For the Board Examinees

It might be a little late, but for the sake of those who might read this before they take the exams tomorrow, August 21, may I blog this which I wrote yesterday

Aug. 20, 2008

It’s Aug. 20, and it’s the eve of the first Board Exams in Guidance and Counseling in the Philippines. My thoughts and prayers are with the 1st batch of board examinees. I pray that from this batch will come those who will be “known” in the future, known for their counseling services and integrity and not for any corruption connected with their acts. I pray that they may not give up, but rather finish the exams right down to the last item on the last day, so that the chances for God to make miracles will be higher. I told my niece Princess this tip when she was crying on the phone, answering me as she packed her clothes and wanted out after the first day of difficult exams. “Look, you want to pass the test and get your license as a pharmacist?” “Of course, uncle, I labored hard in my studies.” she said. “Well, listen, if I were God, I will need to see your papers. If I don’t get to see your papers of the second day, tomorrow, how can I make a miracle for you? It’s not my cup of tea to bribe people or put the answers for you. The penmanship difference might be too obvious. Mabubuking tayo. Chances will be higher for you to pass if you take tomorrow’s exams; whereas, if you go home in a few moments and not take the exams tomorrow, you will NEVER pass!” This may have made my niece change her mind, she took the courage to take the exams the next day, and when the results were released a few days later, she even called me up to say her name appeared in the list of board passers. “Of course,” I told her. “God’s grace builds on nature. Congratulations!”

This may be a little anti-climactic, and I wouldn’t want to affirm the cramming strategies we did as students. But I got these tips which I shall identify as this blog entry proceeds:

1. Coverage:
In one of the meetings with the PRB, Dr. Luz Guzman (1st appointed to the Board of Guidance and Counseling) [thanks to Cesar Cong who provided this in our last IPCAP meeting Aug. 09, 2008 at RGS, Cubao] have supposedly given the following:
1st Day:
a) Counseling Theory & Techniques: 200 items, 3 hours
b) Group Process: 150 items, 2 hours

2nd day:
a) Career Guidance: 75 items, 1 hour
b) Psychological Testing, 2 hours
c) Administration & Supervision: 75 items, 1 hour

2. Some Words to go by:
a) Do not panic.
b) Sleep well tonight, wake up early tomorrow, have a nice refreshing bath; take a good breakfast, hear Mass if you have time before the exams; if not go and attend Mass in the afternoon after the exams. In short, pray and offer to the Lord all you will do so He will guide you, protect you and keep you from fear. His word for everyone everyday: “Do not be afraid.”
c) Bring no codigos. Cheating will only increase your guilt and anxiety.
d) Go early to the exam site (MLQU in Quiapo). You release a lot of anxiety by being there early and having found your site.
e) Always take a deep breath before every exam.
f) Answer easy items first and go back to difficult ones later. Don’t waste time on any 1 item. For essay items, give a rough outline of your answers which you intend to write on. You can always improve your answers when time is still available. Make sure you have answered most of the items. Remember the Culture Fair Tests of Intelligence Instructions? “You may guess; if you guess rightly, you get a point. If you guess wrongly, you lose no point.” And let me add: don’t just guess. Think and think well and rightly.
g) Always have presence of mind. Remember what we learned in our Counseling practice: every counselee is a new situation. So we always listen well to the client and the matters presented. I bet the same strategy may work for the exam items.
h) So, trust in all that you have done. And leave the rest to the Lord.

3. Do email me if this tip worked, particularly the exams per day. I pray that the exams will be given as tipped, i.e., the subjects to be tested and the items per exam per day. And of course, don’t forget to thank Him for His blessings.

And when you shall have passed, resolve that you will do your job to the best that you can for those He sends you in every field you practice Guidance and Counseling. Resolve to develop yourself too, because every counselor’s best investment is oneself. The more we know ourselves, the better our counseling approach shall be. The more we grow in confidence and competence, the more assured our counseling outcome: the development and empowerment of our counselees, which will definitely mean a more mentally happy person, relationships, family, neighborhood, service, and hopefully the larger society.

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.

IS THE PGCA THE APO?

Last night, I opened the PGCA website. It has improved a lot since the last time I went to the site. Dr. Salonga directed me to go there after I forwarded her a text message from someone inquiring about his long-ago sent application for membership. I found his name in the list and jopyfully texted him about it. I also saw my name there. Thanks indeed.

Opening other portions, I chanced over the invitation to the Midyear in October 2008 at Cagayan de Oro. The stationary now carries the address of PGCA, and also the line which reads: "Accredited Professional Association by the Professional Regulation Commission." I went into their Contact Information and sent an email with this basic message:

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 (professional organization) without PRC's accreditation certificate, and only fulfilling half of its being an IAPO according to the Rules and Regulations. The IAPO is different from the APO which the Rules and Regulations of R.A. 9258 Rule I Section 3g Definition of Terms specifies distinctly as the "Registered and Accredited National Organization of Registered and Licensed Guidance Counselors... known as the ...(APO)."

The image of the child who lipsynched the song in the Opening Rites of the Beijing 2008 Olympics comes to mind in relation to this matter.

One of the requirements for all applicants for licensure under 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 obliging itself 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 to PRC, which starts with "After having satisfactorily met the requirements for accreditation, ..." further specifies "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 regulatory 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. I 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. Or else, no one can have the moral integrity to send someone to the gallows a Guidance Counselor working without a license. There were supposed to be 2 who've been granted the registration via the Grandfather's Clause through anomalous documents(?) Anyone who has this information must inform the PRC about it, complete with documents and evidences lest this newborn babe called Guidance and Counseling be already marred with anomaly this early! Please! Not in the Guidance and Counseling profession!!!

CDAP 31st Annual Convention Invitation

Below is the invitation to the 31st Annual Convention of the Career Development Association of the Philippines (CDAP). The Program follows. They was emailed to me as a document (Microsoft word) but can't be blogged here since only Images are bloggable. It's unfortunate because it's a signed document which I can't upload here. Once the jpeg format is sent (scanned) I shall blog it immediately. One thing I notice though is that there is no physical address in the invitation letter, although there is a telephone number to call and fax back your reply. (Today August 14, 2008 CDAP has emailed a pdf copy of their invite and a document on the program of the convention. They have the following physical addresses which I will be posting above their invite date below.) Happy reading!

Placement Office
2/F Social Sciences Building
Ateneo de Manila University
Loyola Heights, Katipunan, QC
(632)426-6077

Career & Placement Office
St. Scholastica's College Manila
2560 Leon Guinto St., Malate Manila
(632) 524-7686 local 257
Telefax (632) 536-6354

July 25, 2008


Dear Colleague,

Warm greetings from the Career Development Association of the Philippines!

We are inviting you to attend the 31st Annual Convention/Workshop with the theme: “Empowering the Filipino to take Ownership of the Future”. This is scheduled on September 4-5, 2008 at the Traders Hotel, Roxas Boulevard, Manila.

We have prepared activities that we hope will enhance your knowledge, skills and attitude competencies for better delivery of career services to benefit our students/officemates. The topics are of great importance to CEO’s, CD and OD practitioners, DepED, CHED and TESDA Stakeholders, Career Guidance Counselors, teachers and all those who maybe interested in plotting the future of the workplace. Application for your participation on official time is presently being undertaken with DepED, CHED and TESDA and we will be sending said endorsements upon request.

