Letter from a Concerned Parent

Dear Attorney,

I am writing as a deeply concerned parent whose daughter is currently enrolled in her fourth year of a professional degree program at a private university in Cebu. She recently took what the university terms a “mock board examination,” which is apparently intended to assess whether students are adequately prepared for the actual licensure exam they will face after graduation. Unfortunately, my daughter did not pass this mock board exam, and the school administration has informed her that failure to pass means she cannot proceed to graduate this academic year.

This situation raises several legal and ethical questions for me. Is it lawful for an educational institution in the Philippines to impose passing a mock board examination as a prerequisite for graduation? Are there any pertinent rules, regulations, or policies from the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) or other government bodies that would clarify whether this kind of internal examination can be used to withhold a student’s right to graduate, despite having otherwise completed all academic units, internships, and other curricular requirements?

I seek your expert legal guidance on this matter. I respectfully request any information, insights, or advice you can share regarding the legality of such a requirement, as well as potential remedies or avenues for appeal.

Sincerely,
A Concerned Parent

A Comprehensive Legal Analysis Under Philippine Law

I. Introduction
In the Philippine educational system, higher education institutions (HEIs) enjoy a degree of academic freedom, allowing them to design their curricula, set admission and retention standards, and prescribe requirements for graduation. Nevertheless, this academic freedom is not absolute. It must be exercised in conformity with the Constitution, statutory law, regulatory issuances by the Commission on Higher Education (CHED), and any other pertinent government guidelines. The question posed here—whether a private university may lawfully require students to pass a mock board examination as a condition precedent to graduation—strikes at the intersection of academic discretion, student rights, contractual obligations, and regulatory frameworks.

In the context provided, a student who has ostensibly completed all academic units, met clinical or internship requirements, and otherwise complied with all the stipulated curricular components necessary for graduation is now being prevented from graduating solely due to failing a mock board examination. The legal analysis demands consideration of the nature of graduation requirements, the role of licensure examinations versus internal assessments, the scope of academic freedom, and applicable CHED memoranda and other regulations. Additionally, the legal position of students in private HEIs, the enforceability of rules included in student handbooks, and the possible recourse available to aggrieved parties must be examined meticulously.

II. Academic Freedom of Educational Institutions
Article XIV, Section 5(2) of the 1987 Philippine Constitution recognizes the academic freedom of all institutions of higher learning. Academic freedom, as has been elaborated by Philippine jurisprudence, generally encompasses the right of the school to determine who may teach, who may study, what may be taught, and how it may be taught. Under this broad concept, HEIs are granted considerable latitude in formulating curricular requirements and setting standards for academic performance. Courts have long refrained from interfering with legitimate academic judgments and standards set by universities unless these conflict with statutes or constitutional rights.

However, the institution’s academic freedom is not an unchecked license to impose arbitrary or capricious requirements. The imposition of conditions that are not reasonably related to the attainment of the educational institution’s legitimate educational objectives may be challenged. The determination of whether a mock board examination is a legitimate and reasonable academic requirement will thus be central to assessing its legality as a graduation prerequisite.

III. Regulatory Framework Under CHED and Related Agencies
The Commission on Higher Education, established by Republic Act No. 7722 (the Higher Education Act of 1994), has the mandate to set minimum standards for programs and institutions and to provide quality assurance in higher education. While CHED sets standards and issues policies, guidelines, and minimum requirements for curriculum and instruction, it typically refrains from dictating every specific academic requirement that a school may impose. Instead, it leaves room for institutional autonomy and creativity, provided that no policies contradict national laws or CHED’s prescribed minimum standards.

Commonly, graduation requirements for a particular course of study will include completion of required academic units, passing all required courses, satisfying internship or practicum requirements, and conforming to other institutional policies included in the curriculum. In programs leading to professional licensure (e.g., nursing, medicine, engineering), HEIs often align their curricula and internal evaluation mechanisms with standards that would prepare students for the professional licensure exams administered by the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC).

