CAN A LAW be truly considered just if it protects one group and harms another? Can a law that aims to protect the youth’s constitutionally mandated right to education be called fair if it will endanger the financial viability and operational sustainability of private schools? Back in 2023, the Coordinating Council of Private Educational Association (COCOPEA), the country’s largest organization of private schools, made repeated calls and appeals to our lawmakers to reconsider a proposed bill that
would prohibit the “no permit, no exam” policy. However, all the attempts fell on deaf ears as President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. signed Republic Act 11984, also known as the "No Permit, No Exam Prohibition Act" on March 11, 2024.
This law will cover all public and private basic institutions (K to 12), higher education institutions and technical vocational institutions. As contained in RA 11984, "All public and private educational institutions covered by this Act are hereby mandated to accommodate and allow Disadvantaged Students unable to pay tuition and other fees to take the periodic and final examinations without requiring a permit." Before parents and their children jump for joy at this seemingly pro-student
law, they should be reminded that under RA 11984, the municipal, city and provincial social welfare and development officer, or the regional office of the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) are tasked to issue the necessary certificate on the "disadvantaged status" of the student due to calamities, emergencies, force majeure (act of God) and other "justifiable reasons" in accordance with the implementing rules and regulations (IRR) that will be issued by the DSWD.
Still under Section 4 of RA 11984, “the Act, however, shall be without prejudice to the right and power of schools to require the submission of a promissory note, withhold records and credential of students and such other legal and
administrative remedies available to them for the collection of unpaid fees.” This makes the law unnecessary. Had our lawmakers conducted a little research, they would have known that Department of Education Order No. 15 Series of 2010 has been in place for the longest time and it already provides a mechanism for students and families that face financial difficulties. Private schools continue to practice offering installment plans, accepting deferred
payments and issuing promissory notes as way to help students having financial problems.
To be fair, the DepEd has been very consistent in instructing all schools year after year to strictly adhere to the provisions of the said order. It should not come as a surprise therefore that at the end of each school year, we see a number of students with unpaid school fees join their classmates in the year- end rites, whether it is the recognition program for the undergraduates, the moving-up ceremony for the completers or the commencement rites for the
graduates. And yes, their credentials and other school records are withheld upon full payment of their outstanding financial obligations – a private school policy that even the DepEd continues to honor, support and enforce when confronted by parents asking for the release of their children’s school
documents.
The lawmakers behind RA 11984 now take pride in having crafted a law that they consider “pro student.” I find it deceiving. Whereas before, all it took was a personal visit from parents to sign a promissory note, now they have to line up at the DSWD office to acquire a document that will certify their “disadvantaged status.” I also find it empowering for all the wrong reasons.
Instead of encouraging parents to honor their contractual obligation to the school by paying their children’s school fees on time, they are giving them reasons to delay their payments even if they have the means and the capacity to update them.
At the heart of this issue is the complementarity between public and private schools as recognized by the 1987 Philippine Constitution. Since the Covid-19 pandemic hit us, more than 200 private schools have shut down their operations. More are expected to cease their operations because unpaid fees
and delayed collection will prevent them from meeting their obligations such as teacher’s salaries, government remittances, utilities and school improvements. When this happens, will the public schools be able to accommodate the sudden influx of transferees from the private schools that have opted to close shop? Will our esteemed and honorable lawmakers now
take the cudgels for the displaced students whose constitutional rights they have vowed to protect? Will they show the same concern for the many private school employees who now find themselves as additional statistics in the country’s unemployment rate? Well, your guess is as good as mine.
