Reasonda

Critique on the Universal Access to Tertiary Education Act and Proposed Alternatives
Sustainable Development Goal 4 aims to ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and
promote lifelong learning opportunities for all. Where inclusive, equitable, and quality are main
qualifiers, this goal includes targets that aim to make education sensitive to disparities in gender
and physical disabilities, as well as responsive to the needs of national minorities, children, and
other vulnerable sectors. This also aims to provide various avenue for the development of the
individual through training and expansion of available scholarship opportunities. There is also a
focus on financial accessibility: the sustainable development goal sets free primary and secondary
education as a target while it sets affordable and quality technical, vocational and tertiary education
as another. It is clear here where the goal delineates the extent to which education is considered a
right rather than a privilege. It is also notable that the goal focuses on accessibility, rather than the
nature or content of education.
This goal resonates with the declaration of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which
states under Article 26: “Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in
the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and
professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally
accessible to all on the basis of merit.” However, this specifically calls for a merit-based awarding
of tertiary educational opportunities, which limits the accessibility of higher education to
individuals who fall under set criteria.
On the other hand, the 1987 Philippine Constitution Article 14, Section 1 declares 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.” In comparison to a merit-based
approach to the accessibility of education, the Philippine Constitution takes on a more citizenship-
rights based approach; that is, the access to education is based on the mere fact that one is a citizen.
This approach emphasizes on the role of the state as duty-bearer to uphold not only the civic and
political but also social rights of the citizenry.
In the dominating educational system, access to education is hindered by a number of factors,
including Tuition and Other School Fees (hereon referred to as TOSF). This academic year 2017-
2018, however, was a turning point in the fight for accessible, quality education. Due to the
realignment of pork barrel funds set for infrastructure projects in ARMM amounting to P8.3B, the
state declared 2017-2018 as a year where tuition shall not be collected for all 114 SUCs. This
declaration was stalled in UP, but was eventually set forth in August 2017, where it was announced
that no tuition shall be collected for all undergraduate students with a few exceptions. The
sustainability of this move was put into question, citing the likelihood of being allotted funding
through the national budget.
In legislature, a similar policy was being drafted, and in May 2017, a bicameral conference
committee report consolidated senate bill 1304 and house bill 5633. This bill, now known as the
Universal Access to Quality Tertiary Education Act was formally signed into law, RA 10931, on
August 3. This provides for full tuition subsidy for students in SUCs, LUCs and state-run technical
vocational schools. Its policy declaration states, “quality education is an inalienable right of all
Filipinos and it is the policy of the State to protect and promote the rights of all students to quality
education at all levels. Therefore, the State shall take appropriate steps to make such education
accessible to all.” Although the law was passed on August 3, it took nearly seven months for the
implementing rules and regulations to be passed.
RA10931 has two mechanisms by which education is made financially accessible. First, the policy
has a Tertiary Education Subsidy (TES) program which is a subsidy program open to “all Filipino
students who shall enroll in undergraduate, post, secondary programs of SUC, LUCs, private HEIs,
TVIs.” This includes modalities such as scholarships, grants-in-aid, and student loans. However,
the beneficiaries are subjected to prioritization. Listahan 2.0 which is a document which lists
eligible students by virtue of their family’s household income. Those who are not part of the
Listahan 2.0 are required to submit documentation or proof of household income. Lastly, this
prioritization does not apply to “Filipino students in cities and municipalities with no existing SUC
or LUC campus.” The implementing rules and regulations extends program such that an Expanded
List shall be created to prove needs-based scholarships to disadvantaged groups. This involves a
multi-stakeholder approach: the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP), Office of
the Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process (OPAPP), Department of Agriculture (DA), and
other relevant government agencies shall work with the DSWD to develop this expanded
Listahanan.
The Tertiary Education Subsidy (TES) may cover the following: TOSF in private schools,
allowance for books, supplies, transportation, and miscellaneous personal expenses. This may also
include a reasonable allowance for the rent or purchase of personal computer or laptop. This may
also cover room and board costs. Particularly for students with disability, they may also claim
allowance for expenses related to the student’s disability, such as special services, personal
assistance, transportation, equipment, and certain supplies. Lastly, for students requiring
professional license or certification the program covers the one-time cost of obtaining professional
credentials or qualifications including review classes fees, notarial fees, insurance premium fees,
and documentation fees.
The implementing rules and regulations also provide for student loans which make available both
short-term and long-term loans. The former is any loan applied for by the student that would need
to be paid within a period no longer than one (1) academic year while the latter is applied for by
student-borrowers. Repayment shall be when their compensations, remunerations, or earnings
after completion of their degrees have reached the Compulsory Repayment Threshold (CRT). Loan
earnings intended to pay for TOSF and for services “…directly provided by the HEIs and TVIs
shall be directly paid to these institutions. Remaining loan proceeds shall be paid directly to the
student-borrower in reasonable intervals.” The UniFAST shall also create an efficient track record
in order to monitor student-borrowers, particularly for long-term loans.
