Treachery of the PRB-RES on RESA-IRR
Before you read this article, you are required to read the Real Estate Service Act (RESA) otherwise known as RA 9646 that is newly approved and effective on 30 July 2009. This law is now on jump-off stage in terms of implementation. The law mandates the professionalization of the real estate services in the Philippines.
In the morning of 9 June 2010, I attended the consultative gathering for the draft Implementing Rules and Regulation (IRR) of the RESA. It was attended by some 300 licensed brokers. I think it was sponsored by Land Administration and Management Project (LAMP 2) which is funded with grant aid for grant aid for Technical Assistance by the Australian Government and World Bank loan to the Philippine Government.
I am so disappointed that the PRB-RES Board have betrayed the licensed professionals.
I believe they are wrong to think in their wildest imagination that they have power to exempt the developers in the coverage of RESA. The power to exempt is way beyond the scope of their function, they have attempted to steal the exclusive function of the Congress to amend the RESA Law.
This issue is all about the treachery and lack of competence of the current PRB-RES with concerns to their contradiction to advocate, protect and implement the Real Estate Service Act of the Philippines. If you agree, or disagree, and you are up to the challenge to discuss this issue in an open debate, you are most welcome. I have created various discussion topics in Facebook.
CONCERNING CONSUMER PROTECTION
QUESTION: Sir John, should the consumers be alerted about this? Can you explain in simple comparative analogy this "professionalization" thing for real estate service?
ANSWER: The buyers should be concerned about this because the RESA law wants to professionalize the real estate brokers and salespersons. The RESA law is one of the major Consumer/Buyer Protection legislation.
Let me give you a classic example using the medical profession.
You see a guy in the public market. He is in white medical gown, with a portable chair, carrying rusty set of pliers and some home-made concoction of medicine. He offers dental services. He has no formal training or education in dentistry and he has no license and if he destroys your teeth, he is answerable to no one because he is unregistered and unregulated by the government. This is what we call a colorum dentist and there are like hundreds of them in the whole city, and most of them are hired by some groups to do mass dentistry work in some places.
People fall in line for the service of these colorum dentists because it's the only service available. The real professional dentists who have gone through medical school and have passed the board are out of business because they cannot compete with the colorum who does not follow the code of ethics of the profession. The real dentists have stopped servicing as dentist and shifted to other income-generating job such as selling rice and eggs.
Now here comes the government wanting to professionalize the dentistry services to protect the consumers. The government wants to have all these colorum regulated by the government through education, training standard, code of professional ethics, and necessary quality control licenses to protect the consumers. The government came up with a Law for this purpose.
The Law appointed some group of persons called a Board to implement the Law. But what these Board did was connive with the colorums and this Board is now proposing a policy that will exempt the colorum from the Law.
This is what happened. This is the reason why I am angry.
WHO ARE THESE PRB-RES?
QUESTION: Sir John, who are these people in the PRB-RES?
ANSWER: The Professional Regulatory Board of Real Estate Service (PRB-RES) is a very new Board under the Professional Regulatory Commission (PRC). It is composed of the following:
1. EDUARDO G. ONG, Chairman
2. BANSAN C. CHOA
3. RAMON C.F. CUERVO III ( PAREB Manila Board of Realtors®)
4. RAFAEL M. FAJARDO (PAREB-Bulacan Realtors® Board)
5. FLORENCIO DINO
QUESTION: Sir John, should we include all of them in your complain?
ANSWER: YES! Definitely YES. Especially Ramon C.F Cuervo III and Rafael M. Fajardo. But of course we will give chance to exonerate anyone among them. Provided that the person seeking to be exonerated can show a transcript of their meetings that will prove that he stood firm in his personal conviction and principle to SAY NO to an inappropriate exemption lobby. But since it appears that none of them said NO upon impact, then TOLERATION is present. Anyone who tolerates an act of treachery is a traitor himself, even if he did not actually involved himself in the masterminding of the treacherous act.
THREE ATTEMPTS OF INSERTION ANOMALY
QUESTION: Sir John, what exactly is the insertion that the PRB-RES proposed that you are against of?
