By Atty. Joseph Noel M. Estrada
Currently, there is no law that provides a ceiling or a maximum rate on the rate of tuition increases of educational institutions. Without such law, there can be no basis for government, through the Commission on Higher Education and the Department of Education, to disallow educational institutions from determining its own rate of tuition increase after it has complied with stakeholder consultation, notice and publication, and allocation of proceeds to school personnel and facilities pursuant to existing laws. The Education Act of 1982 or Batas Pambansa Bilang 232 gives schools the right to determine its own reasonable rate of tuition increase subject only to compliance with administrative regulations to make such increase collectible. Republic Act 6728 requires publication, consultation, and the allocation of 70% of the incremental proceeds realized from the increase to personnel compensation and benefits and the 20% to improvement of facilities.
While it is understandable that the CHED and DepEd are interested in ensuring that the right of schools to increase tuition is not abused to the detriment of students, they cannot amend or expand the provisions of BP 232 and Republic Act 6728 by introducing tuition caps. Legislative power or the power to enact, amend, or repeal laws is vested in Congress. While the rule-making power of Congress was delegated by law to administrative agencies like the CHED and DepEd, such delegation involves no discretion on what the law shall be, but merely the authority to fix the details in the execution or enforcement of a policy set out by the law itself.
Existing policy provides that the determination whether to increase tuition and other fees within the parameters allowed by law lies within the power and authority of schools. For higher education institutions, such determination is even protected by the constitutional academic freedom of institutions of higher learning. Additionally, all educational institutions are entitled to the State’s constitutional mandate of reasonable supervision and regulation. Therefore, the administrative requirements of DepEd and CHED for the approval of tuition increases should not only be pursuant to law but also reasonable and must not amount to control of schools. When an academic decision to increase is made, it is presumed that the school has undertaken a serious and thorough study of the probable consequences to its operations. Indeed, the use of fixed tuition caps for all schools is itself considered unreasonable, as it sets aside the academic judgment of higher education institutions on matters affecting its internal governance.
More importantly, it must also be noted that there is built-in self-regulation in every decision of a school on whether to increase tuition or not. In the case of St. Joseph’s College vs SAMAHAN in 2005, the Supreme Court expressed its sympathy with such dilemma of educational institutions that in their desire to raise faculty compensation and to expand school facilities, they resort to sometimes painful increases in tuition fees, only to find out later that— despite their good intentions — their gross revenues actually decrease because of the lesser number of enrollees who can afford the increases.
While the constitutional mandate to make education accessible to all is a fundamental principle that must always be upheld, it cannot come at the expense of the duty to promote and protect quality education at all levels. This quality education requires resources and thus entails cost. Private educational institutions, being largely tuition-funded and monetarily dependent on the tuition payment of students or parents, rely on these fees to provide academic excellence, fair compensation for teachers, and developed facilities, all of which contributes to providing quality education to their students. Placing a ceiling on tuition fees means limiting the institutional growth of schools, whether in hiring the best educators through fair compensation, upgrading facilities, or in integrating innovative modern learning tools necessary in this digital age. Therefore, such imposition, although it seemingly protects the students from rising costs, actually impedes and diminishes quality education itself.
Rather than excessively regulating tuition fees, the government should prioritize the expansion of existing government subsidy programs that alleviate students’ financial burden. Additionally, they can explore the granting of fiscal incentives to qualified educational institutions, assisting them in managing costs without compromising the quality of education that students deserve. It is essential to recognize that quality education and accessibility should not be mutually exclusive—access to education should not entail a reduction in its quality, and ensuring high-quality education should not render it inaccessible.
The real challenge now lies in the legislature: how can it create a system that supports both the educational institutions and students alike, a system that sustains both quality and accessibility? It is high time to put an end to the narrative of students versus private education institutions— the portrayal heavily exploited by politicians every election season. This cycle of rhetoric derives no meaningful policies; such portrayal will only fail to capture the deeper systemic issue in the education sector. Its goal should not be to pit students and private education institutions against each other but to build a system where quality and accessibility coexist.