In addition to these, the implementing rules and regulations push for the creation of an affirmative
action program, particularly for disadvantaged groups. This act is inclusive such that it creates a
proactive means of reaching out to these disadvantaged students such as Lumads, Moros, and other
national minorities; persons with disabilities; students from public schools; and students from
depressed areas.
In terms of accessibility and equitability, the Universal Access to Quality Tertiary Education and
its corresponding implementing rules and regulation has provided mechanisms to make its plan as
comprehensive as possible. Its attention to disadvantaged students is also noteworthy. In its most
basic form, the policy is inclusive and demonstrates a preferential option for the poor. However,
there are specific provisions that limit the accessibility of the programs and services. For instance,
exceptions to those who are eligible for the free tuition are the following:
i. In SUCs and LUCs:
1. Students who have already attained a bachelor's degree or
comparable undergraduate degree from any HEI, whether public or
private:
2. Students who fail to comply with the admission and retention
policies of the SUC or LUC;
3. Students who fail to complete their bachelor's degree or comparable
undergraduate degree within a year after the period prescribed in
their program; and
ii. In State-Run TVIs:
1. Students who have obtained a bachelor's degree, as well as those
who have received a certificate or diploma for a technical-vocational
course equivalent to at least National Certificate III and above:
2. Students who fail in any course enrolled in during the course of the
program.
These limitations create a disjunct between the set objective of a more accessible educational
system and the provisions that are set to actualize these objectives. These categories may seem to
be exclude only a small fraction of the student population, however, it is in actuality larger than
that. It is also a compromise between prioritization/feasibility of the policy and the recognition of
citizens’ rights to education. Each of these exceptions shall then be subjected to scrutiny.
First, in both SUCs and state-run TVIs, students who have completed a bachelor’s degree or any
comparable undergraduate degree are not eligible for tuition subsidy. This in effect, disqualifies
graduate students, notably law students and medicine students. This is problematic in three notable
ways: it discourages students from pursuing further education and deprives our country of research
and development. This also becomes a hindrance from the financially disadvantaged from having
the option of taking initial studies in Technical-Vocational schools, and pursuing further studies
in SUCs or LUCs.
Second, in SUCs students who fail to comply with the admission and retention policies of the SUC
or LUC creates a possibility for SUCs to create restrictions to lower the number of possible
beneficiaries by changing the admission requirements or by making retention policies more
stringent. This exemption is somewhat reduced by a provision added by the implementing rules
and regulations: PROVIDED, that the failure to comply with the SUC or LUC’s retention policies
results in the student’s permanent disqualification from enrolling in any SUC or LUC. This
narrows down the number of students potentially excluded, however the possibility of more
stringent retention and admission policies remain.
Third, in SUCs, students who fail to complete their bachelor's degree or comparable undergraduate
degree within a year after the period prescribed in their program are disqualified from the tuition
subsidy. On its own, this provision effectively disqualifies students who are delayed or who have
taken a leave of absence for a myriad of reasons. This also begs the question of, what happens to
shiftees and transferees. It is noteworthy that these grey areas have been addressed in the
implementing rules and regulation. For instance, in the case of shiftees and transferees, the
timespan (in number of semesters) wherein the student has claimed tuition subsidy shall be
subtracted from the total allotted subsidy based on the expected duration of the current program in
which the student is enrolled. In the case of returning students and students who filed a leave of
absence, the determination and computation of their subsidy shall “be without prejudice to the
most expedient way of completing their studies.” This particular provision remains unclear. When
it declares that it will not be prejudiced in the computation of subsidy, it means that the reason
behind his or her filing a leave of absence is implementing rules and regulationselevant in the
deliberation process? Finally, the policy states that the SUCs and LUCs have the decision-making
power in terms of determining the cases that merit an extension of tuition subsidy. While again,
this creates more space for potential beneficiaries, whether or not this would actualize as a merit
is not clear-cut. For instance, if a student were delayed due to financial or health reasons without
filing a leave of absence, would the SUCs or LUCs be generous or stringent in applying this
provision?
Fourth, in State-Run TVIs, students who fail in any course enrolled in during the course of the
program are automatically excluded. This is more stringent than is the case in SUCs and LUCs
possibly justified because the programs are shorter in TVIs. However, it must also be taken into
consideration that a large number of students who enroll in TVIs are generally from a financially
disadvantaged background. In this regard, would this financial disadvantage in itself be enough to
merit a subsidy?
The Implementing rules and regulations provide even more provisions that would greatly reduce
the number of beneficiaries. For instance, according to section 5 of Rule 2 states:” All SUCs and
LUCs are eligible to provide the Free Higher Education provision. In the case of LUCs, only those
recognized by the CHED on or before the cut-off schedule for each fiscal year shall be eligible.
