In May 2024, President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. declared during the National Higher Education Day Summit that improving higher education—and making it responsive to both present and future societal needs—is central to his administration’s development agenda. He emphasized that a strong, resilient, and skilled human resource will be key to driving national progress, and that promoting quality tertiary education must be a collaborative effort between public and private sectors. 

This policy statement sets a commendable social objective: linking higher education to national development. It speaks to aspirations of authenticity (education responding to societal needs) and transformation (producing resilient, skilled citizens). However, there are a number of places where the rhetoric might outpace what is concretely planned.

What works well:

Clarity of Purpose: It’s clear what the policy hopes to achieve—higher education that is relevant, responsive, quality-driven. That gives direction.

Collaboration Emphasized: By naming both public and private sectors as partners, the statement recognizes that education does not happen in isolation.

Long-Horizon Thinking: The mention of “future needs of society” implies a forward-looking stance, not only addressing current problems but anticipating future challenges.

What remains vague or concerning:

Operational Details Missing: The speech does not lay out how “responsiveness” will be measured or achieved. What metrics, what supports, what accountability? Without that, policy risk is high that goals stay generalities.

Equity Questions Unaddressed: There is little in the statement about how to reach marginalized groups, or how to ensure quality across different regions. If “quality tertiary education” only improves in well-resourced urban areas, then inequality could persist—or worsen.

Resource and Capacity Constraints: Quality and relevance require investments: teacher training, curriculum reform, infrastructure, institutional capacity. The rhetoric assumes these will follow or be available; the policy must show how to allocate or mobilize them.

Potential Tension Between Public Good and Private Sector: Involving private actors can accelerate implementation but raises questions about cost, access, profit motives, and whether private providers uphold the same standards or social justice aims.