However, there is no general CHED issuance that categorically mandates or prohibits the requirement of a mock board examination as a pre-graduation filter. This silence on the matter indicates that the legality of such a requirement would hinge on its alignment with broader principles of reasonableness, notice, fairness, due process, and academic freedom. If the mock board examination is introduced as part of the curriculum or as an institutional policy detailed in the student manual or handbook, and students were made aware of this requirement from the outset of their program or well in advance of their graduation year, it could be argued as a legitimate academic standard. On the other hand, if such a requirement was suddenly introduced without adequate notice, students might be able to claim that the school’s imposition is arbitrary or breaches the contract implied between the institution and the student.

IV. Legal Considerations: Contractual Nature of the School-Student Relationship
The relationship between a private educational institution and its students is contractual in nature. When a student enrolls, pays tuition, and signs enrollment documents, a contract is formed whereby the student agrees to abide by the rules and regulations of the school, and the school, in turn, agrees to provide education leading, upon successful completion of all conditions, to the conferral of a degree.

The terms of this contract often include provisions found in the student handbook, enrollment forms, and official academic policies. Philippine jurisprudence acknowledges that these terms, once accepted, bind both parties. If the student handbook or university regulations provided upon enrollment clearly state that passing a mock board examination is a prerequisite for graduation, and the student agreed to these conditions, the institution may lawfully enforce them. Conversely, if no such stipulation exists, or if it was only introduced late in the student’s academic life without proper notice, the student might argue that this new requirement is an unreasonable or unilateral contract modification.

V. Due Process in the Context of Academic Requirements
Even within the realm of academic freedom, Philippine law and jurisprudence require fairness and due process. Although HEIs may not be strictly bound by the same procedural due process standards applicable to governmental bodies, they must nonetheless treat their students fairly and not act in bad faith or in an arbitrary manner.

If a student is denied the right to graduate for failing a mock board exam, the student should have:

Prior and reasonable notice of this requirement.
Clear guidelines on the standards to be met.
An opportunity to challenge the examination results, seek clarification, or request a re-examination if warranted.
A means of appeal or review before a proper school committee or authority.

Without these elements of fairness, the school’s action might be subject to legal challenge.

VI. The Distinction Between Actual Licensure Exams and Internal Assessments
It is vital to distinguish between a government-administered licensure examination and an internal mock board exam administered by the school. The actual licensure examination is an external, standardized test conducted by the PRC to determine eligibility for professional practice. Passing this exam is not a prerequisite for graduation but a separate legal requirement for obtaining a professional license.

In contrast, a mock board exam is typically an internal tool used by an HEI to gauge student preparedness. While it can be a helpful indicator of a student’s likelihood of success in the actual licensure examination, it does not have the same legal standing as the PRC’s board exam. Therefore, whether it can be made a requirement for graduation depends on the academic policy of the institution and whether that policy is grounded in the school’s legitimate educational objectives.

VII. Precedents and Jurisprudential Guidance
Philippine case law on this exact scenario may be limited, but analogous cases have considered the power of schools to impose additional requirements. Courts have traditionally upheld the right of educational institutions to set standards so long as these are reasonable, communicated effectively, and do not violate the student’s rights. For instance, in situations where schools have imposed comprehensive examinations, theses, or final projects as graduation requirements, courts have generally recognized such conditions as part of the institution’s academic freedom, provided they were included in the curriculum from the start and were not arbitrary.

If the mock board examination can be shown to be educationally sound, aligned with industry standards, and duly communicated, it may very well be considered legal. The crux of the matter often lies in whether the requirement was properly integrated into the academic program and whether students were given adequate opportunities to prepare and comply.

