Introduction

In the Philippine educational system, the issuance of academic transcripts is a critical process that serves as an official record of a student's scholastic achievements, courses taken, grades earned, and overall academic performance during their enrollment in an institution. Transcripts are essential for various purposes, including employment applications, further studies, professional licensure examinations, and immigration processes. However, a contentious practice among educational institutions, particularly private higher education institutions (HEIs), involves withholding these transcripts from students who have attended but not graduated—often referred to as "non-graduation attendance." This withholding typically occurs due to unresolved financial obligations, such as unpaid tuition fees, miscellaneous charges, or other debts incurred during the period of attendance.

The legality of this practice hinges on the balance between the rights of students to access their academic records and the rights of educational institutions to enforce financial accountability. In the Philippines, this issue is governed by a combination of constitutional provisions, statutory laws, administrative regulations from bodies like the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) and the Department of Education (DepEd), and judicial interpretations from the Supreme Court. While the practice is generally permissible under certain conditions, it is not absolute and must adhere to principles of due process, reasonableness, and equity. This article explores the legal foundations, justifications, limitations, and implications of withholding transcripts for non-graduation attendance, providing a comprehensive analysis within the Philippine legal framework as of 2026.

Legal Framework Governing Educational Records and Student Rights

Constitutional Basis

The 1987 Philippine Constitution provides the foundational principles for education and student rights. Article XIV, Section 1 emphasizes that "the State shall protect and promote the right of all citizens to quality education at all levels and shall take appropriate steps to make such education accessible to all." This implies a state obligation to ensure that barriers to educational documentation do not unduly hinder access to opportunities. However, this right is not interpreted as absolute; it coexists with the freedom of educational institutions to manage their affairs, as protected under Article III, Section 1 (due process clause) and Article XIV, Section 4(2), which recognizes the autonomy of higher education institutions.

The due process clause is particularly relevant, as withholding transcripts without proper notice or opportunity for the student to settle obligations could violate procedural due process. Courts have consistently held that educational institutions must act reasonably and fairly in enforcing policies.

Statutory Laws

Several key statutes regulate the operations of educational institutions and the handling of student records:

Batas Pambansa Blg. 232 (Education Act of 1982): This foundational law outlines the rights and obligations of students, teachers, and schools. Section 9 enumerates student rights, including "the right to receive, upon request, a certification of their academic records." However, this right is qualified by the phrase "subject to existing rules and regulations of the school." Schools are empowered under Section 42 to establish internal policies, including those related to financial clearances. The Act does not explicitly prohibit withholding transcripts but implies that such actions must align with the school's declared policies and not be arbitrary.

For non-graduating students, the Act recognizes that attendance alone entitles them to a record of their participation, but institutions may condition release on compliance with financial and administrative requirements.
Republic Act No. 10931 (Universal Access to Quality Tertiary Education Act of 2017): This law primarily applies to state universities and colleges (SUCs) and local universities and colleges (LUCs), providing free tuition and other fees. In public institutions, withholding transcripts for financial reasons is largely inapplicable since tuition is subsidized. However, for private HEIs participating in government subsidy programs (e.g., through the Tertiary Education Subsidy or TES), the law mandates that institutions cannot withhold documents if the delay stems from government reimbursement issues. Non-graduating students in private institutions not covered by subsidies remain subject to standard withholding practices.
Republic Act No. 6728 (Government Assistance to Students and Teachers in Private Education Act, as amended): This Act governs tuition fee regulations and student assistance in private schools. It allows schools to collect fees but requires transparency in billing. While it does not directly address transcript withholding, it underscores that fees must be reasonable and that students should not be penalized beyond what is necessary for institutional sustainability.
Republic Act No. 10173 (Data Privacy Act of 2012): Academic transcripts contain personal data, and their handling must comply with data privacy principles. Withholding does not violate this Act if done for legitimate purposes, such as debt collection, but institutions must ensure that records are not misused or disclosed improperly during the withholding period.

Administrative Regulations

Commission on Higher Education (CHED) Regulations: CHED oversees higher education through various memorandum orders. The Manual of Regulations for Private Higher Education (MORPHE) of 2008 (CHED Memorandum Order No. 40, s. 2008) explicitly permits HEIs to withhold the release of transcripts, diplomas, and other documents if there are outstanding financial obligations. Section 102 of MORPHE states that "no student shall be allowed to graduate or receive honorable dismissal without settling all financial and property accountabilities." For non-graduating students seeking transcripts (e.g., for transfer or employment), the same principle applies: institutions may require clearance from the accounting office.

