Macroeconomics

University of the Cordilleras

RISING TUITION AND MISCELLANOUS FEES
IN HIGHER EDUCATION

In partial fulfillment of the requirements in
Macroeconomics

By:
Achawon, Czarina
Bantiyaw, Jenny Lou
Gahid, Dariel
Morales, Jurileen
Nacis, Nemiah
Salvador, Chaste Heart
Santiago, Nikki
Tengay, Joseph

August 2013
CHAPTER I
Background of the Problem

During the past years tuition fee has been growing. And for this year, it was the largest increase having 354 private universities and colleges and 903 elementary and high school raising their tuition fee and other fees. However, this is the lowest percentage increase for the past ten (10) years as Patricia Licuanan, Commission on Higher Education (CHEd) Chair, said the average tuition hike per unit for school year 2013-2014 is P37.45 or 8.5 percent nationwide while P194.62 or 7.58 percent for other school fees nationwide. Many commentators have criticized these tuition increases. Colleges and universities are said to be too greedy and are charging what the traffic will bear, or colleges are claimed to conspire together to increase tuition.

The Republic Act of 1982 which has been regarded to guide Philippine Education doesn’t stop the schools in proposing tuition fee hikes. In its Section 42, it was stated that private universities and colleges have their discretion to determine reasonable additional fees. This was the reason for filing a petition by Youth Groups, Kabataan Partylist, Anakpawis Partylist, etc, claiming for reconsideration of stopping the tuition fee increase all over the country. According to data provided by the government there will be at least 20.7 million students from public elementary and secondary schools while 3.1 million from private schools to be affected. “Instead of regulating tuition and other school fees, CHEd allowed private educational institutions to raise fees despite opposition from students and parents, making the cost of education more expensive for many Filipino families,” said Anakpawis representative-elect Fernando Hicap in a news. He further said that “Parents are forced by these school administrations to bleed dry and shoulder the sky-high cost of tuition and other school fees.”

This phenomenon on educational institutions can be explained by increases in the cost of producing college education. Professors and other teachers are the principal input in colleges, so that the cost of these teachers is an important determinant of the cost of producing education. College teachers are well educated since they almost always have Masters Degrees, and at the better colleges and universities they are very likely to have PhDs or similar advanced degrees.

Colleges have to compete for highly educated persons against employers in both the private and public sectors. The greatly increased pay of faculty has substantially raised college costs, which in part have been passed on to students through higher tuition and other fees.

This analysis also explains why tuition has grown most rapidly. These schools tend to have faculties that are considered the most skilled and productive, and they invariably have PhDs or other advanced degrees. They too have passed through to students some of these much greater costs via much higher tuition.

The increased return to greater skill means that colleges have an incentive to increase the workload of students, and improve the quality of the education they provide. Higher quality education is more expensive, however, which further has increased the cost of providing education, and the tuition charged students. It can now be said that a higher tuition fee for a higher quality education.

The costs of going to college are claimed to now outweigh the benefits for many of the students who attend college. This is particularly the case, it is argued, for students who take out large student loans to finance their education.

What happened to the value of a college education during the past several decades depends on how the increase in earnings from going to college compares to the increase in tuition and other costs of college.

Nevertheless, the rise in tuition has forced many students to take on larger student loans. This has led to growing calls to forgive much of student indebtedness, even though college is a better deal than it was in the past, and student loans are already significantly subsidized. Moreover, despite a widespread belief that student loans are the main source of debt to younger individuals, in fact student loans remain a relatively small fraction of their total debt.

Furthermore, there are a lot of economic aspects that will surely be affected with this tuition fee increase aside from the families striving to provide their children’s right to education. In an article written by Nicki Tenazas, Consultant ADB, he mentioned a reaction to tuition fee hikes from the Polytechnic University of the Philippines (PUP) in March 2010, “if school fees are allowed to increase indiscriminately, a socially unacceptable outcome (read: unemployment, social unrest, etc.) may come about. Also, it may be possible that the market correction mechanism for higher education does not work effectively: even if tuition fees increase excessively, there is significant inertia in transferring to other schools, which in turn, arises from social pressures felt by students and the accompanying transaction costs of such a move.” Students facing financial limitations are victims of choosing to transfer to other schools leaving their excellence and envisioning to start all over again. Such are being tolerated rather than to stop schooling which is the worst result of not responding to all financial pressures.

DEFINITION OF TERMS AND CONCEPTS
Tuition fees The monetary sum an education institution charges the students to cover the direct costs for instruction, training and related research, and of the students’ use of instruction/training/research facilities, including laboratories. This is the basic source of income of private schools. This does not include institutional fees for other services, such as registration, student activities, health care, or room and board. Other School Fees/Charges This term refers to charges or fees collected to cover the other necessary costs for other services supportive of instruction/training/ research. This may include testing, athletic, library and diploma fees and other miscellaneous expenses related to extra or co-curricular activities and to membership in the school community, such as registration, identification, medical and dental, student publication and such other fees as may be authorized by DECS. These fees are collected for particular purposes and may be used only for those purposes. Consultation Dictionary definition: “to seek information or advice; to take into account, consider (feelings, interests)”. [Oxford Complete Wordfinder] Under DECS issuances, it has been defined to mean: “a conference conducted by the school administration with duly-organized parents-teachers associations and faculty associations with respect to elementary and secondary schools, and with the student governments or councils, alumni and faculty associations with respect to tertiary schools as provided in Section 10 of Rep. Act No. 6728. The consultation process involves at least two (2) weeks notice to all the parties abovementioned, prior to the meeting which shall be held to discuss views/positions/reactions to the proposed tuition fee increases. It is mandated that every sincere effort should be exerted to allow all sectors to express themselves freely in order to arrive at an acceptable compromise. However, consultation does not necessarily mean agreement. C. APPLICABLE LAW REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6139
AN ACT TO REGULATE TUITION AND OTHER SCHOOL FEES OF PRIVATE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION, PROVIDING FOR THE SETTLEMENT OF CONTROVERSIES THEREON AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
1. General Policy: Sec. 1. It is hereby declared to be the policy of this Act to regulate tuition and other fees charged by private schools in order to discourage the collection of exorbitant and unreasonable fees.
2. Who has authority to regulate tuition? Sec. 2. The Secretary of Education given authority to regulate tuition and/or other school fees that may be imposed by private schools, colleges, universities or any other educational institutions including nurseries and kindergarten schools. Sec. 10. The Secretary, in consultation with the President of (1) Philippine Association of Colleges and Universities, (2) Catholic Educational Association of the Philippines, (3) Association of Christian Schools and Colleges, (4) Philippine Association of Private Schools and Colleges, (5) National Confederation of Faculty Organizations, (6) Philippine Confederation of Parents-Teachers Association, shall, within thirty days after the effectivity of this Act, promulgate rules and regulations to carry into effect the provisions hereof: Provided, That such rules and regulations shall become effective upon publication in the Official Gazette and two newspapers of general circulation in the Philippines.
3. PROCEDURE FOR INCREASES IN TUITION FEE, Sec. 3
Any private educational institution proposing to increase the tuition and/or other fees being charged and/or collected by it for any course shall adopt the following procedure:
(a) WHEN TO SERVE NOTICE OF INCREASE
School shall serve written notice of intention to increase tuition, at least 180 days before the school year, semester, or term in which the increase is to be effective.
(b) To whom notice is to be given (by personal or registered mail)
= the student council or government, or in case of schools or courses below the college or university level;
= on the Association of Parents, or in default thereof, the Parents-Teachers Association of the school concerned.
= Director of Private Schools, copy furnished the Regional Superintendent of the Bureau of Private Schools.
= Appropriate circulars containing the proposal shall be posted by the school administration in at least two conspicuous place within the premises of the school concerned.
(c) What the notice should contain: = the current fees or charges and the amount of increase; = the reason or reasons for the proposed increase; = the semester, term or school year in which the increase is proposed to take effect; = and a statement that if no opposition is filed until the thirtieth (30th) day from the posting of the notice, the increase shall become effective under this Act. (d) How to oppose: = Formal opposition against such increase should be presented to the school administration within thirty (30) days after receipt of said notice = Filed by at least a majority of the student governing body or at least twenty per cent of the parents, in case of schools below college or university level] = If above complied with, Local Schools Council on Fees shall be convened by the Regional Superintendent (thru Director of Private Schools) to act on the controversy. = If no opposition is filed within the period above provided, the increase shall be deemed authorized.

