OPINION: If your family can easily afford millions for college, should you still study for free at UP?

State universities must remain open to every qualified Filipino without judging family income.

Picture two freshmen walking through the iconic halls of the University of the Philippines. One comes from a family struggling to make ends meet, relying on scholarships, baon budgeting, and part-time work just to stay in school. The other arrives in a luxury vehicle, lives in an upscale subdivision, and could comfortably pay the tuition of the country’s most expensive universities.

Under Philippine law, both pay exactly the same tuition at UP: ₱0.

Fair? Or unfair?

It is a question that has quietly divided Filipinos since the passage of the Universal Access to Quality Tertiary Education Act (RA 10931), which grants free tuition to undergraduate students in state universities and colleges regardless of their family’s income.

The policy transformed higher education by removing one of the biggest barriers to earning a college degree. But years later, one uncomfortable question remains: Should taxpayers also subsidize the education of students whose families can easily afford to pay?

Those who answer no argue that every peso spent on wealthy students is a peso that could have gone to poorer Filipinos. Government funds are limited. Instead of covering tuition for millionaires, critics say the money could finance more dormitories, transportation allowances, books, laboratories, or even open more slots for deserving students from disadvantaged communities.

They also point to another reality: admission to elite SUCs like UP is fiercely competitive. Students from affluent families often come from well-funded private schools, receive years of review-center training, and enjoy educational advantages unavailable to many public school students. When they secure a coveted slot—and then study for free—some see it as a system that unintentionally favors those who already have the most opportunities.

Supporters of universal free tuition see the issue differently.

For them, education is a public service, not a poverty program. Just as rich and poor alike use public roads or government hospitals, state universities should remain open to every qualified Filipino without judging family income.

They also note that affluent families contribute significantly through taxes. If everyone helps fund public education, they argue, everyone should be allowed to benefit from it.

There is also the practical question of implementation. Determining who is “rich enough” to lose free tuition is far from simple. Income documents can be incomplete or manipulated, while bureaucratic screening could delay enrollment or wrongly exclude students. A universal policy, supporters argue, is cleaner, simpler, and less vulnerable to abuse.

Some also believe classrooms become stronger when students from different economic backgrounds learn together, exposing future leaders to perspectives beyond their own social circles.

Recognizing the debate, some universities have introduced a middle ground. UP allows students whose families wish to do so to voluntarily opt out of the free tuition subsidy and pay their educational costs instead. Others have proposed requiring graduates of state-funded education to render return service in the Philippines so the public investment benefits the nation regardless of family wealth.

The debate ultimately goes beyond tuition.

It asks what Filipinos believe a state university should be. Is it primarily a ladder for those who cannot otherwise afford higher education? Or is it a national institution that belongs equally to every Filipino who earns admission, regardless of wealth?

There are compelling arguments on both sides, and no easy answer.

But as more affluent students choose state universities over expensive private schools, the question continues to grow louder:

Should free education remain universal—or should it be reserved for those who truly need it most?

READ: