Plan to introduce foreign branch campuses splits opinion

Far-reaching legislation to lift constitutional restrictions on foreign investment, if successful, could pave the way for the establishment of branch campuses of foreign universities. But there is disagreement among the Philippines’ leading government higher education agencies and other stakeholders on the benefits of foreign universities.

The lifting of restrictions on foreign ownership, including in higher education, are part of a broader reform agenda being pushed by President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. The constitutional amendments, popularly known as ‘Cha-Cha’ for ‘charter change’, are hotly debated in the country, as there are fears that tampering with the constitution may also result in changes to restrictions on the term of the country’s president, currently limited to one six-year term.

In respect of higher education, the Philippines is the only Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) country that has “full ownership, establishment and enrolment restrictions stipulated in the Constitution”, Joseph Noel M Estrada, chief legal officer of the Second Congressional Commission on Education, told Congress in early March.

The constitution also limits the number of foreign students to 30% of the total student population of an institution.

On 20 March the Philippines House of Representatives, the lower house, approved the so-called Resolution of Both Houses (RBH7) on its third and final reading to lift the existing 40% limit on of foreign investment in vital industries, including education, currently enshrined in the 1987 Constitution.

However, in the case of foreign investment in education, science, technology, arts, culture and sports, liberalisation is now subject to additional ‘safeguards’ under RBH7, with a new clause inserted in the amended version passed on 20 March that states “unless otherwise provided by law”. While officials say the clauses are particularly aimed at basic education or pre-college education, all levels of education will be affected.

The safeguard clause would allow Congress to pass additional laws that prescribe the amount of foreign ownership allowed in education and other sectors, which could further complicate and delay any opening up to foreign campuses.

Liberalisation is also expected to be challenged by constitutional experts at the Supreme Court.

Divisions within the sector

The new safeguard clauses also elicit deep divisions, even among higher education agencies in the Philippines.

Addressing a Congress hearing on the issue in early March, officials from the Department of Education under Secretary of Education Sara Duterte, daughter of former president Rodrigo Duterte, and the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) under the president’s office, gave opposing views on the merits of allowing in foreign universities.

The Philippines has hundreds of higher education institutions spread across the country, many of them high quality.

Education Undersecretary Omar Romero told members of Congress that opening up the sector to foreign investment could result in the expansion of foreign entities’ control over the education system. Allowing foreigners to run local educational institutions could dilute “fundamental aspects of Filipino identity, culture and values”, he said, and even pointed to possible security risks.

“This susceptibility to external and foreign influence raises concerns regarding national security as it may expose these educational institutions to infiltration and compromise,” Romero said.

But Dr J Prospero De Vera, chair of CHED, said that allowing foreign ownership in higher education would help colleges and universities become more globally competitive.

Wider economic debate

While foreign branch campuses may be some way off, Cha-Cha has sparked an important debate on higher education.

Foreign higher education investment “becomes more salient now because it's being lumped with the flat-out economic liberalisation being pushed in this current iteration of charter change, which removes foreigner restrictions”, Hansley Juliano, a lecturer in the department of political science at Ateneo de Manila University and a research fellow of the Labour Education and Research Network, told University World News.

“The higher education proposal is still operating within the foreign ownership restrictions, and it is welcomed by many higher education institutions since they are financially strapped,” he said.

Free tertiary education in the Philippines since 2017 has meant a loss of extra revenue for public universities, which now rely on state funding.

This is a driver for possible foreign university tie-ups in future. “The offering of free education at the tertiary level has scrapped tuition revenue and top universities are angling to maximise their ties both in the East and the West,” Juliano said, referring to possible joint university schemes with China, Singapore and Malaysia.

For example, last September more than a dozen Philippines universities signed partnership agreements with six Chinese higher education institutions during the 2023 China-ASEAN Education Cooperation week, focusing on STEM and agriculture education exchanges.

Internationalisation drive

Attempts were made during Rodrigo Duterte’s 2016-2022 presidency to dilute laws with strict restrictions on foreign ownership in the sector.

For example, Duterte signed the Transnational Higher Education Act in September 2019 according to which “the State shall endeavour to modernise the Philippines higher education sector and bring international quality standards and expertise into the country with a view to making higher education globally competitive [and] improve the country’s human resource base”.

According to Juliano, Duterte’s signing off on this law in 2019 was in anticipation of greater Chinese engagement – a “hallmark of his policy”.

Juliano described public discourse around international university rankings and accreditation as “an obsession” and said higher education institutions in the Philippines have been “on board the internationalisation and mobility bandwagon for a while”.

Philippines institutions also publicise their accreditation to foreign university programmes, paying large sums for tie-ups.

“We also have so many local accreditation efforts that make no small amount of money for accreditors, so there is clearly money in the entire process,” Juliano noted.

Juliano, an expert in international political economy, added: “In my department, we are very critical of international institutions while still pointing out the value of being globally integrated.

“I do feel blind nativism and uncritical cosmopolitanism are causing a really bad dichotomy in this conversation. Most if not all countries that modernised invested much in studying and modelling themselves on the institutions of other countries, while trying to indigenise and make them their own.”

Becoming internationally competitive

Roger Chao, assistant director and head of the Education, Youth and Sports at the ASEAN Secretariat in Jakarta, Indonesia, told University World News: “Though the Philippines has quality universities, a lot of them are not recognised as quality universities outside the country.

“Other countries are already accepting foreign campuses and we cannot be behind the curve. We have to look into how to engage and be more competitive,” argued Chao, a Philippines national.

However, he acknowledged that resisting 100% foreign ownership of universities in the country was driven by legitimate concerns about sovereignty over education.

However, Evelyn Agato, former head of the national broadcaster Radyo Pilipinas and currently a journalism lecturer at a private college in Manila, said she was concerned about a further widening of economic disparities for Filipinos accessing higher education if foreign universities are allowed in.

“Families in the Philippines who can afford foreign education can just send their children abroad to take up courses not usually offered in the country. But giving them access to that education by putting up [foreign] campuses in the country will diminish the goal for equal education opportunities, thus widening the gap between the classes in society,” Agato told University World News.

“Affordability and opportunities are factors in attaining higher education. The greater mass of students will be deprived of higher standards of educational curricula, limiting opportunities for a well-established career,” she argued.

Charter changes are a ‘mis-priority’

The National Union of Students of the Philippines (NUSP) expressed a similar view in a presentation to the House Committee deliberating the charter changes. “It is a mis-priority when there is a learning crisis, and our answer is to attract foreign direct investments,” Lance Avery Alo, NUSP deputy national spokesperson, told the committee, according to media reports.

Describing the current education system as “colonial, commercialised and repressive”, he said: “Students want quality education and we believe that quality education in the sense that it is nationalist, scientific and mass-oriented will be harder to enjoy under foreign ownership, control and administration.”

Chao said the Philippines is looking at setting up an education hub in Cebu. The government is “talking of an international student hub, but no one seems to know what that is about. It’s not officially acknowledged, but there will be a study to be funded by the USA, to look at how to develop [it] and what models to follow”.

Pointing to commercial models in Singapore, Vietnam and Malaysia that could be studied, Chao added: “There can be partnerships or programmes directly with local universities under the transnational higher education law established in 2019. They could have partnerships directly with local universities.”