A legal-practical article in Philippine context

1) What counts as an “academic requirement,” and when it becomes “unfair”

Academic requirements include any condition a learner must satisfy to earn credit, a grade, promotion, completion, graduation, or access to academic services—e.g., projects, exams, attendance rules, practicums, thesis protocols, lab activities, outcomes-based tasks, online platform submissions, fees tied to a subject, and documentary prerequisites.

A requirement becomes legally problematic when it is arbitrary, discriminatory, impossible/unsafe, unconscionable, imposed without due process, applied inconsistently, or imposed in bad faith—especially if it:

Changes midstream without reasonable notice and transition (e.g., sudden new capstone outputs near term-end).
Imposes hidden costs or “pay-to-pass” conditions not properly authorized or disclosed.
Penalizes protected circumstances (religion, disability, sex, gender, pregnancy, health conditions) without accommodation.
Exceeds reasonable pedagogical purpose, becoming punitive or retaliatory.
Conflicts with published course syllabus/handbook/catalog, or with institutional/CHED/DepEd policies.
Is applied selectively (some students excused, others punished) without objective criteria.
Requires unlawful acts (e.g., forced political participation, compelled donations, coercive fundraising).
Endangers health/safety (hazardous tasks without safeguards, unreasonable schedules, on-site requirements without risk controls).

“Unfair” is not only about difficulty; it’s about legality, policy compliance, and reasonableness.

2) The legal foundation of student rights in the Philippines

A. Constitutional anchors

Right to due process (Art. III, Sec. 1) When a school action affects your status (grades, promotion, graduation, suspension/dismissal), you are entitled to fair procedures—notice of the basis, an opportunity to be heard, and a decision made under known rules.
Equal protection (Art. III, Sec. 1) Requirements must not be discriminatory. Different treatment must have a valid basis and be applied consistently.
Right to education and State policy (Art. XIV) The State’s education policy framework supports access, quality, and fairness in educational governance.
Academic freedom (Art. XIV, Sec. 5[2])—and its limit Higher education institutions enjoy academic freedom, but it is not a license for arbitrariness. Requirements must still comply with law, public policy, and the institution’s own rules, and must not violate student rights.

B. The “school–student relationship” as a legal relationship

Philippine law and jurisprudence commonly treat enrollment as creating a contractual relationship: the school sets rules (handbook, catalog, course syllabi), and the student agrees by enrolling; in turn, the school must follow its own rules, act in good faith, and deliver promised academic services reasonably.

Key practical consequence:

If the handbook/syllabus says “these are the grading components,” sudden new major requirements without proper process can be attacked as breach of policy/contract, arbitrariness, or bad faith, depending on facts.

C. Administrative regulation (DepEd and CHED spheres)

DepEd oversees basic education (K–12).
CHED oversees higher education (college/university programs, unless exempted by law).
TESDA covers technical-vocational training.

Even private schools operate within these regulatory regimes. Schools must comply with minimum standards, fair assessment policies, and student welfare requirements embedded in departmental frameworks and institutional permits/recognitions.

D. Civil law concepts that help students

Even without citing a single “student rights statute,” students can invoke broad principles:

Obligations and contracts: parties must comply with agreed terms; performance must be in good faith.
Abuse of rights / bad faith: a right exercised purely to harm or oppress can be actionable.
Damages: in extreme cases involving bad faith, discrimination, harassment, or clear abuse, civil liability may arise.

3) Common forms of “unfair academic requirements” and the legal issues they raise

1) Sudden changes to grading/requirements with no notice

Examples

A new “major project” worth 40–60% added late in the term.
A new requirement becomes a condition for taking the final exam.

Legal/policy issues

Violation of due process in academic evaluation (procedural fairness).
Potential breach of syllabus/handbook commitments.
Arbitrariness if no rational academic justification and no transition.

What matters

Was there a written syllabus distributed at the start?
Were revisions permitted by policy (and how)?
Was there adequate notice, consultation, and a reasonable transition?

2) Excessive costs or “pay-to-pass” requirements

Examples

Mandatory purchase of teacher-authored materials at inflated cost as a condition to pass.
“Project fees,” “lab fees,” “printing fees,” or “platform fees” imposed ad hoc without official basis.
Compelled contributions or fundraising tied to grades.

Legal/policy issues

Unconscionable or unauthorized fees; possible regulatory noncompliance.
If coercive or tied to grades: could be abuse of authority or a form of extortionate practice in extreme scenarios.
For public schools: additional constraints on collecting fees and handling funds.

What matters

Is the fee published/approved and receipted through official channels?
Is there a genuine alternative that does not penalize the student?
Is the cost proportionate to learning outcomes?

3) Discriminatory requirements or refusal to accommodate

Examples

Pregnancy used as a reason to deny exam access, require withdrawal, or impose harsher attendance.
Students with disabilities denied reasonable adjustments (alternative formats, extra time, modified activities).
Requirements that penalize religious observance (mandatory activities on key religious dates with no make-up option).

Legal/policy issues

Equal protection and anti-discrimination principles; disability-related accommodation expectations.
Potential violations of laws and policies protecting women, persons with disabilities, and safe learning environments.

What matters

Documentation/requests for accommodation.
Whether alternatives would preserve academic standards without imposing undue burden.

4) Retaliatory or humiliating requirements

Examples

A student complains and is then assigned impossible tasks, excessive penalties, or denied make-up opportunities.
Public shaming tied to grades or attendance; coercive tasks unrelated to learning outcomes.

Legal/policy issues

Bad faith; abuse of authority.
Possible overlap with anti-bullying, harassment, safe spaces, and student welfare frameworks (depending on setting and conduct).

5) Attendance rules used mechanically to deny evaluation

Examples

“Auto-fail” solely for attendance even when learning outcomes are met, with no due consideration for illness or emergencies.
No make-up policy even for documented medical events.

Legal/policy issues

Schools can require attendance, but policies must be reasonable, published, non-discriminatory, and allow fair exceptions when warranted.
Rigid application without a pathway (make-up work, alternative activities) may become arbitrary depending on policy and circumstances.

6) Unsafe or unreasonable practicum/OJT/fieldwork requirements

Examples

Unpaid placements with conditions that conflict with safety or are not properly supervised.
Requiring students to shoulder high-risk tasks without training and protective measures.
Requiring travel at unreasonable hours without safety protocols.

Legal/policy issues

Duty of care; student welfare obligations; potential labor and safety implications depending on arrangement.
Institutional responsibility in selection, supervision, and risk management.

7) Digital/platform requirements that exclude or penalize access issues

Examples

“Online-only submission” with strict deadlines despite widespread connectivity outages, no contingency, no accessible alternative.
Requiring expensive devices/software without alternatives.

Legal/policy issues

Reasonableness and equity; non-discrimination in access; policy compliance with flexible learning standards where applicable.

4) The rulebook hierarchy: what documents and policies control disputes

In practice, disputes are won by showing a requirement violates a higher or controlling rule. Common hierarchy:

Constitution and statutes (due process, equality, anti-violence/harassment, disability-related protections, etc.)
DepEd/CHED/TESDA regulations and minimum standards
Institutional policies (student handbook, academic code, grievance procedures, curriculum guides)
College/department rules (program manuals, practicum handbook)
Course documents (syllabus, grading rubrics, assessment guides, LMS announcements)
Instructor directives (must remain consistent with the above)

Practical tip: A screenshot of the syllabus + handbook provisions + official memo trails is often decisive.

5) Due process in academic matters: what fairness usually requires

Philippine settings generally expect procedural fairness, especially when consequences are serious (failing a course, disqualification, non-graduation, suspension/dismissal). While schools have discretion, fair process often means:

Clear standards: requirements and grading criteria are known or reasonably knowable.
Notice: students are informed in advance, not ambushed.
Consistency: same rules for similarly situated students.
Opportunity to explain/appeal: especially for penalties, alleged cheating, or disqualifying infractions.
Reasoned decisions: decisions anchored in policy and evidence, not personal dislike.
Non-retaliation: students should not be punished for using grievance channels.

Academic evaluation is usually respected—but capriciousness is not.

6) What to do when you face an unfair academic requirement (step-by-step)

Step 1: Document everything immediately

Collect:

Syllabus (initial version) and any revised versions
Handbook provisions relevant to grading/requirements/attendance/appeals
Written instructions (email/LMS posts/class GC announcements)
Receipts or proof of demanded payments
Rubrics and grading breakdowns
Medical certificates or other supporting documents
Timeline of events (dates, what was announced, who said what)

Step 2: Use the internal academic remedy chain (fastest and often required)

Typical sequence (varies by school):

Instructor (polite written request for clarification/adjustment; propose alternatives)
Program chair / subject coordinator
Department head
Dean / College office
Academic council / grievance committee
Office of Student Affairs / Discipline office (if conduct, harassment, retaliation)
University legal/ombuds (if available)

Keep communications written and factual.

