CHED Memo 11, s.2025 (ETEEAP) Rule III, sections 1 & 2: Program Implementation in Higher Education Institutions

Rule III focuses on how Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) may implement the Expanded Tertiary Education Equivalency and Accreditation Program (ETEEAP). The rule establishes the qualifications institutions must meet, the standards they must maintain, and the systems they must put in place to ensure that the program operates with integrity, quality, and sustainability.

The rule emphasizes that ETEEAP implementation is not simply about offering alternative access to higher education. It also requires institutions to maintain proper assessment procedures, qualified personnel, documented policies, and continuous evaluation systems. Through these requirements, Rule III aims to ensure that prior learning, work experience, and competencies are properly assessed and aligned with academic standards.

Eligibility Requirements for Deputization of HEIs

Rule III first explains which Higher Education Institutions may qualify for deputization or authorization to implement ETEEAP. The rule sets specific institutional qualifications to ensure that only capable and recognized institutions may offer the program.

The purpose of these requirements is to make sure that institutions already demonstrate academic quality, institutional credibility, and program capability before they are allowed to implement ETEEAP.

An HEI may become eligible if it meets any of the following conditions:

• It is recognized as a Center of Excellence (COE) or Center of Development (COD) in the program or discipline to be offered through ETEEAP
• It is a State University or College (SUC) with at least SUC Level II status and with programs granted a Certificate of Program Compliance (COPC)
• It is a Local University or College (LUC) with institutional recognition and a Certificate of Program Compliance (COPC) for the programs to be offered
• It is a private HEI granted autonomous or deregulated status

The rule further states that CHED may deputize capable HEIs or designate ETEEAP Centers in areas where no HEIs currently offer ETEEAP. This provision allows broader access to the program in regions where implementation may still be limited.

In assessing institutions, CHED may also consider several indicators of institutional performance and quality. These include:

• International recognition or accreditation
• Performance in licensure examinations
• Research productivity
• Faculty recognition
• Other similar factors

The rule also places limitations on institutions with unresolved legal or administrative concerns. HEIs with pending legal cases, complaints, or unresolved show cause orders may only submit applications once those matters have been fully resolved.

Requisites for ETEEAP Implementation

After discussing eligibility, Rule III outlines the specific requirements necessary for implementing ETEEAP. These requisites are intended to protect the integrity, quality, and sustainability of the program.

The rule highlights that institutions must not only possess academic capability, but must also establish organized systems and procedures that support fair and credible assessment processes.

Institutional Processes, Policies, and Manual of Operations

Rule III requires institutions to maintain clear and comprehensive institutional processes, policies, and procedures. These must be formally documented in a Manual of Operations.

The Manual of Operations serves as an institutional guide that helps ensure consistency and accountability in implementing the program. According to the rule, the documentation supports:

• Integrity of the program
• Quality of implementation
• Sustainability of accreditation and equivalency processes

By requiring formal documentation, the rule ensures that ETEEAP implementation follows established procedures rather than informal or inconsistent practices.

Competency Standards for Degree Programs

The rule also requires institutions to establish well-defined competency standards for degree programs offered through ETEEAP.

These competency standards become the basis for assessing and accrediting learning acquired through different forms of education and experience. The rule specifically refers to:

• Formal learning
• Non-formal learning
• Informal learning

This means that assessment is not limited to traditional classroom education. Learning gained through work experience, training, and other life experiences may also be considered, provided that they meet the competency standards established by the institution.

Structured Assessment Procedures and Methodologies

A major component of Rule III involves the assessment system used to evaluate applicants. Institutions are required to establish structured procedures, tools, and methodologies for assessing competencies.

These assessment systems are used to evaluate:

• Competencies acquired through work experience
• Prior learning experiences
• Training and professional development

The rule explains that the system of assessment may be:

• Work-based
• Competency-based

This requirement emphasizes that assessment must follow organized and measurable processes. Institutions are expected to evaluate whether an applicant’s competencies are equivalent to the learning outcomes and standards of the degree program.

Documentary Evidence Required from Applicants

Rule III also identifies the types of evidence that institutions may require from applicants during the assessment process.

