaluation Within
94245972000000 32
of Groups
12.96 0.00
Performance
Total 2945186625000.00
of Higher
666687223479166.80 47
Education

Programs

In this table, it is evident that there is a significant difference of the allotted fund for

Monitoring and Evaluation of Performance of Higher Education Programs when the data

are grouped according to their respective region. Hence, the data is subject for post-hoc

Test, which is the Scheffé Test.

27 | P a g e
Table 2.1.1: Post-Hoc Test Computation on the Significant Difference Between the

Allotted Fund for Monitoring and Evaluation of Performance of Higher Education

Programs when Grouped According to Region

Allocation of Comparison Mean p-value Decision

Fund Difference

Monitoring NCR vs. Ilocos NS

6421666.67 0.206
and Region

Evaluation of NCR vs. CAR 8704666.67 0.012 S

Performance NCR vs. S

11140333.33 0.00
of Higher Cagayan Valley

Education NCR vs. Central NS

6924666.67 0.121
Programs Luzon

NCR vs. NS
7259666.67 0.082
CALABARZON

NCR vs. S
13964333.33 0.00
MIMAROPA

NCR vs. Bicol NS

6677333.33 0.158
Region

NCR vs. Western NS

2665333.33 0.997
Visayas

NCR vs. Central NS

3476000.00 0.965
Visayas

28 | P a g e
NCR vs. Eastern NS
6705000.00 0.154
Visayas

NCR vs. NS

Zamboanga 4692333.33 0.72

Peninsula

NCR vs. NS

Northern 5194000.00 0.556

Mindanao

NCR vs. Davao NS

6645000.00 0.164
Region

NCR vs. S
10986000.00 0.00
SOCCKSARGEN

NCR vs. S
11108000.00 0.00
CARAGA

Ilocos Region NS
2283000 1.00
vs.CAR

Ilocos Region vs. NS

4718666.67 0.712
Cagayan Valley

Ilocos Region vs. NS

503000 1.00
Central Luzon

Ilocos Region vs. NS

838000 1.00
CALABARZON

29 | P a g e
Ilocos Region vs. NS
7542666.67 0.058
MIMAROPA

Ilocos Region vs. NS

255666.67 1.00
Bicol Region

Ilocos Region vs. NS

-3756333.33 0.934
Western Visayas

Ilocos Region vs. NS

-2945666.67 0.993
Central Luzon

Ilocos Region vs. NS

283333.33 1.00
Eastern Visayas

Ilocos Region vs. NS

Zamboanga -1729333.33 1.00

Peninsula

Ilocos Region vs. NS

Northern -1227666.67 1.00

Mindanao

Ilocos Region vs. NS

223333.33 1.00
Davao Region

Ilocos Region vs. NS

4564333.33 0.759
SOCCKSARGEN

Ilocos Region vs NS
4686333.33 0.722
CARAGA

30 | P a g e
 CAR vs. NS
2435666.67 0.999
Cagayan Valley

CAR vs. Central NS

-1780000.00 1.000
Luzon

CAR vs. NS
-1445000.00 1.000
CALABARZON

CAR vs. NS
5259666.67 0.534
MIMAROPA

CAR vs. Bicol NS

-2027333.33 1.000
Region

CAR vs. Western NS

-6039333.33 0.296
Visayas

CAR vs. Central NS

-5228666.67 0.545
Visayas

CAR vs. Eastern NS

-1999666.67 1.000
Visayas

CAR vs. NS

Zamboanga -4012333.33 0.893

Peninsula

CAR vs. NS

Northern -3510666.67 0.962

Mindanao

31 | P a g e
 CAR vs. Davao NS
-2059666.67 1.000
Region

CAR vs. NS
2281333.33 1.000
SOCCKSARGEN

CAR vs. NS
2403333.33 0.999
CARAGA

Cagayan Valley NS
-4215666.67 0.85
vs. Central Luzon

Cagayan Valley NS

vs. -3880666.67 0.916

CALABARZON

Cagayan Valley NS
2824000.00 0.995
vs. MIMAROPA

Cagayan Valley NS
-4463000.00 0.788
vs. Bicol Region

Cagayan Valley S

vs. Western -8475000.00 0.017

Visayas

Cagayan Valley S

vs. Central -7664333.33 0.05

Visayas

32 | P a g e
Cagayan Valley NS

vs. Eastern -4435333.33 0.795

Visayas

Cagayan Valley NS

vs. Zamboanga -6448000.00 0.201

Peninsula

Cagayan Valley NS

vs. Northern -5946333.33 0.32

Mindanao

Cagayan Valley NS