(e) Composition of Local School Council = one representative from the school administration to be chosen by the school concerned; = two representatives from the student body to be chosen by the student council or student government, or two representatives from the Association of Parents or in default thereof, the Parents-Teachers Association in case of schools below the college or university level to be chosen by the said association; = one representative from the Faculty Club or Association; and = the Director of Private Schools or his authorized representative in the area who will act as Chairman. The Local School Council on Fees shall exert all efforts to negotiate, conciliate, and settle the case to the satisfaction of the interested parties. The terms of settlement agreed upon by the parties shall be final and binding, and copies of such settlement shall be sent to the Director of Private Schools and the Regional Superintendent of the Bureau of Private Schools. In the event no agreement has been reached, then the said Council, by a majority vote, shall decide the case at least one hundred days before the opening of the school year, semester or term in which the proposed increase is to be effected. = The decision shall be in writing and shall contain concise statement of the facts and the grounds on which the decision is based. 4. OTHER FEES TO BE CONVERTED INTO A TRUST FUND
= Sec. 9. All fees, except tuition, shall be constituted into a trust fund to be spent for the specific purposes for which they are respectively collected.
The unexpended balance of each fee annually may be used to cover deficits in other fees, and any unexpended balance of the fund at the end of every five years shall be constituted into a scholarship fund for poor but deserving students to be administered jointly by the school administration, faculty and student government. 5. PROHIBITIONS/PENAL CLAUSES
= No School administration shall hold any benefit performance, movies, concerts, dramatic presentation, games and/or shows of whatever kind or nature whether for charity of otherwise. (Sec. 9, 3rd par).
= Sec. 11. Any violation of the provisions of this Act or of any rules or regulations promulgated by authority of this Act or any final decision rendered in accordance with this Act or of any agreed settlement under Section 3 (c) hereof, shall punishable by a fine of two thousand pesos or imprisonment of one year or both at the discretion of the court and shall be imposed on the Chairman, President or Head of the educational institution if the violator be a corporation or on any person acting for and in behalf of the educational institution directly committing the violation in other cases.
Approved: August 31, 1970 PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 451
AUTHORIZING THE SECRETARY OF EDUCATION AND CULTURE TO REGULATE THE IMPOSITION OF TUITION AND OTHER SCHOOL FEES, REPEALING REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6139, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
1. RATIONALE:
= WHEREAS, private schools, colleges and universities have been faced with increasingly serious problems arising from decreasing incomes due to slump in enrolment and increasing operational costs brought about by the rise in prices of instructional materials and educational, as well as allied services;
= WHEREAS, it is imperative that private educational institutions upgrade classroom instruction by improving their facilities and hiring competent teachers in all levels of education, provide salary and or wage increases and other benefits to their teaching, administrative and other personnel to keep up with the increasing cost of living;
= WHEREAS, the procedure prescribed under R.A. No. 6139 for the increase of tuition and other school fees has been proved to be too cumbersome and time-consuming, and is not conducive to the growth and improvement of private educational institutions and the well-being of their employees, particularly those in the lower income groups and
= WHEREAS, in order to alleviate the sad plight of private schools, their personnel and all those directly and indirectly dependent on school incomes it advisable and necessary that the cumbersome and time-consuming procedures fixed under Republic Act No. 6139 for increasing tuition fees be simplified without opening the flood-gates to abuse of the right to increase tuition and other school fees. 2. WHO MAY REGULATE TUITION, SEC. 1
= The Secretary of Education and Culture shall have the authority to regulate the imposition of tuition and other school fees or charges by any and all private schools.
= No changes in the rates of tuition or other school fees or charges shall be effective without the prior approval of the Secretary of Education and Culture.
= New school fees or charges to be imposed by new or existing schools, whether for new courses or other matters, shall be at such reasonable rates as may be determined by the Secretary of Education and culture based on the standard of such school.
= The Secretary of Education and Culture is hereby authorized, empowered and directed to issue the requisite rules and regulations for the effective implementation of this Decree. (cf. Sec.4) 3. APPLICATION AND DOCUMENTS REQUIRED SEC. 2.
(a) Where to file:
The application shall be filed with the Secretary of Education and Culture
(b) Contents of application for tuition fee increase
= Statement of the itemized current rates of tuition and other charges and the corresponding itemized proposed changes thereon, as well as the new fees or charges proposed to be imposed, and of the proposed allocation of the incremental proceeds in accordance with Section 3(a) hereof. Such statements shall, when accomplished be under oath by the proper official (s) of the school concerned;
= Financial statement showing the financial status of the school duly certified by a certified public accountant.
= A copy of the last tax return, where required, filed with the Bureau of Internal Revenue. 4. LIMITATIONS ON INCREASES
(a) That no increase in tuition or other school fees or charges shall be approved unless sixty (60%) per centum of the proceeds is allocated for increase in salaries or wages of the members of the faculty and all other employees of the school concerned, and the balance for institutional development, student assistance and extension services, and return to investments: Provided, That in no case shall the return to investments exceed twelve (12%) per centum of the incremental proceeds; and
(b) That any such increase shall in no case exceed fifteen (15%) per centum of the rates charged during the preceding school year.
(c) No school administration or office or division thereof shall hold or sponsor any benefit performance, movies, concerts, dramatic presentation, games and/or shows of whatever kind or nature whether for charity or otherwise.
Any such act on the part of the school administration or office or division thereof shall be considered a circumvention of this law and shall be sufficient cause for the cancellation of the approval of any previous increase in tuition or other school fees and shall subject the school official concerned to such disciplinary action as the Secretary of Education and Culture may deem proper including the revocation on any decree conferred by authority of the Government.
(d) Additional Scholarships [Sec. 7]. As a further condition to any grant of increase in tuition or other school fees, private schools with a total enrolment of at least one thousand, are hereby required to provide free scholarships to poor but deserving students at the ratio of one (1) free scholarship for every five hundred (500) pupils/students enrolled: Provided, That this requirement shall be exclusive of the present practice of private schools offering scholarship privileges to valedictorians and salutatorians and other pupils/students who have achieved scholastic distinctions. Neither shall other forms of scholarships such as those offered to athletes and working students be included in arriving at the proper number of poor but deserving pupils/students to be given free scholarships. 5. REVIEW OF FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, SEC. 6.
= Financial statements submitted to support the increases may be reviewed by the Commission on Audit at the instance of the Secretary of Education and Culture whenever he believes that the same is necessary for verification purposes.
= For this purpose, the Commission on Audit is authorized to examine the pertinent books and record of the school concerned. 6. PENAL CLAUSE.
= Any violation of the provisions of this Decree or of the rules or regulations promulgated pursuant thereto or any final decision made by the Secretary of Education and Culture shall be punishable by a fine of five thousand (P5,000.00) pesos or imprisonment of two years or both, at the discretion of the court.
= Said penalty shall be imposed on the official(s) of the private school or on any person acting for and in behalf of the school directly responsible for the violation.
= If the violator is a public official the same penalty shall be imposed without prejudice to any administrative action which may be taken against him. 7. EFFECTIVITY
= This Decree shall take effect immediately.
= Done in the City of Manila, this 11th day of May, in the year of Our Lord, nineteen hundred and seventy-four. CASES:
University of the East vs. UE Faculty Association, 117 SCRA 554 [1982]