ANSWER: The law says:
"SEC. 28. Exemptions from the Acts Constituting the Practice of Real Estate Service. The provisions of this Act and its rules and regulations shall not apply to the following: (A) Any person, natural or judicial, who shall directly perform by himself/herself the acts mentioned in Section 3 hereof with reference to his/her or its own property, except real estate developers;"
Contrary to that provision of the law, the PRB-RES accommodated the lobby of the real estate developers. The PRB-RES allowed themselves to be used as frontline in proposing, insisting, and justifying the following anomalous insertions below in red bold italics.
LATEST INSERTION ATTEMPT
SEC. 28. Exemptions from the Acts Constituting the Practice of Real Estate Service The provisions of this Act and its rules and regulations shall not apply to the following: A) Any person, natural or judicial, who shall directly perform by himself/herself the acts mentioned in Section 3 hereof with reference to his/her or its own property, except real estate developers. For this Purpose, however, those who are employed by such persons or entities who shall perform said acts, with reference to his/her employer's property, engaged in the practice of real estate service and receiving compensation from such persons or entities, shall be exempt.
TWO PREVIOUS INSERTION ATTEMPTS
SEC. 28. Exemptions from the Acts Constituting the Practice of Real Estate Service The provisions of this Act and its rules and regulations shall not apply to the following: A) Any person, natural or judicial, who shall directly perform by himself/herself the acts mentioned in Section 3 hereof with reference to his/her or its own property, except real estate developers with respect to their external brokers and salespersons.
SEC. 28. Exemptions from the Acts Constituting the Practice of Real Estate Service The provisions of this Act and its rules and regulations shall not apply to the following: A) Any person, natural or judicial, who shall directly perform by himself/herself the acts mentioned in Section 3 hereof with reference to his/her or its own property, except real estate developers who are real estate practitioners, as defined under Section 3g. For this purpose, however, those who are employed by such persons/entities/real estate developers, who shall perform said acts with reference to his/her employer's property, and receive compensation therefore, shall not be deemed engaged in the practice of real estate service.
"IN-HOUSE SALESPERSONS OF DEVELOPERS ARE EMPLOYEES" --- THIS IS A FALSE CLAIM
In fact, there is labor management malpractice anomaly in the operation of real estate developers. Those in-house salespersons they claim to be "employed" in their company are actually not employees but independent contractors. Those developers' in-house salespersons do not have salaries, benefits, and leaves that are accorded to regular employees. Even some of their in-house sales managers who have worked for them as salespersons for a long time already. In the developers, the policy is always NO SALES NO PAY.
BANK FORECLOSURE SALES - WRONG ANALOGY
QUESTION, Sir John, the PRB-RES used a comparative analogy to exempt the developers. The PRB-RES used the policy model of the in-house employees banks who are exempted from the RESA with regards to their activities in selling foreclosed properties. What can you say about this?
ANSWER: The current members of the PRB-RES are ignorant. They need to go back to the Basic Comprehensive Real Estate Seminar. For your information, banks are primarily in the business of selling loans and they derive income from the interest. Banks are not in the income-generating business of selling properties. Foreclosed properties are being sold by banks in compliance to standing Court Order as part of the remedies to repay an unpaid loan.
Developers, on the other hand, are in the business of habitual real estate sale and lease for profit. Real estate sales is their regular profession. The agents of developers, both in-house and external, are practicing the income-generating profession of the real estate salesman and broker. This is the reason why they are covered by the professionalization intent of the RESA.
PRB-RES ABUSE OF AUTHORITY
QUESTION: Sir John, the PRB-RES Draft IRR seems to accommodate exemption of the real estate developers from the coverage of the RESA. The PRB-RES thinks that they have the quasi-judicial power to grant exemption as part of their function to develop the IRR. What do you think about this?
ANSWER: The PRB-RES mandate is to develop an IRR that is consistent with the RESA. The PRB-RES does not have a power to grant exemption to certain groups, this is not part of their function and mandate, this power is exclusive only to Congress. If they will grant exemption to the developers, the IPORESP or any individual may file a complain to the PRC and have the incumbent PRB-RES impeached for reason of loss of trust and confidence.
QUESTION: Sir John, what else did you observed during the conference?
ANSWER: I also observed that the current PRB-RES are technically "incompetent" for lack of knowledge. There were lots of questions that the PRB-RES did not answered correctly, if they take the Real Estate Broker's Exam, I don't think they will get a passing mark. I don't even think the PRB-RES have read and comprehended the RESA Law.
There was a question about the necessity of the redundant licensing with the DTI and the HLURB. The PRB-RES did not answer it correctly.