vs. Davao -4495333.33 0.779

Region

Cagayan Valley NS

vs. -154333.33 1.00

SOCCKSARGEN

Cagayan Valley NS
-32333.33 1.00
vs. CARAGA

Central Luzon vs. NS

335000.00 1.00
CALABARZON

Central Luzon vs. NS

7039666.67 0.106
MIMAROPA

Central Luzon vs. NS

-247333.33 1.00
Bicol Region

33 | P a g e
Central Luzon vs. NS
-4259333.33 0.84
Western Visayas

Central Luzon vs. NS

-3448666.67 0.967
Central Visayas

Central Luzon vs. NS

-219666.67 1.00
Eastern Visayas

Central Luzon vs. NS

Zamboanga -2232333.33 1.00

Peninsula

Central Luzon vs. NS

Northern -1730666.67 1.00

Mindanao

Central Luzon vs. NS

-279666.67 1.00
Davao Region

Central Luzon vs. NS

4061333.33 0.883
SOCCKSARGEN

Central Luzon NS
4183333.33 0.858
vs.CAGARA

CALABARZON NS
6704666.67 0.154
vs. MIMAROPA

CALABARZON NS
-582333.33 1.00
vs. Bicol Region

34 | P a g e
CALABARZON NS

vs. Western -4594333.33 0.75

Visayas

CALABARZON NS

vs. Central -3783666.67 0.93

Visayas

CALABARZON NS

vs. Eastern -554666.67 1.00

Visayas

CALABARZON NS

vs. Zamboanga -2567333.33 0.998

Peninsula

CALABARZON NS

vs. Northern -2065666.67 1.00

Mindanao

CALABARZON NS

vs. Davao -614666.67 1.00

Region

CALABARZON NS

vs. 3726333.33 0.938

SOCCKSARGEN

CALABARZON NS
3848333.33 0.921
vs. CARAGA

35 | P a g e
MIMAROPA vs. NS
-7287000.00 0.079
Bicol Region

MIMAROPA vs. S
-11299000.00 0.00
Western Visayas

MIMAROPA vs. S
-10488333.33 0.001
Central Visayas

MIMAROPA vs. NS
-7259333.33 0.082
Eastern Visayas

MIMAROPA vs. S

Zamboanga -9272000.00 0.005

Peninsula

MIMAROPA vs. S

Northern -8770333.33 0.011

Mindanao

MIMAROPA vs. NS
-7319333.33 0.076
Davao Region

MIMAROPA vs. NS
-2978333.33 0.992
SOCCKSARGEN

MIMAROPA vs. NS
-2856333.33 0.995
CARAGA

Bicol Region vs. NS

-4012000.00 0.893
Western Visayas

36 | P a g e
Bicol Region vs. NS
-3201333.33 0.983
Central Visayas

Bicol Region vs. NS

27666.67 1.00
Eastern Visayas

Bicol Region vs. NS

Zamboanga -1985000.00 1.00

Peninsula

Bicol Region vs. NS

Northern -1483333.33 1.00

Mindanao

Bicol Region vs. NS

-32333.33 1.00
Davao Region

Bicol Region vs. NS

4308666.67 0.828
SOCCKSARGEN

Bicol Region vs. NS

4430666.67 0.796
CARAGA

Western Visayas NS

vs. Central 810666.67 1.00

Visayas

Western Visayas NS

vs. Eastern 4039666.67 0.887

Visayas

37 | P a g e
Western Visayas NS

vs. Zamboanga 2027000.00 1.00

Peninsula

Western Visayas NS

vs. Northern 2528666.67 0.999

Mindanao

Western Visayas NS

vs. Davao 3979666.67 0.899

Region

Western Visayas S

vs. 8320666.67 0.021

SOCCKSARGEN

Western Visayas S
8442666.67 0.018
vs. CARAGA

Central Visayas NS

vs. Eastern 3229000.00 0.982

Visayas

Central Visayas NS

vs. Zamboanga 1216333.33 1.00

Peninsula

Central Visayas NS

vs. Northern 1718000.00 1.00

Mindanao

38 | P a g e
Central Visayas NS

vs. Davao 3169000.00 0.985

Region

Central Visayas NS

vs. 7510000.00 0.06

SOCCKSARGEN

Central Visayas NS
7632000.00 0.052
vs. CARAGA

Eastern Visayas NS

vs. Zamboanga -2012666.67 1.00

Peninsula

Eastern Visayas NS

vs. Northern -1511000.00 1.00

Mindanao

Eastern Visayas NS

vs. Davao -60000.00 1.00

Region

Eastern Visayas NS

vs. 4281000.00 0.835

SOCCKSARGEN

Eastern Visayas NS
4403000.00 0.804
vs. CARAGA

39 | P a g e
 Zamboanga NS

Peninsula vs.
501666.67 1.00
Northern

Mindanao

Zamboanga NS

Peninsula vs. 1952666.67 1.00

Davao Region

Zamboanga NS

Peninsula vs. 6293666.67 0.234

SOCCKSARGEN

Zamboanga NS

Peninsula vs. 6415666.67 0.207

CARAGA

Northern NS

Mindanao vs. 1451000.00 1.00

Davao Region

Northern NS

Mindanao vs. 5792000.00 0.364

SOCCKSARGEN

Northern NS

Mindanao vs. 5914000.00 0.329

CARAGA

40 | P a g e
 Davao Region NS

vs. 4341000.00 0.82

SOCCKSARGEN

Davao Region NS
4463000.00 0.788
vs. CARAGA

SOCCKSARGEN NS
122000.00 1.000
vs. CARAGA

This table shows that the allocation of funds per region differ from each other in

terms of Monitoring and Evaluation of Performance of Higher Education Programs.

Through the use of their respective p-values, it can be inferred that there is a significant

difference on NCR vs. CAR, NCR vs. Cagayan Valley, NCR vs. MIMAROPA, NCR vs.

SOCCKSARGEN, NCR vs. CARAGA, Cagayan Valley vs. Western Visayas, Cagayan

Valley vs. Central Visayas, MIMAROPA vs. Western Visayas, MIMAROPA vs. Central

Visayas, MIMAROPA vs. Zamboanga Peninsula, MIMAROPA vs. Northern Mindanao,

Western Visayas vs. SOCCKSARGEN and Western Visayas vs. CARAGA. All other

pairings mentioned in the table do not manifest significant differences on the fund for

Monitoring and Evaluation of Performance of Higher Education Programs.

Based on the respective mean differences of the pairings that have significant

differences, it is evident that some regions have more allocated fund for Monitoring and

Evaluation of Performance of Higher Education Programs than others. In NCR vs. CAR,

NCR vs Cagayan Valley, NCR vs MIMAROPA, NCR vs SOCCKSARGEN and NCR vs

CARAGA, it can be inferred that NCR has more fund for Monitoring and Evaluation of

Performance of Higher Education Programs. In Cagayan Valley vs. Western Visayas and

41 | P a g e
 Cagayan Valley vs. Central Visayas, it can be concluded that Central Visayas and

Western Visayas have more fund for Monitoring and Evaluation of Performance of Higher

Education Programs than Cagayan Valley. In MIMAROPA vs. Western Visayas, Central

Visayas, Zamboanga Peninsula and Northern Mindanao, it can be inferred that the

regions paired in MIMAROPA mentioned in this sentence have greater fund than

MIMAROPA. In Western Visayas vs. SOCCKSARGEN and Western Visayas vs.

CARAGA, it is evident that Western Visayas has more fund for Monitoring and Evaluation

of Performance of Higher Education Programs than SOCCKSARGEN and CARAGA.

Table 3.0: Significant Difference Between the Allocation of Fund for Program

Activities when Grouped According to Year

Allocation of Sources of Sum of Squares df Mean Square F- P- Decision

Fund Variation value value

Program Between NS

Activities Groups 2034446802188111360.00 2 1017223401094055680.00

Within

Groups 31184738339608166000.00 15 0.489 0.623

2078982555973877760.00
Total

33219185141796280000.00 17

Through this table, it can be concluded that the funds for program activities of

CHED from 2018, 2019 and 2020, when statistically compared, does not have any

significant difference at all. However, this interpretation is not applicable if the fund for

42 | P a g e
 Subsidy for Tuition Fees of Medical Students in State Universities and Colleges will be

compared and contrasted between 2019 and 2020 since there is no fund for the said

expenditure on 2020. Nonetheless, the said table is not subject for post-hoc test.