The Convention Fee of Php3,800 covers participation, materials, food and certificate. It does not include live-in hotel accommodation. Other Fees such as Php350.00 for annual dues of old members and Php600.00 membership fee for new members can be paid separately. For your convenience, you may deposit your Convention and other fees to any Security Bank branch for Career Development of the Philippines, Inc., De La Rosa Branch, Current Account No. 601-023740-001 and fax / send processed deposit slip with your registration form to 819-1001.

For inquiries, please call the Secretariat at 524-7686 local 257/258 and look for Ms. France Sumang. We eagerly look forward to being with you on September 4-5. God bless!

Warm regards,



Mrs. Chit J. Concepcion
CDAP President

REPLY SLIP (kindly fax to 426-6077 or 536-6354 or 819-1001)

We are sending participants to the CDAP Annual Convention and Workshop.
Name/s Position





We will fax/email deposit slip with the amount of Php ____________ which we deposited to the CDAP Current Account.

Name of Sender:
School / Organization:
Address:
Contact Number/s:
E-mail Address:

The Program is as follows:
CDAP 31ST ANNUAL CONVENTION / WORKSHOP
Theme: “Empowering the Filipino to Take Ownership of the Future”
Traders Hotel, Roxas Boulevard, Manila
September 4-5, 2008

Day 1 - September 4, 2008 – Thursday

Officer of the Day - AM Session - Ms. Tina Garcia, CDAP Board Member

7:00 – 8:30 Registration/ Snacks

8:30 – 9:20 Invocation/National Anthem – St. Paul University Q.C. Chorale
Welcome address and Presentation of Participants – Dr. Joyce M. Dy,
CDAP Vice President
Presidential Address – Mrs. Chit Concepcion, CDAP President

9:20 – 10:10 Introduction of the Keynote Speaker – Mrs. Chit Concepcion,
CDAP President
Keynote Speech – Mr. Joselito G. Nera
President, Philippine Society for Training and Development

10:10- 10:50 Introduction of the Plenary Speaker – Dr. Elvira Irene Ramos,
CDAP Past President
Plenary Speech – “Revisiting Filipino Values for Career Development”
Fr. Rolando de la Rosa, OP
Rector/President – University of Santo Tomas

10:50 – 11:55 Reactors’ Forum
• Public School Sector – Dr. Nilo Rosas, PRC Commissioner
• Private School Sector
• Industry, HR Sector – Mr. Ric Abadesco, PMAP President

Officer of the Day - PM Session - Ms. Mari Jose, CDAP PR Officer

12:00 – 1:30 Lunch / Fellowship
Brass Band

1:30 – 3:00 CDAP Business Meeting
• President’s Report
• Treasurer’s Report
• Open Forum – facilitated by Ms. Tina Garcia, CDAP Board Member

3:00 – 4:15 Introduction of Paper Presenters – Ms. Mari Jose, CDAP PR Officer
Paper Presentation of Research Studies on Career Guidance &
Career Development
• School Setting – Dr. Carmen Pabiton, DLSU
• Industry Setting – Dr. Ma.Victoria Q. Caparas, UA&P

4 :15 – 5 :00 Open Forum

Day 2 September 5, 2008 – Friday
Officers of the Day:
AM Session: Dr. Elvira Irene G. Ramos, CDAP Past President
PM Session: Ms. Ces Regaya, CDAP Ex-officio President

7:00 – 8:00 am Registration
8:00 – 8:30 am Plenary/Assembly
8:30 - 4:15 PM Concurrent Workshops

Workshop 1 -Customizing Career Intervention Programs in Response to the School’s Objectives by Ms. Chit Concepcion, Director, ATENEO Placement Office

Workshop 2 – Integrating Career Education in the Academic Curriculum by Dr. Joyce M. Dy, Asst. Professor, University of Asia & the Pacific, School of Education & Human Development

Workshop 3 - Enhancing Career Well-being through Innovative Strategies by Ms. Geraldine Baricaua, Vice President, San Beda College, Alabang Hills Campus

4:15- 4:45 pm Closing Ceremonies

The Federation Proposal Document

The following material I received last Feb. 04, 2006 during the first meeting of Guidance Counseling-related organizations which Dr. Rose Llanes (the PGCA President [2005-2008]) convened in the light of RA 9258 (Guidance and Counseling Act of 2004). As promised in my previous blog, here it is, verbatim, as in word for word, which I am typing directly from the copy, thanks to Dr. Ho, and of course Dr. Llanes who shared us this material in Feb. 4, 2006:

PROPOSAL FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FEDERATION OF GUIDANCE ASSOCIATIONS

Rationale

Among the requirements for the professionalization of Guidance is the establishment of a unified body of Guidance Counselors consisting of all the Guidance Associations of the Philippines. While the Philippine Guidance and Counseling Association, Inc. has been appointed by the Professional Regulation Commission to be the Accredited Professional Association (APO) to assist in matters related to the professionalization, there is still need for all Guidance Associations to band together to form this unified body.

The PGPA, Inc. has taken the lead in moving towards (this) direction for several reasons:
- It is currently the APO
- It is the biggest and oldest existing Guidance Association
- It has more chapters all over the Philippines more than any of the other Guidance Associations
- It is the "Mother" of many of the other Guidance Associations whose members are also members of the PGCA, Inc.

Background

In the late 70's, then PGPA took the initiative of trying to put together all existing Guidance Associations. During the incumbency of Dr. Pining Gorospe and through the sponsorship of FAPE, a meeting was held among the representatives of Guidance Associations to brainstorm on the mechanics of getting all the Guidance Associations together. The reason then was to conserve the financial resources in funding many redundant conferences held by the different associations. While the live in conference held out of town was successful, nothing concrete came out of it. Neither was there any effort to take it up.

During the incumbency of Dr. Thelma Abiva, the PGPA hosted a general meeting of the officers of these associations under the chairmanship of Dr. Leticia Penano-Ho, then PGPA Secretary and Chair of the Committee to spearhead the initiative. Again, the effort, while acceptable to those who were present, did not produce concrete results.

Unification of all Guidance Associations is the need of the moment with the requirements of the Professionalization of Guidance.

The same idea is being broached to the other Guidance Associations.

General Mechanics

- Forming a Federation of all Guidance Associations which will eventually be the APO
- Membership in the Federation is a REQUIREMENT for all the Associations to exist and for ALL Guidance Counselors to be listed among the professionally accredited practitioners.
- The Federation will allow for the autonomy of each association who can have their own officers and members. It can also represent a specific area of specialization in Guidance.
- The Federation will automatically have for its executive council ALL the executive officers of the member Guidance Associations (President, Vice-President, Secretary Treasurer)
- The Federation will be chaired by the President of the PGPA being the biggest and oldest association.

