What are the guidelines issued by CHED for AI in education?

The guidelines issued by CHED cover the responsible use of artificial intelligence in higher education, focusing on academic integrity, AI detection, data privacy, assessment, and the necessity of human oversight.

How does CHED's framework address academic integrity?

CHED's framework aims to uphold academic integrity by establishing rules that prevent misuse of AI in assessments and ensure that academic work remains authentic and original.

What is the importance of human oversight in the use of AI in colleges?

Human oversight is crucial as it ensures that AI applications in education remain ethical, reliable, and aligned with educational goals, preventing potential biases and ensuring accountability.

Education

CHED Issues Guidelines on AI Use in Colleges and Universities

September 24, 20261 view0

Excerpt: CHED has released a national framework governing the responsible use of artificial intelligence in Philippine higher education, including rules on academic integrity, AI detection, data privacy, assessment, and human oversight.

The Commission on Higher Education (CHED) has issued new national guidelines for the responsible use of artificial intelligence in colleges and universities across the Philippines.

CHED Memorandum Order No. 21, Series of 2026, titled “Policies, Standards, and Guidelines for the Framework on Artificial Intelligence in Higher Education,” provides guidance on how AI may be used in teaching, learning, research, assessment, and institutional operations.

The memorandum applies to public and private higher education institutions, including state universities and colleges and local universities and colleges. It was issued on September 15, 2026.

Jump to Article Content

AI is not completely prohibited

Under the memorandum, CHED does not impose a nationwide ban on generative AI tools such as ChatGPT.

Instead, higher education institutions are expected to establish their own policies based on their academic programs, learning outcomes, and institutional needs.

Teachers may allow, restrict, or prohibit AI use for a particular assignment or activity. However, students must be informed clearly about what type of AI assistance is permitted.

Schools are also encouraged to classify AI use into different levels, including:

Prohibited AI use
AI-assisted work
AI-collaborative work
AI-enabled or AI-integrated work

These classifications may vary depending on the course, assessment, and skills being measured.

Students must disclose significant AI assistance

Students and faculty members must properly disclose or acknowledge significant assistance received from AI tools.

The required disclosure may include the name and version of the AI tool, the date it was used, its purpose, and a description of how the generated material was reviewed or modified.

Presenting substantially AI-generated material as entirely one’s own work may be treated as academic dishonesty.

However, CHED also said institutions must distinguish between acceptable assistance and deceptive use. Basic tools such as spelling correction, grammar checking, formatting assistance, and accessibility features may not require the same level of disclosure, depending on the institution’s policy.

AI-detector results are not enough to prove cheating

One of the memorandum’s significant provisions concerns the use of AI-detection software.

CHED said an AI-detector result must not be treated as conclusive proof of academic misconduct on its own.

If a student’s work is flagged, the school must conduct a fair review using additional evidence. This may include drafts, notes, version histories, references, oral explanations, or comparisons with the student’s previous work.

Students must also be informed of the allegation and given an opportunity to explain their work before disciplinary action is imposed.

This recognizes that AI-detection tools may produce inaccurate results, including false accusations against students who wrote their work without prohibited AI assistance.

Schools encouraged to redesign assessments

CHED is encouraging educators to develop assessments that measure skills beyond the production of a written answer.

These may include oral examinations, demonstrations, reflections, supervised activities, project-based assessments, portfolios, and tasks requiring students to explain their reasoning.

The memorandum notes that assessments should continue to measure whether students have achieved the required learning outcomes, even when AI tools are available.

Teachers are also expected to exercise academic judgment and remain responsible for evaluating student performance.

Human review required for important decisions

Higher education institutions must not rely solely on automated AI systems when making decisions that could significantly affect a person.

These include decisions concerning:

Admission
Grades
Scholarships and financial assistance
Student discipline
Hiring
Employee evaluation and promotion
Termination or dismissal

Meaningful human review must remain part of the decision-making process. Individuals affected by an AI-assisted decision should also be informed and allowed to request an explanation or appeal.

Protection of personal and institutional information

The memorandum warns students, faculty members, and school personnel against entering confidential or sensitive information into public AI platforms without proper authorization.

Protected information may include:

Student records
Personal and health information
Unpublished research
Examination materials
Personnel records
Proprietary institutional data
Confidential documents

Institutions must comply with the Data Privacy Act of 2012 and other applicable laws when adopting or using AI systems.

Schools are also expected to consider cybersecurity, intellectual property rights, accessibility, fairness, and possible bias when selecting AI tools.

Rules for AI-assisted research

Researchers who use AI must remain accountable for the accuracy, integrity, and originality of their work.

Depending on the nature of the research, documentation may include the AI tool and version used, relevant prompts, dates of use, verification procedures, and known limitations.

AI systems cannot be listed as authors because they cannot assume responsibility for the content of a research paper.

Research involving personal data, human participants, or sensitive information must continue to comply with existing ethical-review and data-protection requirements.

Schools must create their own AI policies

CHED is directing higher education institutions to develop or update their institutional AI policies.

Schools are expected to:

Establish an AI ethics and governance committee or an equivalent body
Issue clear rules for students, faculty members, researchers, and employees
Provide AI-literacy and responsible-use training
Create procedures for complaints, reviews, and appeals
Regularly assess the AI systems used by the institution
Review and update their policies as AI technology develops

Institutions should also provide reasonable alternatives when a required AI tool is inaccessible, unaffordable, incompatible with assistive technology, or inconsistent with a person’s documented needs.

When will the memorandum take effect?

CHED Memorandum Order No. 21, Series of 2026, will take effect immediately following its publication in the Official Gazette or a newspaper of general circulation and its filing with the Office of the National Administrative Register.

The issuance creates a common national framework, but its implementation will still depend on the specific policies adopted by individual colleges and universities.

Students and faculty members should therefore check their institution’s official guidelines before using AI for assignments, examinations, research, or administrative work.

Source: Commission on Higher Education, CHED Memorandum Order No. 21, Series of 2026