Previous sanctions involving universities renew discussions on CHED’s role in ensuring fair enforcement of policies across higher education institutions.

Following earlier concerns raised over governance, policy direction, and leadership practices within the Commission on Higher Education (CHED), the agency is facing renewed scrutiny—this time over what stakeholders describe as its lack of decisive action on matters involving student welfare, safety, and institutional accountability.

The concern comes following the recent tragedy involving two Ateneo de Manila University student-athletes who drowned during a school-related activity, an incident that has sparked discussions on the responsibility of institutions and government agencies in ensuring proper safeguards are in place for students.

Amid calls for answers, the Philippine Sports Commission (PSC) has taken visible steps in looking into the circumstances surrounding the incident and addressing concerns involving athlete welfare.

However, education stakeholders questioned why CHED—the government agency with direct oversight over higher education institutions—has yet to demonstrate the same level of urgency.

“Why is another agency moving while CHED remains silent?” critics asked, pointing out that while PSC’s actions show concern for student-athletes, the responsibility of ensuring compliance, accountability, and safety protocols among colleges and universities ultimately falls under CHED’s mandate.

Stakeholders also raised concerns over what they described as inconsistent enforcement of accountability measures, citing previous cases where institutions and officials faced consequences for violations involving student activities.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the University of Santo Tomas (UST) men’s basketball team faced sanctions after conducting a training activity in Bicol, while National University (NU) was also penalized over continued training activities in Calamba despite restrictions.

No deaths or serious injuries resulted from these incidents. However, penalties were still imposed due to violations of CHED Memorandum Orders (CMOs) and Inter-Agency Task Force (IATF) protocols, including the suspension of sports-related activities.

For stakeholders, these cases demonstrated that violations involving student-athletes were previously met with firm action—raising questions on why a tragedy involving loss of lives has yet to receive the same level of response.

They also cited the case involving former Bulacan State University President Dr. Cecilia Gascon, who was dismissed following the Madlum River tragedy where seven students died during a school activity.

The incident involved findings that students were allowed to participate without proper coordination and sufficient assessment of potential risks. The failure to comply with established safety guidelines resulted in serious administrative consequences, including Gascon’s removal from office.

Critics said these previous cases prove that accountability mechanisms exist when student welfare is compromised, making CHED’s current silence even more concerning.

For education stakeholders, the issue is no longer limited to a single incident but raises a broader question: Is CHED consistently exercising its mandate to protect students and enforce accountability among the institutions it regulates?

They emphasized that an agency tasked with overseeing higher education cannot remain passive when concerns involving student safety, institutional responsibility, and compliance arise.

As discussions continue, stakeholders said CHED’s response—or continued silence—will determine whether it can uphold the same standards of accountability expected from the schools and officials under its supervision.

For many in the education sector, CHED’s response in the coming days will not only define how this case is handled, but will also send a clear message on whether accountability remains a standard expected from all institutions — or a principle applied only in selected circumstances.

At the center of the issue are the students and families who trust universities to provide not only quality education but also a safe environment where every precaution is taken to protect them. Stakeholders stressed that when that trust is broken, silence cannot be the answer — leadership, transparency, and action must follow.