Step 3: Invoke the specific policy that’s being violated

Your strongest argument is not “this is hard,” but:

“This contradicts the syllabus grading scheme released on [date].”
“The handbook requires [procedure], but it was not followed.”
“The fee is not in the approved schedule / not receipted / not authorized.”
“There is no reasonable accommodation despite documented condition.”

Step 4: Escalate externally when internal remedies fail

Depending on the institution type and level:

Higher Education (college/university): You may bring complaints to CHED (especially for regulatory/policy compliance issues, student welfare, unfair fees, or systemic practices).
Basic Education (K–12): Complaints are typically elevated through the DepEd division/regional offices after school-level processes.
Public institutions / state universities and colleges (SUCs): Administrative accountability may overlap with public-sector rules; internal grievance and discipline mechanisms can be stronger, and complaints may involve public accountability pathways.

External escalation is strongest when you show:

you exhausted internal remedies (or explain why not possible), and
you have documentary proof and a clear policy/legal violation.

7) Special situations and related protections

A. Academic integrity / cheating accusations

If a “requirement” is imposed as a penalty (e.g., automatic zero, forced withdrawal) for alleged cheating:

you should receive notice of the accusation, evidence basis, and a chance to explain;
sanctions should follow the handbook’s disciplinary process, not improvised punishments.

B. Harassment, humiliation, gender-based misconduct

If unfair requirements are tied to harassment (sexual, gender-based, bullying, coercion), you may have overlapping remedies under:

school discipline systems, and
broader protective laws/policies on safe learning environments.

C. Mental health and medical conditions

While “mental health” does not automatically excuse requirements, it strengthens claims for:

reasonable flexibility,
make-up work,
alternative assessment modes, when supported by documentation and consistent with policy.

D. Thesis/capstone and graduation requirements

These are high-stakes and often disputed. Key fairness points:

requirements must match approved curriculum standards;
committees must act within published guidelines;
delays must not be arbitrary;
evaluation criteria should be transparent and applied consistently.

8) What arguments schools commonly raise—and how students respond

“Academic freedom.”

Response: Academic freedom protects legitimate pedagogical choices, but it does not justify arbitrary, discriminatory, undisclosed, or policy-violative requirements.

“It’s in the handbook.”

Response: Then the school must show the exact provision, and it must be applied consistently and reasonably. If the handbook is vague, schools must still act in good faith and follow fair process.

“You agreed by enrolling.”

Response: Agreement assumes disclosure and fair implementation. Contract principles still require good faith and prohibit abusive practices.

“Everyone had to do it.”

Response: Uniform unfairness can still be unlawful—especially if it violates regulations or imposes unauthorized fees or discriminatory impacts.

9) Practical writing framework for a student complaint (Philippine setting)

A strong complaint is short, specific, and anchored in documents:

Facts and timeline (dates, announcements, requirement details)
Controlling rule (syllabus/handbook/policy)
Deviation (what changed, what was inconsistent, what was denied)
Harm (grade impact, financial burden, exclusion, safety risk)
Requested remedy (e.g., revert to published grading scheme; allow alternative assessment; remove unauthorized fee; grant make-up exam; re-evaluate using rubric; investigate retaliation)
Attachments (screenshots, receipts, documents)

Avoid personal attacks; focus on verifiable acts and policy violations.

10) Bottom line: the core rights students can assert

In Philippine educational settings, students can generally assert these enforceable principles against unfair academic requirements:

Transparency: requirements and grading standards should be clear and disclosed.
Consistency: rules must be applied uniformly absent valid distinctions.
Reasonableness and proportionality: requirements must be pedagogically justified, not punitive or exploitative.
Non-discrimination and accommodation: protected circumstances must not be penalized; reasonable adjustments should be considered.
Due process: serious academic/disciplinary consequences require fair procedures.
Good faith and policy compliance: schools must follow their handbooks, syllabi, and regulatory obligations.

When students prevail, it is usually because they show: (1) a written rule, (2) a clear deviation, and (3) documented harm, pursued through proper channels.