By By: Atty. Josiah Quising
Despite the Philippine Constitution assigning the highest budgetary priority to education, the cost of education in the Philippines remains to be a rising concern for Filipino students and their families. While Republic Act No. 6728 as well as subsequent memorandums by the Commission on Higher Education promised to assist students in private education by regulating the increase in tuition and other school fees, its vague definitions resulted in virtually no actual regulation.
Mandatory Consultations
Section 10 of Republic Act 6728 mandates “appropriate consultations” for any proposed increase in the rate of tuition fee. But what exactly are appropriate consultations?
Article III of Commission on Higher Education (CHED) M.O. No. 3, S.2012 defines consultation as “actual meetings and/or discussions on the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed increase in tuition and other school fees wherein the participants will have an opportunity to air their objections, sentiments and the like, without fear, and under a free and candid atmosphere.” While this definition emphasizes openness, it remains ambiguous in outlining the standards for what constitutes an “appropriate” consultation.
In practice, consultations often become ritualistic exercises where HEIs present their plans without genuinely considering objections raised by students, faculty, and other stakeholders. There is no clear mandate on how HEIs should address concerns raised during these meetings, nor is there an obligation to reach a consensus before implementing tuition increases.
Presumption of Reasonableness
Section 1.4 of the CHED Memorandum Order No. 3, S. 2012 provides for a “presumption of reasonableness” in all charges, increases, and impositions, on tuition and other school fees of HEls that have “passed through the consultation”. In other words, TOFI proposals that went through consultations and fulfilled other procedural requirements shall be deemed reasonable and collectible. However, such presumption is problematic for several reasons.
According to Section 10 of RA 6728, “every effort shall be exerted to reconcile possible differences. In case of disagreement, the alumni association of the school or any other impartial body of their choosing shall act as arbitrator.” While Article III of the CHED Memo details the consultation process, there is no clear procedure for arbitration should disagreements arise. This presents another regulatory gap – while consultation is mandatory, arbitration itself is not. So amidst disagreements in TOFI, HEIs can simply proceed and submit their proposed increases to CHED as long as there was consultation, regardless if disagreements and other concerns were actually settled or reconciled.
The Need for Stronger Oversight
The presumption of reasonableness in Section 1.4 should be replaced with a more rigorous framework that requires HEIs to demonstrate financial necessity for any increase. Furthermore, economic factors such as inflation rates and students’ financial capacity, as stipulated in the CHED Memo, should be mandated as primary considerations in any decision to raise tuition fees.
CHED must also provide clear guidelines on what constitutes a meaningful consultation process including mandatory arbitration, ensuring that student and faculty concerns are not only heard but also adequately addressed. It is high time we review RA 6728 and amend it accordingly.
While the majority of Filipino students cannot afford to have CHED function as a rubber stamp in approving TOFIs, without these reforms, the policy framework will continue to serve institutional interests over students’ right to accessible and affordable education./PT
