AT a time of economic uncertainty, it is understandable that the government would seek to shield Filipino families from additional financial burden. The impact of rising oil prices and broader global instability is real, and students and parents are among those most vulnerable to its effects. But good intentions, no matter how sincere, do not excuse policies that are legally unsound, arbitrary in application, and ultimately damaging to the very institutions that sustain higher education.
Reports that the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) has denied all pending tuition increase applications of private colleges and universities because of the economic effects of the oil crisis should concern not only school administrators but also anyone who values fairness, due process and the long-term viability of Philippine education.
A blanket denial of pending applications is difficult to justify under the law. These tuition increase requests were filed based on the realities existing at the time of submission: rising operating expenses, institutional needs, and reasonable projections for sustaining school operations. They were not filed in anticipation of a future geopolitical crisis. To reject them solely because of later developments in the global energy market is to apply a standard retroactively and unfairly.
That kind of response raises serious questions about due process. Regulation must be grounded in clear legal authority and applied consistently and rationally. When all applications are denied as a matter of policy, regardless of their merits or the circumstances of individual institutions, the process ceases to be regulatory and becomes arbitrary.
Just as troubling is the unequal burden such a policy places on the private higher education sector. According to the Philippine statistics authority, the national headline inflation surged to 7.2 percent, a sharp increase from 4.1 percent in March and the highest rate in over three years. The spike was primarily driven by increases in diesel prices, rice prices, water, utilities, gas, food and transport. While all these affect the operations of private higher education institutions, they are threatened by zero revenue from tuition increases. In contrast, the government has provided state universities and colleges (SUCs) with about P17.4 billion more in operating support for the coming academic year 2026-2027. This is not consistent with the constitutional recognition of the complementary roles of the public and private sectors in education.
This is an important point that is often overlooked in public discussions: Private higher education institutions are funded primarily by tuition and fees. Unlike state universities and colleges, they do not receive regular appropriations from the government. While some students in private schools benefit from public subsidies, those subsidies do not amount to direct operational funding for the institutions themselves. When costs rise sharply, private schools have limited options. To deny them any flexibility and other fiscal measures is to ignore the basic realities of how they survive.
And survival is not an abstract concern. When schools are prevented from responding to financial pressure, the likely consequences are concrete and immediate: closures, layoffs, reduced services, and disrupted academic programs. These outcomes do not help students. They harm them. It must be noted that CHED’s own policy requires that the proceeds from tuition increases be allocated as follows: 70 percent to personnel salaries and benefits, and 20 percent to facility improvements. Increases in tuition are essentially driven by personnel compensation and benefits, facilities upgrades and maintenance.
There is also a larger constitutional principle at stake. Higher education institutions enjoy academic freedom, and while that freedom is not absolute, according to jurisprudence, it cannot be constrained by unreasonable regulation. A total ban on tuition increases, imposed without regard for individual conditions and institutional needs, risks crossing the line from oversight into overreach.
None of this is to suggest that schools should be free to impose tuition increases without limits. Students and families deserve protection from excessive or unjustified fee hikes, especially during periods of economic hardship. But protecting the public does not require inflexible prohibition. It requires calibrated, lawful and evidence-based regulation.
CHED should therefore reject any one-size-fits-all approach and instead evaluate tuition applications on their individual merits. It can impose safeguards, require transparency, and demand accountability, all without resorting to an absolute denial policy. Such an approach would better balance students’ interests with the legitimate needs of educational institutions.
It must also be acknowledged that many private higher education institutions are not indifferent to the plight of students and families. On the contrary, a number of schools have already voluntarily suspended or withdrawn plans to increase tuition in recognition of the financial strain communities are facing. This demonstrates that the sector is capable of acting with both responsibility and compassion.
The issue, then, is not whether the government should care about affordability. Of course it should. The real question is whether public policy will be guided by law, fairness and reason, or by sweeping decisions that disregard both institutional realities and constitutional principles.
At this difficult moment, the country needs balanced leadership, not blanket prohibitions. The future of higher education depends on policies that protect students without undermining the institutions that serve them. If regulation is to be credible, it must be not only well-intentioned but also lawful, fair and reasonable.