Advantages

1. The Federation will address the need to unify all the Guidance Associations
2. It will allow autonomy of the existing Guidance Associations
3. There can be an agreement that each Guidance Association can represent an area in Guidance similar to the organization of the American Association for Counseling and Development (i.e., PACERS for counselor education, CDAP for career guidance, etc)
4. The Guidance Month can be properly celebrated with all the Guidance Associations taking part in it.
5. There will only be one annual conference which can save financial, material and human resources. Simultaneous workshops/meetings, etc can be held within the period of the conference for the specific area of specialization in Guidance.
6. Each area of Guidance Specialization can eventually put up standards for a higher level accreditation similar to the Fellows in Medicine (i.e., Psychiatry, Pediatrics, etc)

Problems Envisioned

- Possible perceived threat to the other Guidance Associations
- Turfing

Plan of Action

- Identification of a committee to continue the spade work which was done by PGCA (Dr. Leticia Penano-Ho wrote the Constitution and By-Laws of the Federation for the meeting in the 80's)
- Meeting of ALL the members of the executive boards of all Guidance Associations to formally approve the proposal
- Plan for the first General Annual Conference in May 2006 (if the idea is acceptable)
- Consultation with a lawyer regarding the technical details in the establishment of a federation

Prepared by DR. LETICIA PENANO-HO

The Integrated of PROFESSIONAL COUNSELORS Association of the Philippines (IPCAP), Inc.: not an elite club

One of the things that came up during the 2nd IPCAP meeting at the RGS Convent was a comment that had two points. I want to reflect here my thoughts about those, particularly so that we can have a common understanding about the organization so we all get guided accordingly.

The comment was made by CDAP President Mrs. Consolacion "Chit" Concepcion (there are three Chits in the group - Chit Umali, Chit Salonga, and Chit Concepcion) and supported by PGCA President Dr. Emy Villar. The comment runs this way: that the IPCAP is an organization composed of Presidents and Vice-Presidents of various counseling-related organizations. If IPCAP becomes the APO, other organizations will die because the law requires membership in the APO.

1. As regards the first point, that the IPCAP is an organization of Presidents and Vice-Presidents of various counseling-related organizations: while it was Presidents and Vice-Presidents or the authorized or sent representatives who came for the meetings since Feb. 4, 2006, those at the meetings of IPCAP always clearly understood that it is a "professional counselors" association (IPCAP's first name was Professional Counselors Association of the Philippines [PCAP]), and not an elite club. We have taken Dr. Letty Ho's document about their efforts to organize a federation of counseling-related organizations. Both efforts she mentioned in there failed even after agreeing. Sayang yun, but a federation is not necessary. Tasks of this kind of organization can be done by an integrated association like IPCAP. Thus, we are in the next level na: bringing in the licensed counselors to the organization so we can apply for APO-hood. (Please see upcoming blog on that federation stuff. I have a copy of it and will print i8t here for everyone to know.)

The IPCAP is not an elite club of "Presidents and officers" of counseling-related organizations. While it is true that those who came for the meetings were such, the present identity of IPCAP is not limited to that. In fact, it would even be proper if all Guidance and Counseling-related organizations really tackle this matter of the IPCAP so we can sail smoothly. We need to go beyond our "parochial minds" thinking only of our organizations and feared demise (God forbid!), and see the future of our beloved profession and fellow practitioners instead.

2. Will other counseling-related organizations die when IPCAP becomes APO? By no means has IPCAP contemplated that! In fact, we always had in mind what the medicine field's PMA and law's IBP have, they have specialty organizations. At the PMA or Philippine Medical Association, we are aware of the group of Diabetes experts, the Surgery group, the Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery group, the Family Physicians group, the Psychiatrists group and various other specialization-based groups who first received their professional permits from the PRC to practice in the medical world because they passed the Board exam in medicine. There may be bands of Human Rights Law specialists, Corporate Law practitioners, etc. at the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP).

In the future, we can also have a group focused and specialized in Counselor Education, Research and Supervision (PACERS), Christian Counseling (PACC), Family and Pastoral Counseling (FPCAP), Career Education and Development (CDAP). Thus, the demise of an organization will not take place except on the following conditions: the continued gap (no mechanism to inform everyone in the group) between the Boards of the organization and their membership, the underhanded practice that may cripple the finances of organizations such as syphoning of organization funds for personal or non-authorized expenditures (which we all know to be the tentacles of corruption in the Philippines - has it entered the Guidance and Counseling field?), plus other acts and ways of being that keep the groups from getting a clear direction in their association, sapping the morale of the organization. When we submitted the IPCAP papers for SEC registration, we kept in mind that we had to live by the vision of the group, identified as objectives in the papers. Only by pursuing the vision are we, individuals and groups for that matter, assured of continued life and meaning. The IPCAP hopes to work on an accreditation process particularly on Continuing Professional Education (CPE) matters which is legally mandated by the way. The promulgation of the law is not to kill but to assure an orderly and meaningful life. If something must die, it should be evil ways that only lead us to death (nag sermon ang pari! haha). I believe that we Guidance Counselors are caring and nurturing people, listening carefully and respectfully to each other just as we listen to others who need us. Yes, that might be the point: we need each other! Therefore, counseling-related organizations, please don't die! If IPCAP manages to become the APO, the PGCA which is currently the interim APO sans the PRC Certification as professional organization will not be led to the silence of history. I for one will do my part so that this historic part of our lives will always be given its due value and position in our profession.

These thoughts about the profession have lately been ruminating in my mind, and how I hope and pray that we can really sail smoothly because any impediment can keep us tired and lose energy. I hope the PGCA manages to get out of all its problems in time to submit the papers and get the accreditation which will legitimize its claim of being the Guidance & Counseling's APO. In fact, if my analysis in the previous blog is correct, we can't be speaking of a 3-year term as APO because only the PRC accreditation certificate shall set that (or unless there is a PRB Resolution to that effect!). And if it really can't pass the requirements set by the PRC, please let us all know so the profession won't be left with an empty bag, so to say. Let's help our profession gain its dignity and respect we accord it ourselves. (I shall write more about it in my next blog as a way of acknowledging what the PGCA has been doing for the profession.)

IPCAP Letter to PRB re College Grads for Board Exam

This afternoon, I went to the PRC to submit the IPCAP Letter to the Professional Regulatory Board of Guidance & Counseling in relation to the observations gathered regarding allowing to take the 1st Board Exam in Guidance and Counseling only college graduates in Guidance & Counseling & allied courses with the 18 units for the exam, while not specifying what the law (RA 9258) and its RR may have been always been emphasized to us: that one must have an MA in GC. I was able to talk with Atty. Almelor at PRC by phone yesterday morning to inform him about our forthcoming letter. He said that NO COLLEGE GRADUATE IN GUIDANCE & COUNSELING and ALLIED DISCIPLINE WITH THE 18 UNITS WAS ALLOWED TO TAKE THE BOARD. That's rather consoling, but what if there were? That's for the PRB and PRC to face. We have done our part. Here thus is the letter:

Integrated Professional Counselors
Association of the Philippines (IPCAP), Inc.
Christ the King Seminary
# 1101 E. Rodriguez Sr. Blvd.,
1112 Quezon City


August 12, 2008

Dr. Lily Rosqueta-Rosales
Professional Regulatory Board
Of Guidance & Counseling
Professional Regulation Commission
P. Paredes St., Manila

Dear Dr. Rosales,

Greetings!

