Показать сокращенную информацию

dc.contributor.adviserAlibogha, Salex E.
dc.contributor.authorSarabia, Rex Marcus B.
dc.date.accessioned2021-06-29T07:52:16Z
dc.date.available2021-06-29T07:52:16Z
dc.date.issued2018
dc.identifier.citationSarabia, R. M. B. (2018). A critical analysis of Senate Bill 722 otherwise known as the “Anti-‘No Permit No Exam’ Act of 2016” (Unpublished postgraduate thesis). Central Philippine University, Jaro, Iloilo City.en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12852/1121
dc.descriptionAbstract onlyen_US
dc.description.abstractThis study was a critical analysis of SB 722 otherwise known as the “Anti-No Permit No Exam Act of 2016” it aimed to determine the pros and cons in the passage of the said bill, the merit of the legal and non-legal arguments for and against the passage of the bill. The study aimed to shed light pertaining the legal intricacies surrounding the Bill and hopefully would serve as a reliable resource material for future studies and legislators considering that the “No Permit No Exam Policy” is a perennial source of distress for students and parents alike, in which studies have shown that there is a direct link with the said policy and student drop-outs, decreased school enrolments and even student prostitution. The study included news and magazine articles, published through printed media or through internet media from well-established news agencies, published master’s and doctoral thesis, collegiate text books, official publications by the agencies of the Philippine government, and reports by notable non-government organizations in order to be dear and certain as to the credibility of the reports, news, information being cited. Due to the study being a pure critical analysis of Senate Bill 722, the researcher opted to make use of the qualitative research method to substantiate the legal arguments of the stakeholders for or against the passage of the bill as the scholarly sources of news articles and legal jurisprudence could suffice. The researcher found that among the recovered arguments surrounding the proposed SB 722, there are more tenable legal arguments in favor for the passage of the bill, than there are against it. However, there is only one sore error in the construction of SB 722, is that it penalizes HEIs only and does not include penalizing Primary and Secondary Level Educational Institutions and that if passed, the said bill would certainly violate the equal protection clause as the three Academic Institutions are ail equally situated with HEIs, however, only HEIs are penalized in the said SB 722. In order to remedy this possible constitutional violation, SB 722 must be amended to include penalizing Primary and Secondary Level Educational Institutions in the practice of the “No Permit No Exam Policy”.en_US
dc.format.extentiv, 56 leavesen_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.rightsAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Philippines*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ph/*
dc.subject.ddcLaw Library 340.71 Sa71 2018en_US
dc.subject.lcshTuitionen_US
dc.subject.lcshTuition--Law and legislationen_US
dc.subject.lcshPaymenten_US
dc.subject.lcshPayment--Law and legislationen_US
dc.subject.lcshUniversities and collegesen_US
dc.subject.lcshUniversities and colleges--Law and legislationen_US
dc.titleA critical analysis of Senate Bill 722 otherwise known as the “Anti-‘No Permit No Exam’ Act of 2016”en_US
dc.typeThesisen_US
dc.description.bibliographicalreferencesIncludes bibliographical referencesen_US
dc.contributor.chairBedona, Zacarias D. Jr.
dc.contributor.departmentCollege of Lawen_US
dc.description.degreeJuris Doctoren_US
local.subjectAnti-No Permit, No Exam Act of 2016en_US
local.subjectSB 722en_US


Файлы в этом документе

Thumbnail
Thumbnail

Данный элемент включен в следующие коллекции

Показать сокращенную информацию

Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Philippines
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Philippines