Table 3.1: Significant Difference Between the Allocation of Fund when Grouped

According to Program Activities

Allocation of Sources of Sum of Squares df Mean Square F- P- Decision

Fund Variation value value

Other Between S

Expenditures Groups 22698567142586940000.00 5 4539713428517388300.00

Within

Groups 10520617999209333000.00 12 5.178 0.009

876718166600777730.00
Total

33219185141796274000.00 17

This table shows that there is a significant difference on the allocation of funds for

CHED when grouped according to other expenditures to determine what and how many

pairings have significant difference, the table is subject for post-hoc test.

43 | P a g e
Table 3.1.1: Post-Hoc Computation on the Significant Difference Between the

Allocation of Fund when Grouped According to Other Expenditures

Allocation of Comparison Mean p-value Decision

Fund Difference

Development NS

of Standards of

Excellence for

Higher

Education

Programs and

Institutions vs.

Development 91343333.33 1.00

of Strategies to

Establish

Linkages with

International

Institutions of

Higher

Learning

Development S

of Standards of -
0.048
Excellence for 3038089666.67

Higher

44 | P a g e
Education

Programs and

Institutions vs.

Provision of

Assistance and

Incentives,

Scholarships

and Grants

through

Student

Financial

Assistance

Program

Development NS

of Standards of

Excellence for

Higher

Education
85897333.33 1.00
Programs and

Institutions vs.

Development

of Policies for

Unified Student

45 | P a g e
Financial

Assistance in

Tertiary

Education

Program

Development NS

of Standards of

Excellence for

Higher

Education
-581054000.00 0.987
Programs and

Institutions vs.

Research and

Scholarship

Project

Development NS

of Standards of

Excellence for

Higher
-38278666.67 1.00
Education

Programs and

Institutions vs.

Subsidy for

46 | P a g e
Tuition Fees of

Medical

Students in

State

Universities

and Colleges

Development S

of Strategies to

Establish

Linkages with

International

Institutions of

Higher

Learning vs. -
.040
Provision of 3129433000.00

Assistance and

Incentives,

Scholarships

and Grants

through

Student

Financial

47 | P a g e
Assistance

Program

Development NS

of Strategies to

Establish

Linkages with

International

Institutions of

Higher -5446000.00 1.00

Learning vs.

Development

of Policies for

Unified Student

Financial

Assistance

Development NS

of Strategies to

Establish

Linkages with
-672397333.33 0.974
International

Institutions of

Higher

Learning vs.

48 | P a g e
Research and

Scholarship

Project

Development NS

of Strategies to

Establish

Linkages with

International

Institutions of

Higher

Learning vs. -129622000.00 1.00

Subsidy for

Tuition Fees of

Medical

Students in

State

Universities

and Colleges

Provision of S

Assistance and

Incentives, 3123987000.00 0.04

Scholarships

and Grants

49 | P a g e
through

Student

Financial

Assistance

Program vs.

Development

of Policies for

Unified Student

Financial

Assistance

System in

Tertiary

Education

Program

Provision of NS

Assistance and

Incentives,

Scholarships

and Grants 2457035666.67 0.141

through

Student

Financial

Assistance

50 | P a g e
Program vs.

Research and

Scholarship

Project

Provision of NS

Assistance and

Incentives,

Scholarships

and Grants

through

Student

Financial

Assistance 2999811000.00 0.051

Program vs.

Subsidy for

Tuition Fees of

Medical

Students in

State

universities and

Colleges

Development NS
-666951333.33 0.975
of Policies for

51 | P a g e
Unified Student

Financial

Assistance

System in

Tertiary

Education

Program vs.

Research and

Scholarship

Project

Development NS

of Policies for

Unified Student

Financial

Assistance

System in

Tertiary -124176000.00 1.00

Education

Program vs.

Subsidy for

Tuition Fees of

Medical

Students in

52 | P a g e
 State

Universities

and Colleges

Research and NS

Scholarship

Project vs.

Subsidy for

Tuition Fees of
542775333.33 0.99
Medical

Students in

State

Universities

and Colleges

Through the use of post-hoc test, the researchers found out that when

Development of Standards of Excellence for Higher Education Programs and Institutions

vs. Provision of Assistance and Incentives, Scholarships and Grants through Student

Financial Assistance Program are compared and contrasted, there is a significant

difference, as well as when Development of Strategies to Establish Linkages with

International Institutions of Higher Learning vs. Provision of Assistance and Incentives,

Scholarships and Grants through Student Financial Assistance Program are compared

and contrasted. There is also a significant difference between Provision of Assistance

and Incentives, Scholarships and Grants through Student Financial Assistance Program

53 | P a g e
vs. Development of Policies for Unified Student Financial Assistance System in Tertiary

Education Program.

