On OATH TAKING

When I paid for my oath-taking last Sept. 2008, I asked the guy collecting the P1,500 for an OFFICIAL RECEIPT. He said, "Wala po." I asked, "Why are you not giving Official Receipt? P1,500 is a big amount, and you are obliged to give me a receipt." Tahimik lang siya. I couldn't press him because I did not know whom to address the matter.

On oath-taking day itself, at Manila Hotel, I had with me the IPCAP Treasurer as my guest, so I was charged P1,000 as guest fee. The same guy was there collecting, and again I asked for the O.R. Wala pa rin! Wow, that guy collected P2,500 from me and he gave me no Official Receipt? Talo niya simbahan a! When you give a Mass Offering at the Office, maski P50 me O.R. Well, sa collection, wala po yun, pero even then, the collection has a report made to the public.

On March 1, 2009, I knew certain people who were there for the oathtaking, and sabi sa text: "By d way, fr. Totoo tlaga yong sinabi mo. we were not given a recpt." Ayan, that confirmed a "kalakaran."

Now, on May 26, 2009 in Congress, the matter of the oath taking was deliberated. What does our law (R.A. # 9258) say about it?

Our RA 9258 says in Art. III Sec. 18: "All successful examinees shall be required to take a professional oath before any member of the Board or any Officer of the Commission authorized by the PRC, or any officer authorized by law."

The Rules and Regulations of RA No. 9258 makes it more explicit, saying in Art. III Sec. 18: "All successful examinees qualified for registration and all qualified applicants for registration without examination shall be required to take the professional oath before any member of the Board or any officer of the Commission authorized by it or any other person authorized by law to administer the oath prior to entering into the practice of guidance and counseling in the Philippines. The successful examinees shall register with the Commission after having taken his/her oath and upon payment of the prescribed fees and shall be issued Certificates of Registration and Professional Identification Card."

I just noticed that the phrase "all successful examinees qualified for registration" contains something to ask about since all those who passed the Board or licensure exams for Guidance and Counseling are definitely qualified for registration - meron bang pumasa na di qualified for registration?

Anyway, the oath taking is a requirement of the law. And the one to administer the oath include any one of at least the following persons:
- any member of the Board (Professional Regulatory Board of Guidance and Counseling)
- any officer of the Commission (Professional Regulation Commission) authorized by the PRC (as the law says, but this seems different from the RR which merely says "IT" - is this the PRC or the PRBGC?)
- or any other person authorized by law to administer the oath.

The discussions in Congress on this matter showed that MASS OATH TAKING is never required by the law. In fact, this becomes inimical to the interests of those who are far away from Manila where the oath taking has been taking place. Two Congressmen were particularly strong in saying that the oath taking need not be in Manila since the PRC is now devolved, meaning the PRC Officers in the provinces or regions may be given authority to administer the oath so that the relatives of the oath takers may also attend. It was quite common knowledge that there were quite a number among us who had to borrow money for the Maria Clara attire or barong as well as for the fees paid for the MASS OATH TAKING. In times of financial difficulties like we have, it would have been appropriately sensitive to apply the law for the benefit of the practitioners.

And especially because there was no official receipt given for the oath taking fees (some of us complained that the fee was simply too much if only to eat snacks in the most plush place in the Philippines), the question of who was responsible was raised. The PRC cannot release an Official Receipt daw because once PRC does that, the funds immediately go to the Treasury, the national coffers. It should be the APO which has the Official Receipt. But those who were with the APO before said NO, it didn't receive. So, who was the one to run after? The snacks we ate was supposed to have costed P850 which is more than half the oath-taker's fee. So, may sobra ito, and how was this accounted for? Where did the "earnings" go? For what?

When I enter a movie house, true enough I get no Official Receipt. But the movie house is taxed. The Mass Oath taking is NOT taxed, and particularly the one who collects IS NOT TAXED! Funds received go straight to someone's or a group's pocket or bank account. Who's in charge here? The Board? Di daw, but they know it's accounted for. Really? Is this account or report publicly accessible?

As regards to who made this matter something of an "obligation"? Those who take the oath want it daw made it so. In short, gusto kasi natin na may mass oath taking. What? I don't remember having been asked if I liked it or not, whether I wanted it or not. What about those who cannot afford? Were they asked? has anybody out there been asked if mass oath taking was your choice?

So there you are: there is no Mass Oath taking supposedly obligatory for all of us. For convenience, we may even have oath taking in the PRC itself, like I once read about a Mass Oath taking of nurses in the big hall there at PRC. Was an oath-taking fee charged? PRC should, because the event would mean PRC will be paying for the electric bill. And the O.R should then have been provided. And the country coffers should have been fatter by a few millions which could have been used for the good of the professions.

What we want is transparency, so let's keep it. We can be clear about things and have no need to defend ourselves from questions of impropriety. I bet the BIR would be interested in this matter. In time.

On second thought, didn't we go to PRC, pay P1,050 for the license (I still have my O.R. for this as souvenir), affix our signatures in the logbook and also our 1x1 colored ID picture? The RR of RA 9258 says "The successful examinees shall register with the Commission after having taken his/her oath and upon payment of the prescribed fees and shall be issued Certificates of Registration and Professional Identification Card." But our payment was done before our oath taking, and until now we have no Certificate of Registration yet. There seems to be a procedural reversal which could end in people being able to get their licenses even WITHOUT HAVING TAKEN THEIR OATH! Isn't this bending the law in our favor? Thanks of course to PRC because I got my license on the day of the oath taking. I know of some who didn't receive their licenses on the day they took their oath but LATER! I may be a stickler for the law, but the good Congressman said "Dure lex sed lex."

God bless