Final Exam

Questions:
1. Compare and contrast the prioritization of education during the past administrations
beginning with Pres. Ferdinand Marcos until the current administration of Pres.
Rodrigo Duterte vis-à-vis the United Nations recommendation of education spending
based on GDP. Highlight the educational reforms of these administrations and its
implications in the current-day setting. Substantial and in-depth analysis is
expected.

TABLE 1. Overview of Education Agenda of 7 Philippine Presidents

% of GDP
Major ideology/
President Education Education reforms Problems
events during term
Spending*
 1.716  Martial law (1972-  EO No 202 (1969):  Education
(1980) 1986) Presidential Commission became a tool for
 2.076  The 1973 to Study Philippine propaganda
(1982) constitution Education (PCSPE)  Corrupt
 1.686  The new society  10-year natl. education dictatorship
(1983) ideology devt program  Human rights
 Parliamentary  Emphasis on developing abuses
elections manpower  EJKs
 Crony capitalism  Instill nationalism and  Widespread
 Moro conflict citizenship poverty
 Communist  Develop moral character  National debt
Marcos insurgency and self-discipline
1965-1986  First quarter storm  Emphasis on the role of
 Vietnam war the teacher in the
 Plaza Miranda classroom
bombing  Established the ministry
 Aquino of education
assassination  Free basic education for
 EDSA revolution all
 Regulation of all schools
by the state
 Academic freedom
 Upgrade standards
through accreditation
Aquino,  1.726  First female  Free complete education  Political unrest;
“Cory” (1986) president in Asia (basic edu and HS) several coup
1986-1992  EDSA revolution  Emphasis on d’états
 Abolished Marcos’ indigenous, non-formal  Moro conflict
1973 constitution education also targeting  Problems
and ratified the OSY inherited from
1987 constitution  Established the Dept of Marcos time,
 Emphasis on Education, Culture, and especially foreign
human rights Sports (DECS) debts
 Promulgated the  Job training for HS
Family code of students
1987 and the LG  Congressional
Code of 1991 Commission on
 Eruption of Mount Education (EDCOM)
report
1
 Pinatubo  Preservation of Filipino
 Mendiola culture and heritage
massacre
 3.036  Philippines 2000  Scholarship emphasis in  Asian economic
(1995  Tiger Cub S&T—the main crisis
 3.366 economy in Asia battleground of the  Energy crisis
(1996)  Power crisis future  Corruption
 3.512  Death penalty  TVET dual-tech training: charges
(1997) revived in-school and in-plant  Cha-cha
 3.818  1997 Asian training controversy
(1998) Financial crisis  Abolished the NCEE
Ramos
 Resettlement  Established TESDA,
1992-1998
areas were built CHED; trifocalization of
e.g. in Smokey Mt education agencies
 Established Centers of
Excellence in teacher ed
 Created the legal
education board
 Lengthened the school
calendar to 220 days
 3.268  “Erap para sa  Education for all  Corruption
(2000) Mahirap”; anti-  the highest real per allegations
 3.026 poverty policies capita for basic  First president to
(2001) education as compared be impeached, on
to all presidents under his 2nd year in
the present Constitution office (EDSA II)
 Founded a scholarship
foundation and a muslim
Estrada
youth foundation
(“ERAP”)
1998-2001  Established the Pres.
Commission on
Educational reform
(PCER)—a budget
feasible program for
reform
 Project TEACH:
strengthening teacher
competencies
 3.026  Focus on the Phil.  Easing the textbook  Corruption
(2001) economy backlog controversies
 2.996  EDSA II, III  Construction of more  Oakwood mutiny
(2002)  Ondoy classrooms especially in  Fertilizer Fund
 3.043  2008 global remote areas scam
(2003) financial crisis  English as the MOI  Hello Garci
 2.568  Implementing the Basic scandal
Macapagal- (2004) Education Curriculum  Maguindanao
Arroyo  2.425  Improved teacher massacre
(“GMA”) (2005) welfare  Hospital arrest
2001-2010  2.534  Mainstreaming of
(2006) distance learning
 2.596  Internet-based
(2007) education program
 2.693
(2008)
 2.652
(2009)
Aquino,  2.300  “Daang Matuwid”  Implementation of K-12  Manila hostage