There was a question about the definition of "active" and "relevant CPE" in Section 20-A. The PRB-RES did not answer it correctly.
There was question about citizenship. The PRB-RES did not answer it correctly.
There was a question about standardization of professional fees. The PRB-RES did not answer it correctly.
There was a question about notarial requirement. The PRB-RES did not answer it correctly.
There was a question about professional tax. The PRB-RES did not answer it correctly.
There was a question about the definition of "business-related course". The PRB-RES did not answer it correctly.
All in all, surprisingly, if you have listened to the answers of the PRB-RES, it was a jaw-hanging experience to notice that the PRB-RES did not answer all of these questions correctly.
These current PRB-RES guys are ridiculous and incompetent advocates of RESA despite their claim that they spent 12 days on a workshop about RESA.
If you read their 3-page hand-outs on the highlights and salient points of the IRR for discussion, it is a piece of junk, I would not pay 100 pesos for someone to write this piece of junk material. It is embarrassing they claim they spent that they spent 12 days on a workshop about IRR.
The current PRB-RES is a perfect picture of incompetence in terms of technical expertise, I don't think they are capable of starting up a licensing institution for real estate professionals.
Obviously, the PRB-RES is not even aware of the existence of the Article 5 of the IRR of PD 957 under the HLURB that requires ALL salespersons of developers to get the necessary professional license and registration from DTI before they practice. These members of the PRB-RES seem to pretend that they are not aware that developers have been violating this PD 957 IRR requirement since 2001.
Why? Because these are the very same people who kept the IRR silent in the Brokers and Salespersons Training so that it will not be implemented by the developers and the HLURB. These people are the masterminds and protectors of pack of wolves dressed in sheep's clothing. These persons are the enemies from within our ranks. And now, they hold the position as Board of RES and they sure are going to exempt the colorum from the law. Simple TREACHERY.
PRB-RES VIOLATION OF THE RA 9646 MANDATE
QUESTION: Sir John, have the PRB-RES violated any of its mandate?
ANSWER: YES. Definitely YES! One of the mandates of the PRB-RES is to (Section 5, paragraph H) Safeguard and protect legitimate and licensed real estate service practitioners and, in coordination with the accredited and integrated professional organization of real estate practitioners, monitor all forms of advertisements, announcements, signboards, billboards, pamphlets, brochures and others of similar nature concerning real estate and, where necessary, exercise its judicial and police powers to finally and completely eradicate the pernicious practices of unauthorized or unlicensed individuals;
With the Draft IRR shown by PRB-RES, I think they have abused their powers as they proposed to exempt the developers from the RESA. They have totally disregarded the order of the Law that explicitly includes the developers in the coverage of RESA.
PRB-RS admitted they are "accommodating" the lobby of some groups on the exemption of the developers. They were asked by one gentlemen on who are behind the lobby and the PRB-RES refused to answer the query.
In this case, I firmly believe that if they have the professional decency, they should have referred the lobbyists to Congress which is the right venue for Laws to be amended. The PRB-RES have clearly abused their powers, wasted official time, and have played with fire with the subjects of the law as they spent their 12 days session with the lobbyists trying find a way to exempt the developers from the RESA.
I am a licensed broker, and I strongly make a statement that the current chairman and members of the PRB-RES have lost their integrity from my perspective. They have forgotten that they belong to the group of the licensed practitioners. They have connived with the groups that cultivated the growth of the virus we call unlicensed real estate practitioners.
I think it is just appropriate that they will tender resignation before this anomaly will explode.
REQUESTING THE RESIGNATION OR REMOVAL
OF THE CURRENT PRB-RES
QUESTION: Sir John, how can we change the current chairman and members of the PRB-RES if we have lost trust and confidence on their integrity?
ANSWER: They have the option to resign. But if they will not, I will be challenging the PRC to conduct open investigation to get to the bottom of why they inappropriately accommodated the exemption lobby instead of referring them to Congress. Without open investigation, I will continue confronting them and exposing them in the Internet. But the bottomline is, once the trust and confidence is lost, they have to be removed.
Sec. 9 of RESA is about Removal of the Chairperson and the Members of the Board. The chairperson or any of the Board may be suspended or removed by the President of the Philippines, upon the recommendation of the Commission, for neglect of duty; abuse of power; oppression; incompetence; unprofessional; unethical, immoral, or dishonorable conduct; commission or toleration of irregularities in the conduct of examination or tampering of the grades therein; or for final judgment or conviction of any criminal offense involving moral turpitude.
