I. Introduction

The question whether public school teachers in the Philippines may lawfully receive extra compensation, incentives, bonuses, or honoraria funded by voluntary contributions of parents—usually collected and managed through Parent-Teacher Associations (PTAs) or similar parent organizations—has long been a subject of intense debate among educators, parents, school administrators, lawyers, and policymakers.

On one hand, many public schools openly allocate a portion of PTA collections as “teacher incentives,” “monthly allowances,” “performance bonuses,” or “motivational incentives” ranging from ₱500 to ₱3,000 per teacher per month, depending on the school and the amount collected. This practice is especially common in national high schools and large elementary schools where PTA funds are substantial.

On the other hand, critics—parents’ groups, education advocates, and some government officials—argue that the practice effectively circumvents the constitutional guarantee of free basic education, creates financial pressure on poor families, violates the prohibition on additional compensation for public officers, and borders on solicitation or indirect collection by public school teachers.

This article examines the complete legal landscape as it currently stands (November 2025), including the Constitution, statutes, DepEd regulations, COA rules, and prevailing practice.

II. Constitutional Foundation: Free Public Basic Education

Article XIV, Section 2(1) and (4) of the 1987 Constitution mandates that the State shall establish and maintain a system of free public elementary and high school education.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly interpreted “free” to mean free from tuition and other school fees that are required as a condition for enrollment, attendance, or promotion (see, for example, the rulings in Philippine Merchant Marine School v. CA and related cases on authorized fees).

Voluntary contributions, however, have consistently been upheld as constitutionally permissible provided no student is denied access or discriminated against for non-payment.

This constitutional guarantee is the primary legal anchor used by both sides of the debate: proponents argue that purely voluntary contributions do not violate the “free education” clause, while opponents contend that when contributions become de facto mandatory (due to social pressure or school encouragement), they undermine the constitutional mandate.

III. Statutory and Regulatory Framework Governing Collections in Public Schools

Republic Act No. 6655 (Free Public Secondary Education Act of 1988) – Declared secondary education free; prohibited the collection of tuition fees.
Republic Act No. 9155 (Governance of Basic Education Act of 2001) – Empowered school heads and gave recognition to school governing councils and PTAs.
Batas Pambansa Blg. 232 (Education Act of 1982) – Recognized the complementary roles of public and private schools and allowed the creation of parent-teacher associations.
Republic Act No. 4670 (Magna Carta for Public School Teachers, 1966)
- Section 18 expressly allows additional compensation of at least 25% of regular remuneration for co-curricular and out-of-school activities after completing normal teaching load.
- The law does not specify the source of funds, which has been interpreted to include non-government sources such as PTA funds for extra duties (e.g., coaching, advisership, remedial classes outside regular hours).

IV. DepEd Policy on Voluntary Contributions and “No Collection” Rule

DepEd has issued numerous orders and memoranda over the years, the most important being:

DepEd Order No. 65, s. 2008 – Prohibited collection of any fees upon enrollment in elementary schools.
DepEd Order No. 52, s. 2011 – Reiterated voluntary nature of contributions.
DepEd Order No. 41, s. 2012 – Allowed only voluntary PTA contributions; prohibited school-initiated collections.
DepEd Order No. 15, s. 2017 – Strengthened the “no collection” policy.
DepEd Memorandum No. 106, s. 2019 – Reminded all public schools that contributions are strictly voluntary and no sanctions for non-payment.
DepEd Order No. 004, s. 2022 (School Year 2021–2022) – Again emphasized voluntary contributions.
DepEd Order No. 011, s. 2023 – Current implementing guidelines on voluntary school contributions (as of 2025.

All these issuances contain the same core principles:

No mandatory fees or contributions may be collected by the school or teachers.
Only PTAs (or recognized parent groups) may collect voluntary contributions.
Non-payment shall not be a ground for refusal of enrollment, non-participation in activities, or withholding of grades, or any form of discrimination.
Teachers and school officials are prohibited from directly collecting money from parents or students.

V. Status of PTA Funds: Private or Public Funds?

This is the crucial legal distinction.