2
 (2011)  Impeachment of (Enhanced basic ed act crisis
 2.700 ombudsman 2013)  Mamasapano
(2012) Gutierrez and CJ  Universal ECCD clash
Corona  Madaris education as a  Sendong
sub-system  Yolanda
 10-point Basic education
agenda
 Emphasis on reading
“Pnoy”  TVET in SHS
2010-2016  Mother-tongue based
Teaching and Learning
 Quality textbooks
 Decentralization; SBM
 Gender equality
awareness
 Kindergarten education
act (2012)
 UniFAST law
Around 3%  War on drugs  “Budget for real change”  Extra-judicial
 Marawi conflict  Higher salaries for killings
teachers
 Focus on out of school
Duterte youth
2016-present  Plans for widespread
construction of
classrooms
 Universal access to
higher education
*Data from World Bank (2013) at http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/world-development-
indicators

The above table summarizes the educational spending, major education reforms and
accomplishments, as well as major problems during the terms of office of seven Philippine
presidents beginning with Ferdinand Marcos until the incumbent Rodrigo Duterte. According to
the available information from the World Bank shown in Table 1, the Philippines has never
reached the United Nations recommendation for government spending of at least six percent
of the country’s GDP on education. While this may be a more recent recommendation that may
not have been existing during the time of President Marcos for example, this 6% represents
the ideal that a country should be spending on education in order to provide basic services for
the citizens. In terms of the numbers, the highest allocation for education was in 1998
(Ramos), where spending reached 3.8% of the GDP while the lowest was in 1983 (Marcos)
with only 1.7% of GDP.
During the Marcos era, the education spending was at its lowest, only averaging to
about 1.8% of the GDP. However, with the ratification of the 1973 constitution, Marcos was
able to set the foundations of a modern education system which would be the model of all the

3
succeeding presidents. Even with a relatively paltry budget, the education sector during the
Marcos era had good plans. With the new constitution, he made basic education free for
everyone and he instituted regulations for all schools through the Ministry of education. He had
a 10-year national education development program which emphasized the role of education in
developing manpower for the country. He also expressed a nationalist ideology which he
wanted disseminated through education; schools must instill love of country, national pride,
and citizenship among the students. In 1969, he created the Presidential Commission to Study
Philippine Education (PCSPE) in order to delve into and subsequently address the complex
issues plaguing the education sector.
While Marcos had considerable contributions for education during his term, the
problems and abuses during the Martial law era would taint these efforts. Human rights
violations, killings, “salvagings” happened during the era to silence any dissent towards the
dictatorship. Students were not exempt from the abuses, and many of those who spoke out
suffered—among them Edgar Jopson, Rigoberto Tiglao, and student-journalist Liliosa Hilao of
Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila who died in detention during Martial law. Amnesty
International reports that 70,000 were imprisoned, 34,000 were tortured, and 3,240 were killed.
The Task Force Detainees of the Philippines has recorded 398 disappearances, where bodies
have not been found even until today. Undisputedly, the Marcos era is a dark time in Philippine
history.
When the Marcos dictatorship was overthrown by the People Power revolution, Cory
Aquino came to power. Cory’s term was marked by trying to deal with the problems inherited
from the Marcos rule—NPA insurgencies, political squabbles, foreign debt, and a country
whose spirit was battered by the abuses of an oligarch. During Cory’s term, education
spending was at 1.7% of the GDP in 1986 (the only available data from the World bank). While
this rate is relatively low, the government during Cory’s term was able to accomplish education
goals which are still relevant today. Cory commissioned a Congressional Commission on
Education (EDCOM) report to guide the country’s education agenda. During Cory’s term,
secondary education became free for students. Notable also was the job training prescribed for
high school students to prepare them for work after they graduate. Non-formal education was
brought to the fore in order to accommodate the marginalized such as the out of school youth.
Heritage preservation was stressed, which brought a renewed respect for indigenous tribes
and cultures.

