The impending tuition and other fee increases (TOFI) at Holy Angel University (HAU) for the fourth consecutive year reflect a broader issue within Philippine higher education—one that increasingly prioritizes financial sustainability over student welfare.
Set for consultation on February 27, just a day before the Commission on Higher Education’s (CHED) deadline for TOFI submissions, the increase stands to be dichotomous to its purpose of providing service to the studentry, with many still being left behind.
About 20 private higher education institutions (HEIs) in the Philippines have announced fee hikes for academic year (AY) 2025-2026, which is consistent with a broader trend across HEIs. Though universities defend tuition increases by pointing to inflation, operational costs, and quality enhancements, the fundamental concern remains all the same: at what point does TOFI become unjust?
With the dominance of neoliberalism in the Philippines’ educational system, the chase for ‘global recognition’ on economic scales takes precedence—leading to the mass privatization of education in the country, with more than 88% of HEIs being private schools.
As expenses rise, private institutions are allowed to set their own prices per ‘reasonable’ and ‘justified’ needs following the stipulated limitations of Republic Act No. 6139 or Tuition Fee Law—which outlined that increases should be based on “reasonable” and “justified” needs, and these increases should be determined through consultations with stakeholders, including students and parents.
However, the Education Act of 1982 allowed higher education institutions (HEIs) to raise tuition and fees without needing to adhere to strict government oversight.
However, over time, the deregulation of tuition fees has led to a situation where HEIs are no longer required to seek specific government approval for tuition hikes, except for some basic requirements like consultations. This deregulation has given schools more freedom to adjust their fees based on their perceived needs for financial sustainability. Unfortunately, this environment has also led to the prioritization of profit motives, where institutions often focus on their financial stability rather than the educational welfare of their students.
This shift raises questions about whether these fee increases are truly justified or student-centered. While HEIs often cite rising operational costs, inflation, and the need for quality improvements to justify tuition hikes, these reasons do not always align with the tangible improvements in infrastructure and academic resources that students expect. At universities like Holy Angel University (HAU), for example, there is a growing sentiment that rising tuition fees are not being matched by corresponding advancements in services, such as enhanced learning facilities or more qualified faculty.
Further complicating the issue, the process of consultations itself often seems to be a mere formality. For instance, the timing of consultations—just before the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) deadlines—suggests that these sessions may not be genuine opportunities for students to influence decision-making. Rather, they risk being treated as a procedural step rather than an earnest attempt at seeking student input.
The Education Act of 1982 sought to provide guidelines for ensuring the quality of education and equitable access, emphasizing the importance of student participation and financial transparency. Yet, in practice, these principles have often been overlooked. The lack of clear links between fee hikes and tangible improvements in education quality undermines the justification for such increases. Moreover, the absence of substantial student involvement in decision-making about these increases makes the process feel more like a financial transaction than a genuine effort to serve the educational needs of students.
TOFIs become unjust when they disproportionately burden students without delivering measurable improvements in educational quality or services. When HEIs prioritize profit over student welfare, limit access to education, and undermine the democratic process of decision-making, it raises serious concerns about the fairness of the system. To make tuition hikes justifiable, HEIs must ensure transparency, demonstrate clear connections between fee increases and improvements in education, and genuinely involve students in the decision-making process. Without these reforms, higher education risks becoming an exclusive privilege rather than a universal right.
There are also discrepancies between growing expenses and the standard of services students receive is the cause, such as ongoing criticisms at HAU that the academic resources and infrastructure improvements have not kept up with the cost placed on students.
The legitimacy of these hikes is further undermined by the timing of consultations, such as HAU’s, which are planned right before CHED’s deadline and imply a lack of true student participation in decision-making.
Altogether, when TOFI restricts access to learning opportunities, burdens students without corresponding improvements in services, and puts profit before education and true service to its students, it becomes unjust.
Thus, it is critical to reevaluate how to strike a balance between educational justice and financial sustainability as HAU keeps raising fees. For TOFI to remain justifiable, HEIs must uphold transparency in their financial reports, clearly linking increases to tangible improvements in education quality—and genuine student participation should be integral to decision-making processes, preventing universities from treating consultations as mere formalities.
If left unaddressed, the commercialization of education will simply exacerbate already-existing disparities and turn higher education into an exclusive privilege rather than a universal right unless there are substantial reforms.
The views and opinion of the writer do not necessarily reflect those of the publication.
