Facts About NBC 461
State Universities and Colleges (SUCs) in the Philippines were once exempted from the coverage of the National Position Classification and Compensation Plans which defines the manner by which government employees in the country will have to be remunerated based on a standard scale. SUCs have different schemes in upgrading the positions of the faculty which gave rise to disparities in pay and compensation among similar comparable positions. These disparities led to demoralization and contentious disagreement among the ranks of the faculty members. There are issues regarding the fairness and equity in compensation among faculty members in academic institutions.
Presidential Decree No. 885 – Equal Pay for Substantially Equal Work
Recognizing the problem on pay disparities, Presidential Decree No. 985 was issued in 1976. This authoritative order revises the position classification and compensation systems in the national government founded on the principle of "equal pay for substantially equal work" and to base difference in pay among them in accordance with the difficulty of their duties and responsibilities. The decree established a system of compensation standardization and position classification in the national government for all departments, bureaus, agencies, and offices including government-owned or controlled corporations and financial institutions. The standardization and position classification system classified positions by occupational groups, series and classes, according to similarities or differences in duties and responsibilities, and qualification requirements.
Evolution of the Standardization and Classification System
From that time on, the standardization and classification system in the remuneration of government employees particularly in state universities and colleges underwent revisions through the years. These revisions were deliberated upon by concerned agencies that gave rise to a series of circulars from national government agencies particularly the Department of Budget and Management or DBM. National Compensation Circular (NCC) No. 33 of 1985 established the position classification and compensation scheme for faculty positions in SUCs. This was followed by NCC No. 68, and NCC No. 69. All these compensation schemes covered faculty positions in SUCs.
In 1998, the coverage of the standardization scheme, as provided for in National Budget Circular (NBC) No. 461, expanded. The standardization scheme covered not only the SUCs but also Commission on Higher Education (CHED)-supervised higher education institutions or HEIs and Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA)-supervised Technical Education Institutions or TEIS.
Agencies Responsible for the Development of the Faculty Upgrading Scheme
The development of the standardization and classification scheme for teachers was made possible by deliberations between two agencies: the Philippine Association of State Universities and Colleges or PASUC and the Department of Budget and Management (DBM). This culminated in the development and adoption of common, objective criteria to be used for evaluation of faculty members. A Common Criteria for Evaluation (CCE) was used to determine the appropriate positions for qualified and deserving faculty members. CCE served as the primary basis for recruitment, classification and promotion of a faculty. Points were assigned to each of the criteria the total of which will determine the relative positions or ranks of the faculty concerned in a table of salary grade scale (see below).
The latest corresponding salaries for each salary grade level is discussed in Salary Increase for Government Employees for 2011.
Later, a Qualitative Contribution for Evaluation or QCE was devised to incorporate qualitative evaluation of faculty members in the four functional areas of the academe namely research, instruction, extension and production. Greater responsibility is required of faculty members in the higher ranks as follows:
- For upgrading to any sub-rank in the Instructor and Assistant Professor positions, a faculty candidate shall satisfy the CCE points corresponding to the rank/sub-rank plus the qualitative contributions in the area of instruction measured in terms of teaching effectiveness.
- For upgrading to the rank Associate Professor I – V, a faculty candidate shall satisfy the CCE points corresponding to the rank/sub-rank plus qualitative contributions in at least two (2) of the four functional areas.
- For upgrading to the rank of Professor I – VI, a faculty candidate shall satisfy the CCE points corresponding to the rank/sub-rank plus qualitative contributions in at least three (3) of the four functional areas.