Proceeds from tuition fee increases may be devoted only for salary increases of school faculty and other school personnel and for institutional development & student assistance. In this connection, it can be readily seen in the provision in question that there are only two purposes to which the incremental proceeds from increase of tuition fees authorized by the Ministry of Education and Culture may be dedicated or devoted, namely: (1) “increase in salaries or wages of the members of the faculty and all other employees of the school concerned” and (2) “institutional development, student assistance and extensions of services, and return of investments;” provided the latter shall not exceed twelve (12%) per centum of the incremental proceeds. Resultingly, in none of the two purposes stated in the provision in question are the disputed items referred to provided for. And so, to reiterate, the question is, from and against what may they bet taken or charged?
This case involves the implementation of P.D. 451, particularly, paragraph (a) of its Section 3 which provides that:
SEC. 3. Limitations. The increase in tuition or other school fees or other charges as wen as the new fees or charges authorized under the next preceding section shall be subject to the following conditions.: (a) That no increase in tuition or other school fees or charges shall be approved unless sixty (60%) per centum of the proceeds is allocated for increase in salaries or wages of the members of the faculty and all other employees of the school concerned, and the balance for institutional development, student assistance and extension services, and return to investments: Provided, That in no case shall the return to investments exceed twelve (12%) per centum of the incremental proceeds; and (b) That any such increase shall in no case exceed fifteen (15%) per centum of the rates charged during the preceding school year.
We are being urged to construe this provision in regard to three controverted points: (1) whether or not allowances and benefits, granted by the universities to the members of the faculty and their other employees, as these may be distinguishable from salaries and wages, may be charged by the university to the 60% of the incremental proceeds from increase in tuition fees they may be authorized by the Ministry of Education and Culture (MEC); (2) similarly, whether or not increase in salaries or wages or any allowances or benefits secured by collective bargaining, in addition to those mandated by other laws, may be charged against said 60% and (3) whether or not newly appointed teachers or employees are entitled to participate in the increases and benefits prior to their appointments.
We have stated at the outset as to whether or not increase of salaries or wages or allowances or benefits secured by collective bargaining may be charged against the incremental proceeds (60%) under P.D. 451. We read the latest Malacanang decision to mean that increase of salaries even those secured by collective bargaining may be charged to the 60% incremental proceeds of MEC authorized tuition fee increase. That is precisely the stand of petitioner.
In this connection, it can be readily seen in the provision in question that there are only two purposes to which the incremental proceeds from increase of tuition fees authorized by the Ministry of Education and Culture may be dedicated or devoted, namely; (1) "increase in salaries or wages of the members of the faculty and all other employees of the school concerned" and (2) "institutional development, student assistance and extensions of services, and return of investments;" provided the latter shall not exceed twelve (12%) per centum of the incremental proceeds. Resultingly, in none of the two purposes stated in the provision in question are the disputed items referred to provided for. And so, to reiterate, the question is, from and against what may they be taken or charged?
Historically, P.D. 451, as stated in its title is an amendment of Republic Act 6139 approved on August 31, 1970. But that law had an entirely opposite objective. As Section I thereof put it, "it is hereby declared the policy of this Act to regulate tuition and other fees charged by private schools in order to discourage the collection of exhorbitant and unreasonable fees." For, indeed, before the passage of said law, the unbridled discretion of private school owners to charge tuition fees practically converted the running of private educational institutions into a lucrative business that made tertiary education difficult, if not beyond the means of even the middle income sector of our people. The government had to see to it that tuition and other fees be controlled to afford educational opportunities to all levels of our people.
But under R.A. 6139, the procedure for regulation of the amount of tuition fees was tedious and cumbersome, inasmuch as pursuant thereto any increase in tuition fees had to be arrived at by consensus among all the parties concerned, the students, the school owners and the government.
Now, after the proclamation of martial law and the establishment of the New Society, the conditions appear to have drastically changed. In 1974, while evidently scanning the various aspects of development of the national welfare and the social conditions of our people and trying to assess the achievements up to then of the New Soceity, His Excellency, President Ferdinand E. Marcos, must have trained his eyes on the educational field. He must have asked the Ministry of Education to furnish him with a full report and its recomrnendations thereon. And after going over and studying the papers submitted to him, the President came to the conclusion that:
Private schools, colleges and universities have been faced with increasingly serious problems arising from decreasing incomes due to slump in enrolment and increasing operational costs brought about by the rise in prices of instructional materials and educational, as well as allied services;
It is imperative that private educational institutions upgrade classroom instruction by improving their facilities and hiring competent teachers in all levels of education, provide salary and or wage increases and other benefits to their teaching, administrative and other personnel to keep up with the increasing costs of living;
The procedure prescribed under R.A. No. 6139 for the increase of tuition and other school fees has been proved to be too cumbersome and time-consuming, and is not conducive to the growth and improvement of private educational institutions and the well-being of their employees, particularly those in the lower income groups, and found that "in order to alleviate the sad plight of private schools, their personnel and all those directly and indirectly dependent on school incomes it is advisable and necessary that the cumbersome and time-consuming procedures fixed under Republic Act No. 6139 for increasing tuition fees be simplified without opening the flood-gates to abuse of the right to increase tuition and other school fees." ' (Preamble, P.D. 45 1).
In effect, the problem posed before Us is whether or not the reference in Section 3(a) to "increase in salaries or wages of the faculty and all other employees of the schools concerned" as the first purpose to which the incremental proceeds from authorized increases to tuition fees may be devoted, may be construed to include allowances and benefits.
On this predicate, We are of the considered view that, if the schools happen to have no other resources to grant allowances and benefits, either mandated by law or secured by collective bargaining, such allowances and benefits should be charged against the return to investments referred to in the second purpose stated in Section 3 (a) of P.D. 451.
Saint Louis Faculty Club vs. NLRC, 132 SCRA 380 [1984]
QUESTION 1: Whether the 13th month pay may be charged to the 60% incremental proceeds from tuition fee increases –
Under PD 451, the 13th month pay of employees and faculty members of a school cannot be charged against the 60% incremental proceeds of tuition fee increases, but should be charged against the school’s return of investment.
Almost one year before the NLRC issued its questioned resolution – on September 30, 1982, to be exact – this Court in G.R. No. 57387, University of the East vs. University of the East Faculty Association and the Presidential Executive Assistant (117 SCRA 554) had already ruled on the issue. In said case, We held that allowances and benefits mandated by law or secured by collective bargaining agreement should be charged against the return to investments mentioned in the second purpose of Sec. 3(a) of PD No. 451.
In other words, the 13th month pay which is mandated by law should not be charged to the 60% incremental proceeds but against the return to investments. It is passing strange that the members of the NLRC do not seem to keep themselves abreast of decisions of this Court which affect their agency.
QUESTION 2: Whether the 60% incremental proceeds from tuition fee increases is allotted solely for rank-and-file employees, and not to administrative employees?
Administrative employees should be included in the proceeds of tuition fee increases under PD 451.
Hence, the University should follow Section 3 of Presidential Decree No. 451 in disposing of the proceeds in the increase of tuition fees in salary increases and improvements of facilities. An adjustment in the disposition of the said increase is necessary. The administrative employees would be benefited by the increase.
QUESTION 3: How should the incremental proceeds from tuition fees be distributed?
SEC. 2. Rule IV Distribution of Proceeds. The following distributions of the total incremental proceeds from the increase in tuition and/or other school fees shall be observed:
a. 60% for retirement plan faculty development and equitable increase in the rates of salary and/or allowance of teaching and non-teaching personnel.
b. 28% for improvement in instructional, library and research facilities, student and extension services and additional scholarships.
c. 12% for return on investments. BATAS PAMBANSA BLG. 232