The annual cut-off schedule will be determined by the CHED.” This time-frame makes it more
feasible since the policy declared that the funding for the subsidy will be from the budget allocated
through the General Appropriations Act (GAA). However, in the instance that LUCs purposely
delay their submission of requirements which form the basis of the number of beneficiaries in their
institution, would this mean that they will no longer be eligible to provide Free Higher Education?
Another provision highlighted in both the Universal Access to Quality Tertiary Education Act and
its Implementing Rules and Regulations is that both require institutions to provide a mechanism
for students to opt out of the tuition subsidy. However, there have been reports filed where students
were coerced by the institution to opt out of the program.
This stringency on the beneficiaries in SUCs, LUCs and State-run TVIs can also be questioned
vis-à-vis the allocation of subsidy in private higher education institutions. If the policy truly aims
to make education more accessible, and if the policy indeed had a bias for the poor and
marginalized, why include this provision in the first place? Perhaps the justification could be that
there are areas with no SUCs, LUCs or State-run TVIs, and in its place only private HEIs are
established. Why are there no provisions that address this disparity and why is there even a
provision excluding students from areas with no SUCs or LUCs from prioritization in the Tertiary
Education Subsidy? In this case, it might be inferred that the policy was written with compromise
for private institutions given that one of the salient issues under debate with regard to this program
is that there is a possibility that private institutions would be forced to shut down; however, these
institutions will only be pressured to lower their tuition, and the sustainability of their institution
would be dependent on how they allocate their budget and where they will source additional
funding if necessary.
In terms of feasibility and sustainability, RA10931 provides for several mechanisms to ensure that
the program is implemented in each institution; according to section 14, “all SUCs, LUCs and
state-run TVIs shall submit to the CHED and the TESDA respectively, within five (5) days after
the last day of late registration for each semester, a report detailing the names of students eligible
for the free tuition and other school fees in their institutions.” This report would detail the
following: in the case of SUCs and LUCs, the names of applicants who took the SUC/LUC
entrance exam, if any, and information on whether these applicants passed or not; the names of
students in their institutions who availed of the free tuition and other school fees benefit and
relevant details, students who opted out, and students who made voluntary contributions to the
institution. In the case of TVIs: the names of students eligible for the Free TVET, and the availed
free training costs and other training-related costs, all payments from learners who opted out, and
all payments from learners who made voluntary contributions.
Section 11 provides for safeguards in the implementation of this policy and provides a mechanism
for penalization for non-complicity. It states that “it shall be unlawful for any person, SUC, LUC,
and State-run TVIs to collect tuition and other fees from qualified students.” Section 64 of the
implementing rules and regulations also states that “the UniFAST Board, in consultation with
CHED and TESDA, shall develop and promulgate an updated policy on sanctions for institutions
that violate any provision of the Act.” However, as these sanctions are yet to be released, what
must be watched for should be the sanctions for institutions that do not report, present the report
late, or modify the content of the report. Accordingly, there must be a mechanism for monitoring
how these reports are made in the first place. This is because the allocation of funds is highly
dependent on the said report.
In line with this, the implementation of the program may be problematic should the budget
allocated to the institution may be lower than the proposed budget, or as in the instances mentioned
above, should the report be late or invalid. These would result to a deficit in funding. Even prior
to RA 10931, this has been the problem in the University of the Philippines. Budget allocated is
usually lower than the proposed budget, so the institution relies on other sources of funding,
including internally generated income which may involve leasing land to commercial entities as is
the case in the partnership with Ayala. This has since been problematic because it facilitates the
entry of “development projects” that threaten the existing communities within the campus.
Although indirectly, this is an instance where the policy through its provisions or lack thereof, can
put vulnerable sectors at even greater risk.
There are also other ways in which this could potentially infringe on the rights of students and
other vulnerable sectors on campus. For instance, with both the funding deficit and the penalization
in place, the institution may be pressured to find other ways to secure capital, such as an increase
in other fees not covered by RA10931 or its implementing rules and regulations, such as venue
rental fees. It may resort to an unhampered increase in venue rental fees such that venues are no
longer accessible to students. This would be an infringement on students’ right to organize. It may
also resort to allowing the entry of fast food chains and other commercial food establishments
without regard for students’ capacity to pay for these nor the capacity for the UP Manininda to
compete with them, should they be allowed to continue operating at all. There is also a threat of
lowering the wage of employees, or worse, dismissing them. As is the case within the college,
there is also a threat of increasing the tuition fee of those not covered by the program, such as
graduate students. All of these cases are dependent on the funding that the institution will receive,
and these possibilities are not limited to UP. In essence, these are manifestations of the
commercialization of education which continues to undermine the essence of education as a social
right.