The undersigned Guidance Counselors during our 2nd Integrated Professional Counselors Association of the Philippines (IPCAP), Inc. meeting last Aug. 09, 2008 have deliberated on the recent developments in the Guidance Counseling Profession in the Philippines. We would thus want to register our observations and thereby request clarification on the matter, particularly as regards the upcoming 1st Licensure Examinations in Guidance and Counseling.

As early as June 22, 2008, the Manila Bulletin has published on page 3(?; please see Attachment B) the 1st licensure examinations in Guidance and Counseling. On July 25, 2008, the Professional Regulation Commission has uploaded on its News area the same news material (please see Attachment A). The Application Division of the PRC has likewise sent to all its regional offices and everyone inquiring about the requirements for the said examinations (please see Attachment C). A look at these materials indicates a disparity in the requirements to take the Board Exams in Guidance and Counseling vis-à-vis the stipulations of the law (Republic Act No. 9258) and its implementing Rules and Regulations. The PRC materials (Attachments) show that college graduates in Guidance and Counseling and allied disciplines who have taken the subjects specified in the law (R.A. 9258) and in its Rules and Regulations are allowed to take the Examinations. In many a forum on the profession, we have always been told that a masters degree is basic a requirement to take the licensure exams. The law and the implementing Rules and Regulations are quite clear about it, and allow us to quote them here:

R.A. No. 9258 Article III Section 13 Qualifications for Examination. – In order to qualify for the examination, an applicant must, at the time of filing the application be:
(a) a citizen of the Republic…
(b) has not been convicted…
(c) holder of a Bachelor’s Degree in Guidance and Counseling or in other allied disciplines and a master’s degree in Guidance and Counseling from an institution in the Philippines or abroad recognized and accredited by the CHED.

R.R. of R.A. No 9258 Rule III Section 13 Qualifications of Applicants. – To qualify for the examination, an applicant at the time of the filing of the application must:
a. Be a citizen of the Philippines…
b. Not have been convicted…
c. Be a graduate of a baccalaureate in guidance and counseling or in other allied discipline/degree from an accredited college or university with subject units covering those in Sec. 15 Rule III of this RR and a holder of an MA, MAEd, MAT, or MS in guidance and counseling the curriculum of which covers the core subjects in guidance and counseling on the masteral level, or those in Sec. 15, Rule III of this RR; or a holder of the PhD or Ed.D in guidance and counseling, the curriculum of which covers the core subjects in guidance and counseling on the doctoral level, or those in Sec 15, Rule III of this RR.

Please note that the above portion of the RR of R.A. No. 9258 even specifies, through an italicized and bold word “and” to specify the masters level as basic to the qualification requirements to take the licensure exams. We have yet to see the congressional proceedings of R.A. No. 9258, but practicing guidance counselors have remembered that the masters level is a sine qua non that distinguishes the Guidance and Counseling profession from the many professions in the Philippines.

We likewise have received similar observations from fellow Counselors in the field who would also like to register their inquiry. The fact that the announcements came only in June 2008 surprised many about the “lowered” requirement, i.e., a baccalaureate in Guidance and Counseling or in allied disciplines (e.g., Psychology) with 18 units specified in the R.R. sufficing to take the licensure exams. Have the R.R. of R.A. No. 9258 and the R.A. No. 9258 been thus amended by the Board and the PRC? We know that the amendment of R.A. No. 9258 properly belongs to those we have elected to Congress.

We hope that this letter is given due consideration. We are aware of the fact that the members of the Professional Regulatory Board of Guidance and Counseling are busy for the upcoming exams. We therefore strongly urge you to follow the original intent of the law and not whittle down the qualifications. Otherwise, it could clearly be a violation of the law? We would be grateful to hear from you soonest.

Thank you for your kind consideration and we remain sincerely yours collegially


Cc: Professional Regulatory Board of Guidance Counseling
Professional Regulation Commission (Atty. Almelor)
IPCAP/PGCA/PACERS/PACC/GCP/PAPSHP-PNU/CDAP/FPCAP/RGS Community

Dr. Rosa Ma. Llanes, RGC
IPCAP President

Fr. Bernardo R. Collera, SVD
IPCAP Secretary/PACERS Life Member

Mr. Cesar S. Cong, MA, RGC
IPCAP Treasurer/PACC President

Dr. Alda Perlita S. Polestico
IPCAP Auditor/PGCA Board

Mr. James Tan, MA
FPCAP President

Dr. Imelda Virginia G. Villar
PGCA President

Mrs. Consolacion J. Concepcion, MA RGC
CDAP President

Dr. Elvira Irene G. Ramos, RGC
CDAP

Dr. Conchita Salonga
PGCA Board Member

Dr. Carmelina S. Barrerra, RGC
PAPSHP-PNU

Jocelyn N. Laverinto, MA RGC
PACC

Letty D. Dela Paz, RGC
CDAP

Sr. Florence Bautista, RGS


Those who signed included Mr. Cong (PACC President), Mr. James Tan (FPCAP President), Mrs. Chit Concepcion (CDAP President), myself, and for Dr. Llanes (IPCAP President) who called to let me sign in her behalf. Those who couldn't affix their signature nevertheless agreed that we forward a letter to the PRB with their names in there. There were 13 GC's who were present at the meeting. It's a lesson learned nevertheless.

Thus far the letter. The aforesaid attachments included in our letter were the two internet materials (my news blog last June 22, and the PRC website News dated July 25) and the list of qualification requirement every PRC Regional Office was furnished a copy through its Application Division.

The law (RA 9258 Article V) and its RR (Rule V) have in theirPenalty Clause (Section 33)the following:

"Any person who violates any provision of this Act and the rules and regulations issued by the Board and the Commission or commits fraud in the acquisition of Certificate of Registration or special permit, shall be punished with imprisonment of not less than six (6) months but not more than eight (8) years, or a fine of not less than Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) but not more than One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) or both in the discretion of the court."

In Search of an Accredited Professional Organization (A.P.O) for the Guidance & Counseling Profession In the Philippines

The Integrated Professional Counselors Association of the Philippines (IPCAP), Inc. has been organized in response to the professionalization of the Guidance and Counseling in the Philippines as mandated in the Republic Act 9258 or the “Guidance and Counseling Act of 2004.” I was one of those who responded to the call of then PGCA President Dr. Rosa Ma. Llanes in her letter addressed to all Guidance and Counseling-related organizations. Six such organizations responded, namely the PGCA, PACERS, PACC, GCP, CDAP, and PAPSHP-PNU. A new organization was born this year 2008 from this development, the Family and Pastoral Counseling Association of the Philippines (FPCAP). The RGS COmmunity (Religious of the Good Shepherd congregation of nuns) has always participated in our meetings as well. We first looked into the previous and failed attempts at organizing into a federation of these organizations. As it has been observed that RA 9258 requires no federation, but in Article III Section 21 “a one (1) and only registered and accredited national organization of registered licensed guidance counselors,” the group came together with zeal, always having mind the development of the Guidance and Counseling profession and its practitioners. I have presented this matter at the 2007 PGCA Annual Convention at the Great Eastern Hotel in Quezon Ave., Quezon City.

