Commission on Higher Education (CHED) Chairperson Shirley C. Agrupis and four other CHED officials are facing a complaint for graft and administrative misconduct before the Office of the Ombudsman in connection with the closure of several degree programs at campuses belonging to a major private higher education network.
Named alongside Agrupis in the complaint are her chief of staff and three regional directors, who oversee CHED operations in different parts of the country. The complaint accuses them of violating Section 3 (e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, as well as grave misconduct, oppression, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
According to the complaint, CHED issued resolutions in early March 2026 ordering the closure or phase-out of several degree programs across three campuses belonging to the network, citing non-compliance with regulatory requirements related to program administration, faculty, and facilities. The institution operating the affected campuses says it did not contest the closures themselves. What it objects to, according to the complaint, is how CHED handled the public rollout, specifically, a series of advisories posted on CHED's official website and Facebook pages that named the affected campuses directly, with public comments left open on the posts.
The complaint alleges that because the campuses operate under a single, widely recognized brand, the advisories were misread by the public as signaling a shutdown of the entire institution nationwide, and not just a handful of programs at three of its roughly 150 campuses. Campus administrators elsewhere in the network reportedly fielded a wave of anxious calls from students, parents, and partner institutions who believed the whole system was closing.
The complaint further alleges that the institution, through its representative, sent three separate written appeals to Chairperson Agrupis between late April and early May 2026, asking CHED to coordinate on an orderly transition and to hold off on further public dissemination while the matter was being sorted out. Each letter reportedly received only an automated acknowledgment, with no substantive response. Despite those requests, the complaint says CHED re-published the advisories on Facebook in mid-May, again with comments enabled, deepening what the institution describes as reputational and financial harm during a critical enrollment period.
The complaint claims the resulting damage was significant enough that it drew inquiries from the institution's bank and drew media coverage, and that it contributed to lost enrollment opportunities that may be difficult to fully recover.
Beyond the handling of its own case, the complaint raises a broader accusation: that CHED has applied its regulatory standards unevenly. It points to public statements from a lawmaker and prior news reports indicating that hundreds of teacher education programs nationwide were flagged for closure over licensure exam performance, yet were not subjected to the same swift, high-profile treatment as the campuses at the center of this complaint. The complainant argues that the vigorous, public action in one case and comparative inaction in others is itself evidence of bias.
The Ombudsman complaint is not the institution's only legal move. It has also filed a separate complaint with the Anti-Red Tape Authority over CHED's alleged failure to respond to its appeals, and has pursued an injunction case in a Quezon City trial court seeking to stop further dissemination of the advisories and to recover ₱20 million in moral damages.
0 Comments