How do these relate to the call for Free Education? While these are recognized as a step forward,
the fight continues, especially because free education does not only translate to free tuition, rather
it extends to the cost of attendance in general. Free Education also calls for the inclusion of
graduate students and second-degree holders. This is because this campaign is not merely focused
on the accessibility of education, rather it looks at the contribution of education as well. This is
why the call for Free Education goes hand-in-hand with the call for a nationalist, scientific, and
mass-oriented education. This is formally written in House Bill 4800 or the Comprehensive Free
Public Higher Education. The policy was approached differently from RA10931. In its call for
accessibility, it emphasized that education is a right and did not compromise it by delineating what
form of education may be considered a right and implying that those outside of this criterion are
merely privileges. There is also an emphasis on the role of the state as duty-bearer. It also
emphasizes the role of national youth and student organizations and formations in the creation of
the implementing rules and regulations, which RA10931 did not have.
As cited in the introductory text to HB4800, Article II Section 17 of the 1987 Constitution states,
“The State shall give priority to education, science and technology, art, culture, and sports to foster
patriotism and nationalism, accelerate social progress, and promote total human liberation and
development.” This is in recognition of the contribution that education has to the holistic
development not only of the individual, but also to the overall development of the nation. This is
notably a shift from the neoliberal perspective which views social rights such as education as a
privilege, as an expense into the view of social right as a citizenship right. This also substantiates
education as something more than a mere pre-requisite to job opportunities or a mere piece of
paper.
Education becomes the foundation of individual and collective empowerment as well as nation-
building. In relation to the sustainable development goal, this may be at most encapsulated in the
seventh target: “By 2030, ensure that all learners acquire the knowledge and skills needed to
promote sustainable development, including, among others, through education for sustainable
development and sustainable lifestyles, human rights, gender equality, promotion of peace and
non-violence, global citizenship and appreciation of cultural diversity and of culture’s contribution
to sustainable development.” This focuses more on sustainable development rather than nation-
building, but it is not to say that the two concepts are mutually exclusive.
In our current context, however, funding remains a central concern. In its discussion paper on Free
Education, AGHAM argues that the if the government reallocates the funds used to pay the interest
payments for our foreign and domestic debts, then full state subsidy becomes highly feasible. It
also demands the state to be critical of debts that may be considered illegitimate. Citing Tadem,
AGHAM enumerates some instances where debt may be considered illegitimate: debt incurred
through bribery, fraud, coercion, or misrepresentation; debt incurred due to the provision of
sovereign guarantees for the benefit of private entities; debt with negative impact on basic social
services and on the wellbeing of people and the environment; funds allocated for debt payment
were subjected to corruption, mismanagement, and failure of the project; debt was incurred
because of the creditor/s deliberately subjecting the national economy to shocks, unreasonable
credit demands, and financial instabilities; or debt incurred violates the country's national
sovereignty and democratic principles.
However, it is also of concern how other expenses would be covered, for instance, in building,
maintaining and improving facilities; or in a context outside of existing SUCs, the establishment
of new learning institutions. This is because accessibility and inclusivity must also be concerned
with services, especially for students with special needs. For instance, while education may be
financially accessible to students with special needs, the facilities may not have the capacity to
accommodate them.
In conclusion, the Universal Access to Tertiary Education Act is a step forward with its
mechanisms of making education more accessible by removing tuition which serves as a financial
barrier to accessing education. It also makes education more inclusive, notably with the affirmative
action program described in the implementing rules and regulations; however, with its provisions
that limit the beneficiaries to undergraduates, among other criteria, excluding a significant portion
of the student population in the process, for instance the delayed and the graduate students, the
fight for free education continues. At the same time, the challenge is to fight not only for free
education—which is a call for accessible education—but also for a nationalist, scientific, and
mass-oriented education—which by and large is a call for substantive education. This means
becoming critical also of the orientation of education, not only in tertiary education, but also in
primary and secondary education. This means becoming critical of other policies such as K-12 and
ASEAN Connectivity, which put a premium on the mobility rather than the accessibility and nature
of education. This is a challenge of going beyond a view of education as an individual right and a
view of education in isolation from other rights and other development goals.

Bibliography
Agham Youth (2017). “Science, Technology, and Free Education in State Universities and
Colleges (SUCs): A Discussion Paper.
Elago, Sarah. (2017). House Bill 4800. “Comprehensive Free Public Higher Education Act of
2017.”
R.A. 10931 (2017). “Universal Access to Quality Tertiary Education Act.”
Tadem, E. (2017). “Historic audit of illegitimate debts”. Philippine Daily Inquirer.
United Student Financial Assistance System for Tertiary Education (2018). “Implementing Rules
and Regulations of Republic Act No. 10931, known as the “Universal Access to Quality Tertiary
Education Act of 2017”
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948).