Introduction
In the Philippine educational landscape, graduating students often face the challenge of preparing for professional board examinations to obtain licensure in fields such as nursing, engineering, accountancy, teaching, and law. A common issue arises when higher education institutions (HEIs) or schools withhold essential documents, such as the Transcript of Records (TOR), Certificate of Good Moral Character, or Diploma, from students who refuse to enroll in or attend the school's affiliated review centers. This practice is typically justified by schools as a means to ensure "quality preparation" or to fulfill alleged institutional policies. However, such actions raise significant legal concerns regarding student rights, academic freedom, and consumer protection under Philippine law.
This article comprehensively explores the legal framework surrounding this issue, including relevant statutes, regulatory guidelines, judicial precedents, student rights, potential liabilities for schools, and remedies available to affected students. It aims to provide a thorough understanding of why withholding documents for non-attendance at review centers is generally unlawful and how students can assert their rights.
Legal Framework Governing Higher Education and Student Rights
The Philippine Constitution serves as the foundational basis for student rights in education. Article XIV, Section 1 emphasizes 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. This includes the right to complete one's education without arbitrary barriers. Furthermore, Section 5(2) mandates the State to establish and maintain a system of scholarship grants, student loan programs, subsidies, and other incentives, but it does not permit coercive practices that infringe on personal choices.
Key statutes and regulations directly address the operations of HEIs and the rights of students:
1. Republic Act No. 7722 (Higher Education Act of 1994)
The Higher Education Act created the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) as the governing body for tertiary education. Under Section 8 of RA 7722, CHED is empowered to formulate policies, standards, and guidelines for HEIs. Importantly, CHED Memorandum Order (CMO) No. 13, Series of 2017, and related issuances prohibit HEIs from imposing mandatory review classes or affiliations with specific review centers as a prerequisite for graduation or release of documents.
CHED has repeatedly issued advisories stating that review centers are optional and that schools cannot compel students to attend them. For instance, CHED's policy on "No Collection of Fees for Review Classes" underscores that any review program must be voluntary, and non-participation cannot result in penalties such as withholding of academic credentials.
2. Batas Pambansa Blg. 232 (Education Act of 1982)
This law outlines the rights and obligations of students, teachers, and educational institutions. Section 9 of BP 232 enumerates student rights, including the right to freely choose their field of study, receive competent instruction, and access school records. It prohibits schools from denying students their academic documents without just cause. Withholding documents due to non-attendance at a review center does not constitute "just cause" under this act, as it is unrelated to academic performance or disciplinary matters.
Section 74 further provides that students have the right to protection against exploitation, including financial exploitation through mandatory fees or services not essential to their degree.
3. Republic Act No. 10931 (Universal Access to Quality Tertiary Education Act)
Enacted in 2017, this law ensures free tuition and other fees in state universities and colleges (SUCs) and local universities and colleges (LUCs). While primarily focused on financial access, it reinforces that education should be free from coercive practices. Private HEIs, though not fully covered, are still bound by CHED regulations that align with this act's spirit, preventing barriers to licensure exams.
4. Magna Carta for Students (Proposed and Related Provisions)
Although the Magna Carta for Students (Senate Bill No. 956 and similar bills) has not been fully enacted into law, its principles are reflected in existing CHED policies and judicial interpretations. It proposes explicit protections against mandatory review center attendance, emphasizing academic freedom and the right to choose preparatory methods.
5. Consumer Protection Laws
Under Republic Act No. 7394 (Consumer Act of the Philippines), students are considered consumers of educational services. Schools cannot engage in unfair trade practices, such as tying the release of documents to the purchase of additional services like review center enrollment. This could be deemed a violation of Article 52, which prohibits deceptive sales acts.
Additionally, the Civil Code of the Philippines (Republic Act No. 386) under Articles 19, 20, and 21 provides for damages arising from abuse of rights or acts contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy.
