MANILA — Overlapping mandates among the Commission on Higher Education (CHED), the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC), and the Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA) are creating structural barriers that leave graduates unprepared and academic programs misaligned, according to findings of the Second Congressional Commission on Education (EDCOM II).

In a report published on Jan. 14, 2026, EDCOM II said the absence of a clear hierarchy and regular coordination among the three agencies has resulted in blurred delineations of authority, particularly where academic programs, skills standards, and licensure requirements intersect. This, it said, has led to duplicative regulation, inconsistent enforcement, and conflicting policy guidance for institutions and students.

While CHED, PRC, and TESDA were established to regulate different segments of the education-to-employment pipeline, EDCOM II noted that their enabling laws grant parallel and sometimes competing powers. Republic Act No. 7722 gives CHED authority over higher education programs, curricula, and quality assurance, while Republic Act No. 7796 mandates TESDA to set competency standards, regulate technical-vocational education and training, and issue national certifications. Republic Act No. 8981, meanwhile, expanded PRC’s role beyond licensure to include oversight of professional standards, continuing professional development, and coordination with educational institutions.

EDCOM II said regulatory confusion is further compounded by outdated professional laws, such as the Civil Engineering Law of 1950 and the Medical Act of 1959, which were enacted decades before the creation of CHED and TESDA. These laws, it said, embed prescriptive requirements on curriculum content, faculty qualifications, training facilities, and other standards directly into statute, resulting in conflicts with contemporary quality assurance frameworks.

The commission noted that while RA 7722 authorizes CHED to prescribe minimum standards for higher education programs, nine professional laws prescribe program length, structure, and required facilities. It added that 36 professional laws detail topics to be covered by licensure examinations, limiting the ability of CHED and TESDA to adjust curricula and training programs to evolving industry needs.

According to EDCOM II, these overlaps have tangible consequences for learners and workers. Graduates of TESDA-regulated programs often face difficulties transitioning to CHED-regulated degree programs due to inconsistent credit recognition of competencies acquired through national certificates.

EDCOM II cited cases where Health Care Services NC II graduates encounter barriers in entering nursing programs, Automotive Servicing graduates face challenges in pursuing Mechanical Engineering degrees, and Cookery and Pastry graduates experience limited credit recognition when applying for Hospitality Management programs. Some of these qualifications, it added, are also not consistently recognized by the PRC for licensure purposes.

“Our graduates are paying the price for regulatory overlap,” EDCOM Executive Director Dr. Karol Mark Yee said. “EDCOM II’s review shows that unclear and competing mandates among CHED, TESDA, and the PRC delay student progression, restrict credit recognition, and prevent programs from adapting quickly to labor market demands,” he added.

To address the issue, EDCOM II proposed the Philippine Professional Standards and Quality Assurance System Act of 2025, which seeks to mitigate overlapping functions by creating a Board of Curriculum Standards and Skills to integrate tertiary education and professional regulation. The measure was filed by EDCOM II Co-Chairs Sen. Loren Legarda and Sen. Bam Aquino in the Senate, and Rep. Jude Acidre in the House of Representatives, and is awaiting second reading in both chambers.

“For too long, legislative oversight of our education agencies has been reactive and fragmented, allowing programs to overlap while critical school resources remain scarce,” Acidre said. “By bridging these often-isolated islands of policy, planning, and implementation, we can transition from a system of redundancy to a unified national learning ecosystem where synergy drives professional growth,” he added.

Legarda, the bill’s principal author, said, “The Philippine Professional Standards and Quality Assurance System Act of 2025 represents a decisive legislative effort to resolve the statutory overlaps and blurred delineations of authority that have confused our institutions for decades.”

“Our ultimate goal is to create a responsive and world-class system guided by service rather than bureaucratic silos, ensuring that no student is held back by contradictory policies,” she added.

While awaiting legislative action, CHED, PRC, and TESDA signed a Joint Memorandum Circular on Oct. 10 to harmonize professional and technical standards in priority areas and support learner mobility and national development. The agreement established a permanent Tripartite Council led by the three agencies to streamline curricula, licensure standards, and training regulations, and defined final authorities to prevent jurisdictional overlaps.

EDCOM II said the findings will form part of the commission’s final report, which is scheduled for release on Jan. 26.