Based on their mean differences, CHED funds Provision of Assistance and

Incentives, Scholarships and Grants through Student Financial Assistance Program more

than Development of Standards of Excellence for Higher Education Programs and

Institutions, Development of Strategies to Establish Linkages with International

Institutions of Higher Learning and Development of Policies for Unified Student Financial

Assistance System in Tertiary Education Program.

54 | P a g e
Table 4.0: Pearson-r Correlation on the Significant Relationship Between the

Operating Expenditures

Operating r-value p-value Decision

Expenditures

Personnel 0.959 0.00 S

Expenditures and

Maintenance and

Other Operating

Expenses

Personnel 0.729 0.026 S

Expenditures and

Capital Outlays

Maintenance and 0.871 0.002 S

Other Operating

Expenses and

Capital Outlays

Through the computation for the significant relationship between the operating

expenditures, it can be inferred that all of them have significant relationship with each

other. Based on their r-value, it can be concluded that their relationship is directly

proportional with each other. Meaning, if Personnel Expenditures increase its budget, the

fund for Capital Outlays and Maintenance and Other Operating Expenses will also

increase.

55 | P a g e
Table 4.1: Pearson-r Correlation on the Significant Relationship Between the

Operating Expenditures and Year

Operating r-value p-value Decision

Expenditures

Personnel 0.016 0.967 NS

Expenditures

Maintenance and 0.087 0.824 NS

Other Operating

Expenses

Capital Outlays 0.272 0.479 NS

In this table, it is evident that the year and the operating expenditures do not have

significant relationship with each other. Therefore, it can be concluded that as years pass

by, the budget for the operating expenditures will not vary significantly.

Table 4.2: Pearson-r Correlation on the Significant Relationship Between the Fund

for Monitoring and Evaluation of Performance of Higher Education Programs and

Year

Fund Allocation r-value p-value Decision

Monitoring and -0.02 0.893 NS

Evaluation of

Performance of

Higher Education

Programs

56 | P a g e
 This table shows that there is no significant relationship between the fund for

Monitoring and Evaluation of Performance of Higher Education Programs and the year.

Hence, regardless of the year, the fund for Monitoring and Evaluation of Performance of

Higher Education Programs will not increase nor decrease significantly.

Table 4.3: Pearson-r Correlation on the Significant Relationship Between the Funds

for Program Activities

Fund Allocation r-value p-value Decision

Program Activities -0.229 0.36 NS

Through this table, it can be inferred that the funds for program activities do not

have any significant relationship with each other. Therefore, it can be stated that if one

program activity decreases its budget, then it is not necessary that other program

activities to decrease or increase its budget, too.

57 | P a g e
 Graph 1.0: Trend Graph on the Fund for Universal Access to Quality Tertiary

Education

Trend Graph on the Fund for Universal Access to

Quality Tertiary Education
Php42516767000

Php40000919000
Php35363019000

2018 2019 2020

Fund for Universal Access to Quality Tertiary Education

This graph shows that there is changes between the budget for the year 2018,

2019 and 2020. For the year 2018-2019 the budget for Universal Access to Quality

Tertiary Education was increase and for 2019-2020 the budget decrease.

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

No Significant Difference

There is no significant difference on the following:

• Fund allocated for Personnel Expenses, Maintenance and Other Operating Expenses

and Capital Outlays from 2018 to the proposed budget for 2020.

• Budget for Capital Outlays between General Administration and Support, Support to

Operations and Operations.

58 | P a g e
• Fund of Maintenance and Other Operating Expenses between General Administration

and Support and Support to Operations.

• Allotted fund for the Monitoring and Evaluation of Performance of Higher Education

Programs from 2018 up to the proposed budget for 2020.

• Funds of Development of Standards of Excellence for Higher Education Programs and

Institutions, Development of Strategies and Schemes to Establish Linkages with

International Institutions of Higher Learning, Provision of Assistance and Incentives,

Scholarships and Grants through Student Financial Assistance Program, Development

of Policies for Unified Student Financial Assistance System in Tertiary Education

Program, Research and Scholarship Project and Subsidy for Tuition Fees of Medical

Students in State Universities and Colleges. However, this finding is not applicable when

the Subsidy for Tuition Fees of Medical Students in State Universities and Colleges

between 2019 and 2020 are compared and contrasted since there is no fund for it on the

proposed budget in 2020.

