Comments on the PRC documents regarding lifting of requirements

The following are comments posted by readers, albeit anonymously, after having read the two documents from the PRC regarding the January 26, 2009 deadline for the Grandfather's Clause, as well as the Officer In Charge of the Board of Guidance Counseling. Unless someone really looks into these comments, they would not normally be read. Hence, I thought it best to have them here rather than simply hidden. Here they are:

1. this is just funny!
inconsistencies again.. nothing new...

as counselors, we've been taught how to develop trust... but how can we develop "trust" most esp in the supposedly APO?

i filed my PRC requirements before jan26 deadline... the clerk in the window said that my APO should only be from PGCA.. in as much as i dont want to fix my PGCA requirements, i was forced to fix them...

now these inconsistent documents again? some of the officers from different professional orgs (counseling org and pyschology org) were my previous professors in MA, they were the ones who discussed about the importance of "trust" and rapport...

now i dont know whom to trust anymore...


2. all effort, time and money will become meaningless, most especially that there are others who were exempted even if not qualified. this is very unfair and unjust to those who sacrificed to do everything just to comply. we need to change the system religiously.


I would like the call on anyone who makes such comments to identify themselves. In the spirit of transparency which we all crave for, why not say who you really are and be transparent yourself? Transparency won't be achieved if there is no self-disclosure. I believe no one wants to libel anyone in this blog. These are matters for everyone, and particularly when it is the interest of everybody at stake here, identifying who you are is best. But of course I respect your decision to keep yourself anonymous. The first comment in particular admits of "fixing" something, which means that the supposed APO allowed such "fixing." I hope whoever did this would be courageous enough to substantiate that declaration. What have we an APO for that tolerates such an act, if it was really "fixing" in the first place. One thing I am sure of, is that there is someone who has filed her complaint with the supposed APO but whose complaint has not been acted on, kahit man lang sabihan siya na mahirap ipagkanulo ang sarili. At the right time, that testimony will come out.

The other would be for such comments to be officially filed with the PRC. These are the people who get paid with the taxes we pay, and they being in the Professional regulation Commission, I believe they should act professionally as models and implementers of the law.

Let me add here my two-cents worth of thought:
1. Without that particular document published, what was written would simply be a or "consuelo de bobo." For one, the main signatory is not in the Board. Commissioner Rosas only happens to be the one in charge of the Guidance and Counseling division in the PRC, and not "In Charge of the Board of Guidance and Counseling." He has thus replaced the current OIC, Dr. Rosales by designating himself as such.

The Board should be above everyone else when it comes to the people in PRC. There is a Secretary of the Board who should have at least been told about this move colored by "compassion." Compassion should also be tempered by discipline because we have laws to follow.

2. That there is no more APO is clear. Just read carefully the pdf document posted in the PGCA website about the "accreditation" of PGCA as APO by the PRC. Accreditation is not equal to resolution. The PRC Resolution of 2005 was simply to identify PGCA as the organization tasked with providing PRC the list of nominees for the Board. That Resolution has lapsed last Nov. 16, 2008. On NOv. 19, Dr. Rosas was supposed to have announced at UST that PGCA remains to be the APO. PGCA was having a seminar at that time for those applying for the Grandfather's Clause applicants. Surprisingly, that was contradictory with what i heard he announced at the Guidance Circle's Convention last October 2008, that "there is no APO at this time." Now, the document "okeyed" by the PRC Chair dated Jan. 23, 2009, comes as a confirmation of that previous announcement. Talk of inconsistencies. You know what? Next time there is an announcement that there are "local activities" or "national" activities to be attended by those who submitted their applications from January 15-26, 2009 to comply with the Rules and Regulations stipulations, whoever does that should release a signed and valid document from the Board of Guidance and Counseling. That should give everyone the chance to challenge that when it comes. How can the PRC and the Board of Guidance and Counseling be so inconsistent if they ever do that? Let's see, nevertheless how this impasse will be resolved.

For sure, we at IPCAP have always been clear about the PGCA Resolution about granting IPCAP seed money for SEC registration. Have I posted that? Maybe I should. Please see the picture above. The representatives of the organizations have been shown those documents about the irregularites happening in there. Everyone there then was of one mind that for the sake of the profession, and as required in the law, IPCAP was a necessity. Everyone who attended last May 2008 National Convention heard it spoken loud and clear that the previous Treasurer has NOT MADE ANY TURNOVER of the previous year's accounts. I for one confronted the outgoing President and the new one who took over whether the organization could manage, from June 2008 up to Nov. 16, 2008, to get that coveted APO certificate. Dr. Llanes told me, "IMPOSSIBLE." Nov. 16, 2008 came and went, and there was no PRC Certificate of Accreditation ever released. What are we left with now? A tattered profession reeling with questions of integrity. What are advocating then? Corruption? Please NO!!!

Hence, do send your comments to PRC as soon as possible in order for this mess to stop. We at IPCAP are doing our part to discuss these things. I have been doing my part through this blog, as part of information dissemination stipulated in our Articles of Incorporation, as well as through my letters to PRC all posted here in this blog, to raise the issues and concerns in the profession. How I wish to read about other people's thoughts also forwarded to the PRC. I would be happy to help share your thoughts with everyone through this blog. We need to stand up for what is right. Remember, the triumph of evil is when the good ones don't do anything.