Correspondence with PGCA re APO

In fairness to everyone reading this blog, particularly to PGCA of which I am an Affiliate member, let me post the reply this morning of the current PGCA President Dr. Emy Villar to my email last night before I went to bed, portions of which I have integrated in my previous blog asking if PGCA's is indeed APO. I believe that it is best for everyone to be abreast with what's right rather than detour ourselves after finding out that we are not treading the road of integrity and justice.

First, my email, and then the reply, and then my reply and clarification. I hope things will become clear as we go along.

1. My email inquiring:
August 14, 2008
Dr. Villar,
Peace!
I checked the PGCA website as Dr. Salonga referred in relation to a text inquiry I received regarding his membership application. I'd like to congratulate the Membership Committe for posting the roster of PGCA Members.

Then I went into other matters in there. I was surprised that the invitation to the (2008) Midyear Workshop in CDO still bears the title that PGCA is APO. I sent the following message in the Contact Us portion:

May I request for the Certification Number of PGCA which the PRC granted it to be the APO. When was it awarded and for how long is the term? Yes, the Rules and Regulations of RA 9258 Rule I Section 3f specifies the PGCA to be interim APO. However, it still needs the PRC certificate of accreditation to be fully an IAPO as defined. Otherwise, without the PRC accreditation certificate, PGCA should refrain from using the title of APO. It is only a PO without PRC's accreditation certificate. The image of the child who lipsynched the song in the Opening Rites of the Beijing Olympics comes to mind in relation to this matter.

Secondly, one of the requirements for the Grandfather's Clause specifies the APO to provide the certificate of active membership by the President and two other officers. Without the Accreditation certificate, PGCA not being APO should not be obliged to do this. It certainly has done its role of submitting the list of nominees for the PRB being the organization that was responsible for having the law enacted in the first place. But that is never one of the qualifications for APO-hood. In fact, the PRC Resolution No. 178 Series of 2004 Rule 2 on Accreditation of Professional Organization and Issuance of Certificate of Accreditation in the paragraph after the list of requirements to be submitted which starts with "After having satisfactorily met the requirements for accreditation, ..." specifies further "However, if there is a provision in the professional regulatory law requiring accreditation or recognition of the national integrated organization of professionals by the professional regulaory board and the Professional Regulation Commission, the concerned professional regulatory board shall issue a Board Resolution subject to approval by the Commission, approving its petition for accreditation and directing the issuance of a certificate of Accreditation signed by the Chair and Members of the Board and the Chairperson of the Commission, upon payment of the prescribed accreditation fee."

I hope we do things right while we can undo what can still be undone rather than allow something wrong to continue. We're still at the beginning our professionalization. I understand that Dr. Llanes went to the PRC Standards and Inspection Division to process the certification only to find out that PGCA does not have any certificate of accreditation at all. Let us thus avert any untoward incident following this fact. It won't happen if PGCA is the legitimate APO. That I will respect with sincerity.

Thanks and hope the PGCA Board can really look into this matter rather than simply let things move the way they are at this time which is abrewing with questions. Thank you and God bless

I remain sincerely yours in the Guidance and Counseling Spirit


Fr. Bernardo R. Collera, SVD

2. Dr. Villar's reply
August 15, 2008
Dear Fr. Bernie,

I am presenting this e-mail you sent to the PGCA Board for consideration. However, let me explain a few things regarding developments in this area..

Whatever we are doing now with respect to considering the PGCA as the APO has been passed on to us by Dr. Llanes. We are just starting what she continued. Since she was our President who had alerted us all to the RA 9258 and its requirements, and since she was the one who was communicating with the PRC and PRB directly, we assumed that what she said and did were the right things to do. The PRB was also there in some of our meetings and did not protest anything.

In the IPCAP meeting, you questioned the PGCA requirements for active membershoip, especially the participation in at least two updating activities.The PRB is aware of all the PGCA requirements. We have been above board in our activities.

The PGCA Constitution says that active membership requires participation in activities. Considering that some of those who were applying for the Grandfather Clause had not updated themselves for so many years and do not know the currents in the field, we were afraid of malpractices being committed. (Many researches have shown that many Counselors don't know the different approaches in Counseling beyond the Rogerian approach). Although such participation may not always prevent malpractices, this is the best method seen, given the time frame.

Please note that active membership is required only for Grandfather Clause applicants.

The above are my initial thoughts.

The PGCA will attend to your comments further in its meeting on Monday.

Emy

3. My reply and clarification
Ma'am,
Thanks for your quick reply. I am one of the PGCA members, Affiliate nga lang if lang is a word for that haha, but I share this problem, and it hurts for me to realize now that this is where we are and yet allow these things to happen. Yes, things have been above board, but if it is not right, we still have the time to make the necessary changes before things go awry. Let us protect the Guidance and Counseling profession. I understand too that Dr. Llanes has consulted the Guidance and counseling-related organizations' representatives at IPCAP about this matter, and there were no objections because of the righteousness of the act. But the law is the law, and she herself admits that we really need to correct things before a proper Congressional probe were made. Now that IPCAP has been registered, I'd like to believe that everyone must do its part to make things work right this time for the profession, even at the behest of Dr. Rosales who is the prime supporter of PGCA, which is based on the fact that yes, it is the biggest, oldest, though at this time still unaccredited. Yes, it is acknowledged, and maybe that is what should be placed "ACKNOWLEDGED PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATION by the Professional Regulatry Board." APO pa rin, di ba? Atty. Almelor has told me last Friday Aug. 08, 2008 when I went there to inquire about their press releases on those to take the 1st Board Exam, that they have been waiting for PGCA's application for accreditation this long already. He is aware of the fact that he had disagreed with the PRB about annointing or appointing the PGCA to be the APO because of the provisions of RA9258 for an integrated national organization of registered and licensed Guidance Counselor. Dr. Llanes has already done what she should have done: convene the orgs to form the IPCAP. The IPCAP is already registered, and I hope we will do all we can to promote it than become a stumbling block to it. I remember what Dr. Julian Montano commented at our 1st IPCAP meeting last time to retort the fear that the counseling profession be represented by the "not knowns:" "quite an unprofessional comment because the law looks at ourselves as equals."