4
 Cory was succeeded by Ramos, whose term saw the highest spending for education in
Philippine history (3.8% of GDP in 1998). Ramos focused on the economic growth, which
might explain the increase in education spending since education is a known driver of the
economy. Even with the Asian Financial Crisis during his term, Ramos was able to steer the
Philippines to become the tiger cub economy of Asia. Included in his Philippines 2000 plan
was his term’s education agenda: ushering the Philippines into an industrialized economy. This
explains the emphasis on science and technology, which Ramos believed was the “main
battleground of the future.” The government funded extensive scholarships in the fields of
science and technology, and instituted a TVET dual-tech training involving in-school as well as
in-plant training. Ramos’ term also saw the lengthening of the school calendar to 220 days, the
creation of the legal education board, the abolishment of the National College Entrance Exam
(NCEE) (which might be revived during Duterte’s term), and the establishment of Centers of
Excellence in teacher education. Ramos established TESDA and CHED and instituted the
trifocal system of education which we still employ today.
Even with the highest spending for education the country had ever seen, education
during Ramos’ term was still plagued by problems of corruption, of inadequate schools and
facilities, and of an energy crisis. Nevertheless, Ramos term would mark the beginning of a
trend which saw education as a top priority in government spending. This trend continued with
Ramos’ successor, Erap Estrada.
While Erap did not really have the chance to implement his educational platform, having
only been in office for 2 years before being impeached, it is clear that education was a priority
for him. His spending for education was relatively high at 3% and upwards (3.3 % in 2000 and
3% in 2001) and this was the time when international agreements exerted national influence;
Education for All led by UNESCO was gaining ground as a global commitment. With only two
years under his belt, his term was still able to undertake the Presidential Commission on
Educational Reform (PCER) which sought to find budget-feasible programs for educational
reform. Erap also established scholarship foundations for underprivileged students as well as a
Muslim youth foundation, which shows a sensitivity to complex educational issues. A star
project during his term was the Project TEACH, which sought to strengthen teacher
competencies with the acknowledgement that teachers hold the key to learning in the
classroom.
We can never know what would have happened if Erap was able to finish his term.
Corruption allegations led to his impeachment as President, and he was replaced by the VP,
5
Glora Macapagal-Arroyo (GMA). GMA would continue to serve a second term, and would be
president until 2010. Spending for education during GMA’s term would slowly decrease over
the years, from 3.036% of the GDP in 2001 to 2.652% in 2009. GMA focused on strengthening
the economy but her term saw many controversies as well from the Oakwood mutiny to the
Hello Garci scandal and the Fertilizer fund scam which would be her undoing. Her
accomplishments in the education sector includes easing the textbook backlog, a major
problem in the basic education sector since majority of children did not get quality books
because of bureaucratic red tape and corruption. Her term also saw the construction of more
classroom buildings, especially in the remote areas and in the ARMM. She made English as
the medium of instruction, to ensure the global competitiveness of the Filipino graduate. A
significant effort is also the mainstreaming of distance education and the launching of internet-
based education programs, which were steps towards the future. GMA also improved teacher
welfare by dealing with systemic corruptions in the DepEd and she implemented the basic
education curriculum which is now replaced by the K-12 curriculum.
GMA was succeeded by President Aquino (Pnoy), whose education spending would
continue the downward trend started during GMA’s term in the first few years (2.3% of GDP in
2011) but would eventually increase during the last years of his term (around 3% in 2016).
Pnoy, like many of the presidents before him, appointed technocrats in his executive agencies
which would infuse the agencies with much needed expertise. I would say that Pnoy’s term
saw the most change in the education sector among all the presidents in the current
constitution, primarily because the implementation of the Enhanced Basic Education Act of
2013 or the K-12 act was such a massive development that the country is still reeling from the
effects even until now. It was a necessary move which was long overdue. Pnoy had a 10-point
basic education agenda which included a universal early childhood/ primary education (ECCD)
and a Madaris system of education. The mode of instruction also change to a mother-tongue
based teaching and learning in the first few years of school. Another major accomplishment
during Pnoy’s term is the decentralization of the Department of Education; the advent of
school-based management saw individual schools with more responsibilities and power,
devolving the control of central agencies. Pnoy’s term also saw the creation of the Unifast
board to financial assistance to tertiary education students.
Pnoy was recently succeeded by President Duterte, who now has been in office for
almost two years. Even with the recent change in presidents, Duterte’s education platform is
already rolling with the recently passed RA 10931 or the Universal Access to Quality Tertiary
6
Education. Duterte also has also pledged that teacher salaries would be increased. While too
early too tell, Duterte pledges to prioritize education spending during his term, already giving it
top priority along with infrastructure in 2017.
Most of the presidents’ education agendas are always attuned to answering the calls of
the times, like Ramos and his focus on science and technology and TVET training, or Erap’s
Education for All agenda, or of Pnoy’s pushing for the K-12 enhancement. Most of the
Philippine presidents discussed here are plagued by controversies, yet there are notable
details about their terms. For example, many of the presidents undertook efforts (PCSPE,
EDCOM, PCER) to study the issues of the education sector to ensure that their agendas are
aligned with the actual context.