CHED Memorandum Order No. 15, s. 2019, on student rights, reinforces that access to records is a right but subject to institutional policies. However, CHED has issued advisories (e.g., during the COVID-19 pandemic via CMO No. 4, s. 2020) urging leniency in withholding for humanitarian reasons, such as economic hardship.
Department of Education (DepEd) for Basic Education: For K-12 students, DepEd Order No. 8, s. 2015 (Policy Guidelines on Classroom Assessment) and DepEd Order No. 88, s. 2010 (Revised Manual of Regulations for Private Schools) allow withholding of Form 137 (permanent record, akin to a transcript) for unpaid fees in private schools. Public schools, however, must issue records promptly under DepEd's no-collection policy. Non-graduation attendance in basic education (e.g., dropouts) still entitles students to their records, but private schools may withhold until debts are cleared.

Justifications for Withholding Transcripts

Educational institutions justify withholding based on the following:

Contractual Obligation: Enrollment creates a contractual relationship where students agree to pay fees in exchange for services. Non-payment constitutes a breach, allowing schools to use withholding as a remedy to enforce payment. This is analogous to lien rights in property law.
Institutional Autonomy: Private schools, as corporations, have the right to manage finances under the Corporation Code (Batas Pambansa Blg. 68). Withholding ensures operational sustainability, especially since many institutions rely on tuition for 70-80% of revenue.
Administrative Efficiency: Requiring clearance prevents disputes and ensures all obligations (e.g., library fines, laboratory breakages) are settled before records are released.

For non-graduation attendance, withholding is particularly common because these students may have accumulated partial fees without completing the program, leaving institutions with unrecovered costs.

Limitations and Prohibitions

While generally legal, withholding is not unrestricted:

Proportionality and Reasonableness: Actions must be proportionate to the debt. For minor amounts, courts may deem withholding unreasonable. Institutions must provide itemized billing and opportunities for installment payments.
Due Process Requirements: Students must receive notice of outstanding obligations and a chance to contest or settle them. Failure to do so could lead to mandamus actions compelling release.
Exceptions for Public Interest: In cases where withholding hinders employment or further education, CHED may intervene. For instance, for board exam takers (e.g., under Professional Regulation Commission rules), provisional releases are sometimes allowed.
Humanitarian Considerations: During crises (e.g., natural disasters or economic downturns post-2020 pandemic), CHED and DepEd have issued moratoriums on strict enforcement.
Prohibited Grounds: Withholding cannot be based on discrimination (e.g., RA 10627, Anti-Bullying Act) or unrelated issues. It must strictly relate to verifiable debts.

Case Law and Judicial Interpretations

Philippine jurisprudence affirms the legality of withholding but with caveats:

University of Santo Tomas v. Sanchez (G.R. No. 165569, 2010): The Supreme Court upheld a university's right to withhold a transcript due to unpaid fees, ruling that it does not violate student rights under BP 232, as the policy was part of the enrollment contract.
De La Salle University v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 127980, 2001): While primarily about expulsion, the Court emphasized due process in administrative actions, including document release.
Licup v. University of San Carlos (G.R. No. L-31700, 1971): An older case where the Court compelled issuance of records, but only after finding the withholding arbitrary and without basis.

More recent cases (post-2020) from regional trial courts have ordered releases in instances of proven hardship, citing equity principles under the Civil Code (Articles 19-21 on abuse of rights).

Implications and Recommendations

The practice of withholding transcripts for non-graduation attendance can exacerbate socioeconomic inequalities, as low-income students may be trapped in a cycle of debt, unable to secure jobs to pay off obligations. Advocacy groups like the National Union of Students of the Philippines have pushed for reforms, including a proposed bill (House Bill No. 10205, 2024) to prohibit withholding for employment purposes, though it remains pending as of 2026.

For students facing withholding:

Negotiate payment plans with the school.
Seek CHED/DepEd mediation.
File a petition for mandamus if due process is violated.

Institutions should adopt transparent policies, offer financial counseling, and consider alternative remedies like promissory notes.

In conclusion, under Philippine law, withholding transcripts for non-graduation attendance due to financial obligations is legal, rooted in contractual and administrative rights. However, it must be exercised judiciously to avoid infringing on constitutional protections and student welfare. Ongoing legal developments may further refine this balance, emphasizing accessibility in education.