No permit, no exam policy:  a boon or a bane?

Senator Christopher “Bong” Go praised the senators’ approval of Senate Bill No. 1359 or the No Permit, No Exam Prohibition Act.  The bill breezed through the legislative mill at the Senate. However, the legislative status of the counterpart bill in the House of Representatives is still “pending,” as stated on Senate’s website.

Citing education as a basic right that should be accessible to all, Go said that the legislative measure ensures that no student is unfairly deprived of the opportunity to take exams or assessments due to financial constraints. He exhorts everyone to continue to work together to ensure quality education for every Filipino.

Senate Bill No. 1359 covers all levels in public and private educational institutions, including short-term courses offered by technical-vocational training institutes.

While it is true that payment of tuition fees is a burden that students and parents have to bear and that there is a need for the state to intervene to guarantee the protection of their right to education, the measure unwittingly kills the hen that lays the golden egg.

State universities and colleges, as well as local universities and colleges, may not see any serious liquidity or cash problems since they rely heavily on their annual budget for their operations.  They also have access to other government funds.

The case is entirely different for private schools since their bread and butter are the tuition and miscellaneous fees collected from the students. To guarantee that students receive quality instruction, our policymakers should not only look at the welfare of the students but must also ensure that the ability to deliver quality instruction by educational institutions is not hampered by grandstanding lawmakers.

Quality education is not free.  It involves investment in financial and non-financial resources.  Senate Bill No. 1359 ensures that the burden of the payment of tuition fees will not hamper the student’s ability to learn.  In removing this burden, however, the bill effectively incapacitates many private schools from delivering quality education.  How can we expect learning institutions to achieve this mandate when they are hounded with difficulty in paying for the teachers’ salaries, utilities, and other important expenses?

Our esteemed lawmakers may have good intentions in passing the bill for the welfare of the students. However, it leaves the other equally important stakeholder on the brink of financial difficulties.  This is probably why the House of Representatives is taking its time to pass a better version of the law.  We just hope that the final version of the bill to be signed by the President is a product of careful deliberation and not biased towards generating more votes for the next elections.