Joke, Something New in PRC & Update on Letter to PRC Chair

The following joke I got from Fr. Munachi’s email for the 29th Sunday Homily.

Back to School

It was the first day of school. As the principal made his rounds, he heard a terrible commotion coming from one of the classrooms. He rushed in and spotted one boy, taller than the others, who seemed to be making the most noise. He seized the lad, dragged him to the hall, and told him to wait there until he was excused.

Returning to the classroom, the principal restored order and lectured the class for half an hour about the importance of good behavior. Now," he said," are there any questions?

"One girl stood up timidly. "Please sir," she asked, "May we have our teacher back?"

"Where exactly is your teacher?"

"He's in the hall, sir."

-----------------

Hahaha. Interesting huh? For all we know, by not knowing who people are, we might be dragging them out of their places and put ourselves into shame.

-----------------

“Where are you going sir?” asked the guard at the second floor of the PRC Building where the Commissioners' Offices are. “To Dr. Rosas’ office sir.” “Please sign here,” as he opened his logbook and gave me the pen. "Ha? Bago 'to a," I said to him as I wrote my name, 2PM was the time, where I was to go, and signed. When IPCAP went there last Oct.8, 2008, none of us was ever asked to sign any logbook whatsoever, as attested by another IPCAP Officer when I told the story. What could be happening here? That happened last Friday, Oct. 17, 2008.

Anyway, I went as I wrote “letter delivery” on the logbook. Dr. Rosas was in a meeting. I gave the letter to his secretary for his signature.

While waiting, I decided to follow up with the PRC Chair’s Office my letter to Hon. Lapeña. The Secretary pored into her logbooks but could not find an entry for my letter which she stamped RECEIVED on Oct. 8, 2008. I told her that I don’t remember having signed anything in her logbook then, and that my big mistake was not having placed the date of my letter, but that I it blogged nonetheless immediately after it was received. She told me that she has things/communications entered the logbook herself. She inquired if I had my letter, perhaps to see the truth of my purpose. I was not carrying the letter where the stamp was made, but I pretty remembered that occasion, being the same time IPCAP went to PRC Commissioner Dr. Rosas; I also told the lady that a few days back I called up to follow up on the letter. The man who replied to me on the phone (next time I should ask for a name, right?) said that it was with the Registration Division (I had this blogged immediately). After about 15 minutes of looking for the letter entry in the logbooks, the lady told me it was not there, and started asking the two males in their tables about the matter. “Would you remember about a letter on Guidance and Counseling?” One seemed to not know anything although he picked up some folders in his drawers (he was seated at the table at back of the secretary); the other (wearing a brown jacket and a little darker in complexion) told me that he had it forwarded to Dr. Rosas for comment. I was advised to ask Dr. Rosas about it. “Okey, I will just have to wait then,” I told them as I left the PRC Chair’s Office.

At Dr. Rosas’ Office, the guy was still busy, so I just decided to have the letter delivered, and stamped RECEIVED. I had carried ten copies for him to sign and distribute; I wanted just one stamped “Received”; instead, the original was taken, stamped by the secretary, who returned to me the rest of the copies, stamping on it RECEIVED. I then hurriedly left the place, and texted fellow IPCAP Officers about the matter.

I drove back to my room here in CTM, and looked for the letter to Hon. Lapeña, and called back the PRC Chair’s Office. I told the lady there that maybe she would need confirmation about the matter, that right now I have the letter in my presence and it is stamped RECEIVED, dated Oct. 8, 2008, and that she might want to record it in her logbook.

---------------

Guess what thought came to me? Actually it's a question: Is there a cover-up taking place? Just a thought, yes, because this is one way to prove if I really went there, and if the letters I delivered were indeed RECEIVED, or else, I could be easily identified as HALLUCINATING. Haha. A hallucinating Guidance Counselor! I could be really doing that, but the evidences won’t lie. Want a picture of the letter placed here huh! But even if I don't, I trust these people simply mean business. What is being "professional" all about then?

-----------

At the GCC Convention, Dr. Rosas mentioned quite a few things: that the PRC is now looking into work plantillas for Guidance Counselors in TESDA; that the PRC is looking for a third member of the Board of Guidance and Counseling, preferably one from the Industry to supplement the present OIC Dr. Lily Rosqueta-Rosales, the “Carl Rogers of the Philippines” and Dr. Luz Guzman, PRBGC Member. What I waited for was spoken: that he hopes that the organizations coming together may be able to find an APO for Guidance and Counseling…” I had wanted to get a clarification on the matter. But I was not a paying participant (I only paid for yesterday’s Convention, P2,000.00) even if I was allowed to listen to his talk, so I just waited until the emcee thanked everyone for coming, or did they still have the raffles?

