Tel/Fax 433 8377; Pager No. 1277 48973

Every year, tuition increases and each year the reason for these increases is the quality of education schools promise to provide. But if the gauge of quality education is the percentage of board and bar passers, then the schools failed to render that.

Data shows that there is a significant decline in the passing rates of all the board and bar takers. Who could forget the very controversial low passing percentage of the bar? Or the 23.3% average passing rate of the Professional Board Exam for Teachers? Just this month’s CPA board exam, the passing percentage was only pegged at 17.87%.

If quality can be evaluated based on the competency of new graduates who landed with jobs, then they also failed. In fact, the Employers Confederation of the Philippines has been lamenting on the capacity, or to be exact, the incapacity of the new graduates who filled up the open positions in various companies. Our graduates can barely speak English and yet, have no supplementary skills of whatsoever. They just have diplomas to boast about, nothing more, and nothing less.

Quality education in the Philippines has long been a myth, well except for UP of course. But still, UP has been in the brink of loosing their hundred percent board and bar passers. Many UP graduates are now selling insurances or in fields that are not abreast with their courses. If we still believe that quality is really the reason for the increases knock your head three times and take a sniff of a rotting fish. Wake up, we have all been duped!

Amidst this declining quality of education, tuition fees offered in private tertiary institutions as of 1999, range from as high as P 56,043.50 (Agnus Dei College – FEMA Board) to as low as P2, 415.00 (Asian Institute for Distance Studies) per semester. Think of how much it can expand in the coming years in a sky-is-the-limit policy in determining tuition increases. Arellano University alone with a base tuition rate of P 6,080.00 per semester during academic year 1997-1998 has ballooned its tuition to P 10,617.00 in the year 1998-1999. This accounts for a 74.63% registered increase in the middle of a recovering economy after the crisis in 1997.

At present, 35% of our private colleges and universities were recorded to have increased their tuition rates. An average of 13.08 % increase nationwide took place concurrent with the war in Mindanao, devaluation of peso and an oil price hike that is expected to come soon.

After quality, the next thing that school owners consider is the salary raise asked by the teachers. COCOPEA, in all the tuition increase committee hearings in Congress, never did once forget to emphasize this point. Dr. Piamonte, their representative, strongly pointed out that if there are people who reap profits from these increases they are the teachers. He said that if one wants to be rich then get into the teaching profession. Jerusalem! If this is true then all the teachers resorting to street demonstrations because of their low wages should be called liars.

COCOPEA is transferring the blame from their shoulders and onto the teachers. Dr. Piamonte gave credence to his claim by citing unions from other schools that are annually asking for increases. But how many schools really do have unions, one-two percent of the total 1167 private schools? Not enough to make it the culprit.

Some private school owners like AMA is saying that they want to be at par with the rest of the world. They want to be globally competitive and be among the top schools in the world. Not bad for a reason but not good enough coming from a company that lets its students study in a factory converted into a school, with teachers that do not know the difference between sex education and the social sciences they teach. Go to AMACC Makati and you will hear the never-ending complaints about the facilities and the caliber of teachers.

AMA lacks the credibility especially now that their Vice President has resorted to calling their students "consumers" just to prove a point. If AMA can get away with this kind of reference to the students in front of our "esteemed" Congressmen, then these congressmen are openly endorsing the school administrators’ bandwagon statement treating education as any other profitable business. Nevertheless, AMA is indeed the perfect model of being at par with the other schools, not in terms of academic excellence, but in terms of commercialization of education. They have successfully promoted their school by hiring Jolina to do their commercials. Now we know where the 10% of the increase went, to Jolina’s colossal talent fee. Now, we only need to wonder where the 90% are.

There must be another reason behind the increases. Through the process of elimination, we can say that the only thing left is profit. Schools increase their tuition fees to have bigger profits. Higher education institutions are in for the profit! Guess people know that. It is an open secret as the payola scam in Congress. Everybody knows it but nobody dares question it. It has long been beyond government control, even CHED claims that since the passage of Education Act of 1982, the education sector has been commodified.