No Significant Relationship

There is no significant relationship on the following:

• Year and the fund for operating expenditures.

• Year and fund for Monitoring and Evaluation of Performance of Higher Education

Programs.

59 | P a g e
• Funds for program activities.

Significant Difference

There is a significant difference on the following:

• Fund of Personnel Expenditures between General Administration and Support, Support

to Operations and Operations.

• Fund of Maintenance and Other Operating Expenditures between General

Administration and Support and Support to Operations, and Support to Operations and

Operations.

• Fund of Monitoring and Evaluation of Performance of Higher Education Programs on

NCR vs. CAR, NCR vs Cagayan Valley, NCR vs MIMAROPA, NCR vs SOCCKSARGEN

and NCR vs CARAGA.

• Fund of Monitoring and Evaluation of Performance of Higher Education Programs on

Cagayan Valley vs. Western Visayas and Cagayan Valley vs. Central Visayas.

• Fund of Monitoring and Evaluation of Performance of Higher Education Programs on

MIMAROPA vs. Western Visayas, Central Visayas, Zamboanga Peninsula and Northern

Mindanao.

• Fund of Monitoring and Evaluation of Performance of Higher Education Programs on

Western Visayas vs. SOCCKSARGEN and Western Visayas vs. CARAGA.

60 | P a g e
• Fund between Development of Standards of Excellence for Higher Education Programs

and Institutions and Provision of Assistance and Incentives, Scholarships and Grants

through Student Financial Assistance Program

• Fund between Development of Strategies to Establish Linkages with International

Institutions of Higher Learning and Provision of Assistance and Incentives, Scholarships

and Grants through Student Financial Assistance Program are compared and contrasted

• Fund between Provision of Assistance and Incentives, Scholarships and Grants through

Student Financial Assistance Program and Development of Policies for Unified Student

Financial Assistance System in Tertiary Education Program.

Significant Relationship

There is a significant relationship between fund of operating expenditures.

Conclusions

Through the projected data from the Results and Discussion, there will be no laying

off of employees or deduction in salary in CHED by 2020. The budget for travel expenses

will not be reduced by 2020. There will be no reduction of essential supplies, like

instructional materials, in 2020. The repairs and maintenance that is to be done on 2020

will be feasible. Hence the null hypothesis given for this problem is accepted.

61 | P a g e
 It can be concluded that CHED prioritizes the operations of their personnel over its

support for it. It means that they focus on their operations itself rather than to supplement

their operations from 2018 to 2020. It can also be inferred that the supplement for

operations is being given more importance when it comes to personnel services rather

than the means to administer their services to their stakeholders. Therefore, the

researchers rejected the null hypothesis stated on this problem.

It is also evident from the data presented that in the aspect of maintenance and

other operating expenses, the level of priority between general administration and support

and support to operations is equal. It means that the magnitude of supplement to make

the operations more feasible is the same with the magnitude of administering their

services to their stakeholders in terms of their budget. In this case, null hypothesis for this

problem was accepted.

However, it can also be seen in the data that operations in maintenance and other

operating expenditures have the highest fund over these two. It means that the priority of

CHED from 2018 to 2020 is the operations aspect of maintenance and other operating

expenditures. The given null hypothesis in this problem is rejected.

From 2018 to 2020, based on the data computed, it is can be deduced that the

budget for Monitoring and Evaluation of Performance of Higher Education Programs will

not be affected significantly. Hence, its activity will not be affected negatively in its aspect

of budget especially when 2020 approaches since there is an upcoming budget cut for

CHED. The hypothesis provided in this problem is accepted.

62 | P a g e
 When the budget of regions for Monitoring and Evaluation of Performance of

Higher Education Programs were compared and contrasted, the null hypothesis for this

problem was rejected. Based from the data computed, it is perceivable that NCR’s budget

for the said activity is higher than CAR, Cagayan Valley, MIMAROPA, SOCCKSARGEN

and CARAGA. It means that CHED monitors the performance of programs implemented

by the commission on NCR more over the said regions. It is obvious that CHED prioritizes

NCR more than any regions since there are many SUCs and private institutions present

in capital region more than any other provinces in the country. Hence, it is surprising that

there is no significant difference between the budget of NCR to Ilocos Region, Central

Luzon, CALABARZON, Bicol region, Western Visayas, Central Visayas, Eastern Visayas,

Zamboanga Peninsula and Davao Region. It can be concluded that the financial needs

of the said regions are on par with the needs of NCR.