In short, we have to be vigilant and continue talking about about this PRB-Developer Tie-up Anomaly and explore the option of filing a consolidated complain to the PRC against the incumbent PRB-RES who are traitors to the profession. If you notice their arrogance on stage, they are too pretentious of their technical expertise. The only room for improvement for these guys is outside the PRB-RES. They must Resign or be Removed, and then replaced using meritocracy.
PRB-RES IRREGULAR SELECTION PROCESS
QUESTION: Sir John, how did these traitors penetrated the PRB-RES in the first place?
ANSWER: I don't know who connived, but definitely, the selection process was somewhat irregular. The nomination was through closed-door process. The Professional Regulation Commission failed to mandate the Interim APO to announce and open the position to everyone interested to apply. Sila-sila lang ang nag-usap in a small group of conspirators, they left out those independent licensed professionals without associations who compose the biggest share of the pie in terms of numbers. What happened was an "internal arrangement". That is how we were penetrated. That is the result of undemocratic process.
President Noynoy Aquino believes in democracy and meritocracy. He does not like anomalies to start up his Presidency. He will eventually know about this scandal.
ADVOCACY MESSAGES TO SUPPORT RA 9646
RA 9646 PROVIDES SAFETY-NET AND PROTECTION TO ALL AGENTS ESPECIALLY IN-HOUSE SALESPERSONS OF THE DEVELOPERS
QUESTION: Sir John, the greatest fear of the implementation of RESA is that it may displace in-house salesmen employees who are colorum. What can you say about this?
ANSWER: NO. Definitely not. RESA wants EVERYONE who practice real estate service to become professional, licensed, and regulated under a common Code of Ethics and Educational Standard. RESA wants all practitioners to undergo a formal training, which allows the in-house employees of the developers to take.
Part of the quality control measures of the RESA is that there will be examination for brokers, which allows the in-house employees of the developers to take. RESA also wants all salespersons to be supervised by a licensed broker on a 20:1 ratio, which allows the developers to hire brokers, and if they can't afford brokers, they are allowed to have their in-house salespersons to avail of the professional supervisory requirement from external brokers.
Actually, RESA intends to protect the in-house salespersons. Many in-house sales employees and agents of developers complain of labor malpractices and non-payment of commissions. They cannot come out to complain because they are classified as "illegal sales agents" under the Rule 5 of the IRR of the PD 957 being implemented by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board. With RESA, as soon as these in-house sales agents become accredited under the care and supervision of professional brokers, they will get all the protection against the maltreatment of developers.
The PRB-RES does not think the way I think. The PRB-RES has no capability to advocate and reason out to protect the RESA in a manner I can. That is why their principles can easily be bought by the lobbyists who want the developers to get exemption. Twelve days dining and wining is enough to make the current members of the PRB-RES to switch position as representatives of the developers. And this is one of the anomalies I can smell here.
WE MUST BE WILLING TO PAY THE PRICE OF PROFESSIONALIZATION
QUESTION: Sir John, The RESA now have a requirement that a real estate salesman must have finished second-year college. Will this displace those who cannot meet it?
ANSWER: YES. And that is the price we have to pay to achieve the professionalization. Education, Training and Quality Control is part of the upgrade that we have to pay as a nation.
By the way, most developers now require college degree to their job applicants, so I think it will be a very isolated case if they have elementary graduates sales staffs. Look, the law is very lenient, it only requires completion of 2nd year college to meet the requirement to become a registered Salesman.
INJECT AN ANTIDOTE TO CURE THE NEGATIVE CORPORATE ATTITUDE TOWARDS PROGRESS
What is wrong is the negative corporate management attitude of some developers and the misguided mentality of the officers and men of their in-house salespersons. They look at RA 9646 as a threat to their security of tenure. What they can't see is that it is an opportunity for them to become licensed and professionalized through intensive training and board exam.
Corporations should have positive attitude towards progress and external demand for upgrade. When there is a need to upgrade technology or staff qualifications, the action item of corporations should be on training rather than replacing the staff. If I am a President of the Developer Corporation, I would be willing to invest more to train my sales managers so they will pass the brokers exam. There should be no threat of displacement.