(11 September 1982)
AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF AN INTEGRATED SYSTEM OF EDUCATION
1. GENERAL PROVISIONS
= Sec. 1. Title. This Act shall be known as the "Education Act of 1982."
= Sec. 2. Coverage. This Act shall apply to and govern both formal and non-formal systems in public and private schools in all levels of the entire educational system.
2. DECLARATION OF BASIC STATE POLICY AND OBJECTIVES
= Sec. 3. Declaration of Basic Policy. It is the policy of the State to established and maintain a complete, adequate and integrated system of education relevant to the goals of national development.
The State shall promote the right of every individual to relevant quality education, regardless of sex, age, creed, socio-economic status, physical and mental conditions, racial or ethnic origin, political or other affiliation. The State shall therefore promote and maintain equality of access to education as well as the enjoyment of the benefits of education by all its citizens.
The State shall promote the right of the nation 's cultural communities in the exercise of their right to develop themselves within the context of their cultures, customs, traditions, interest and belief, and recognizes education as an instrument for their maximum participation in national development and in ensuring their involvement in achieving national unity.
= Sec. 4. Declaration of Objectives. The educational system aim to:
a) Provide for a broad general education that will assist each individuals in the peculiar ecology of his own society, to (i) attain his potentials as a human being; (ii) enhance the range and quality of individual and group participation in the basic functions of society; and (iii) acquire the essential educational foundation of his development into a productive and versatile citizen;
b) Train the nation 's manpower in the middle-level skills for national development;
c) Develop the profession that will provide leadership for the nation in the advancement of knowledge for improving the quality of human life; and
d) Respond effectively to changing needs and conditions of the nation through a system of educational planning and evaluation.
= Towards the realization of these objectives, and pursuant to the Constitution, all educational institutions shall aim to inculcate love of country, teach the duties of citizenship, and develop moral character, personal discipline, and scientific, technological, and vocational efficiency.
= Furthermore, the educational system shall reach out to educationally deprived communities, in order to give meaningful reality to their membership in the national society, to enrich their civic participation in the community and national life, and to unify all Filipinos into a free and just nation. 3. SCHOOL FINANCE AND ASSISTANCE
A. FUNDING OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS
= Sec. 34. National Funds. Public schools shall continue to be funded from national funds: Provided, That local governments shall be encouraged to assume operation of local public schools on the basis of national fund participation and adequate revenue sources which may be assigned by the national government for the purpose.
= Sec. 35. Financial Aid Assistance to Public Secondary Schools. The national government shall extend financial aid and assistance to public secondary schools established and maintained by local governments, including barangay high schools.
= Sec. 36. Share of Local Government. Provinces, cities and municipalities and barangays shall appropriate funds in their annual budgets for the operation and maintenance of public secondary schools on the basis of national fund participation.
= Sec. 38. Tuition and other School Fees. Secondary and post-secondary schools may charge tuition and other school fees, in order to improve facilities or to accommodate more students.
= Sec. 39. Income from other Sources. Government-supported educational institution may receive grants, legacies, donations and gifts for purposes allowed by existing laws.
= Furthermore, income generated from production activities and from auxiliary enterprises may be retained and used for schools concerned in accordance with rules and regulations jointly issued consistently with pertinent appropriation and budgetary laws by the Ministry of the Budget, the Ministry of Education, Culture and Sports and the Commission on Audit. B. FUNDING OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS
= Sec. 40. Funding of Private Schools. Private schools may be funded from their capital investment or equity contributions, tuition fees and other school charges, grants, loans, subsidies, passive investment income and income from other sources.
= Sec. 41. Government Assistance. The government, in recognition of their complementary role in the educational system, may provide aid to the programs of private schools in the form of grants or scholarships, or loans from government financial institutions: Provided, That such programs meet certain defined educational requirements and standards and contribute to the attainment of national development goals.
= Sec. 42. Tuition and Other Fees. Each private school shall determine its rate of tuition and other school fees or charges. The rates and charges adopted by schools pursuant to this provision shall be collectible, and their application or use authorized, subject to rules and regulations promulgated by the Ministry of Education, Culture and Sports.
= Sec. 43. Income from Other Sources. Any private school duly recognized by the government, may receive any grant and legacy, donation, gift, bequest or devise from any individual, institution, corporation, foundation, trust of philanthropic organization, or research institution or organization as may be authorized by law.
Furthermore, private schools are authorized to engage in any auxiliary enterprise to generate income primarily to finance their educational operations and/or to reduce the need to increase students ' fees.
= Sec. 44. Institutional Funds. The proceeds from tuition fees and other school charges, as well as other income of schools, shall be treated as institutional funds. Schools may pool their institutional funds, in whole or in part, under joint management for the purpose of generating additional financial resources.
CASES:
CEBU INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY (CIT) VS. OPLE (156 SCRA 632)
QUESTION 1: Whether or not allowances may be considered as included in the concept of salaries or wages?
In the light of existing laws which exclude allowances from the basic salary or wage in the computation of the amount of retirement and other benefits payable to an employee, this Court will not adopt a different meaning of the terms “salaries or wages” to mean the opposite, i.e. to include allowances in the concept of salaries or wages.
QUESTION 2: If the school cannot deduct allowances and benefits from the 60% share in incremental proceeds, from what fund should the school deduct it from?
This Court has consistently held, beginning with the University of the East case, that if the schools have no resources other than those derived from tuition fee increases, allowances and benefits should be charged against the proceeds of tuition fee increases which the law allows for return on investments under section 3(a) of Pres. Dec. No. 451, therefore, not against the 60% portion allocated for increases in salaries and wages (See 117 SCRA 571). This ruling was reiterated in the University of Pangasinan case and in the Saint Louis University case.
This interpretation of the law is consistent with the legislative intent expressed in the Decree itself, i.e., to alleviate the said light of private schools and that of their personnel wrought by slump in enrolment and increasing operational costs on the part of the schools, and the increasing costs of living on the part of the personnel (Preamble, Pres. Dec. No. 451).
While coming to the aid of the private school system by simplifying the procedure for increasing tuition fees, the Decree imposes as a condition for the approval of any such increase in fees, the allocation of 60% of the incremental proceeds thereof, to increases in salaries or wages of school personnel.
This condition makes for a quid pro quo of the approval of any tuition fee hike by a school, thereby assuring the school personnel concerned, of a share in its proceeds. The condition having been imposed to attain one of the main objectives of the Decree, which is to help the school personnel cope with the increasing costs of living, the same cannot be interpreted in a sense that would diminish the benefit granted said personnel.
QUESTION 3: What is the effect of the Schools which followed the provisions/procedures in the MECS Order, if the MECS order was later declared ultra vires?
As to the alleged implementing rules and regulations promulgated by the then MECS to the effect that allowances and other benefits may be charged against the 60% portion of the proceeds of tuition fee increases provided for in Section 3(a) of Pres. Dec. No. 451, suffice it to say that these were issued ultra vires, and therefore not binding upon this Court.
Rules and regulations promulgated in accordance with the owner conferred by law would have the force and effect of law [Victorias Milling Company, Inc. vs. Social Security System, 114 Phil. 555 (1962)] if the same are germane to the subjects of the legislation and if they conform with the standards prescribed by the same law [People vs. Maceren, G.R. No. L-32166, October 18, 1977, 79 SCRA 450].
