Affirmative action uneven across PHL colleges — EDCOM II study

By Joseph Bernard A. Marzan

PASAY CITY — A recent study by the Second Congressional Commission on Education, or EDCOM II, found that affirmative action policies in Philippine higher education institutions remain uneven and inconsistently implemented, particularly in public universities, despite the country’s free tuition law.

The study, titled “Affirmative Action in Philippine Higher Education Institutions: Evidence from a New Survey,” was authored by Dr. Jan Carlo B. Punongbayan of the University of the Philippines Diliman and Jefferson A. Arapoc of the University of the Philippines Los Baños.

The report provides the first systematic mapping of affirmative action programs across state universities and colleges, local universities and colleges, and private higher education institutions nationwide.

EDCOM II published the research in partnership with Ateneo de Manila University as part of the commission’s Priority Area on Quality Assurance to support evidence-based education policymaking.

What is affirmative action?

Affirmative action refers to policy measures or institutional practices designed to address historical or systemic inequalities by improving access to education, employment, or services for marginalized or underrepresented groups.

In the context of higher education, affirmative action programs aim to support students who may face barriers due to socioeconomic status, ethnicity, disability, gender, or geographic disadvantage. These programs can include:

• Targeted scholarship grants
• Preferential admission policies
• Bridging or remedial programs for underprepared students
• Quotas or goals for underrepresented groups
• Student support services, such as counseling, mentorship, and mental health care

Affirmative action is not simply a quota system, although quotas may be used in some models. Rather, it is a broader equity-oriented approach that recognizes that equal access does not always result in equitable outcomes, particularly for students from disadvantaged backgrounds.

In countries like the Philippines, where Republic Act No. 10931 already provides free tuition in public universities, affirmative action seeks to go beyond financial assistance by addressing the non-financial barriers that continue to hinder marginalized groups from entering or completing college, such as poor preparation, cultural discrimination, lack of information, or inadequate academic support.

Critics of affirmative action often argue that it can undermine meritocracy, while supporters contend that merit cannot be fairly assessed without considering unequal starting points. Globally, the policy remains a subject of legal, ethical, and political debate.

In the Philippines, as highlighted in the EDCOM II study, affirmative action programs vary significantly by institution, with state universities and colleges implementing them more consistently than private or local institutions. However, the lack of national policy guidance and monitoring mechanisms has led to fragmented and often underdeveloped practices.

Ultimately, affirmative action is about leveling the playing field, not by lowering standards, but by recognizing and addressing the complex realities that prevent many capable students from thriving in a system designed for the privileged few.

Two-wave survey

The study was based on a two-wave survey of 529 higher education institutions, consisting of 371 state universities and colleges, 23 local universities and colleges, and 135 private institutions.

Survey responses were primarily provided by university presidents and senior administrators.

Results showed that 77 percent of state universities and colleges reported having at least one formal affirmative action policy, compared with 43 percent of local universities and colleges and 45 percent of private higher education institutions.

An additional 13 percent of state universities and colleges, 43 percent of local universities and colleges, and 30 percent of private institutions said their affirmative action policies were still in development.

Only 10 percent of state universities and colleges reported having no affirmative action policy, compared with 13 percent of local universities and colleges and 25 percent of private institutions.

The study noted that these gaps persist despite the enactment of Republic Act No. 10931, or the Universal Access to Quality Tertiary Education Act, which provides free tuition in state universities and colleges, local universities and colleges, and state-run technical-vocational institutions.

“Access to higher education in the Philippines remains unequal despite free tuition fees in public universities and colleges under the [Republic Act No. 10931],” the study said, adding that tuition-free education alone “has not fully resolved inequities in access.”

Affirmative action measures identified in the survey addressed socioeconomic disadvantage, ethnic or cultural minority inclusion, disability inclusion, and gender equity.

More than half of state universities and colleges, or 56 percent, reported implementing all four types of affirmative action policies.

By comparison, 40 percent of local universities and colleges and 42 percent of private higher education institutions said they implemented all four types.

The study found that state universities and colleges showed the broadest and most consistent implementation across all categories, while local universities and colleges focused more heavily on disability inclusion and socioeconomic disadvantage.

Private higher education institutions, meanwhile, showed lower implementation levels across most categories, except gender equity.

Across all institution types, students from low-income households were the most commonly targeted beneficiaries of affirmative action programs.

More than 80 percent of state universities and colleges reported targeting low-income students and students with disabilities, while more than 75 percent also included Indigenous peoples.

Support for gender minorities and gifted or high-achieving students remained below 50 percent, and no state universities and colleges reported targeting students from conflict- or disaster-affected communities.

Local universities and colleges showed the strongest focus on low-income students, with more than 90 percent reporting related programs, while private institutions displayed more selective coverage across beneficiary groups.

The survey also found that entrance examinations remain nearly universal in public institutions, with 99 percent of state universities and colleges and 100 percent of local universities and colleges requiring them.

Only 52 percent of private higher education institutions reported requiring entrance examinations.

Institutions that required entrance exams were more likely to implement affirmative action policies, with 66 percent reporting such measures compared with 48 percent among institutions without entrance exams.

In terms of student support services, career counseling and mental health services were the most widely available across all institution types.

Bridging programs aimed at helping academically underprepared students were identified as the least common form of support across institutions.

One of the key weaknesses highlighted in the study was the lack of systematic monitoring of outcomes for students admitted under affirmative action programs.

Only 44 percent of state universities and colleges tracked graduation rates of affirmative action beneficiaries, compared with 30 percent of local universities and colleges and 28 percent of private institutions.

Tracking of labor market outcomes for these students was similarly limited across all institution types.

The authors cited limited institutional capacity, weak outreach, and poor tracking mechanisms as major barriers to effective implementation.

The study recommended the creation of a national affirmative action policy framework for higher education, supported by regular data collection and expanded preparatory and student support programs.

“Affirmative action, when paired with early interventions and sustained student support, can help close persistent equity gaps in Philippine higher education,” the study concluded.