RA 11984: The ‘No Permit, No Exam Prohibition Act’

REPUBLIC Act 11984, or the “No Permit, No Exam Prohibition Act,” was enacted into law upon signing by President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. on March 11, 2024. The law takes effect 15 days after its publication.

The enactment of RA 11984 provides clear mandates and standards, but like most laws, it would require the issuance of implementing rules and regulations by the education agencies to fill in the details lacking in the law to ensure proper implementation. This is consistent with the principle of delegated rule-making of administrative agencies with the caveat that the same should be germane to and not in conflict with the law it is entrusted to implement. The implementing rules should also be aligned with the constitutional policies on education, more particularly reasonable supervision and regulation of all educational institutions and the guarantee of academic freedom of all higher education institutions. Reasonable supervision and regulation, according to the Supreme Court in a long line of cases, cannot be tantamount to State control. Quoting the framers of the Constitution, “When the Constitution speaks of State supervision and regulation, it does not in any way mean control ... it does not include the right to manage, dictate, overrule, prohibit or dominate.”

Section 4 of the law is the most important part and contains the policy mandate on covered schools. It states, “All public and private educational institutions covered by this Act are hereby mandated to accommodate and allow Disadvantaged Students unable to pay tuition and other fees to take the scheduled periodic and final examinations without requiring a permit.” Looking closely, it appears the “disadvantaged students” must be defined in the IRR and the individual school policies. Who are considered disadvantaged students? The mandate to accommodate and allow exams without a permit is not absolute. The law provides that the student who claims to be disadvantaged must secure the necessary certification on his or her disadvantaged status due to calamities, emergencies, force majeure and other good or justifiable reasons from the municipal, city, or provincial social welfare and development officer, or the regional office of the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD). This certification requirement deters abuses in the issuance of promissory notes by some students and parents just to unduly avoid timely payment of school fees. The certification requirement under the law, however, may be waived by the school concerned if it is satisfied with the reason of the student concerned without the need for DSWD certification.

To be clear, RA 11984 does not exempt disadvantaged students from payment of school fees that they owe the school. They are merely saved from the unnecessary embarrassment, ridicule and trauma of not being able to take the exams on time due to some temporary financial constraints that rendered them, in good faith, unable to meet their obligations to the school. The law does not write off the outstanding obligations of the students concerned as the law affirms the right and power of educational institutions to withhold records and credentials of students and such other legal remedies available to them for the collection of unpaid fees.

RA 11984 should serve as protection only to those who deserve such protective power of the State and not those who are in bad faith. While the student-school contract is imbued with public interest, it also gives rise to bilateral obligations to parties, like all contracts. The obligation of the school to educate a student would imply a corresponding obligation on the part of the student to study and obey the rules and regulations of the school, including payment of the necessary fees. College students’ academic freedom to choose their course is also subject to fair, reasonable, and equitable admission and academic requirements, like payment of the required fees.

At the end of the day, parents, on behalf of their minor children, and students themselves should be accountable for their education as their primary right and duty. In Regino v. Pangasinan Colleges of Science and Technology, the Supreme Court declared that education is not a mere measurable commodity… the importance of grades cannot be discounted in a setting where education is generally the gate pass to employment opportunities and better life. This primary right and duty of parents to educate children deserve the support of the State as provided in the Constitution, and RA 11984 is consistent with this State policy in supporting disadvantaged students in schools.