WITH THE recent approval of the Resolution of Both Houses (RBH) No. 7 in the House of Representatives, certain sections of the 1987 Constitution are under consideration for amendments in a bid to increase foreign direct investments (FDI) in the country.

However, experts remain divided on the planned charter change as concerns continue to emerge regarding its potential impact on the Philippine higher education landscape.

One for the books

Holding one of the most stringent restrictions on foreign ownership, the Philippines is the only member state in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) whose constitution restricts the foreign ownership, establishment, and enrollment of higher educational institutions (HEIs).

Although partnerships between local and international HEIs were legalized through the Transnational Higher Education Act, a 60-40 proportion of ownership in favor of Filipinos was stipulated to protect the country’s national security and preserve Filipino identity. As of writing, the Senate is deliberating on easing this restriction as part of Congress’s charter change initiatives.

In light of such proposed changes, former Ateneo School of Government Dean Ronald Mendoza, PhD noted that introducing foreign investment management techniques, technologies, and expertise can increase competition. “If we grant them entry into our country, there is the potential for that technology transfer that we will need to stay competitive and for our young people to stay competitive,” he said.

The influx of foreign investments in the sector would then theoretically yield advancements in both private and public academic institutions. Apart from the new technologies, Mendoza also added that foreign investments would also give the country greater opportunities to invest in its youth by innovating the education sector, increasing the variety of its services, and improving its existing facilities. 

Another potential benefit from the heightened resources and competition would be higher compensation for faculty members, according to University of California-Berkeley Assistant Professor Jose Eos Trinidad, PhD. “If, for example, these [foreign] universities that have deep pockets are going to poach faculty, [local universities] have to sweeten the deal by enticing [faculty] to come to [or stay in] their university,” Trinidad said.

Furthermore, Senator Sherwin Gatchalian claimed in an interview with PNA that foreign investments have the potential to develop the country’s human capital. Despite these possible benefits, however, liberalizing HEIs will not necessarily lead to immediate improvement within the higher education sector.

Risks for HEIs

Though opening Philippine HEIs to foreign ownership may give the country a competitive and economic boost, such changes come with risks that could undermine Philippine higher education.

Opening up the sector also exposes Philippine higher education to possible exploitation and perversion by foreign-owned institutions whose interests are different from national development goals. “We don’t want these sectors that we have opened up to be taken advantage of, […] particularly because some investors may not necessarily share our democratic values,” Mendoza said.

As local schools and universities may not be ready to compete with the resources and capacities of foreign institutions, increased competition among HEIs may drive them to closure.

Additionally, the country’s reputation for hosting “diploma mills”—illegitimate organizations that forge diplomas for profit—may dissuade higher-quality foreign HEIs from establishing themselves in the country. Thus, liberalizing the higher education sector may instead attract substandard foreign universities.

As such, Trinidad asserted that the positive impact of foreign-owned HEIs would come from the prestige of its name and the human capital of its faculty, not from the fact that they are sourced from abroad. He also likewise noted that, instead of competition, foreign-owned and local HEIs can ideally recognize areas where their expertise can complement each other, leading to expanded collaboration.

“If they bring in new fields and new technologies like climate science or quantum computing […], those things are [going to] be welcome additions to what we have in Philippine higher education,” he pointed out.

However, while targeting high-quality foreign universities would indeed be more advantageous for the higher education sector, it restricts access only to the most financially prepared students. With the possible increased educational disparity between graduates from higher-ranked foreign HEIs and lower-ranked local universities, the liberalization of the higher education sector could translate into income inequality, which continues to plague the country. Moreover, transnational education has been observed in the past to exacerbate brain drain in host countries, leading to the local industries losing highly skilled workers.

Aside from such unfavorable and inequitable outcomes, Mendoza commented that narrower access to high-quality HEIs would be inadvertently detrimental to the educational sector, as inclusivity in the classroom improves students’ learning experiences.

“[By having students from diverse backgrounds], [classroom] discussions are going to be richer because it’s not just the same group meeting over and over again, coming from the same sort of strata in society,” he noted.

Overlooking icebergs

In light of the possible repercussions of charter change, Mendoza argued that once economic restrictions are lifted to attract foreign investment in HEIs, legislation must guard against factors that may negatively impact Philippine education.

“The challenge for our legislators and our leaders is to try and find ways to signal that [we will not be taken advantage of], that [this constitutional amendment] will just be very focused on [essential] sectors and the evidence-based supporting reforms on those sectors,” Mendoza declared.

Beyond the education sector, concerns persist about how charter change can provide an avenue for Philippine legislative officials to monopolize power. In a House committee hearing on February 27, Bayan Muna partylist Chairperson and former congressman Atty. Neri Colmenares warned Congress about the possible threat of inserting the phrase “unless otherwise provided by law” into vital sections of the Constitution.

Such an addition could be used as a strategic facade by lawmakers to act under partisan interests and could also allow them to entirely bypass the limitations set by the Constitution. As the current composition of the Philippine Congress is largely dominated by administration-allied supermajority blocs, the provision may cater to monotonous or exclusive legislation at large.

Given the impending amendments pursued by charter change, legislative officials and the general public must diligently demand that the state craft policies with foresight as well as the nation’s best interests at heart. Likewise, with regard to the Philippines’ higher education sector, lawmakers and citizens alike must weigh the benefits and risks that liberalizing HEIs would entail.

Beyond the improved competition and quality that the introduction of foreign HEIs may spur within educational circles, the wide repercussions of charter change could further sideline and exacerbate the deep-rooted disparities of accessible education in Philippine society.