COA and the Supreme Court (in several decisions involving school canteens and miscellaneous fees) have consistently ruled that:

PTA contributions are private funds because they are voluntarily given by parents to a private association (the PTA), not to the government or school.

Therefore:

PTA funds are not subject to government procurement law (RA 9184).
PTA funds are not subject to COA audit jurisdiction except when commingled with government funds.
Disbursements from PTA funds do not require government vouchers or salary standardization rules in the same way as public funds.

Because PTA funds are private, the PTA general assembly has wide discretion on how to use them, subject only to its own constitution and by-laws and general laws (e.g., no illegal purposes).

VI. Are Teacher Incentives from PTA Funds Allowed?

Yes — with clear conditions.

DepEd has never prohibited PTAs from granting incentives, honoraria, or bonuses to teachers and school personnel.

In fact, several DepEd orders implicitly or explicitly recognize the practice:

DepEd Order No. 54, s. 2009 (Revised Guidelines Governing PTAs) – Allowed PTA funds to be used for “assistance to school personnel” and “honoraria for services rendered.”
DepEd Memorandum dated 2016 from then Secretary Briones – Stated that it is up to the PTA how to spend its funds, and giving incentives to teachers is a legitimate expense if approved by the general assembly.
Numerous regional and division memoranda (e.g., NCR, Region VII, Region IV-A) – Explicitly list “incentives/honoraria for teachers and staff” as an allowable budget item for PTAs.

The Commission on Audit has likewise issued opinions (COA Opinion No. 2013-123 and similar) stating that honoraria paid from PTA funds to teachers for extra services (advisership, coaching, committee work, etc.) are valid and not subject to disallowance.

Even when the incentive is not tied to a specific extra duty (i.e., a general “motivational incentive” or “year-end bonus” to all teachers), the practice has never been disallowed by COA when paid from purely PTA funds and properly approved by the PTA assembly.

VII. Legal Limits and Prohibitions That Still Apply

Despite the permissibility, the following red lines must not be crossed:

Contributions must be genuinely voluntary. Any hint of coercion (e.g., class lists marking who paid, public shaming, higher recommended amounts, or statements like “we need this to give teachers their allowance”) renders the collection illegal.
Teachers or school heads must not personally collect or handle the money. Only elected PTA officers may do so.
No teacher may demand or solicit contributions as a condition for grades, clearance, or favorable treatment (violates RA 6713 and Anti-Graft Law).
Funds must not be commingled with MOOE or government funds.
PTA must issue official receipts, maintain books, and present financial reports to the general assembly.
The allocation for teacher incentives must be approved in a properly convened PTA general assembly with minutes.

Violation of these can lead to administrative liability (DepEd), criminal liability (RA 6713, RA 3019), or COA disallowance if government funds are involved.

VIII. Prevailing Practice in 2025

As of November 2025, the practice remains widespread and openly tolerated:

In most urban national high schools, PTAs allocate 20–40% of collections as teacher incentives.
Many schools publish the amount in their PTA financial reports without sanction.
DepEd has not issued any nationwide circular prohibiting the practice; instead, it continues to emphasize only the voluntary nature of contributions.
The current Secretary (Vice President Sara Duterte) has not reversed the long-standing policy.

IX. Conclusion

Under Philippine law as it currently stands, public school teachers may lawfully receive extra compensation, incentives, honoraria, or bonuses funded by voluntary parental contributions through the PTA, provided that:

The contributions are genuinely voluntary,
The PTA (not the school or teachers) collects and manages the funds,
The expenditure is approved by the PTA general assembly,
Proper financial transparency is observed,
No student is disadvantaged for non-payment.

The practice is constitutionally and statutorily permissible because PTA funds are private, and teachers are entitled under RA 4670 to additional compensation for extra duties—and by long-standing DepEd policy and COA tolerance—for general incentives as well.

While critics continue to argue that it creates inequality and indirect pressure on parents, no law or DepEd order has banned it, and it remains a deeply entrenched mechanism by which parent communities support overworked and underpaid public school teachers.

Until Congress or DepEd explicitly prohibits the practice or the Supreme Court rules otherwise, public school teachers can continue to receive such extra compensation from parents’ voluntary contributions.