Cagayan Valley, on the other hand, have less budget on the said activity than

Western Visayas and Central Visayas. The researchers concluded that the financial

needs of Western and Central Visayas are greater than Cagayan Valley on the said

activity. However, the region’s budget needs on the said activity does not have any

significant difference on the regions not mentioned in this paragraph.

In MIMAROPA vs. Western Visayas, Central Visayas, Zamboanga Peninsula and

Northern Mindanao, it can be inferred that the paired regions for MIMAROPA have more

fund for Monitoring and Evaluation of Performance of Higher Education Programs than

MIMAROPA. Like the conclusions for NCR and Cagayan Valley, it can be inferred that

the financial needs of MIMAROPA are lesser that the needs of Western Visayas, Central

Visayas, Zamboanga Peninsula and Northern Mindanao. It can also be concluded that

63 | P a g e
Western Visayas needs more fund for the said activity than SOCCKSARGEN and

CARAGA.

On the computations available in Results and Discussion, it can be recognized that

the funds for program activities will not be affected significantly when there is a budget

cut for 2020. With budget cut or not, it is safe to conclude that program activities will still

go on 2020 except for the subsidy for tuition fees of medical students in SUCs because

the 2020 proposed appropriation for CHED removed the said subsidy. It can be

speculated that the government may have another mechanism to be presented in the

future for the tuition fees of medical students in SUCs, or they no longer see this subsidy

as important.

Despite of the budget cut, the data computed showed that funds Provision of

Assistance and Incentives, Scholarships and Grants through Student Financial

Assistance Program is being given the highest priority in budget over Development of

Standards of Excellence for Higher Education Programs and Institutions, Development of

Strategies to Establish Linkages with International Institutions of Higher Learning and

Development of Policies for Unified Student Financial Assistance System in Tertiary

Education Program from 2018 to 2020. It can be inferred that despite of the budget cuts,

CHED is still recognizing their scholars as their number one priority than linking their

mechanisms with other countries and developing policies for the financial assistance on

tertiary education. Hence, the hypothesis for this problem is rejected.

It can also be inferred that from 2018 to 2020, the budgets for personnel services,

maintenance and other operating expenses and operating are interdependent to each

64 | P a g e
other. If one of them increases, then all of them will increase. The null hypothesis on this

problem is rejected.

However, it can be discerned on the computations that year and budget for

personnel services, maintenance and other operating expenses and operating does not

have a relationship with each other. It can be concluded that as years pass by, their

budget will be the same. Hence, the null hypothesis on this problem is accepted.

The years and budget for monitoring and evaluation of performance of higher

education programs does not have any relationship at all. It means that in 2020, its budget

will not have a significant deduction, or no deduction at all. The null hypothesis provided

on this problem is accepted.

The null hypothesis on the whether there is a significant relationship between the

funds for program activities does not have a relationship as well. It means that if one

program activities have zero budget, it does not mean that all of the program activities will

have no budget as well.

In assessing the trend of budget for Universal Access to Quality Tertiary Education,

it is perceivable that its peak was in 2019, while its downfall is on 2020. It means that

CHED can accommodate more grantees of TES in 2019 than in 2018 and 2020. It may

be a reason to reduce the scholarship grantees.

65 | P a g e
Recommendations

Below are the recommendations of the researchers to the following stakeholders

of this study:

• Commission on High Education (CHED). With regard to the budget cut on the

Universal Access to Quality Tertiary Education, they must appeal to the congress

to stop its reduction by 2020 since it is a known fact that the number of grantees

for 2020 will be higher than 2019. It would be difficult to the agency if they have

larger fund for 2019 than on 2020 despite the said fact. If ever that the budget cut

is most likely to happen, the agency shall assure that their number one priority is

the scholarship programs over other programs of the agency so that the grantees

of their scholarships will continue their studies without worrying their financial

needs in their school.

• Scholarship Grantees and Other Eligible Students under Scholarship

Programs of CHED. The grantees and other individuals who are eligible to the

scholarship programs of CHED can remove their worries since the data shows that

CHED prioritizes their scholarship programs over other program activities. It is also

shown in the data that there is no significant relationship between years and

budget, except for the students who are in line with medical courses of SUCs; since

in 2020 they have no budget based on the proposed appropriations, they can hope

that the government may have another appropriation for them or they may seek

their own sponsor to fund their tuition fees. Still, they shall look on the current

situation in this matter.