------------

Anyway, I decided to go home. Dr. Chit Salonga of PGCA came along and rode with me to Tayuman where CTM is. On the car she mentioned her ordeal that day of going to the Heritage Hotel, her taking the orange jeep, thinking it would go to Heritage, only to find herself at the Mall of Asia where she took a taxi to Heritage. I took the chance to inquire about the question “Does PGCA have the Accredited Certificate as APO by the PRC? Nakabayad na ba?” All she could say was that I look into the PGCA website. I told her I saw the PRC Resolution No. 292 Series of 2005 which may have been superseded, amended or repealed by the Rules and Regulations promulgated in 2007. Remember that in the Rules and Regulation of R.A. No. 9258, PGCA is interim APO only, not APO. She couldn’t say anything more on that.

Oh yes, Chit mentioned to me that it was in a forum in FEU (I think I was in the U.S. at that time) when it was announced that the APO is PGCA. The problem I have observed is that in the application form for the Grandfather's Clause, nowhere do I see PGCA mentioned as APO, but only the word APO, in parentheses pa. It should be easy to say "the king is naked" (remember the story?) What has been announced has not been documented. Why omit such a very important declaration if there was no problem being worked on? So in fact this problem has been LINGERING for quite some time now and may not have been really addressed. I really hope I am wrong. You know what I am afraid of? That future PGCA officers may have even more difficulties to encounter as they work on these problems because they simply are very difficult to resolve. I believe there are others who can solve them by simply acknowledging the truth from where the more appropriate approaches can be taken! By the way, what is the term limits for the PGCA Officers? I will work on this information as soon as I get it.

Yes, she asked if I was going to Cagayan de Oro for the Midyear. I asked her "What for?" She couldn't answer. If it were a Membership meeting, I'd be going, but since we all know what it is for, then my active presence and participation at the National Convention last May for the Invocation, participation, and paper presentations moderation works have been enough proof of active participation in the Guidance and Counseling profession.

I pray that we take the road of truth: it will set us free and will only make it easier to resolve certain matters that I have mentioned already in my previous blogs. As long as there are efforts to avoid or mask the truth, the problem will remain haunting our history and even the profession.

So why be afraid to admit and state categorically, not just announce, but write down for all to read and know that PGCA has not been able to pay the APO dues and therefore not yet really APO? State that it is only interim APO. Fact is: yes, it was given the "APO"-hood by virtue of PRC Resolution No. 292 Series of 2005. And in 2007, the Rules and Regulations gave it the status of INTERIM APO-hood. But when Dr. Llanes went to PRC to pay its dues, she was not allowed. What were these all about then? It is from these facts that we can track a better route. Until when is the interim period? I was told that it should be until the 1st Board Exams shall have been done.


Is this matter on the APO really important? One colleague told me it doesn’t seem to be so: that it may not be the concern of many or majority. That maybe it is only a concern of the organizations! How do we know this to be so?

That perception seems hard to prove and may be useless to prove or even cite in the first place. Its importance as agency in the process of professionalization is enshrined in the law and in the rules and regulations for the law's implementation. As I reflect on this agency in relation to us the professionals, the more I realize its importance in terms of modeling for the profession, and of course the legitimacy of the requirements set for all to follow and comply with. I know that there are people who go out of their way to borrow money just to attend seminars at this time while it is not required in the law. It has no APO certification, and that the law does not require what we are paying about: why go into such a nonsense! Require those seminars for renewal of licenses! Require membership ONLY TO THE LEGITIMATE APO!

Another colleague mentioned to me that we cannot simply let this matter go, because if we don’t care, we will be having a collorum that will further pull us down anywhere here or abroad! I agree with you po! There are efforts to simply ignore matters rather than really head-on handle the bull by its horns. There are people who have been empowered and how I pray they really use that power – is it called “political will”? Are we but feigning ignorance? Sorry po! It doesn’t fit PhD’s! My God help us!

Let’s pray that the PRC will not give us an APO that has problems. That the PRC and the Board of Guidance and Counseling really show us one whose heart and being as an organization will address the needs of the profession, unsaddled by a past tainted by officers who are not willing to acknowledge where they failed us, nor willing to do something to correct what must be corrected!

Let me speak as a Catholic priest this time: In confession, the second principle inseparable from contrition so that the absolution becomes effective is called AMENDMENT! Without this, mere contrition wouldn’t be enough since it doesn’t guarantee the person confessing one’s sins a life free from what one is saying sorry about. Yes indeed, it can be self-incriminating, but if one so resolves, and by RETRIBUTION corrects/amends one’s ways, one truly acknowledges the mercy of God. In short, when we say sorry, we vow to do all the best that we can to avoid the same sin; and in the words of Zacchaues in the Gospel of St. Luke, “if I have defrauded anyone, I will give back one half of my property…”

If only we realize the value of retribution! Yes we are human and have made mistakes, even really big mistakes. With contrition and retribution, the Guidance and Counseling profession can be really guaranteed its effects on us as Guidance Counselors and in our clients who so badly need real models for real personal change and that will ultimately positively affect social order and development.

God bless