From the World Bank website at https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SE.XPD.TOTL.GD.ZS

While the Philippine spending on education has yet to reach the UN recommended 6%
of GDP (shown in the figure above) and inspite of competing state needs, the efforts of the
presidents in the last 5 decades show that education is most always on the top of the national
agenda. There are still so many issues to address but it is important that the Philippine
President should recognize the long term benefits of investing in the education of the people.
This recent trend to prioritize education was also most likely influenced by global commitments
and international agreements to aid developing countries like the Philippines. In addition, I
believe the presidents themselves realize that national progress can only truly come with an
enlightened, empowered, and educated citizenry.

7
2. Will there be ramifications and implications of R.A. 10931 Universal Access to
Quality Tertiary Education Act on the following national issues? Why or why not?
What are these?
a. Migration
b. Income distribution
c. Globalization
d. Employment
e. Social mobility

Republic Act No. 10931 or the Universal Access to Quality Tertiary Education Act is an
act “promoting universal access to quality tertiary education by providing for free tuition and
other school fees in state universities and colleges, local universities and colleges and state-
run technical-vocational institutions, establishing the tertiary education subsidy and student
loan program, strengthening the unified student financial assistance system for tertiary
education, and appropriating funds therefore.” This move from Congress is founded on Article
XIV of the 1987 constitution, which states that “the State shall protect and promote the right of
all citizens to quality education at all levels, and shall take appropriate steps to make such
education accessible to all.” This law extends free education in the Philippines to include
tertiary education, whereas prior the law the state provided for free primary and secondary
education.
RA 10931 zeroes in on education access especially in tertiary education, which for
many is still a privilege. I personally think that it is a good law, but only if it is implemented well
and proper regulations are enforced. I think it is good because it gives Filipino students
avenues to pursue; it opens doors to someone who previously would have believed that there
is no chance for him/her to pursue further studies after high school because of their
circumstances.
It can be expected that an education policy as significant and momentous as RA 10931
will have an impact on the state of the nation, but only time will tell exactly what these effects
will be. However, based on current trends and issues, we can surmise possible implications of
the new law on national issues such as migration, income distribution, globalization,
employment, and social mobility. The immediate conclusion upon reading RA 10931 and all its
avenues for student support in the tertiary sector is that it will produce even more graduates in
the future—a fact that can either be a problem or a boon for the country.
8
Migration and globalization
More graduates, if unregulated, would be a problem because it will contribute to the
already existing oversupply of graduates and the subsequent underemployment. Many
Filipinos have had to leave the country to pursue work abroad because of the lack of work
options in the country. Often, one hears tales of sad truths such as nursing graduates working
in fastfood chains or education graduates working in retail stores as clerks. 5,000 Filipinos
leave the country every day and almost 10% of our population resides overseas (Philippine
Statistics Authority & Commission on Filipinos Overseas, 2017). Migration has become a norm
for the Philippines, so much so that 9.8% of our GDP comes from remittances by OFWs. We
have become one of the world’s most organized labor exporting countries in the world. This
means that our economy is hinged upon a phenomenon that came about because of our
weaknesses as a country.
It is possible that RA 10931 will spell another wave of brain drain for the Philippines
because the law does not include any provisions on return service for the scholarship that was
granted to the students. I hope this will be amended; the state must make it a condition for the
scholars to work for the country first as repayment of the investment channeled in them.
Without this provision, many of the graduates of RA 10931 will leave the country because of
the deficiencies of our own labor market and much greener pastures abroad.
Migration will be even more likely now with the advent of globalization, which means
that our labor market will be competing with a global one. However, this also means that our
graduates will need to be equipped with the skills necessary to compete in a global market. RA
10931 should regulate for quality as well as access, or else our graduates will be lost in the
global marketplace. After all, I strongly believe that access does not have meaning if it does
not go hand in hand with quality education. For example, because of lapses in regulation which
brought about the mushrooming of Maritime schools in the last decade, graduates from the
Philippines sometimes had no skills under their belts. The Philippines was under threat to be
blacklisted in the European Union, which meant that no maritime graduate from the Philippines
would be hired in any of the EU ships and companies. This could have been disastrous for the
country, with maritime being one of the industries bringing remittances in the country, if this
was not resolved by the Commission on Higher Education (CHED). Today, they the country’s
maritime programs are heavily regulated. This scenario could easily be replicated in other
fields such as nursing, education, engineering, etc. if diploma mills are allowed to operate. One