Since the implementing rules and regulations cited by the private schools adds allowances and other benefits to the items included in the allocation of 60% of the proceeds of tuition fee increases expressly provided for by law, the same were issued in excess of the rule-making authority of said agency, and therefore without binding effect upon the courts. At best the same may be treated as administrative interpretations of the law and as such, they may be set aside by this Court in the final determination of what the law means.
QUESTION 4: Whether or not Section 42 of BP Blg. 232 repeals Presidential Decree No. 451.-
The Court after comparing section 42 of BP Blg. 232 and Pres. Dec. No. 451, particularly section 3(a) thereof, finds evident irreconcilable differences.
Under Pres. Dec. No. 451, the authority to regulate the imposition of tuition and other school fees or charges by private schools is lodged with the Secretary of Education and Culture (Sec. 1), whereas section 42 of BP Blg. 2332 liberalized the procedure by empowering each private school to determine its rate of tuition and other schools fees or charges.
Pres. Dec. No. 451 provides that 60% of the incremental proceeds of tuition fee increases shall be applied or used to augment the salaries and wages of members of the faculty and other employees of the school, while BP Blg. 232 provides that the increment shall be applied or used in accordance with the regulations promulgated by the MECS.
A closer look at these differences leads the Court to resolve the question in favor of repeal. As pointed out by the Solicitor General, three aspects of the disputed provisions of law support the above conclusion. First, the legislative authority under Pres. Dec. NO. 451 retained the power to apportion the incremental proceeds of the tuition fee increases; such power is delegated to the Ministry of Education and Culture under BP Bldg. 232. Second, Pres. Dec. No. 451 limits the application or use of the increment to salary or wage increase, institutional development, student assistance and extension services and return on investment, whereas BP Blg. 232 gives the MECS discretion to determine the application or use of the increments. Third, the extent of the application or use of the increment under Pres. Dec. No. 451 is fixed at the pre-determined percentage allocations: 60% for wage and salary increases, 12% for return in investment and the balance of 28% to institutional development, student assistance and extension services, while under BP Bldg. 232, the extent of the allocation or use of the increment is likewise left to the discretion of the MECS.
The legislative intent to depart from the statutory limitations under Pres. Dec. No. 451 is apparent in the second sentence of section 42 of BP Blg. 232. Pres. Dec. No. 451 and section 42 of BP Blg. 232 which cover the same subject matter, are so clearly inconsistent and incompatible with each other that there is no other conclusion but that the latter repeals the former in accordance with section 72 of BP Blg. 232 to wit: Sec. 72. Repealing clause. – All laws or parts thereof inconsistent with any provision of this Act shall be deemed repealed or modified, as the case may be.
CEBU INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY (CIT) VS. OPLE, 160 SCRA 506 [1988]
Question 1: What Is The Prescriptive Period For Filing Of Claims For Non-Compliance With The Correlative Shares In The Incremental Proceeds From Tuition Fee Increases?
The period within which to file actions for money claims which accrued during the effectivity of the Labor Code is three (3) years from the accrual of the cause of action.
In the Divine Word College Case, inasmuch as the original complaint was filed on February 17, 1983, the claims prior to February 17, 1980 have indeed already prescribed. – Article 292 of the Labor Code is three (3) years from the accrual of the cause of action. Money claims which accrued more than three (3) years prior to the filing of the complaint are barred by prescription. In the instant case, inasmuch as the original complaint was filed on February 17, 1983, the claims prior to February 17, 1980 have indeed already prescribed.
As an incident to the main arguments in this action for reconsideration, petitioners express doubt on the applicability of the three-year period of prescription under the Labor Code. There is no doubt that the three-year period within which to file actions involving money claims arising out of an employer-employee relationship fixed by Article 292 of Pres. Dec. No. 442 (Labor Code, as amended), equally applies to claims for the incremental proceeds arising from tuition fee increases under Pres. Dec. No. 451. The claims which gave rise to all these cases are clearly money claims arising from an employer-employee relationship and thus falls under the coverage of Article 292 of the Labor Code.
SEE ALSO: MANUEL L. QUEZON UNIVERSITY ASSOCIATION VS. MANUEL L. QUEZON EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION, INC. (MLQU), 172 SCRA 597 [1989]
The ten-year prescriptive period fixed in Article 1144 of the Civil Code may not be invoked by the petitioners for the Civil Code is a law of general application, while the prescriptive period fixed in Article 292 of the Labor Code (now Art. 291) is a special law applicable to claims arising from employer-employee relations (De Joya vs. Lantin, 19 SCRA 893; Lagman vs. City of Manila, 17 SCRA 579; Philippine Trust Co. vs. Macuan, 54 Phil. 655).
Question 2: What Is The Basis For Computing The Incremental Proceeds From Tuition Fee Increases?
The basis for computing the incremental proceeds accruing to the teachers is provided by Pres. Dec. No. 461 and now the rules and regulations implement section 42 of B.P. Blg. 232.
The portion allocated for teachers and other school personnel is arrived at by multiplying the total amount of the incremental proceeds of the authorized tuition fee increase by sixty percent (60%).
The use of the word “proceeds” in the law implies that the percentage share of the teachers and other school employees should be computed on the actual amount collected from the imposition of tuition fee increases. This is applicable particularly to those schools who allow payment of tuition and other student fees on aninstallment basis.
ADAMSON OZANAM EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION, INC. VS. ADAMSON UNIVERSITY FACULTY AND EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, 179 SCRA 279 [1989]
Question 1: Whether or not the University may validly deduct the increases in CBA to the 60% incremental proceeds from tuition fee increases.
On the second issue, the order of respondent NLRC to petitioner to remit to the respondent AUFEA the sum of P1,298,160.00 representing its 60% share in the increment tuition fees collected for the school year 1983-1984 is predicated on the argument that: 1) MECS Order No. 25 took effect on April 1, 1985 and prior thereto this Court has ruled that the 60% incremental proceeds should be applied to the basic salaries and wages; and 2) inasmuch as the CBA was concluded two (2) days after petitioner was granted the authority to increase its tuition fees, it does not necessarily follow that the parties intended that the CBA benefits will be taken from the said incremental proceeds.
We disagree.
In the case of Cebu Institute of Technology vs. Hon. Blas Ople, 5 this Court ruled that P.D. No. 451 was repealed by B.P. 232 effective September 11, 1982.
From the said date the governing law on the disposition of the 60% incremental proceeds on the tuition fees are the appropriate provisions of B.P. Blg. 232, which, in pertinent part provides as follows:
Not less than sixty (60) percent of the incremental tuition proceeds shall be used for salaries or wages, allowances and fringe benefits of faculty and support staff, including cost of living allowance, imputed costs of contributed services, thirteenth (13th) month pay, retirement fund contributions, social security, medicare, unpaid school personnel claims, and payment as may be prescribed by mandated wage orders, collective bargaining agreements and voluntary employer practices ... (Sec. 42; Emphasis supplied)
Accordingly, as of September 11, 1982, Section 3(a) of PD 451 which limits the disposition of said 60% incremental proceeds increase in tuition fees to those of salaries and wages is deemed abrogated by way of repeal. Indeed even prior thereto this Court ruled in the University of the East vs. UE Faculty Association 7 as follows:
We are underscoring such modification because as We see it, it settles the second main issue We have stated at the outset as to whether or not increase of salaries of wages or allowances or benefits secured by collective bargaining may be charged against the incremental proceeds (60%) under PD 451. We read the latest Malacañang decision to mean that increase of salaries even those secured bv collective bargaining may be charged to the 60% incremental proceeds of MEC authorized tuition fee increases. ... (Emphasis supplied)
MECS Order No. 25 finds legal support in B.P. Blg. 232, otherwise known as the Educational Act of 1982 as said MECS Order is an implementing administrative rule interpretative of a pre-existing statute and not declarative of certain rights with obligation thereunder. The same should be given retroactive effect and its effectivity should be on September 11, 1982, which is the date of effectivity of B.P. Blg. 232, not April 1, 1985. Remedial or curative statutes are by nature intended to be retroactive.
And this is as it should be as rules and regulations are and should be for the sole purpose of carrying into effect a general provision of the law. 9 Thus guided by the Cebu Institute of Technology which declared the automatic repeal of P.D. 451, respondent NLRC committed a grave error in ruling that petitioner cannot charge to the 60% incremental proceeds the items under paragraph 7.4 of the MECS Order No. 25 including collective bargaining.