After having been duly indorsed by the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC) on July 11, 2008, the IPCAP was registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) last July 18, 2008 and bears the Certificate of Incorporation No. CN200811283. It was also granted a Certificate of Registration No. OCN3RC0000407916 issued exactly five days after, on July 23, 2008 its SEC Certification. With its Official Receipts printed and the corresponding journal of accounts ready, the IPCAP is right on its toes to serve the profession and its licensed and registered practitioners. It hopes to be granted a Certificate of Accreditation as APO by the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC) at the right time.

It is thus in view of this process that this article is written so that whatever steps the APO takes is legitimate, documented, and not merely a tacit reality which may be open to steps beyond its boundaries. In order to understand what it is, I would like to address in a two-part series the following questions: where is the term APO mentioned in the law (RA 9258) and its implementing Rules and Regulations (R.R. of RA 9258) promulgated by the Professional Regulatory Board of Guidance and Counseling? What can it do for the profession and its practitioners?

I. The APO as specifically mentioned in the law (RA9258)


The “accredited professional organization” or APO is mentioned eight (8) times in RA 9258. It first gets mentioned as such or verbatim in Article II Section 5d (Please read its context below). However, in an earlier provision, namely Article II Section 4, an “accredited and integrated organization of guidance counselors” is mentioned. These terms basically refer to the same entity which is mandated to exist in the law on Guidance Counseling. Article II Section 4 describes the APO as supposedly required to submit to the PRC a list of five (5) nominees for each position of the Professional Regulatory Board of Guidance Counseling (PRBGC). From this list of five (5) nominees, the PRC submits to the President of the Philippines three (3) recommendees for appointment as Chair, and 2 members of the PRBGC. [The first appointee was Dr. Luz Guzman in 2007. The next two came a few months later, from which one was appointed to be the Chair, the late Dr. Rhodelia Gabriel. The other one is currently the Officer in Charge (OIC), Dr. Lily Rosqueta-Rosales.]

Article II, Section 5d of RA 9258 next mentions the APO in relation to the preparation, adoption, issuance or amendment of the syllabi for the subjects in the licensure examination, acts which are identified In Section 5 as “Powers, Functions, Duties and Responsibilities of the Board ” [referring to the PRBGC]. The APO, together with the Commission on Higher Education (CHED), and the academe are to be thus consulted by the Board for these said ends.

The APO is mentioned for the third time in Article II Section 6(h), in relation to the “Qualifications of the PRBGC members.” Letter (h) of this portion specifies that no member of the PRBGC shall be an official of the “integrated and accredited national professional organization.” It is known however that one of the PRB Members has been a Founding Member of the PGCA.

Article III Section 20 mentions for the fourth time an “accredited professional organization” which the PRBGC coordinates with in relation to keeping “a roster of names, residence and office addresses of all registered and licensed guidance counselors.”

Article III Section 21 mentions the APO for the 5th 6th and 7th times (thus 3x), namely as “a one (1) and only registered and accredited national organization of registered/licensed guidance counselors,” as well as “the said integrated and accredited national organization,” and “integrated organization.”

(a) First, the “one (1) and only registered and accredited national organization of registered/licensed guidance counselors” is supposed to be where “all registered/licensed guidance counselors whose names appear in the roster of guidance counselors” are to be united and integrated through their automatic membership. Further, such “one (1) and only registered and accredited national organization of registered/licensed guidance counselors” is supposed to be recognized and accredited by the PRBGC, subject to approval by the PRC, and “after consultation with all existing organizations of registered and licensed guidance counselors, and, if possible, with all those who are not members of any of the said organizations.”
(b) Second, the “integrated and accredited national organization,” refers to its members who “shall receive benefits and privileges appurtenant thereto upon payment of required fees and dues.”
(c) Third, the “integrated organization” is mentioned in relation to a membership which does not “bar to membership in any other association of guidance counselors.”

The eight and last time that the RA 9258 mentions the APO is in Article V Section 32. The “integrated and accredited professional organization” is that which the PRBGC coordinates with in promulgating “the necessary rules and regulations…to implement the provisions of this Act…”

Note that in all 8 times that the APO is mentioned in the law, it is described and uses the following names:

1. “accredited professional organization” (twice, in Article II Section 5d; Article III Section 20)
2. “accredited and integrated organization of guidance counselors” (Article II Section 4)
3. “integrated and accredited national professional organization” (Article II Section 6[h])
4. “a one (1) and only registered and accredited national organization of registered/licensed guidance counselors,” (Article III Section 21 line 5)
5. “integrated and accredited national organization” (Article III Section 21 line 11)
6. “integrated organization” (Article III Section 21 lines 13 & 14)
7. “integrated and accredited professional organization” (Article V Section 32)

From these aforementioned occasions in the law (RA 9258) may we best understand the roles and functions of the APO. But that is something we can write more about later on.


II. The APO as specifically mentioned in the Rules and Regulations of the law (RA9258) (R.R. of RA 9258)

After the appointment of the members of the PRGBC, the Rules and Regulations of RA 9258 was promulgated and published in the Manila Standard Today dated Sept. 4 & 6, 2007. I remember having alerted via text message on Sept 4, 2007 PGCA President Dr. Llanes and Guidance Circle of the Philippines (GCP) representative at the IPCAP Ms. Avelina Mandin about the said publication’s lacking portion (Section 14c, which were thus corrected on Sept. 6, 2007, hence the two dates when the R.R. was published. I’d like to cite in this portion the occasions when the APO was specified and described in it.

It is important at the outset to mention that the APO is a separate entity clearly distinguished from the interim accredited professional organization or IAPO, which the R.R. of RA 9258 specifies and identifies to be the Philippine Guidance and Counseling Association, Inc (PGCA).

a. The interim accredited professional organization or IAPO is first distinguished specifically in Rule I Section 3f. It is the PGCA, “an organization of guidance counselors.” Furthermore, it is to be “granted by the Commission with a Certificate of Accreditation.” As of this writing on August 11, 2008, the PGCA does not have however this Certificate of Accreditation. Hence, even if it is identified in the R.R. as such, the PGCA lacks this particular distinctive document to legitimately claim itself as the interim accredited professional organization or IAPO.

The second time the interim accredited professional organization or IAPO is mentioned is in Rule II Section 4. It is supposed to provide the PRC a list of five (5) nominees from which the PRC shall submit a list of three (3) recommendees for each position which the President of the Philippines shall appoint.

The third time the interim accredited professional organization or IAPO is mentioned is in Rule II Section 5d. The PRBGC, among its “powers, functions, duties and responsibilities” stipulated in Section 5, is supposed to “prepare, adopt, issue, or amend the syllabi for the subjects in the licensure examination in consultation with the CHED, the Academe, and the IAPO…”

The 4th and last time the interim accredited professional organization or IAPO is mentioned is in Rule V Section 32 line 4. It reads: “Upon the Creation thereof in January 26, 2007, the Board shall, subject to the approval by the Commission, promulgate the necessary rules and regulations in coordination with the Accredited Professional Organization (APO), either the Interim APO…, in implementing the provisions of R.A. No. 9258.”

b. As regards the APO, the R.R. of R.A. 9258 describes it eleven (11) times.

