senseneres: ARE THERE SCHOOLS LIMITING THE RIGHTS OF THEIR GRADUATES TO TAKE PROFESSIONAL BOARD EXAMS?

ARE THERE SCHOOLS LIMITING THE RIGHTS OF THEIR GRADUATES TO TAKE PROFESSIONAL BOARD EXAMS?

A thoughtful reader recently asked me: Does his school have the right to prevent him from taking the Criminologist Licensure Examination (CLE), administered by the PRC, despite finishing his criminology degree? His dream was simple—become a registered criminologist so he could join the PNP, BFP, or BJMP.

He passed his studies but failed the board exam in his first try. When he tried again, his school refused to issue a “Certificate of Good Moral Character,” saying their “candidates” for the next exam were already full.

This is not just a bureaucratic hiccup—it’s a troubling pattern. Some schools appear to be manipulating candidate lists to maintain high passing rates. But what gives them the right to play with their graduates’ futures?

The legal and ethical position

Once a student completes a CHED-recognized program and meets all academic requirements, the school’s role is ministerial—it must issue all required documents so the graduate can apply to the PRC for licensure. Schools have no legal discretion to withhold these papers based on internal quotas or prestige metrics.

In short: if the student has fulfilled all academic requirements, the school cannot lawfully block access to a board exam.

What’s really happening

The “Certificate of Good Moral Character” (CGMC) is commonly required, but it’s not an academic requirement. It can be obtained from a barangay chair, priest, pastor, or imam. So when a school withholds it to control who takes the board exam, it raises serious red flags.

The “quota full” excuse reeks of institutional self-interest—limiting board-takers boosts a school’s passing rate, but delays or derails graduates’ careers. Some schools claim this is “quality control,” but the result is the same: denying a qualified graduate the right to pursue licensure.

The COPC issue

Another layer is CHED’s Certificate of Program Compliance (COPC)—a document proving that a program meets national standards. The PRC now requires COPC for all board-related programs.

According to PRC advisories, graduates from programs without COPC (or exemption) may be barred from board exams. In 2025, thousands of students were stranded when their schools had not yet secured COPC approval. While this policy ensures quality, its uneven enforcement has hurt many students—particularly in smaller institutions.

This is different from the CGMC issue. Denying documents due to lack of COPC may have a regulatory basis, but denying them due to a quota or internal policy has none.

My verdict

In the reader’s case, the school’s action is clearly arbitrary gatekeeping. The graduate did everything required, yet was blocked for non-academic reasons. That’s unacceptable.

This may not top the human rights agenda, but it is a violation of the graduate’s right to professional mobility. Schools exist to educate—not to act as gatekeepers to state licensure.

My questions to CHED and the schools

Why is the CGMC being used as a control mechanism to limit who can take the board exam?
Where is CHED in monitoring this abusive practice?
Shouldn’t there be a national-level grievance system for students whose schools refuse to issue required documents?

What affected students can do

Document everything. Keep copies of grades, communications, and written refusals.
Verify your program’s status. Check if it has CHED’s COPC or exemption.
Formally request your documents. If denied, elevate your complaint to CHED’s regional office or the PRC Legal Division.
Advocate for change. Student groups and civil society should pressure CHED to sanction schools that use “quota” tactics.
Act quickly. Delays mean lost review time, added expenses, and shattered momentum.

Yes—some schools are indeed limiting their graduates’ rights to take professional board exams. Not through lawful regulation, but through self-serving manipulation.

The school’s duty is to educate and issue credentials; the graduate’s right is to take the licensure exam once qualified. Anything else is gatekeeping disguised as policy.

Imagine studying for years, paying tuition, and dreaming of a professional future—only to be told, “Sorry, our candidate slots are full.” That’s not education. That’s injustice.

CHED must act decisively to stop this. No school should hold a graduate’s future hostage just to protect its prestige. A diploma should not be a dead end—it should be the start of opportunity.

RAMON IKE V. SENERES

www.facebook.com/ike.seneres iseneres@yahoo.com senseneres.blogspot.com 09088877292/06-11-2026