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6728
AN ACT PROVIDING GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE TO STUDENTS AND TEACHERS IN PRIVATE EDUCATION, AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR
1. Declaration of Policy (Sec. 2):
= It is the declared policy of the State, in conformity with the mandate of the Constitution, to promote and make quality education accessible to all Filipino citizens.
= The State also hereby recognizes the complementary roles of public and private educational institutions in the educational system and the invaluable contribution that the private schools have made and will make to education. For these purposes, the State shall provide the mechanisms to improve quality in private education by maximizing the use of existing resources of private education, recognizing in the process the government responsibility to provide basic elementary and secondary education as having priority over its function to provide for higher education.
2. Criteria for Assistance (Sec. 3):
= The programs for assistance shall be based on a set of criteria which shall include, among others, tuition fees charged by the schools, the socioeconomic needs of each region, overall performance of the schools, the academic qualifications and the financial needs of the students, as well as the geographic spread and size of student population.
= In addition to the foregoing criteria, within such reasonable time as the State Assistance Council may determine, student grantees under the Private Education Student Financial Assistance Program shall be enrolled in schools which have accredited programs or are applying for accreditation as determined by the Federation of Accrediting Agencies of the Philippines, namely: The Philippine Association of Accredited Schools, Colleges and Universities (PAASCU), the Association of Christian Schools and Colleges Accrediting Agency, and the Philippine Association of Colleges and Universities (PACU) Commission on Accreditation.
= Preference shall be given to students whose family income is not more than Thirty-six thousand pesos (P36,000.00) or such amount as may be determined by the Council, as defined hereinafter.
= For purposes of this Act, programs of assistance to students of private post-secondary education shall likewise be extended to students of community colleges and students in non-degree programs including vocational and technical courses. Implementation of the program shall encourage students to undergo tertiary education in the same region where their families reside.
= The programs of assistance under this Act shall be extended only to students who are citizens of the Philippines. 3. Forms of Assistance (Sec. 4):
Assistance to private education shall consist of:
(1) Tuition fee supplements for students in private high schools, including students in vocational and technical courses; (2) High School Textbook Assistance Fund: Provided, That students in public high schools shall be provided a comprehensive textbook program under the Secondary Education Development Program (SEDP); (3) Expansion of the existing Educational Service Contracting (ESC) Scheme; (4) The voucher system of the Private Education Student Financial Assistance Program (PESFA); (5) Scholarship grants to students graduating as valedictorians and salutatorians from secondary schools; (6) Tuition fee supplements to students in private colleges and universities; (7) Education Loan Fund; and (8) College Faculty Development Fund. 4. How to Avail of Tuition Fee Supplement for Students in Private High Schools (Sec. 5):
(1) Financial assistance for tuition for students in private high schools shall be provided by the government through a voucher system in the following manner:
(a) For students enrolled in schools charging less than One thousand five hundred pesos (P1,500.00) per year in tuition and other fees during school year 1988-1989 or such amount in subsequent years as may be determined from time to time by the State Assistance Council, the Government shall provide them with a voucher equal to Two hundred ninety pesos (P290.00): Provided, That the student pays in the 1989-1990 school year, tuition and other fees equal to the tuition and other fees paid during the preceding academic year: Provided, further, That the Government shallreimburse the vouchers from the schools concerned within sixty (60) days from the close of the registration period: Provided, furthermore, That the student 's family resides in the same city or province in which the high school is located unless the student has been enrolled in that school during the previous academic year. (b) For students enrolled in schools charging above One thousand five hundred pesos (P1,500.00) per year in tuition and other fees during the school year 1988-1989 or such amount in subsequent years as may be determined from time to time by the State Assistance Council, no assistance for tuition fees shall be granted by the Government: Provided, however, That the schools concerned may raise their tuition fees subject to Section 10 hereof. (2) Assistance under paragraph (1), subparagraphs (a) and (b) shall be granted and tuition fees under subparagraph (c) may be increased, on the condition that seventy percent (70%) of the amount subsidized allotted for tuition fee or of the tuition fee increases shall go to the payment of salaries, wages, allowances and other benefits of teaching and non-teaching personnel except administrators who are principal stockholders of the school, and may be used to cover increases as provided for in the collective bargaining agreements existing or in force at the time when this Act is approved and made effective:
Provided, That government subsidies are not used directly for salaries of teachers of non-secular subjects. At least twenty percent (20%) shall go to the improvement or modernization of buildings, equipment, libraries, laboratories, gymnasia and similar facilities and to the payment of other costs of operation.
For this purpose, schools shall maintain a separate record of accounts for all assistance received from the government, any tuition fee increase, and the detailed disposition and use thereof, which record shall be made available for periodic inspection as may be determined by the State Assistance Council, during business hours, by the faculty, the non-teaching personnel, students of the school concerned, the Department of Education, Culture and Sports, and other concerned government agencies. CASES:
Lina, Jr. vs. Cariño, 221 SCRA 515 [1993]
Facts of the Case: Senator Lina filed this present action with the Supreme Court, questioning the validity of DECS Order No. 30 and the purported authority of the Secretary of Education to issue guidelines on the matter of tuition fee increases.
The complete text of DECS Order No. 30 is reproduced here for ready reference:
1. In response to the clamor from the regions for guidelines responsive to the needs and conditions peculiar to these areas, and in consideration of the regional wage orders, schools may increase their tuition fees as approved by the State Assistance Council (SAC) in accordance with the following guidelines: a. Entering Freshmen. The tuition fee rates for entering freshmen in all levels may be determined by the school itself, subject to consultation. However, no consultation is required when the amount of increase will raise the tuition fee level to not more than P80.00 per unit for the tertiary schools and to not more than P1,500.00 per year for the elementary and secondary schools. b. Upper Year Students. Schools may increase their tuition fees for the upper year students in accordance with the following prescribed rates:

Region | Prescribed Tuition Fee Increase: | | Per Unit (Tertiary) | Per Year (Elem. & Sec.) | I | 6.50 | 158.00 | II | 5.50 | 135.00 | III | 7.50 | 180.00 | IV | 7.00 | 160.00 | V | 7.50 | 181.00 | VI | 7.00 | 175.00 | VII | 5.00 | 121.00 | VIII | 4.00 | 101.00 | IX | 5.50 | 132.00 | X | 6.00 | 141.00 | XI | 7.00 | 162.00 | XII | 6.50 | 157.00 | NCR | 9.50 | 226.50 | CAR | 5.50 | 133.00 | Tuition fee increases within the prescribed rates above shall not require consultation and DECS approval provided that a notice of increase is submitted to the DECS regional office not later than April 30, 1991. Schools may increase up to a maximum rate of 25% for programs below Level II accreditation and up to a maximum of 30% for programs with Level II and Level III accreditation based on approved tuition fee rates in school year 1990-1991, subject to consultation.
c. Emergency Tuition Fee Assessment. To comply with the provisional emergency cost of living allowances mandated by the Regional Tripartite Wages and Productivity Boards of Regions VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XI, XII and the NCR, schools in these regions may collect an emergency tuition fee assessment from both the entering freshmen and the upper year students in all levels in accordance with the following schedule: [Schedule of Fees follows]. The above prescribed emergency tuition fee assessments shall be collected only in school year 1991-1992 and shall not form part of the approved tuition fee rates. Consultation and DECS approval shall not be required. However, a notice of collection shall be submitted to the DECS regional office not later than April 30, 1991. (Note 1: The prescribed emergency tuition fee assessment for NCR will take effect only upon final resolution of a pending petition for exemption.) d. Other Fees. Schools in all levels may increase the rates of other fees by not more than 10%. Consultation and DECS approval shall not be required provided that a notice of increase is submitted to the DECS regional office not later than April 30, 1991. e. For schools desiring to increase their tuition and/or other fees beyond what are prescribed in sections a, b, and d but whose program are below Level II accreditation, the following must be submitted to DECS regional offices for evaluation and approval/disapproval: (1) A certification by the school head, properly notarized, stating (a) that the 70% share of tuition fee increases collected in June 1990 was distributed to the teaching and non-teaching personnel in the form of salaries, wages, allowances, and other benefits in compliance with Section 5.2.c of R.A. 6728, and (b) that the P25.00 mandated wage order in 1989 and the applicable regional wage orders in November 1990 were implemented. (2) Schedule of tuition and other fees of the previous year. (3) Schedule of proposed increase of tuition and fees for the current school year. (4) Audited financial statements for two (2) years immediately preceding the current year. No school may collect any increase in tuition and other fees prior to DECS approval. Deadline for filing of application is May 30, 1991. (f) Consultation. As defined in this Order, consultation shall mean a conference conducted by the school administration with duly organized parents-teachers associations and faculty associations with respect to elementary and secondary and with student governments or councils, alumni and faculty associations with respect to tertiary schools as provided for in Section 10 of R.A. 6728. (1) The consultation process involves at least two weeks ' notice to all the parties above-mentioned. A meeting of all sectors is held during which views and positions on or reactions to the proposed increase in tuition and other fees shall be discussed. Every sincere effort shall be exerted to allow all sectors concerned to express themselves freely in order to arrive at an acceptable compromise. However, consultation does not necessarily mean agreement. (2) In case of disagreement, parties involved may choose the alumni association of the school or any other impartial body of their choice as arbiter. (3) Any of the parties in disagreement with the decision of the arbiter may elevate the decision to DECS Central Office which shall make the final decision. g. Sanctions. Sanctions as stipulated under DECS Order No. 50, s. 1990 still apply. h. Government Tuition Fee Supplement. Financial assistance for tuition of students in private schools, colleges and universities shall be provided by the government as follows: (1) For students enrolled in high schools which charge less than one thousand five hundred pesos (P1,500.00) per year in tuition and other fees during school year 1990-1991, the government shall provide them with a voucher equal to two hundred ninety pesos(P290.00) provided that the student pays in school year 1991-1992 tuition and other fees equal to the tuition and other fees paid during the preceding academic year. (2) For fourth and fifth year students enrolled in priority courses, as determined by DECS, in private schools, colleges and universities that charge an effective per unit tuition rate of eighty pesos(P80.00) or less in SY 1990-91, the government shall provide each student with a voucher to cover the tuition increase, up to twelve pesos (P12.00) per unit. 2. Guidelines on tuition and/or other school fees for the pre-elementary program will be covered by a separate DECS Order. 3. This Order takes effect immediately and supersedes all other DECS issuances inconsistent herewith. Statement of Conflicting Claims
1. Petitioner
Petitioner basically denies the legal authority of respondent Secretary to issue DECS Order No. 30. It is the contention of petitioner that respondent Secretary at the time of issuing DECS Order No. 30, no longer possessed legal authority to do so, considering that authority to promulgate rules and regulations relating to the imposition of school fees had been transferred to the State Assistance Council ("SAC") by Republic Act No. 6728.
2. Solicitor General/Secretary Carino
The Solicitor General, representing respondent Secretary, maintains that the power to prescribe maximum tuition and other school fees granted under B.P. Blg. 232 was not withdrawn by R.A. No. 6728 and remains vested in the DECS Secretary. The Solicitor General rests his position here on the decision of this Court in the Phil. Consumers case.
The Solicitor General concedes that R.A. No. 6728 granted unto the SAC the power to promulgate rules and regulations, but argues that only rules and regulations relevant to the purpose of that law, i.e. government assistance and subsidy to students and teachers in private schools, may be promulgated by the SAC.
In essence, the rules which may be promulgated by the SAC are those involving a determination of the maximum rates of tuition fee in private schools payment of which would not disqualify students thereof from availing themselves of government assistance in the form of tuition fee supplements, and from access to the high school textbook assistance fund and to tuition fee waiver programs.
3. Intervenor Phil. Assn. Of Colleges and Universities
Intervenor PACU does not believe that R.A. No. 6728 could have repealed B.P. Blg. 232 because these two (2) statutes deal with separate and independent subjects and were enacted for different purposes.
Intervenor PACU questions DECS Order No. 30 only with respect to paragraph 1 (a) which it perceives does not conform with the consultation requirement. Upon the other hand, intervenor PACU, traversing the position of petitioner, asserts that Section 10 of R.A. No. 6728 refers only to increases in tuition fees, and that accordingly, consultation does not apply to increases in other school fees, the latter kind of fees not being mentioned in Section 10.
4. Intervenor Catholic Educational Association of the Phils.
Intervenor CEAP maintains that neither the DECS Secretary nor the SAC may fix maximum tuition and other school fees which private schools may lawfully charge. In the view of intervenor CEAP, the fixing of such less is the exclusive prerogative of the private schools themselves. It therefore urges the Court to strike down DECS Order No. 30 as null and void in its entirety.
Intervenor CEAP, however, adheres to the view of intervenor PACU on consultation, that is, that the imposition of other school fees (non-tuition fees) is not subject to a consultation requirement. ISSUES:
The principal issues raised by the parties may be restated in the following manner:
(1) Whether DECS Order No. 30 is valid, that is, whether respondent DECS Secretary has the legal authority to issue DECS Order No. 30 prescribing guidelines concerning increases in tuition and other school fees; and
(2) Whether the consultation requirement in R.A. No. 6728 applies not only to increases in tuition fees but also to increases in other school fees. DECISION:
A. As to whether or not DECS Order No. 30 may be validly issued by the Secretary of Education (yes) Each private school shall determine its rate of tuition and other school fees or charges. The rates and charges adopted by schools pursuant to this provision shall be collectible, and their application or use authorized, subject to rules and regulations promulgated by the Ministry of Education, Culture and Sports.
Legal authority of respondent DECS Secretary to set maximum permissible rates or levels of tuition and other school fees, and to issue guidelines for the imposition and collection thereof, like DECS Order No. 30, must be sustained.
Court did not rule that the power granted to the DECS Secretary to fix maximum permissible tuition and other school fees by Section 1 of P.D. No. 451 had been eliminated by Section 42 of B.P. Blg. 232. What the Court dealt with in the Cebu Institute case was the matter of the detailed allocation of the proceeds of increases in tuition and other school fees.
We think it entirely clear that the second sentence of Section 42 is a limiting provision, that is, a provision which, far from authorizing a private school to adopt any level of tuition and other school fees or charges no matter how exorbitant, subject the schedule of rates and charges adopted by a particular school to the rules and regulations promulgated by the DECS.
Thus, the rates and charges adopted by any given private school shall be "collectible", i.e., enforceable against the students and their parents, to the extent that they are consistent with DECS rules and regulations. Put a little differently, the second sentence of Section 42 deals with two (2) distinguishable subjects: (a) the enforceability of rates of fees and charges adopted by private schools; and (b) the enforceability of proposed applications or uses of the proceeds of such school fees or charges and both are declared subject to rules and regulations promulgated by the DECS.
As earlier noted, R.A. No. 6728 deals with government assistance to students and teachers in private schools; it does not, in other words, purport to deal at all with the question of authority to fix maximum collectible tuition and other school fees. R.A. No. 6728 did authorize the SAC to issue rules and regulations; but the rules and regulations which may be promulgated by the SAC must relate to the authority granted by R.A. No. 6728 to the SAC. It is axiomatic that a rule or regulation must bear upon, and be consistent with, the provisions of the enabling statute if such rule or regulation is to be valid. 12
The SAC was authorized to define the classes of students who may be entitled to claim government financial assistance. Under the statute, students of schools charging tuition and other school fees in excess of certain identified rates or levels thereof shall not be entitled to claim government assistance or subsidies. The specification of such levels of tuition and other school fees for purposes of qualifying (or disqualifying) the students in such schools for government financial assistance is one thing; this is the task SAC was authorized to carry out though the promulgation of rules and regulation.
The determination of the levels of tuition and other school fees which may lawfully be charged by any private school, is clearly another matter; this task is vested in respondent Secretary. B. As to whether the consultation requirement applies only to tuition fees and not other school fees: (yes)
In respect of the second principal issue, petitioner Lina contends that Section 1(d) of DECS Order No. 30 is inconsistent with Section 10 of RA 6728.
We have earlier pointed out that the petitioner’s stand is inconsistent with the very language used in Section 10 of RA 6728 which states in relevant part that: “In respect of the second principal issue, petitioner Lina contends that Section 1(d) of DECS Order No. 30 is inconsistent with Section 10 of R.A. No. 6728. We have earlier pointed out that petitioner 's stand is inconsistent with the very language used in Section 10 of R.A. No. 6728 which states in relevant part that: "in any proposed increase in the rate of tuition fees, there shall be appropriate consultations ." Petitioner Lina 's argument here is, however, essentially an invocation of "justice and equity."
The Court believes that petitioner 's argument, cogent though it may be as a social and economic comment, is most appropriately addressed, not to a court which must take the law as it is actually written, but rather to the legislative authority which can, if it wishes, change the language and content of the law.
As Section 10 of R.A. No. 6728 now stands, we have no authority to strike down paragraph 1 (d) of DECS Order No. 30 as inconsistent with the requirements of Section 10.
Summarizing, the first issue we must answer in the affirmative. To the second issue, we must give a negative answer.
Bloomfield Academy & Rodolfo J. Lagera vs. The Honorable Court of Appeals, Bloomfield Academy Parents Advisory Association, Inc. (BAPAA), et al.,237 SCRA 43 (1994)
The pertinent provisions of Republic Act No. 6728, also commonly known as "An Act Providing Government Assistance to Students and Teachers in Private Education, And Appropriating Funds Therefor," provide:
Sec. 9. Further Assistance To Students in Private Colleges and Universities. . . . . (b) For students enrolled in schools charging above one thousand five hundred pesos (P1,500.00) per year in tuition and other fees during the school year 1988-1989 or such amount in subsequent years as may be determined from time to time by the State Assistance Council, no assistance for tuition fees shall be granted by the Government: Provided, however, That the schools concerned may raise their tuition fees subject to Section 10 hereof. xxx xxx xxx Sec. 10. Consultation. In any proposed increase in the rate of tuition fee, there shall be appropriate consultations conducted by the school administration with the duly organized parents and teachers associations and faculty associations with respect to secondary schools, and with students governments or councils, alumni and faculty associations with respect to colleges. For this purpose, audited financial statements shall be made available to authorized representatives of these sectors. 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. xxx xxx xxx
The judicial action initiated by private respondent before the court a quo appears to us to be an inappropriate recourse.
It remains undisputed that the DECS Secretary has, in fact, taken cognizance of the case for the tuition fee increase and has accordingly acted thereon. We can only assume that in so doing the DECS Secretary has duly passed upon the relevant legal and factual issues dealing on the propriety of the matter. In the decision process, the DECS Secretary has verily acted in a quasi-judicial capacity. The remedy from that decision is an appeal. In passing, we also observe that the parties have both remained silent on the provisions of Republic Act No. 6728 to the effect that in case of disagreement on tuition fee increases (in this instance by herein private parties), the issue should be resolved through arbitration.