Why Withholding Documents is Unlawful
Schools often argue that mandatory review attendance ensures high passing rates in board exams, which in turn boosts institutional reputation and accreditation status under CHED's performance-based incentives. However, this justification does not hold legal water for several reasons:
Violation of Academic Freedom: The Supreme Court in cases like Garcia v. Faculty Admission Committee, Loyola School of Theology (G.R. No. L-40779, November 28, 1975) has affirmed that academic freedom includes the student's right to choose how to prepare for professional exams. Forcing attendance at a specific review center infringes on this freedom.
No Legal Basis for Conditionality: CHED explicitly prohibits linking document release to review participation. In a 2018 advisory, CHED warned HEIs against such practices, stating that TORs and other documents must be released upon fulfillment of academic requirements, payment of legitimate fees, and clearance from liabilities unrelated to reviews.
Discrimination and Unequal Treatment: Such policies disproportionately affect indigent students who cannot afford review center fees, violating the equal protection clause under Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution.
Potential for Corruption: Affiliations between schools and review centers may involve kickbacks or financial incentives, which could breach Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) if public officials are involved in SUCs.
Judicial precedents reinforce this stance. In De La Salle University v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 127980, December 19, 2007), the Court ruled that schools cannot impose arbitrary conditions for document release. Similarly, in student complaint cases before CHED, resolutions have ordered schools to release documents without review prerequisites.
Student Rights in Detail
Students facing document withholding have the following rights:
Right to Immediate Release of Documents: Upon graduation, students are entitled to their TOR, diploma, and other credentials without delay, as per CHED CMO No. 40, Series of 2008, on the Manual of Regulations for Private Higher Education.
Right to Choose Review Methods: Students may opt for self-review, online courses, or alternative centers. Schools can recommend but not mandate.
Right to File Complaints: Students can report violations to CHED regional offices, which have the authority to investigate and impose sanctions, including fines or revocation of permits.
Right to Damages and Injunctions: Through civil action, students can seek mandatory injunctions for document release and claim moral, actual, or exemplary damages for distress caused by delays in taking board exams.
Right to Privacy and Non-Discrimination: Schools cannot publicly shame or discriminate against non-attendees.
For board exams administered by the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC), such as the Licensure Examination for Teachers (LET) or Certified Public Accountant (CPA) exams, PRC Resolution No. 2019-1146 requires only standard documentary requirements (e.g., TOR, birth certificate) without reference to review attendance.
Potential Liabilities for Schools
HEIs engaging in this practice face multifaceted liabilities:
Administrative Sanctions: CHED can issue cease-and-desist orders, impose fines up to PHP 500,000, or downgrade program accreditation.
Civil Liability: Under the Civil Code, schools may be liable for quasi-delict if their actions cause harm, such as lost income opportunities from delayed licensure.
Criminal Liability: If withholding involves extortionate fees, it could fall under estafa (Article 315, Revised Penal Code) or anti-graft laws.
Reputational Damage: Public exposure through media or student activism can lead to enrollment declines.
Remedies and Steps for Affected Students
Students should take proactive steps to resolve the issue:
Internal Grievance: Submit a formal written request to the school registrar, citing relevant laws and CHED policies.
Escalation to CHED: If unresolved, file a complaint with the CHED Regional Office, providing evidence such as school policies or communications.
PRC Intervention: For urgent board exam applications, request PRC to accept alternative certifications or provisional documents.
Legal Action: Consult a lawyer or the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for free legal aid to file a petition for mandamus in the Regional Trial Court, compelling the school to release documents.
Alternative Options: Enroll in open university systems or transfer credits if necessary, though this is rare.
Organizations like the National Union of Students of the Philippines (NUSP) and student councils can provide advocacy support.
Conclusion
The practice of schools withholding documents for board exams due to non-attendance at review centers is a clear infringement on student rights under Philippine law. Rooted in constitutional protections and reinforced by statutes like RA 7722 and BP 232, students have robust legal safeguards to ensure access to their credentials without coercive conditions. By understanding these rights and pursuing available remedies, students can challenge such practices, promoting a more equitable educational system. Policymakers should continue to strengthen enforcement through CHED to prevent future occurrences, ensuring that education remains a gateway to opportunity rather than a barrier.