66 | P a g e
• Department of Budget and Management (DBM). The budget department should

also look on this research as an assessment on the distribution of budget of

Monitoring and Evaluation of Performance of Higher Education Programs in every

region since the data computed that there are more funds for NCR than other

regions, but statistically equal to the funds on other regions as well. Since this

agency, along with the congress, has the capability to cut some of the funds of

CHED, they must use this study as an assessment on their decision. Although

there is no significant relationship between the budget and years, the budget

department must also look on the fact that there is a huge decrease on the budget

on Universal Access to Quality Tertiary Education, which may affect their

stakeholders.

• The Congress. The congressmen and congresswomen who do not support the

budget cut for CHED should make an appeal to the whole congress on this matter.

The supermajority in the congress should also reconsider this matter since there

is a rise on the national budget on 2020, but it is ironic that there will be a budget

cut on CHED given the fact that the number of enrollees on colleges will be higher

than 2019. They should revise the proposed appropriation of CHED in this matter.

• Future Researchers. This study strongly recommends to the future researchers

to use this study as their reference on assessing the financial stability of CHED, or

any other researches that is related on the budget of the agency. The future

researchers may also use different tools in assessing data from the general

appropriations act provided by DBM. They may also use this study if ever that they

67 | P a g e
will correlate or compare the budget of CHED to various SUCs since the general

appropriations separate the budget of CHED and SUCs.

68 | P a g e
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Mateo, J. (2018, September 20). CHED budget cut to affect 350,000 students. The

Philippine Star. Retrieved from: https://www.philstar.com/other-

sections/education-and-home/2018/09/20/1852959/ched-budget-cut-affect-

350000-students

Galvez, D. (2019, September 13). Makabayan solons denounce cuts in DOH, CHED 2020

proposed budgets. Philippine Daily Inquirer. Retrieved from:

https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1164319/makabayan-solons-denounce-cuts-in-doh-

ched-2020-proposed-budgets

Licuanan, Patricia B. (2017, March 9). Notice of Public Consultation. Unpublished internal

document, Commission on Higher Education.

Halili, R. (2014, September). Assessment of Student Financial Assistance Programs

(StuFAP) Policies, Procedures, and Control Mechanisms. PIDS Discussion Paper Series

2014-09. Retrieved from: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/126965

De Vera, J. P. (2018, August 14). CHED on COA Report Free Tuition 2017 –

Reimbursement to SUCs Almost Complete. Published internal document.

Retrieved from: https://ched.gov.ph/blog/2018/08/21/ched-on-coa-report-free-

tuition-2017-reimbursements-to-sucs-almost-complete/

Romero, J. (2018, September 18). CHED fears losing scholars after 2019 budget cut.

ABS-CBN News. Retrieved from: https://news.abs-cbn.com/news/09/18/18/ched-

fears-losing-scholars-after-2019-budget-cut

69 | P a g e
Montemayor, M. (2019, August 2). P20.3-B free college education budget disbursed:

CHED. Philippine News Agency. Retrieved from:

https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1076783

Colcol, E. (2019, September 10). CHED budget cuts to affect subsidies, scholarships for

faculty, med students. GMA News. Retrieved from:

https://www.gmanetwork.com/news/news/nation/707538/ched-budget-cuts-to-

affect-subsidies-scholarships-for-faculty-med-students/story/

Richardson, H. (2018, June 28). Characteristics of a Comparative Research Design.

Classroom. Retrieved from: https://classroom.synonym.com/characteristics-

comparative-research-design-8274567.html

Lucas, D. (2015). Quantitative Research – An Overview. ScienceDirect Topics. Retrieved

from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/quantitative-research

McCombes, S. (2019, September 19). Correlational research: Definition, Methods and

Examples. Scribblr. Retrieved from:

https://www.scribblr.com/methodolgy/correlational-research/

Department of Budget and Management. (2019). EXPENDITURE CATEGORIES AND

THEIR ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE. Published external document. Retrieved

from: https://www.dbm.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/PGB-B4.pdf

Cahinhinan, J. (2019, October 7). Baguio solon: Restore P11-B budget cut on CHED.

Politics. Retrieved from: https://politics.com.ph/baguio-solon-restore-p11-b-

budget-cut-on-ched/

70 | P a g e
Republic Act No. 10687 (Unified Student Financial Assistance System for Tertiary

Education (UniFAST) Act)

Republic Act No. 10931 (Universal Access to Quality Tertiary Education)

Presidential Decree No. 1777

71 | P a g e