MANILA — A new nationwide survey by the Second Congressional Commission on Education (EDCOM II) has found that while many higher education institutions in the Philippines have adopted affirmative action policies, their implementation remains uneven, and support for marginalized students is inconsistent.

Titled “Affirmative Action in Philippine Higher Education Institutions: Evidence from a New Survey,” the study was authored by Dr. Jan Carlo B. Punongbayan and Jefferson A. Arapoc, and conducted in partnership with Ateneo de Manila University. It provides the first systematic, nationwide mapping of affirmative action policies in Philippine colleges and universities.

The survey defines affirmative action as proactive measures such as quota systems, reserved slots, bridging programs, or adjusted admissions criteria, aimed at leveling the playing field for students from low-income households, indigenous communities, persons with disabilities, and other marginalized groups.

While Republic Act No. 10931, or the Universal Access to Quality Tertiary Education Act (UAQTEA), has removed tuition barriers, the study finds that certain disadvantaged groups continue to face barriers to higher education, particularly those who encounter historical, social, and structural disadvantages.

The survey of 529 higher education institutions nationwide revealed differences in policy adoption: 77% of State Universities and Colleges (SUCs) have at least one affirmative action policy, compared to 45% of private institutions and 43% of Local Universities and Colleges (LUCs). Section 7 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 10931 mandates SUCs and LUCs to implement affirmative action programs, though clear implementation guidelines have been lacking since 2018.

The study also found that while socioeconomic disadvantage is the most common basis for affirmative action, inclusivity drops sharply for other marginalized groups. Support for learners with disabilities, those affected by conflict or disasters, and gender minorities remains limited, with coverage below 50% in most institutions.

Despite outreach efforts, student awareness of affirmative action policies is low. Only 55% of SUC students, 45% of private HEI students, and 40% of LUC students are aware of such programs. About one-third of private HEIs conduct no outreach at all. Entrance examinations, nearly universal in public HEIs but required in only half of private institutions, are associated with higher implementation of affirmative action policies, though they can also pose barriers for disadvantaged students.

The study highlighted weaknesses in student support beyond admissions. Career counseling is the most widely available service, and around 80% of institutions prioritize mental health support. However, preparatory programs for underprepared students are the least commonly available, and more than half of institutions do not track the graduation or labor market outcomes of students admitted through affirmative action.

“As we improve participation and completion in higher education, it is imperative to ensure that no learner is left behind—especially students who have faced multiple hurdles to complete high school and now access higher education,” said EDCOM II Executive Director Dr. Karol Mark Yee. “We strongly urge CHED and UNIFAST to develop a comprehensive policy for affirmative action, to regularly collect data that focuses on transitions and available pathways for these learners, and to work with public and private colleges and universities, to ensure that programs are in place to ensure students with disabilities, those coming from ethnic minorities, and those affected by conflict and disasters, are not left out.”