Legality of Unchanged Miscellaneous Fees During Online Classes in the Philippines

Introduction

The shift to online classes in the Philippines, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic, raised significant legal questions regarding the collection of miscellaneous fees by educational institutions. Miscellaneous fees typically cover costs such as laboratory use, library access, athletic facilities, medical services, and other ancillary services that support in-person learning. With the transition to remote or flexible learning modalities, students and parents argued that these fees should be adjusted or waived since physical facilities were not utilized. This article examines the legality of maintaining unchanged miscellaneous fees under Philippine law, drawing on constitutional principles, statutory provisions, regulatory guidelines, and relevant jurisprudence. It explores the balance between the rights of students to affordable education and the operational needs of schools, within the context of emergency measures and educational policies.

Background and Context

The COVID-19 pandemic forced the Philippine education sector to adopt online and blended learning starting in the school year 2020-2021. Under Republic Act No. 11469 (Bayanihan to Heal as One Act) and subsequent extensions via Republic Act No. 11494 (Bayanihan to Recover as One Act), the government implemented lockdowns and restrictions that prohibited face-to-face classes in most areas. The Department of Education (DepEd), Commission on Higher Education (CHED), and Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA) issued guidelines to facilitate this shift.

Miscellaneous fees, as defined in educational regulations, are charges beyond tuition that fund non-instructional services. In traditional setups, these fees are justified by the actual use of school resources. However, in online classes, the non-utilization of physical infrastructure led to widespread complaints. Petitions from student groups, such as the National Union of Students of the Philippines (NUSP), highlighted how unchanged fees exacerbated financial burdens amid economic hardships. This sparked debates on whether such fees violate principles of equity, reasonableness, and consumer protection under Philippine law.

Legal Framework Governing Educational Fees

Constitutional Basis

The 1987 Philippine Constitution provides the foundational principles for education. Article XIV, Section 1 mandates that the State shall protect and promote the right of all citizens to quality education at all levels and make such education accessible to all. Section 2 emphasizes the establishment of a system of education that is relevant to the needs of the people and society, including the provision of scholarships and incentives to ensure affordability.

The Constitution does not explicitly address fee structures, but jurisprudence interprets these provisions to require that educational fees be reasonable and not burdensome. In cases like Philippine Association of Colleges and Universities v. Secretary of Education (G.R. No. L-5279, October 31, 1955), the Supreme Court upheld the government's authority to regulate private schools, including fees, to prevent exploitation. This regulatory power extends to ensuring that fees align with services rendered, a principle that becomes pertinent in online learning scenarios.

Statutory Provisions

Key laws regulate fee collection in educational institutions:

Republic Act No. 6728 (Government Assistance to Students and Teachers in Private Education Act): This law governs tuition and other fees in private schools, requiring prior approval from DepEd or CHED for increases. It mandates consultations with stakeholders and justifies fees based on operational costs. During online classes, the lack of physical service delivery questions whether unchanged miscellaneous fees comply with the requirement that fees be "just and equitable."
Republic Act No. 10931 (Universal Access to Quality Tertiary Education Act): Applicable to higher education, this provides free tuition in state universities and colleges (SUCs) but allows private institutions to charge fees. However, it emphasizes affordability and includes provisions for refunds or adjustments in extraordinary circumstances.
Consumer Protection Laws: Under Republic Act No. 7394 (Consumer Act of the Philippines), educational services are treated as consumer goods. Article 50 prohibits deceptive practices, such as charging for undelivered services. Students, as consumers, may argue that unchanged miscellaneous fees constitute unfair trade practices if facilities are inaccessible.
Emergency Legislation: During the pandemic, Republic Act No. 11480 amended the academic calendar, allowing flexible learning. Bayanihan Acts empowered the President to regulate prices and services, potentially including educational fees, to mitigate economic impacts.

Regulatory Guidelines from DepEd and CHED

DepEd and CHED issued specific directives addressing fees during online classes:

DepEd Order No. 13, s. 2020: This outlined guidelines for basic education, allowing private schools to collect fees but recommending flexibility, such as installment plans or reductions. It did not mandate fee waivers but encouraged schools to consider the "no face-to-face" context, implying that miscellaneous fees should be adjusted if services are not provided.
CHED Memorandum Order No. 4, s. 2020: For higher education, this permitted the collection of fees but required institutions to justify charges and offer refunds for unutilized services. CHED Advisory No. 6, s. 2020, further advised against increasing fees and promoted "no permit, no exam" policy suspensions. Institutions were urged to reallocate miscellaneous fees to support online infrastructure, such as internet subsidies or digital resources.
Joint Memorandum Circular No. 1, s. 2021 (DepEd, CHED, and DOH): This reinforced flexible fee payment schemes and prohibited disconnection from online classes due to non-payment, emphasizing student welfare.

These guidelines suggest that while schools have discretion in fee setting, unchanged miscellaneous fees must be reasonable and tied to actual costs incurred in online delivery. Failure to adjust could be seen as non-compliance, potentially leading to administrative sanctions.

Judicial Interpretations and Precedents

Philippine courts have addressed similar issues, though direct jurisprudence on pandemic-era online fees is limited.

Mandamus Petitions: In 2020, student groups filed petitions before the Supreme Court seeking to compel fee reductions (e.g., Rise for Education Alliance v. CHED, though not formally decided). The Court has historically deferred to regulatory bodies but intervened in cases of grave abuse of discretion.
Analogous Cases: In Garcia v. Faculty Admission Committee (G.R. No. L-40779, November 28, 1975), the Court ruled that schools cannot impose arbitrary fees without due process. Similarly, in Villar v. Technological Institute of the Philippines (G.R. No. 69198, April 17, 1985), fees were scrutinized for reasonableness.
Consumer Disputes: The Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) and courts have handled complaints under consumer laws. For instance, charging for unused gym or lab fees could be analogous to overcharging in service contracts, potentially refundable under civil law principles (Civil Code, Articles 19-21 on abuse of rights).

In the absence of a definitive ruling, legal opinions from the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) leaned toward allowing schools operational flexibility but urged refunds for unrendered services.

Implications for Stakeholders

For Students and Parents

Students may seek remedies through:

Administrative complaints to DepEd/CHED for fee regulation violations.
Civil actions for refund or damages under the Consumer Act.
Class actions if widespread, though procedural hurdles exist.

The principle of quantum meruit (payment for services rendered) supports claims that fees should be prorated based on actual delivery.

For Educational Institutions

Schools must demonstrate that miscellaneous fees fund online-equivalent services, such as software licenses or virtual libraries. Transparency in fee breakdowns is crucial to avoid liability. Public institutions, funded by the government, face stricter scrutiny under anti-graft laws (Republic Act No. 3019).

Policy Recommendations

To prevent future disputes, amendments to fee regulation laws could mandate automatic adjustments during modalities shifts. Enhanced oversight by CHED/DepEd, including mandatory audits, would ensure compliance.

Conclusion

The legality of unchanged miscellaneous fees during online classes hinges on reasonableness, equity, and alignment with services provided. While Philippine laws and regulations permit fee collection, they impose obligations to adjust for non-utilization of facilities. Stakeholders must navigate this through dialogue, guided by constitutional mandates for accessible education. As the education sector evolves post-pandemic, clearer policies will be essential to balance institutional sustainability with student rights.