First, in Rule I Section 3g, Definition of Terms, the “Registered and Accredited Integrated National Organization of Registered and Licensed Guidance Counselors,” is specified distinctively as “the one and only integrated national organization of registered and licensed guidance counselors.” These words look so similar to what R.A. 9258 specified in Article III Section 21. It is to be “accredited by the Board subject to the approval by the Commission, issued thereby with a Certificate of Accreditation as professional organization, and known as the Accredited Professional Organization (APO).” As of this writing, there is no specific organization which has received from the PRC a “Certificate of Accreditation as professional organization.” It is however important to cite that the IPCAP has been granted by the PRC an indorsement letter, a “certification of non-objection” for IPCAP to be duly registered and incorporated with the SEC as a professional organization. However, it is not yet the coveted Certificate of Accreditation, as there are provisions which IPCAP must fulfill as specified in PRC Resolution No. 178 Series of 2004.

The second time the R.R. of R.A. 9258 mentions the APO is in Rule II Section 4. Here, the task of submitting to the PRC a list of five (5) nominees from which the PRC recommends three (3) for Presidential appointment to the PRB. Here, “the registered and accredited integrated national organization of registered and licensed guidance counselors,” is used as in the Definition of Terms.

The third time the APO is mentioned is in Rule II Section 5d, and the acronym “APO” is used such that the Board, among its “powers, functions, duties and responsibilities” as specified in this portion, is supposed to “prepare, adopt, issue or amend the syllabi for the subjects in the licensure examination in consultation with the CHED, the Academe, and the IAPO or APO;” Since the two are distinct from each other as set in the Definition of Terms, the APO cannot and should not be confused with the IAPO as seemingly suggested by the “or” in between the two, IAPO and APO.

Rule II Section 6h, the APO is again mentioned for the fourth time and is identified as “the integrated and accredited national organization of guidance counselors” of which any member of the PRBGC should not be its official or Board of Trustees.

In Rule III Section 14c3, the APO is mentioned (for the fifth time) whose “President and two (2) other officers thereof” issue a Certificate of Active membership and Good Moral Character to those who are applying for licensure or “registration without examination” otherwise known as the Grandfather’s Clause. While the PGCA lacks a Certification of Accreditation from the PRC thereby not becoming fully an interim accredited professional organization or IAPO as defined in Rule I Section 3f, it has since the first batch of oath takers been requiring (some say “obliging”) membership in PGCA even as this task is only reserved to the “real” APO, which as of now has not been documentarily supported through a PRC-issued Accreditation Certificate.

Rule III Section 20 mentions the APO (for the 6th time) and spells it out (Accredited Professional Organization) as that which the PRBGC coordinates in keeping “the roster of the names, residences and office addresses of all registered and licensed Guidance Counselors…”

Rule III Section 21, mentions the APO (for the 7th time) as “the one (1) and only registered and accredited national organization” where all registered and licensed Guidance Counselors listed in the roster of Guidance Counselors are to be automatically members of. The APO shall be recognized and accredited by the PRBGC “after consultation with all existing organizations of registered and licensed Guidance Counselors and, if possible with all those who are not members of any of the said organization” subject to approval by the Commission. For the 8th time, the APO is identified as “the said integrated and accredited national organization” whose members are to “receive benefits and privileges appurtenant thereto upon payment of prescribed fees and dues. It is important to again remember that the R.R. of R.A. 9258 reiterates what R.A. 9258 stipulated: “Membership in the accredited integrated national organization (the 9th time the R.R. of R.A. 9258 mentions the APO) shall not be a bar to membership in any other professional guidance association.”

In Rule V Section 32 lines 4-6, the APO or the “Registered and Accredited Integrated National Organization of the Registered and Licensed Guidance Counselors” is specified (for the 10th time) the organization which the PRBGC coordinates with in promulgating the necessary rules and regulations in implementing the provisions of R.A. 9258. It is interesting to note that here in this provision, there is mention of “the Accredited Professional Organizations (APO, 11th and last time), either the Interim APO or the Registered and Accredited Integrated National organization of Registered and Licensed Guidance Counselors.” Either this is a typographical error in itself (the s in the word “Organization”) or there is confusion between the Interim and the “real” APO. The PGCA, as has been noted earlier, “limps” so to say in its being the “interim APO” while it usurps to itself the tasks the “real” APO should be doing.

The APO is described eleven (11) times in the R.R. of R.A. 9258 and uses the following terms:
1. “Registered and Accredited Integrated National Organization of Registered and Licensed Guidance Counselors” (thrice, in Rule I Section 3g; Rule II Section 4 lines 10-11; & Rule III Section 32 lines 4-6)
2. the acronym APO itself (Rule II Section 5d) or spelled out “the Accredited Professional Organization” (twice, in Rule III Section 14c3, and Section 20)
3. “the integrated and accredited national organization of guidance counselors” (Rule II Section 6h)
4. “the one (1) and only registered and accredited national organization” (Rule III Section 21 lines 3-4)
5. “the said integrated and accredited national organization” (Rule III Section 21 lines 8-9)
6. “accredited integrated national organization” (Rule III Section 21 line 11)
7. “the Accredited Professional Organizations” (Rule III Section 32 lines 3-4).

Thus far the actual citations of the APO in the law (RA 9258)and in its Rules and Regulations or R.R. formulated and promulgated by the PRBGC in implementing RA 9258.

My advocacy in this simple study includes the following:
1. That we follow what has been written, comply with every required documentation and act only within the specific documented tasks of our organizations. The law only obliges membership in the duly accredited professional organization. Without a certificate of accreditation issued by the PRC, no organization should aggrandize this role unto itself, no matter how old or numerous it is. The PGCA needs however to be commended in all its efforts to facilitate the integration of all guidance and counseling related organizations that has led to the formation of the IPCAP. The law (RA 9258) and its implementing Rules and Regulations (R.R.) promulgated by the PRBGC are now the norms everyone is to follow, from the Board to PGCA and to all practicing registered and licensed Guidance Counselors. Difficulties and tensions may be met along the way, but while the truth sets us free, we keep in mind that dura lex sed lex. The law sets for us an orderly manner of conducting our services as Guidance Counselors.

2. It should be paramount for us Guidance Counselors to serve with integrity in the profession. I have realized that the Guidance and Counseling profession is one that affords everyone, Counselor and Client alike to be true persons, free and responsible, respectful and empowered, creative models and selfless advocates of justice and equality for all. As Guidance Counselors, we advocate that our clients discover or recover their true self, real and free, in order that one’s being does not have to live in constant need of defense.