Let us keep these bad feelings off from our hearts by undoing that we can still undo and work within the boundaries of our legitimate existences. I myself feel bad when someone keeps me on the defensive position. And I will not wait until I shall have been corrected although yes, there may be times when I need that because I can be unconscious as well. But those I am conscious about, and if I am wrong, I have to correct myself first immediately. In this way I can serve my counseling clients without fear or psychological luggage like an Achiles heel hanging over me.

Thanks and God bless. I shall await for the response of PGCA. My best regards to the colleagues I love to be with

Fr. Bernard, SVD

Some clarification:
August 15, 2008
May I clarify this statement in my email immediately before this one now: "I understand too that Dr. Llanes has consulted the Guidance and counseling-related organizations' representatives at IPCAP about this matter, and there were no objections because of the righteousness of the act." These words refer to the same matter: of making applicants for the Grandfather's Clause get a certificate of Active Membership, and GMRC. But PGCA must do so within the bounds of the law. It has no monopoly over the idea of active membership. In fact, I voiced out the idea that other counseling-related organizations and even schools for that matter should be the ones to certify those who are really active, if the said applicant for the Grandfather's Clause is required that certificate. There is no APO yet, therefore that requirement should have been questioned right in the Board of PGCA. I don't mean to defend Rose. She knows very much my position, and would like that things be undone while we can still do it without any commotion whatsoever. Everyone is affected, but we need to stop whatever is negatively affecting us, shouldn't we? And start anew where we can still do so. Thanks again for your consideration. God bless

I may not be the right person to illumine everyone why PGCA has not managed to get the PRC-accreditation despite its being favored by the Board of Guidance and Counseling who are Founding Members of the organization. There seems to be a culture in our midst of entitling ourselves to an "executive privilege" which seems blamed in the current MILF-GRP MOA on AD, and even the Neri case, etc. This is what I have been saying before that an organization will die if there is a gap between Board and membership. There will be a gap when there is an attempt to cover certain things (I really want to be mistaken here!). May the PGCA please inform every paying member why it failed to meet the PRC requirements? What can we do to help? Have there been anomalies committed? What is this I heard about building funds unaccounted that makes the financial reports difficult to reconcile in the auditing process? What's up with the condo issue? Dr. Lucy Bance, in the May 2008 PGCA Annual Convention reported that there was no turnover from the previous Treasurer. Dr. Bance is right now the Vice-President. Has there been a turnover of her position to the new Treasurer? I am afraid for a future withdrawal of accounts by those no longer in the Board simply because they are the authorized signatories of the bank account. Please let it not happen again!

Let it not be said that we are blaming. Atty. Almelor at PRC, upon knowing that in the PRC Indorsement Letter for IPCAP was written not IPCAP but PGCA, felt so embarrassed. In an hour, the correction was made, including the signing of Sec. Rosero. During the process, he felt so profusely apologetic to me, and even wanted to blame someone. I told him, "Sir, blaming is not the name of the game now. Something is wrong, let us correct it!" When I got the corrected Indorsement Letter, the mistake just disappeared into thin air.

We all make mistakes, that is why sometimes we need to see a Counselor to help us undo them with courage and dignity. In the situation that we're all in, before a congressional probe were called, let us correct ourselves. Everyone involved needs to do one's part, with courage, humility and generosity. Only in this way do we keep ourselves afloat, alive, with dignity and full of life-giving energy serving those given to us to Guide and Counsel.

Ok ba? God bless and hope we can heal ourselves by our ways of repentance that amends what needs to be amended while we have the chance.

Faithful to our being psychologists, I wondered aloud why have these things happened? Why I'm doing this? Let me be honest: the IPCAP is registered now, and we all did it in response to the law. RA 9258 Article III Section 21 stipulates an integrated national organization of registered and licensed guidance counselors. The group that came together were representatives of the different counseling-related organizations led by then PGCA-President Dr. Rose Llanes. No one could question what PGCA went and had done because there was yet no registered IPCAP. It was just a discussion group poising itself to be registered. I agonized with the thought of those useless months when we have not managed to register with the SEC. Hence, when the clamor to proceed with the SEC registration jibed with my free time, we managed. In time, God willing and hopefully with everyone's good will, in view of the demands of our professional status, we are currently working for APO-hood, not at the expense of PGCA for she has done what she should, and truly everyone is greatful. Being a PGCA member myself, I will do what I should to help it survive this transition period. I told Dr. Llanes that the PGCA has a model of surviving the transition it had when PGPA had to be PGCA. It can do so at this time with courage and humility.