On the other hand, many have tried to amend the bill but no one has been successful. They say that the bill onset the deregulation of school fees. CHED is even using the bill as an escape goat by admitting to having no authority in the approval or disapproval of application for an increase. According to CHED, Ed Act of 1982 has permitted this kind of horrendous practice, making CHED and the government in general, free from all the responsibility of providing accessible education.

CHED refused to answer any allegations with regards to tuition increases, people has permitted them to, because they claim that it is the law that hinders them from doing so. The Commission said that they have no police power to intervene in the issue of increases but as it turns out they have defaulted themselves, making them accomplices of the private sector in manipulating tuition increases. But in the committee hearing for tuition increases, then DECS Undersecretary now Congressman Jose Antonio B. Nachura, pointed out that CHED indeed has the power to approve and disapprove petition for increase. The law does not stop them from regulating the increases what hinders them is their misinterpretation of the law. It seems that the institution that should promote learning is feigning ignorance to its own powers and authority, enraging even the most pacified soul.

Section 42 of Batas Pambansa 232 otherwise known as Education act of 1982 furnishes:

CHED was created as the state arm that will see to it that education shall remain affordable while ensuring its quality as stated in the Higher Education Act of 1994. On the contrary, the National Statistics Office demography data shows that there are approximately 800,000 out-of-school youth since 1994 pointing out to high cost of education as the main reason. It seems that DECS’ and CHED’s benightedness of the law has been a witting or an unwitting tool in preventing 160,000 youth from enrolling yearly.

CHED for such a long time now, has never been made to answer probe regarding the deregulation of tuition because the institution has been cowering behind the law. Now that a Supreme Court ruling concerning the law has been unearthed, CHED should be liable for the many years that the Filipinos have suffered because of unregulated tuition increases.

After almost two decades, tuition in private educational institutions has increased exorbitantly. In AMA Computer College Makati alone, school fees ballooned by 156.36% in five years. AMACC Makati’s P7, 735 total school fees in school year 1995 to 1996 stands P19, 830 in Academic Year 1998-2000 while other schools were seen to follow the trend [See Table I].

Data also shows that in the National Capital Region, there are 41 private schools that offer services at a rate below P 20,000 but not less than P 10,000 and merely 8 private schools remained to be offering education services below P 5,000. Several institutions however, present much higher cost ranging from P 20,000 to more or less P50, 000. The cost of education bid by the private sector in 1999 ranges from as high as P 53,043 and to as low as P 2,415 [See Table 2]. We cannot imagine how such a social service like education can cost so much.

A research made by our Education Department reveals an exploitative profiteering in education services. Citing AMA Computer College in Makati, figures reveal that a bulk amount of returns floats back in the hands of the school owners and stockholders of this institution.

Studying the figures presented, AMA Computer College earned an estimated lump sum of P 25.4 M or an average of P 5.08 M a year. Far Eastern University on the other hand, raised about P 28.057 M since 1996. [See Table 3]

Note that the following assumptions are done conservatively. This is from the idea that the 20% allocation for improvement of facilities still adds up to the capital of the school owner. More so, it can also be a great source of additional profit with less suspicion from the students of the institution. In practice, this portion of incremental proceeds has been a good alibi for the raising of tuition rates as well.

Note: The above computation is derived following the 70, 20, 10 [70% for salaries of teachers, 20% for upgrading of Facilities and 10% for Return on investments] allocation of incremental proceeds mandated by RA 6728. The figure appeared however is a conservative estimate.

CHED has a solid alibi for lack of action but not the House of Representatives. Congress has a choice but they deny themselves the opportunity to alleviate the problems of the students. They have long been calling for inquiries with regards to the matter but not one bill or resolution concerning it has been passed. Many issues, since the so-called deregulation of tuition, have cropped up but not one of them has been addressed and resolved by the Congress. In 1996, students from three schools, the Manuel Luis Quezon University, FEATI University and the Technological Institute of the Philippines, were not able to contain themselves and vehemently fought against the approval of the tuition increases in their respective schools.