( Retrieved on July 21 at http://ablelawfirm.tripod.com/tuition.htm )

CHAPTER II
Economic analysis
I. Population
Out of 2,181 private colleges and universities nationwide, 222 will raise their tuition rates by an average of 10 percent or P41.52 per unit when the current school year opens this June, the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) said.

However, CHED said the 222 figure may rise to 256 "once CHED-National Capital Region finalizes the processing of all the schools in the NCR...," while also indicating through a chart that 301 private higher education institutions "applied" to raise their tuition. Tuition hikes usually apply to incoming freshmen.

The tuition hike list does not include state universities and colleges (SUCs) and other public higher education institutions, whose governing boards are empowered to raise school fees through board resolutions by virtue of their charters and Republic Act 8292 or the Higher Education Modernization Act.

The country has a total of 2,247 higher education institutions (HEIs), according to CHED.

In the table on tuition fee increases , CHED showed that the national proposed average tuition for SY 2012-2013 will increase by P41.52 per unit to P475.47 from the current level of P433.95.

The same chart also indicates regional averages of proposed tuition ranging from a low of P250.74 by two schools in Region VIII or Eastern Visayas to a high of P965.05 in Metro Manila, where the increase amounts to P79.90 per unit on the average. Aside from NCR, the two other regions which have the most number of private schools raising college tuition are Region IV-A (Calabarzon) and Region XI (Davao region) where rates will increase by 8 percent and 11 percent, respectively.

There are no more pending applications for tuition hikes in the following regions: I, II, IV-A, IV-B, VII, VIII, IX, X, XI, XII, CAR, and Caraga.

A total of 79 proposed college tuition hikes are pending before the CHED offices from these regions: III, V, VI, and NCR. The CHED did not specifically identify or list any of the HEIs that will raise their tuition starting next school year. In an earlier statement, CHED chairperson Dr. Patricia Licuanan said HEIs "are under pressure to increase tuition fees because of increasing costs at a difficult time."

She added that a law, the Education Act of 1982 stipulates that, “Each private school shall determine its rate of tuition and other school fees or charges… subject to rules and regulations promulgated by the Ministry of Education, Culture and Sports (now the Commission on Higher Education).”

Licuanan added that the task of the CHED is " to ensure that HEIs meet the guidelines provided by law, especially the requirement of consultation on how tuition fees are allocated, and that HEIs adhere strictly with the processes that seek to make tuition fee increases transparent, reasonable, and affordable."

She said the CHED appealed to HEIs "to carefully study their tuition and fee increases each year and to spend wisely and judiciously in order to lessen costs to its most important stakeholders – its students." Last school year 324 HEIs increased their tuition by P36.93 or P10.62 percent, Licuanan said. The latest round of CHED-processed tuition hikes does not cover miscellaneous fees.

The new CHED memorandum order on school fee increases will also cover miscellaneous fees, although not now, but in SY 2013-2014 yet.

II. Effects of tuition fee increase on literacy rate
Literacy is fundamentally about an individual’s capacity to put his/her skills to work in shaping the course of his or her own life. Literacy involves “reading the word and the world” in a variety of contexts. Individuals need literacy skills to obtain and use information effectively, to act as informed players and to manage interactions in a variety of contexts whether the context is making decisions about health care, parenting, managing household finances, engaging in the political process or working. (Living Literacy, 2011) According to country-facts.org, the literacy rate in Philippines is 93 % with a rank of 81 out of 194 countries. Literacy rate of 93% is a good indication that the educational system here in the Philippines is doing well. Literacy development involves many partners and one of these is schools and school jurisdictions. Schools and school jurisdictions are critical builders of literacy. They help and support students to develop their abilities to think deeply about what they read and to express themselves accurately and expressively in a variety of contexts in a variety of media (such as multimedia, speech, hypertext, text messaging and symbols). Most of the parents want their children to be educated, so they send them to schools in order for them to gain proper knowledge about everything. (Living Literacy, 2011) As to the case of tuition fee increase of most of the schools and universities here in the Philippines the literacy rate will be affected. The literacy rate will decrease in a way that because of the increase in fees to be paid by the students, it is burdensome for the parents to seek funds for such expenses. The tendency is because of lack of financial support, many students will probably stop studying. According to Van Thompson (2013), tuition fee increase will surely affect the students most especially in enrollment matters. There would be a decrease in the number of enrollees in each university which is a sign that most of the students cannot afford the cost of education and that will lead to the sudden decrease in the literacy rate.
III. Human Index

IV. Income in the economy

CHAPTER III

References: http://www.interaksyon.com/article/62723/354-schools-granted-tuition-increase-ched http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2013/05/28/947197/tuition-other-fees-1257-schools http://ablelawfirm.tripod.com/tuition.htm http://eae.alberta.ca/media/219400/living%20literacy.pdf http://www.indexmundi.com/philippines/literacy.html http://country-facts.findthedata.org/q/111/2395/What-is-the-literacy-rate-in-Philippines-a-country-in-the-continent-of-Asia

References: http://www.interaksyon.com/article/62723/354-schools-granted-tuition-increase-ched http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2013/05/28/947197/tuition-other-fees-1257-schools http://ablelawfirm.tripod.com/tuition.htm http://eae.alberta.ca/media/219400/living%20literacy.pdf http://www.indexmundi.com/philippines/literacy.html http://country-facts.findthedata.org/q/111/2395/What-is-the-literacy-rate-in-Philippines-a-country-in-the-continent-of-Asia