AS TUITION and other school fees rise once again in some private higher education institutions across Western Visayas, the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) finds itself treading a fine line between regulation and detachment. In defending its approval of tuition increases for 21 private colleges and universities in the region, CHED emphasized the commission’s role as an “observer” in stakeholder consultations — monitoring the process, not influencing outcomes.
But is mere observation enough?
CHED claims that it ensures transparency and fairness by validating that proper consultations were conducted with students, parents, faculty, and school administrators. Yet in the eyes of many families already struggling with the high cost of living, such a passive role offers little comfort. When tuition increases are justified purely on the basis of inflation and procedural compliance, who is left to truly champion the interest of students?
To be clear, private schools operate within a market economy. They require financial viability to retain qualified faculty, maintain infrastructure, and keep up with technological demands. But these valid concerns must be weighed against the growing number of students at risk of educational displacement — not by choice, but by financial constraint. The fear is not just about rising costs, but about a system that appears to prioritize institutional survival over student welfare.
CHED cannot merely be a referee who checks the rulebook after the game is played. It must assume a more proactive role in ensuring educational access and equity. This includes not only observing consultations, but advocating for meaningful representation of students and parents in the decision-making process. It means rigorously evaluating whether proposed increases are truly the last resort — or if cost-saving alternatives were explored. It means pushing schools to be transparent with their financial records, not just compliance documents.
Moreover, CHED should take the lead in long-term solutions — such as creating tuition regulation models that are responsive to economic shocks, or establishing regional support mechanisms for students affected by fee hikes. Without these interventions, it risks being seen not as a protector of public interest, but as an enabler of a system increasingly inaccessible to the poor.
In a time of economic uncertainty, higher education must be safeguarded as a public good, not reduced to a transactional commodity. CHED must decide whether it will remain on the sidelines, or finally step up as the strong institutional advocate that Filipino students deserve.