The Congress did not give attention to the matter and just went on with their daily routines. The students who participated in the said protests were dismissed by their schools. The school administrators are brisk in punishing students whom they think violated their rules and regulations, contrariwise, up to now, CHED cannot name any school that has been punished for violating their guidelines on tuition increases. Our laws are helpless, not having their own penal provisions, that even the most obvious of violations cannot be punished.

Another issue is the long overdue enactment of a genuine Magna Carta of Students. From HB No.55 in the 8^th Congress and up to now, the bill still remains to be a bill. If these legislators only know how important is the passage of the Magna Carta, we guess they will take time on it. One way or the other Magna Carta of Students is really a great help in resolving the tuition increase dispute. There is a provision in the bill wherein schools are required to have tuition fee boards and in the board there is a seat for a student representative.

One major faux pas of Congress is the passing of the Republic Act 6728 or the Tuition Subsidy Law that began the 70-20-10 division of the increases. This justified all the increases. It is this law that made schools think that it is okay to increase as long as they can prove that 70% went to the teachers, that seldom happens, 20% goes to the improvement of facilities, that also seldom happens, and the 10% becomes their profit.

This is also the law that made the consultations the big requirement in the increases. A requirement that should have been good but is now a liability because instead of the consultations becoming bargaining arenas where students, faculties and administrations meet halfway it has evolved into mere for your information only. Education Act of 1982 laid down the foundations of deregulation but the passing of RA 6728 was the point of no return wherein education was fully deregulated. Congress must recognize its errors and rectify.

One good form of rectification is to make bills like that of Congresswoman Daisy Fuentes. She filed House Bill No.7795, an act amending sec. 42 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 232 otherwise known as the Education Act of 1982, by giving the Commission on Higher Education the power to approve and disapprove petitions for tuition fee increases. The Supreme Court may have legitimately interpreted sec 42 of Ed Act of 1982 in 1993 saying that CHED has all the police power to do so but still this kind of bill will reinforce the law giving CHED no reason to do otherwise. The same measure is seen almost the same in a Bill filed by Senator Tessie Aquino-Oreta.

Congress has been one institution to keep silent on issues that can tip the balance of things not on their side. Plenty of congressmen are capitalist educators; of course we expect nothing from them. But we have the committee on education headed by Congressman Dante Liban and we expect nothing less than the immediate passing of a bill that will resolve the issue. We dare Congressman Liban in authoring a bill that goes beyond the usual calling for a congress inquiry on the issue but a bill that is pro-student, anti-unjust increases.

Congress should also not let history repeat itself. In the 1996 struggle against tuition increases many students were kicked out. This time if Congressman Dante Liban really believes in what we are fighting for, he should prevent administrations from kicking out their students because we are just expressing our rights. We have the right to education and if the government cannot provide that then let them be just an instrument for us to fight the battle on even grounds.

The issue is brewing. This coming school year we will be launching series of protests against increases we call on our congressman to speak up and back the students. It is rightful that they help the student sector, it is more than their duty it is their obligation.

To show how serious we are in the fight against tuition increases there will be a series of mobilizations. The mobilizations will be from June 6 to 15, every 6’ o clock in the evening dubbed as the students 6’ o clock habit. This will be staged in Mendiola. This form of action will serve as a venue for the students to show how enraged they are to the continuing increases. The series of protests will culminate on June 16 at CHED’s main office in Mandaluyong DAP building. The students but also their parents will participate this big mobilization in not only. The mobilization will be attended by five thousand rallying parents and students.

The next big mobilization will be on June 19 to be grouped at COCOPEA’s office. Another thousand of students will participate this mobilization. On June 21, 28 and July 5 the protests will be in front of AMACC, TRINITY COLLEGE and FEU.

On July 13 there will be another PRESS CONFERENCE in preparation for the students NATIONAL DAY OF PROTEST that will be held on the following day, July 14. Schools mainly from NCR, Bacolod, Iloilo, Cebu and Iligan will participate the National day of Protest in. The series of protest will be expected to last up to the President’s STATE OF THE NATION ADDRESS wherein the students will show their full force. This day they will demand the government to take heed their call.