The Road to the IPCAP SEC Registration

I am blogging here my experience in getting the IPCAP Registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). It really took a long time, and I even suspected that there were efforts to keep it from being legitimized as an organization for the Guidance and Counseling profession. Just imagine, we had gone through almost everything: constant meetings and discussions, elections of the interim Board or Officers last June 28, 2007, construction of the IPCAP Constitution, writing the PRBGC regarding certain problems with the interpretation of the Republic Act 9258. Nakaalis na lang ako papuntang America, na-hack ang aking gmail account at naibalik din ito noong Dec. 24, midnight in 2007 doon (remember my email carrying the news that I was in Nigeria?), nakabalik na lang ako, natapos ang school year 2007-2008, nakalipat sa kasalukuyan kong tinitirhan and yet the promised SEC Registration had not materialized yet. Hence, in my conversation with Dr. Llanes, I admitted that if PGCA can make it as APO, not just as current interim APO, so be it. But if it can't, let it please not block IPCAP from doing that it was intended to be: an APO for the Guidance and Counseling Profession in the Philippines. Yes, I have great respect for such an old organization that has done all it could for the professionalization of Guidance and Counseling, but with its current moral, ethical and even criminal problems hounding them, let it thus focus all its energy to first resolve its concerns while leaving the profession to move ahead. And to think that most of those who started other counseling-related organizations as well as even Guidance centers in schools and private practice came from the womb of PGCA, all the more my filial nature wanted to let go of IPCAP. But again, the profession is much wider than an organization, its Board and membership. Hence, when Dr. Villar, current PGCA President called for an IPCAP meeting last June (she wanted a June 18 or 19, 2008 meeting at a place I can canvass), those who responded to my text message raised the question: What about the Vice-President Dr. Julian Montano, where is he? To cut the story short, no meeting took place, and we managed to send the IPCAP Papers to the SEC who sent an indorsement letter to the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC).

The following is an account I reported during our July 16, 2008 IPCAP meeting at the RGS:

- “IPCAP Articles of Incorporation and By-Laws are now with the SEC and is for release next week hopefully by July 22, 2008; I paid P1,020.00 yesterday July 15, 2008. Only the person who has the actual Official Receipt is authorized to claim the certificate of registration. SEC Contact Numbers were given to me to follow up before claiming the papers.

- “Two matters stalled registration last July 14: (a) a letter by Sr. Leticia Allado, RGS about her name being erased and replaced by Dr. Lucy Bance (she signed it months earlier before I filed the papers with SEC); (b) a definite date in March was required. Since this is a matter for registration purposes, after consulting with some IPCAP Officers, I wrote March 15 and countersigned in the papers. Satisfaction of these two matters led to the application’s acceptance yesterday July 15, 2008 before lunch.

- “Here’s the road we took for the SEC Application for Registration:
(a) “June 13, 2008, a Friday – IPCAP Secretary Fr. Bernardo R. Collera, SVD, and Treasurer Cesar Cong went to the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC) for the latter’s endorsement. At the Window, a certain Ms. Ofelia of Atty. Almelor’s office identified us as coming from PGCA for the accreditation. I clarified it immediately that we are coming for IPCAP. Michelle de Jesus of the PRC Records Section accepted our papers and affixed her signature in the second copy of Dr. Llanes’ letter and SEC Endorsement Letter. We were instructed to follow up the following week.

(b) “June 19, 2008, a Thursday – I called to follow up with PRC, and was told it was PRC week since 6/16.

(c) “Week of June 23, 2008, Monday to Friday – daily calls to PRC for follow up. I constantly informed Atty. Almelor about the status, and he graciously guaranteed to personally follow up the matter. Managed to talk with Ms. Jona of the PRC Secretary’s office who guaranteed to help follow up the papers. She told me on June 27, Friday afternoon before 5PM that the papers have been signed and forwarded to the Records Section. I felt secure.

(d) “June 30, 2008, a Monday – in my phone call to PRC, I was able to talk with a certain Ms. Shirley whom Atty. Almelor tasked to formulate the Endorsement letter to be signed by the PRC Secretary. She told me that a certain Ms. Jane did the task, but Ms. Jane had flown to Japan, and Ms. Shirly didn’t know where the papers were. I volunteered if allowed to help speed up the task. Atty. Almelor did the follow up, and I was made to call the Records Section. I started to inquire with the SEC, and Post Offices including the Mandaluyong branch that brings PRC papers to SEC. I gave them my contact numbers for immediate information if papers were received. Nothing clear by week’s end Friday July 4, 2008.

(e) “July 7, 2008, a Monday – in my follow up call with PRC, I was told that papers were mailed July 1. I daily checked with the Post Offices and SEC, and was told that PRC papers usually take 5 working days to reach SEC. I was required a Registered Mail Number. In my commutext (communication by text) with Ms. Michelle de Jesus last July 10, 2008 she said: “Gdam father,July 1 pho eh naimail n namin. Dpho cya regstrd.priorty pho cya.” I asked for the priority number, and she replied: “Father wla pho.Pero priority pho un.Dnla nung July 3.” Sensing inconsistency, I called up Michelle on July 11, 2008 a Friday. (I told her that I am starting to doubt but since we were on talking terms, I'd still believe her.) After calling the Mandaluyong Post Office and had determined that our papers were not in yet, I called up Atty. Almelor and asked for the PRC Secretary Rosero’s phone number, then informing him of my intention to let Sec. Rosero know about our situation. Atty. Almelor told me to stop my impulsivity, to which I retorted, saying that had I been impulsive, I should have heeded Dr. Llanes’ recommendation two weeks ago then to seek Dr. Nilo Rosas’ intervention. Atty. Almelor apologized, and I gave a deadline – July 15 is the latest date for us to submit the IPCAP papers for SEC registration. Before lunch, I managed to call the SEC and inquired about the chances for SEC to lose or misplace PRC papers. Lei of the SEC Central Receiving Station told me that the chances were nil since PRC papers were not that many, and she suggested two things which I immediately communicated with Atty. Almelor and the Records Section. After lunch, after ensuring that PRC was willing to fax the endorsement letter to SEC as well as furnishing me a xerox copy, I rushed by 2pm to PRC, only to find out that the endorsement letter of June 20, 2005 contained the name PGCA. Upon reading it, I went to the office of Atty. Almelor, who upon knowing this blew his top and had it immediately repaired. Shirly came into the picture, managed to have Secretary Rosero sign the new endorsement letter dated July 11, 2008. By 3:50PM, I called up SEC to inform them about the matter and my inability to come by 4PM, their cut off time in receiving applications. I was told that our papers had just arrived from the Post Office (strange!), and when I asked Lea, the Corporate and Partnership Registration Division (CPRD) Secretary to look into the endorsement letter, she too realized it was PGCA named in there while the papers inside were IPCAP’s. Atty. Almelor apologized with the SEC on this blunder and told Lea that I will hand carry the documents by Monday, July 14, 2008.

“Atty. Almelor was profusely apologetic to me about the discovered mistake. I felt vindicated for my persistence. He even talked with PRBGC Dr. Luz Guzman about the matter, hinting that someone was behind the name change in the June 20, 2008-dated endorsement letter.”

Whoever did try put his/her hand in the process, it was good try. I strongly believe that God's ways are simply marvelous. I still have the June 20, 2008 Indorsement Letter signed by Sec. Rosero, and shall be keeping it as a memento of the perils we faced. Thank God.

RA 9258 Final Copy In Congress

If anyone wants to get the official copy of the RA 9258 or the Guidance and Counseling Act of 2004, I found it in the Congress of the Philippines' website, particularly in their Download Center. Here is their website where you yourself can download it: http://www.congress.gov.ph/download/index.php?d=ra I purchased a copy of the Rules and Regulation of RA 9258 at the PRC this afternoon. It costs P305, and can be requested at the Records Section of the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC).

