THE complaint filed against Commission on Higher Education (CHEd) chairman Shirley Agrupis has generated headlines and predictable reactions. In an era when accusations often gain traction before they are carefully examined, it is tempting to assume that the sheer volume of allegations is itself proof of wrongdoing.
But accountability requires more than optics. It requires evidence. It requires violations of law, rules, or regulations that can withstand scrutiny. On closer examination, many of the allegations against Agrupis appear stronger as expressions of employee dissatisfaction and bureaucratic conflict than as legally sustainable charges.
Take the allegation of nepotism. At first glance, the appointment of a daughter appears alarming. Yet the complaint itself reportedly refers to an appointment made during Agrupis' tenure as president of Mariano Marcos State University, not while she was serving as CHEd chairman. More importantly, if the position involved was confidential or primarily confidential in nature, as executive assistant positions often are, it may fall within recognized exceptions to anti-nepotism rules under civil service law and jurisprudence.
The allegations concerning the supposed influx of personnel from MMSU and Region 1 suffer from a similar flaw. The law does not prohibit agency heads from appointing former colleagues, trusted associates, or professionals who are alumni of a particular university. To establish wrongdoing, complainants must show that appointments violated merit-selection rules or involved unqualified appointees. Mere institutional affiliation is not evidence of illegality.
Indeed, some of those cited as examples of favoritism are professionals with experience from agencies such as DPWH, the Office of the President and the Department of Economy, Planning and Development (DepDev) who were reportedly recruited to address infrastructure, digitalization and strategic planning concerns within CHEd.
The criticism directed at the use of three-month contracts for contract of service and job order personnel likewise deserves closer examination. The arrangement may be unpopular and inconvenient. But inconvenience is not misconduct. Unless critics can point to a specific violation of law or regulation, the issue remains a management decision rather than a legal offense.
Perhaps the most revealing aspect of the complaint is its reliance on allegations involving personal branding. The use of the "Achieve Agenda," hand gestures during official functions, and even the existence of a biographical film are cited as evidence of misconduct.
Yet public officials routinely adopt slogans and signature programs to communicate priorities. Without evidence that public resources were unlawfully used for personal benefit, these allegations appear more like critiques of style than demonstrations of wrongdoing.
Even the biographical film cited in the complaint appears less scandalous upon closer inspection. It was reportedly produced by MMSU as part of its recognition of distinguished alumni, a group that includes DepDev Secretary Arsenio Balisacan and other accomplished graduates. Recognition by one's alma mater is hardly proof of administrative misconduct.
Agrupis is likewise accused of being imperious and temperamental. Perhaps she is. Perhaps she is not. But if there is one institution capable of testing the patience of even the most composed administrator, it is a bureaucracy burdened by decades of unresolved problems.
CHEd serves as the central repository of information for more than 2,000 higher education institutions, approximately 5.4 million students, and nearly 39,000 academic programs. Yet after more than three decades, the commission still struggles with integrated digital systems commensurate with its mandate. Questions continue to be raised about unliquidated funds, ghost students, diploma mills, weak performance management systems, and delayed educational subsidies. These are systemic problems accumulated over many years and across multiple administrations.
As someone who is part of the broader CHEd community through my service as a member of the CHEd technical panel for environmental science, I have worked closely with rank-and-file CHEd employees. Many are dedicated public servants who quietly perform their duties despite institutional constraints. Their commitment deserves recognition.
That is why what concerns me most is not simply the complaint itself but the possibility that institutional energy is being diverted away from challenges that genuinely require attention.
Among these is the controversial Reframed General Education curriculum. Concerns have been raised regarding the adequacy of consultations conducted during its development, particularly on the content of the core courses. Some stakeholders have alleged that even members of the technical bodies involved in the process were not meaningfully consulted on critical aspects of the proposal. Whether one supports or opposes the reform, these concerns deserve serious attention because they touch on academic freedom, institutional autonomy and the constitutional mandate of higher education institutions. Resolving the issues surrounding the Reframed GE would contribute more to CHEd's credibility than any internal political contest ever could.
A further concern relates to the timing and overall character of the complaint. Timing alone does not invalidate allegations. However, when a complaint relies heavily on perceptions, symbolism, management style, and institutional affiliations rather than demonstrable legal violations, questions naturally arise.
If reports circulating within higher education circles are accurate, Agrupis may be serving a term linked to the unexpired appointment of her predecessor, reportedly nearing its conclusion. Viewed in this context, some observers may reasonably ask whether the complaint is solely about accountability or whether succession politics and bureaucratic rivalries are also at play. Absent stronger documentary evidence, the cumulative effect of allegations about branding, alumni networks and management style risks creating the appearance of a coordinated effort to weaken a sitting official at a politically opportune moment.
Public officials must always be subject to scrutiny. But accountability is best served when allegations are anchored on evidence of actual violations of law rather than speculation, innuendo, or dissatisfaction with leadership style.
The higher education sector deserves better than bureaucratic intrigue disguised as accountability. It deserves a CHEd focused on improving quality, strengthening research, safeguarding academic freedom, addressing concerns surrounding the Reframed General Education curriculum, modernizing governance systems, and fulfilling its constitutional mandate. Those are the issues that deserve the commission's attention, and the standards by which its leadership should ultimately be judged.
Antonio P. Contreras, PhD, is a professor at the University of the Philippines Los Baños School of Environmental Science and Management, member of the CHEd technical panel for environmental science, and vice chairman of the board of the state-run People's Television Network Inc. (PTVNI), representing the academic sector.
