Text for Jan 26, 2009 Deadline

This may be a bit late in time, but it was only yesterday Jan. 28, 2009 during the Guidance-related organizations met at PRC when this matter was confirmed. What about?

Last Saturday, very early in the morning, I received a message from Dr. Luz Guzman this text message:

"Good am. Will u pls announce 2day 2 all GC Applicants 4 d GFC 2 file their applications 2 their regional offices ASAP even without d PGCA Certifications. This was approved by d Commission 2 beat d Deadline of Jan. 26. Pls do this 4 d love of Guidance. Thanks.."

I replied saying "Gud AM. The more responsible Act Shud Hav bn 2 Hav this printed in newspapers, Announced on tv. S ds not making revisions 2 d Rules and regulations of RA 9258 which needs publication before it becomes valid (and binding)? Why not just take the Board Exam?"

Dr. Guzman replied: "There will be a Press release 2day by d PRC."

She also mentioned that "This decision was made as a result of d rush of qualified applicants 2 file but due to the lack of PGCA certifications, their applications were denied. This PRC decision is an answer 2 some of the your queries in d past, d ba? What do you think?...

Furthermore she texted: Na waived na ang PGCA requirement. Ds was signed by Chairman Lapena late in d afternoon yesterday [Friday Jan. 2, 2009 - date I supplied].

I texted back saying that as Board of Guidance and Counseling, they should have been able to see these developments long before. In case of legislative probe by the Oversight Committee of Congress, they might be found wanting in anticipation. I also mentioned that they may have to beware of those who have standing ethical concerns to address, particularly those with court cases. She asked who will make the first step? Someone has to make the first step. My reply: The Board of Guidance and Counseling should MOTU PROPRIO on their own do something because these are not outside their knowledge. Or else, they will have to inhibit themselves from acting on the application.

Then I asked to be informed in what newspaper the press release will be published, and only then will I send the information to people.

SO THAT EVERYONE WILL KNOW, THE DOCUMENT SIGNED BY THE PRC CHAIRMAN HAS THE FOLLOWING MAIN PROPOSAL POINTS:

1. That the Board of Guidance and Counseling accepts applications only until the designated deadline on January 26, 2009, but applicants be given ample time of at least two (2) months within which to comply with deficiencies in the following:
a. erroneous birth certificates
b. Certificates of membership in the Accredited Professional Organization (APO)
c. Courses taken after 2004
d. Experience to take the place of courses in Guidance and Counseling

2. That for (1.b) the requirement for active membership to the Accredited Professional Organization (APO) be waived on the basis that the PRC has no accredited APO for Guidance and Counseling at this time, the Philippine Guidance and Counseling Association (PGCA), being only the interim APO up to November 2008 (Nov. 16, 2008 to be exact - my clarification)

3. That for (1.c) applicants who took the required subjects/units after 2004 be likewise accepted and considered.

This letter request by the PRC Commissioner In charge of the Guidance and Counseling division and signed and approved by the PRC Chair has finally declared that there is NO APO at this time. Ergo, there is no more need to attend PGCA Events for purposes of getting documents required under the law. But didn't the interim period of APO lapse last Nov. 16, 2008? The Nov. 19, 2008 PGCA event should have been the most opportune time to announce that yes, we have no APO, hence there is no need for such certificates as mentioned in the RR of the law. That should have been the opportune time to mention about the said documents, and how to go about difficulties in obtaining such precious papers. People were rushing then as they rushed last Jan. 26, 2009, the typical crammers among us. I would not like to think what's in your mind, for that is something we should avoid at this time of economic difficulties.

"Experience to take the place of courses in Guidance and Counseling" (#1.d above) may be patently illegal. Sec. 14 of the law R.A. No. 9258 clearly stipulates that both, active experience and course attendance are to be together. These matters have been raised so early in time during the fora, and yet it is only now that this matter is attended. Is this a way to appease as many as possible? It should not be impossible then for us to have even the ordinarily friendly and approachable person claiming to have done counseling to show us a PRC license as Guidance Counselor. Wag naman sana. But that's the point: the nets have been torn and literally everyone was allowed in. What was the law all about in the first place?

The letter was NOT signed by the current Board of Guidance and Counseling OIC Dr. Rosales. Instead, it was signed by the PRC Commissioner In Charge of the Guidance and Counseling Division. The triumvirate is supposed to be the Board of Guidance and Counseling as R.A. No. 9258 has stipulated . The PRC acts as supervisor and control but NEVER TO TAKE OVER ITS JOB. Tension in this area then becomes a matter to address. Is the absence of her signature significant of anything? Was she sick then? This is supposed to be her task, of ensuring that the Board resolves problems that have been cropping along the way during the implementation of RA 9258. We would all have been properly guided since Day One had Board Resolutions been published. Is this a function of age? Would that we have the third member of the Board. But that is something for the next blog!

God bless