VIII. Remedies and Avenues for Resolution
For a student or parent questioning the legality of such a requirement, possible avenues for resolution include:

Internal Grievance Procedures:
Students should first attempt to resolve the issue within the university’s established administrative and academic channels. Most HEIs have grievance mechanisms, appeals committees, or academic councils that review such disputes. The parent and the student can request a formal review of the requirement, question its basis, and ask for any waivers or alternative assessments if appropriate.
Negotiation and Dialogue:
If the requirement is not explicitly stated or is newly introduced, a dialogue with the department head, dean, or university administrators may yield a compromise. The university might allow conditional graduation or offer a remedial course or another chance to pass the mock board test.
Seeking CHED Intervention:
Should internal remedies fail, the concerned parties can approach CHED. CHED’s mandate includes ensuring that HEIs comply with educational standards and protect students’ rights. CHED can provide clarification, mediate, or, in rare instances, sanction schools if they impose unreasonable conditions. However, CHED generally respects institutional autonomy unless there is a clear legal or regulatory violation.
Judicial Recourse:
As a last resort, if the student believes that the imposition of the mock board exam requirement is arbitrary, unconstitutional, or contravenes a contractual agreement, legal action may be considered. Filing a petition for injunction or damages in the appropriate trial court could lead to judicial review of the policy. The court would examine whether the requirement was included from the start, whether it was communicated properly, and whether it is reasonable and not in violation of any existing laws or regulations.

IX. Policy Considerations and Balancing Interests
On one hand, universities have a legitimate interest in maintaining high academic standards and ensuring that their graduates are well-prepared for their professional exams. Many institutions believe that requiring students to pass a mock board exam before granting a diploma enhances the reputation of their graduates and ensures that those graduates have a realistic chance of passing the actual licensure exam.

On the other hand, students invest significant financial, emotional, and intellectual resources in their education. To suddenly impose a high-stakes requirement that was not clearly communicated could be unfair and cause undue hardship. Fairness, transparency, and adherence to policies clearly set out from the outset of the student’s academic journey are crucial to upholding the legal and ethical standards expected in Philippine higher education.

X. Assessing the Legality of the Requirement in Practice
To determine whether a particular school’s policy is legal, one must examine the following details:

Was the requirement included in the student handbook or course syllabi from the start of the program?
If yes, the student is deemed to have agreed to this condition upon enrollment.
Were students adequately informed about the mock board exam and its consequences well in advance?
The more notice given, the more likely that the requirement will be upheld as fair and reasonable.
Is the mock board exam relevant to the skills and knowledge required for the field of study?
If it is pedagogically sound and aligned with the program’s learning outcomes, it strengthens the institution’s case.
Are there clear standards for what constitutes a passing mark, and are these standards consistently applied?
Arbitrary or subjective grading criteria may render the requirement vulnerable to legal challenges.
Is there an appeals process or a remedial measure for students who fail the exam?
The presence of a fair and accessible remedy supports the view that the requirement is reasonable rather than punitive.

XI. Conclusion
Under Philippine law, private universities wield considerable academic freedom, allowing them to design and implement various requirements to ensure the quality of their graduates. The legality of making a mock board examination a prerequisite for graduation is not explicitly addressed by CHED regulations but can be inferred from principles of academic freedom, contractual fairness, reasonableness, and due process.

If the mock board examination requirement is clearly stated in the student handbook, communicated well before the final year, aligned with the legitimate educational objectives of the program, and implemented fairly, it is likely to be upheld as legal. If, however, it appears suddenly without adequate notice, does not serve a legitimate academic purpose, or operates in an arbitrary manner, the affected student may have grounds to challenge the requirement.

Ultimately, resolving such a concern involves examining institutional policies, available appeals processes, and, if necessary, seeking external intervention from CHED or the courts. Legal precedents and general principles in Philippine jurisprudence suggest that as long as the requirement is reasonable, related to the program’s objectives, and properly disclosed and implemented, the institution’s policy can stand. However, if these conditions are not met, the student may be able to successfully contest the legality of withholding graduation based solely on failing a mock board exam.