9
of the implications of globalization is that our country’s standards must conform with global
standards.
Employment, income distribution, and social mobility
More graduates can also spell a boon for the country because it would mean an infusion
of fresh blood in our industries: more experts, more professionals, more skilled and trained
workers. Like mentioned earlier, RA 10931 gives opportunities and opens doors to those who
are most in need—in theory. There are some provisions that I feel is necessary for the law to
truly pave a path for access and equality.
RA 10931 and its IRR should consider admission procedures that are more pro-poor.
As the law stands, education is free for those who can pass the admission requirements of the
schools, with no socialized considerations. It is possible that in the race for admissions in the
state schools, the poorest of the poor might not make the cut as they usually face more
challenges than the average student such as malnutrition and having to deal with discouraging
environments. More than admissions, the law is also very strict in terms of qualifications for the
grant: an irregular student or a student with academic delays will no longer be illegible for free
tuition for example. What will happen is, instead of giving more opportunities for the poorest,
RA 10931 might even widen the gap between the middle class and the poor. This can be
amended by making more pro-poor provisions in the law.
Another issue with RA 10931 that needs to be clarified is how a student is expected to
pay off the loan should he/she avail of this. If the US student load model would be any
indication, the interest from the loan make the payables so high that when a graduate is able to
work, he/she works to pay off the loans instead of being able to support his/her family. This
could happen here in the Philippines also because it is not clearly stated in the law how much
interest needs to be paid for the student loans. If the student debt becomes so high after
he/she graduates, this will just add another layer to the problem of poverty. It is appreciated
though that the loans will be paid off only once the graduate is able to find gainful employment.
Finally, and it is worth reiterating, RA 10931 should have provisions on quality of the
schools and the alignment of graduate supply with job demand. What is a diploma for
engineering worth, if there are no skills behind this? The lack of quality in some of the SUCs
and LUCs today is frightening, and should definitely be corrected. Also, SUCs and LUCs must
take into consideration the job demands when opening programs. Some schools open
programs because they are popular, even if there is already an oversupply in the market.
Since they are no longer dependent upon tuition fees, Iam hoping this trend will be corrected.
10
The schools should offer programs that align with the Department of Labor’s
recommendations.
If these changes are considered, RA 10931 will go a long way in bridging the gap
between the rich and the poor. After all, education is indeed the great equalizer. My own family
history is a testament to the great power of education to change lives, which could also be
considered as social mobility. My beloved lola, Gloria Laureana S. Rosales, was born to a
family of merchants who—like many Filipinos then—were rendered poor after the war. Lola
would tell us about selling pancakes by the side of the street for soldiers, or working for her
sister to put her through school. So insistent she was on graduating that she would walk hours
everyday just to get to and from school, because she did not have the money to pay for
transportation. She became a teacher, and eventually a principal. She wanted to build more
schools because she loved education and inevitably, she found a partner in her vocation, my
Lolo: Sesenio S. Rosales. He was an engineer. Together, they put up their first school in Iligan
city in 1964. She would tell me that there were times they would buy sacks of cement
foregoing rice, just to see their dream come to fruition. That first school in Iligan City is the
beginning of the Capitol system, a network of four schools and one hospital in Mindanao.
With the risk of sounding emotional, love for education runs in my veins. Because of my
lola and lola’s efforts, I am able to have had a privileged upbringing but not a sheltered one.
We grew up in the schools, which I am proud to say serve a big population of working
students. I have heard first hand of students, like lola, who walk hours just to get to school. I
know of a friend who makes do with 1 pack of instant noodles for his meal for the day: in the
morning, he would have the soup, for lunch the soup and some noodles, and for the evening,
he would eat what was left over. These are the stories I wish the politicians making our laws
could hear. There is hope though, because I do believe that RA 10931 can and will do a lot of
good for our people. I just hope that care and consideration goes into the implementation of
this law as well.

References:
Government expenditure on education. (2013). World Bank website at
http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/world-development-indicators

11