RA.

8292 - Higher Education Modernization Act - Archie Garcia

The “Higher Education Modernization Act of 1997,” also known as Republic Act No. 8292, is a
significant piece of legislation in the Philippines. It modifies the working methods of state university and
college administrators. On June 6, 1997, the Senate and the House of Representatives made it. The goal
of this law is to improve the performance of the organizations in charge of these schools. It aspires to
make these schools more intelligent, more responsive, and more aware of the needs of the community
in terms of education. The 1997 Higher Education Modernization Act, also known as Republic Act No.
8292, modifies the duties and responsibilities of Philippine state university and college administrators.
This critique will look at this law's main points. It will see how it affects how schools are run, how much
freedom they have, and if it really helps students get a better education. It will also check if it does what
it promises: helping schools be more modern, giving students better education, and making sure schools
are fair for everyone. This law talks about who should be in charge, how they are picked, and what they
can do. It also talks about things like how much students should pay for their education, how teachers
and workers are chosen, and how schools can spend their money. It's about building better schools and
working with other schools too. This paper will examine the advantages and disadvantages of this law.
Its goal is to find out if it actually improves student learning and schools. Through an examination of the
specifics of Republic Act No. 8292, this review seeks to provide a clear understanding of how it impacts
Philippine education and contributes to school improvement.

This legislation primarily focused on redefining the composition and functions of the boards
responsible for steering these educational institutions. It sought to restructure the groups that make
crucial decisions affecting the direction, policies, and operations of these universities and colleges. The
Act delineated the key constituents mandated to form these boards, encompassing individuals with
diverse roles and affiliations. Notably, these boards would consist of influential figures such as the
Chairman of the Commission on Higher Education (CHED), the respective president of the university or
college, and representatives from various segments including faculty members, students, alumni, and
experts renowned in their respective fields. This law established clear guidelines pertaining to the
tenure of these board members. While the faculty and student representatives would continue in their
roles until their stipulated terms concluded, other members, like distinguished citizens, were to serve for
specific durations.

Furthermore, the Act elaborated on the frequency of board meetings and outlined the
necessary quorum, specifying the minimum number of members required for decision-making. It
conferred specific powers to these boards, empowering them to frame rules and regulations for the
institution, manage financial resources, determine fees, make hiring decisions, and set academic policies
and programs. Overall, the Act aimed to modernize the landscape of higher education by reshaping the
leadership and governance structures of universities and colleges. Its key emphasis lay on fostering
improved decision-making processes, enhancing financial stewardship, and advancing academic
development, all aligned with the broader educational policies and standards of the country.
 Fundamentally, this Act makes a strong case for a thorough restructuring of the makeup and
duties of the governing boards that are in charge of these educational establishments. The Act suggests
that these boards need to be reorganized in order to promote a higher education management style
that is more unified, effective, and responsive. It emphasizes the vital significance of integrated
governance by attempting to match these boards' responsibilities with the changing demands of
society's educational landscape. Though the Act expresses the need for change, it falls short of providing
the thorough and in-depth explanation needed to support the reasoning behind the mandated
provisions. Without a thorough explanation, the Act might be less successful in persuading a larger
audience—particularly those without a background in law or policy—of the importance of the proposed
governance restructuring. Furthermore, a wider audience interested in educational policies and reforms
may find it difficult to access and comprehend the legal language used throughout the document, which
would limit the Act's effectiveness in informing and involving this audience.

The Act's evident focus on implementing major changes to the SUCs' governance framework is
one of its strongest points, even though it falls short of providing a thorough explanation of the
reasoning behind the proposed restructuring. It sets out in detail how governing boards are to be
composed, guaranteeing that different sectors of higher education are represented. This methodical
strategy suggests a conscious attempt to rectify the shortcomings in the current governance framework,
with the goal of achieving a more structured and effective approach to institutional management. In
addition, the Act grants these governing boards significant authority, enabling them to set important
policies, oversee finances, and pass laws. A deliberate attempt to reduce governance gaps and enhance
the general operation of SUCs is indicated by this authority delineation. However, The Act's inability to
offer thorough justifications or illustrative examples, which would have effectively strengthened the
reasoning behind the mandated directives, is a significant weakness. This shortcoming weakens the Act's
argument and may make it more difficult for institutions of higher learning to successfully implement it.
Furthermore, the formal and intricate language found in legal documents may serve as a barrier,
reducing the Act's understanding ability and accessibility to a wider audience. This comprehension
barrier may make it more difficult for stakeholders to collaborate and engage, which could have an
impact on the Act's practical applicability and efficacy in changing the governance framework for higher
education.

In summary, this act emphasizes a coherent, effective, and responsive approach to managing
educational institutions by drastically redefining the makeup and responsibilities of the governing
boards. The purpose of the proposed directives is not adequately explained by the Act, despite the fact
that it describes these boards' members, powers, and tenure in great detail. A wider audience may find
it more difficult to access and engage with the Act due to its formal legal language and dearth of
thorough explanations. Its careful reorganization of governance and granting these boards the authority
to implement important policies and oversee resources, with the goal of improving the general
management of SUCs, are its strong points. However, in order to improve the Act's effectiveness and
involvement, it would be advantageous to offer clearer explanations and use language that is more
understandable to a larger audience. This would facilitate improved understanding and cooperation in
changing the governance environment of higher education.
References:

Tenth Congress Republic Act No. 8292. (n.d.). The Lawphil Project.
https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1997/ra_8292_1997.html