This is very important as we look into the law in the light of what's happening lately: the controversy of allowing to take the 1st Board Exam in Guidance & Counseling even those who have only college degrees in Guidance and Counseling as well as allied disciplines but without Masters degrees in Guidance and Counseling. I remember very well when we were organizing the IPCAP way back 2006 that those who will be allowed to take the Board Exams should have their Masters or PhDs in Guidance and Counseling. Before I say anything more on this, I decided to read these documents first and then write here my thoughts. Please pray for this matter which will definitely be something very important for the profession of Guidance and Counseling. God bless

Guidance & Counseling Board Exam Site

Today, Aug. 6, 2008 at about 430PM, I had just called up the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC) Examination Division, and got the following information from Mrs. Calderon, Division Chief:

The Philippines' 1st Board Examinations in Guidance & Counseling on Aug. 21-22, 2008 will be held at the MLQU or Manuel Luis Quezon University, Hidalgo St., Quiapo Manila. The news apparently is posted at the PRC in Manila. Please check it for yourself.

I had earlier inquired with Dr. Luz Guzman (PRBGC Member) about the matter. She mentioned that when examinees are below 300 persons, the exams are usually scheduled at the PRC Auditorium, 5th floor. According to Mrs. Calderon, that is their practice indeed. However, in view of the great number of applicants for the Nursing Board Exams, they have decided to hold the Examinations at the Manuel Luis Quezon University at Quiapo, Manila. In the PRC website's schedule for Board Exams for all professions, there is a note there about the cancellation of all board exams in the provinces when the number of examinees goes below a certain number.

According to Mrs. Calderon, there will be 103 examinees for this 1st-ever Board examination for licensure in Guidance and Counseling. All the best and God bless

INQUIRY: Where will the 1st Board Exam in GC take place?

Just a few minutes ago, I received a text message which reads: "Halo, cod u nform me of d exact skul whre d exam for gc will take place am frm baguio kac so i wil have tme 2 lok 4 a place to sty drng d exams."

I was amused because s/he didn't give me his/her name, and I have no information about her question's response either. Anyway, I hope to blog here whatever reliable information I can get so people can be prepared.

Then I texted her my prayer which runs this way:

I: Lord, magbobord exam ung nagtxt 2lungan mo naman.
Lord: Cno?
I: d nagsabi taga basta sabi taga bagyo daw cya
Lord: pano yan madami cla don.
IKAW DIN!

I really hope the texter will do his/her/their best, take the exam in toto, i.e., everything and not skip the other exams because I believe that God works no more magic. There are many credible magicians already, and it's not His line nowadays. Hehe. All the best. God bless

FPCAP 1st Seminar: Local?

I got a text message this morning asking whether the First Enrichment Seminar Program organized by the Family and Pastoral Counseling Association of the Philippines or FPCAP this coming Aug. 11-16, 2008 (please see the previous blog with the invite) can be considered for the application for the licensure under the RA 9258's Grandfather's Clause? Here are my thoughts about this:

1. One of the requirements for the Grandfather's Clause is the PGCA (interim APO) certificate of active membership. To comply with this, one is required to attend either a National Convention or Midyear Workshop of the PGCA, and a "local" PGCA chapter event. Since most of us are not and have not been members of PGCA, it has been agreed that participation in any activity of any of the counseling-related organizations is sufficient, as long as one presents one's certificate of participation, sufficing for the "local" requirement. The Family and Pastoral Counseling Association of the Philippines (FPCAP), while being a new counseling-related organization has been constantly represented in our IPCAP meetings. It has just been recently certified as incorporated by the SEC. Hence, participation in this event should suffice as the "local" requirement. (The following counseling-related organizations have been with IPCAP since we started meeting in Feb. 4, 2006: PACERS, PACC, With these two certificates of participation, one can apply with the PGCA Treasurer Dr. Lucy Bance at UST for the certificate of active membership.

2. The interim APO also issues a certificate of Good Moral Character. One needs to submit three (3) certificates of good moral character coming from: (a) the parish priest or pastor of one's church affiliation, (b) the barangay captain where one resides, and (3) one's employer.

3. Complete with these documents, one pays the membership fee of P500 + P100 for the two certificates. Do get your official receipts.

These two certificates are required among the other documents (NSO Birth certificate, NBI clearance, Ombudsman [for government employed only] certificate, Transcript of records of one's college and masters and PhD complete with picture on the TOR, certificates of experience from one's current and past employers, NSO Marriage certificates for those who have married - did I miss anything other than the 2x2 colored white background ID picture with one's name?) which one submits to the PRC (3rd Floor).

Hurry! It's about a week more before the deadline for submission for the third batch of oath-takers who will take their oath come September 2008. I was informed that we have to wait for the Board Resolution of the PRBGC wherein are listed those who will be issued the license as a registered guidance counselor (RGC). God bless

FPCAP 1st Enrichment Seminar Program

I just got an email which contained the invitation letter of the FPCAP or Family and Pastoral Counseling Association of the Philippines) to its 1st Enrichment Seminar Program. This is the FPCAP I mentioned in an earlier blog sometime last April. You can read it more clearly by clicking on the picture and an enlarged copy will be shown you on your monitor. Happy Reading and God bless

TEXT ME WITH YOUR NAME

Yes, that's what I would like to request anyone who would like to communicate to me your requests. And yes, to those who did, thanks.

In the light of today's text scams, I have always kept this personal policy of not replying to text messages that do not contain their name at least. The National Telecommunications Commission (NTC), in a radio interview of one of its personnel (was it the Director who was interviewed over DZBB?) has already warned everyone to report to the Commission the number of anyone who texts you about winning a draw, or asking for load when in fact you don't even know the person. I have received such messages, and surely it gave me a hearty laugh to read a message like this from two different numbers which I am placing here verbatim: "hon, dito ka na lang reply or call asap mahalaga sasabihen ko sayo send ka load 150pesos last txt na e2" (from +639167129840; +639278559967. This second number was sent earlier and without the word hon for "Honey"). I immediately realized it to be a hoax because evidently the guy doesn't know me. Another one made me really wonder how it could have been possible: "Congrats!Ur cel# had won worth of php950,000 2nd prize n(PGMA) Charity Fundraising draw.April-28-2008DTI/NCR permit#4728. Pls call me now I'm Ms Lilibeth Sanchez" (+639279417701). When I was given this celphone, and yes the sim card was from someone who ha already left the country, I was never informed that it was entered into a lottery of sorts. The first time I received such similar text, I was then driving, and felt like playing along. I texted back "Please text me your landline and i'l call you as soon as I arrive my destination. God bless" Either the number was closed or the person fooling around felt afraid or had no landline and did not text back. Obviously they wouldn't know what to do outside of their game plan (maybe it should be called a fame plan because it may be done with an unconscious need for fame; or it is a game to fool you).

It gives me chills to think that I am texting back to someone in the dark. The internet and the texting world really connects us to many faceless people. But I believe that we will always remain the same with or without computers or celphones. In fact, in normal human interactions, which we were taught by our parents, or friends or even in schools where it is called "Good Moral and Right Conduct (GMRC), every first encounter always provides a decent self-introduction without which the other would feel transgressed or disrespected, or even get the impression that the person has no breeding or whatever. Hence, I label these numbers with "Papansin 1, 2..." so that when it comes back or used again, I have a record of the number and a stronger case to teach the other a good lesson in appropriate human communication.

God bless