For work-based assessment, applicants may be asked to provide documents such as:

• Most recent academic record or diploma
• Notarized service record or Certificate of Employment
• Comprehensive resume
• Authenticated certificates of completed training and workshops

The rule separately mentions currently employed applicants and states that institutions may also require the submission of:

• Most recent academic record or diploma
• Previous notarized service record or Certificate of Employment
• Comprehensive resume
• Authenticated certificates of completed training and workshops

These documentary requirements support the assessment process by providing evidence of the applicant’s educational background, employment history, and professional development.

Rubrics and Assessment Tools

The rule requires institutions to use rubrics or similar assessment tools to determine the amount of equivalent credit that may be awarded to applicants.

These tools help institutions systematically evaluate the applicant’s demonstrated competencies and prior learning. The evaluation aligns the applicant’s qualifications with:

• Learning outcomes
• Subject standards
• Course standards

This requirement helps ensure that equivalency credits are awarded based on measurable and consistent standards.

Competency Enrichment Programs

Rule III also requires institutions to provide competency enrichment programs. These programs help ensure that students are able to achieve the required learning outcomes and meet the academic and professional standards of the degree program.

The rule emphasizes that enrichment programs support students in meeting:

• Required learning outcomes
• Academic standards
• Professional standards

This provision recognizes that some applicants may need additional preparation or support before fully meeting program requirements.

Flexible Learning Modalities

The rule encourages institutions to adopt flexible learning modalities to address the diverse educational backgrounds, life experiences, and learning needs of ETEEAP applicants.

This reflects the nature of ETEEAP, which involves learners who may come from different professional and educational situations.

The rule specifically states that institutions planning to implement ETEEAP through Open Distance and e-Learning (ODeL) must first secure separate authority from the Commission before implementation.

Additionally, institutions intending to issue micro-credential certificates as part of ETEEAP implementation must also obtain prior approval from the Commission. This requirement is intended to ensure compliance with national standards and recognition frameworks.

Dedicated Office and Qualified Personnel

Rule III requires institutions to establish a dedicated office staffed with competent and trained personnel responsible for implementing ETEEAP.

The required personnel may include:

• A director or focal person
• Program assessors
• Internal assessors
• External assessors
• Examiners

The rule states that these personnel must have clearly defined roles and responsibilities.

The assessment of applicants is conducted by a program panel or pool of assessors to determine the extent and level of competencies possessed by applicants.

The rule also distinguishes between the roles of internal and external assessors:

• Internal assessors are curriculum or discipline experts within the institution
• External assessors are industry practitioners and professionals in the field or discipline

This structure helps ensure that assessments include both academic and industry perspectives.

Sustainable Development Plan and Budgetary Support

The rule further requires institutions to establish a sustainable development plan supported by an appropriate budget.

This support is necessary to maintain and enhance ETEEAP implementation, including:

• Specialized training for staff
• Accreditation processes
• Equivalency processes

The requirement highlights that ETEEAP implementation involves continuous institutional support and resource allocation.

Support Services for Applicants and Candidates

Rule III also emphasizes the importance of support services for applicants and candidates.

Institutions are expected to provide access to:

• Technology
• Library resources
• Essential facilities

These support services help applicants participate effectively in the program and complete the required processes.

Internal Monitoring, Review, and Evaluation

To ensure continuous improvement, institutions are also required to establish systems for internal monitoring, review, and evaluation.

These mechanisms are intended to help institutions assess the effectiveness of their ETEEAP implementation and identify areas for improvement.

The rule states that these systems are necessary to ensure:

• Continuous improvement
• Effectiveness of the ETEEAP

This requirement reinforces the importance of maintaining quality assurance throughout program implementation.

Programs Based on Regional Priorities

Rule III also requires institutions to demonstrate that the programs they offer are aligned with regional needs and priorities.

Institutions must provide proof or certification showing that the program offered is connected to identified priority or in-demand programs in the region.

These programs may be endorsed by:

• DepEd
• TESDA
• DOLE
• Other relevant government agencies

This provision helps ensure that ETEEAP programs remain responsive to workforce demands and regional development priorities.

Conclusion

Rule III establishes the institutional requirements and operational standards for implementing ETEEAP in Higher Education Institutions. The rule emphasizes quality assurance, structured assessment systems, institutional accountability, and proper support mechanisms.

Through these provisions, Rule III ensures that prior learning, work experience, and acquired competencies are assessed systematically and aligned with academic and professional standards. At the same time, it requires institutions to maintain qualified personnel, documented procedures, sustainable support systems, and continuous evaluation processes to preserve the integrity and effectiveness of ETEEAP implementation.