The in-house agents and salespersons of the developers are not being restricted by the law to benefit on the upgrade mandate of the RA 9646. The advocacy that I am fighting for is to encourage the colorum in-house agents to train and pass the exam.
APPOINT A GOOD PRB-RES CHAIRMAN
QUESTION: Sir John, what is the ideal Chairman of the PRB-RES and the ideal IPORESP?
ANSWER: The ideal Chairman should be without a doubt an advocate of RA 9646, service-oriented, has good plan on how to start-up the new Board, dedicated, innovative, and someone from the new generation. I could better answer this by assuming that I am the Chairman and I will tell you my plans and programs. Please do not misconstrue me as "wanting" to be a Chairman of the PRB-RES, I am just showing everyone a good mirror image for the Chairman to follow.
It will not bother me if anyone else other than me will get the Chairmanship of PRB-RES or President of IPORESP and adopt the IPORESP Plans and Programs I have in mind.
WORKING TOGETHER AS A TEAM
QUESTION: Sir John, are you willing to work with the current PRB-RES in one team?
ANSWER: If we can resolve the issue of lost of trust and confidence, definitely YES. But I am more inclined on their resignation.
Whoever sits there in the Board have to work hard and be loyal to the RA 9646. This is why I believe that those interested must submit an application to the IPORESP and each applicant have to be screened properly and interviewed as part of the selection process.
I have good plans for the implementation and advocacy of RA 9646, and I am very interested to present myself before the National Convention of a genuine IPORESP. I don't like what they did of merely making the FRESA as interim IPO. There has to be a National Convention of IPORESP where we can vote for our officers, trustees, and nominees to the PRB-RES in a democratic manner.
What I like most is that there are international groups who are interested to accommodate advocacy projects for the RESA, and perhaps make me a consultant.
No matter what will happen, I am an independent Advocate as I am right now. I am answerable only to my country and my own conscience. The bottom-line is, my heart speaks that I will advocate the RA 9646 no matter what will happen, this is one of my major purpose of living.
During that dummy consultative conference, can you still remember how many times the current Board repeatedly mentioned that you can tell them your comments and suggestions and unsolicited advice?
I think I heard the word "unsolicited advice" from them at least five times. That was a show of arrogance that later on backfired to them as we noticed their incompetence in the subject matter of the RA 9646.
They are too thick-faced to call that conference a "consultative meeting" if they keep on telling us that our comments are "unsolicited advice". It was clear that they were there not to consult us on the IRR. They were there to just display their arrogance on stage.
So, was there ever a consultative meeting yet on the IRR? The answer is NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE. Definitely NONE yet ever! This anomaly will make the IRR that they are drafting now as questionable, dictatorial, undemocratic, and maliciously manipulated, aside from the fact that it obviously went away to conflict the RA 9646.
I dedicate this blog to my newly-found friends during the conference that congratulated me after I insisted to deliver my exhortation speech against the PRB-RES (they took 32 pieces of my calling cards). I thought I was alone in this struggle to advocate RA 9646. You guys inspired me even more.
Just a thought that crossed my mind. I believe that even before the conference, the PRB-RES already identified me as the number 1 advocate of the professionalization of the real estate service. They are anti-RESA and this is the reason why they did not accommodate my request to talk despite the fact that I have raised my hand over a hundred times all throughout the conference (everyone noticed this).
In short, "takot" and PRB-RES sa akin that is why they resorted to that "oppressive" behavior of not recognizing my request to speak. They even resorted to cutting the power of my microphone in that conference while I am in the middle of my speech.
I'll teach them a lesson to never suppress the Voice of the Resistance. Let us all spend time and days to look for brokers and consumer rights activists in Facebook to spread the word below. My own personal target is 1,000 people.
"I am so disappointed that the members of the Professional Regulatory Board - Real Estate Service have betrayed the licensed professionals. I believe they are wrong and we, as CONSUMERS in general, should unite and stand to protect the RESA… Read more at http://petalcorin.blogspot.com/2010/06/treachery-of-prb-res-on-resa-irr.html Please spread this message if you are with me in this fight to protect the RESA."
SPEAKING ENGAGEMENTS and
COORDINATION OF ADVOCACY
QUESTION: Sir John, what exactly are we going to do now to protect the RESA from the traitors who now occupy the seats in the PRB-RES?
ANSWER: First, we have to integrate ourselves into ONE BIG GROUP. I have created a Facebook Group for our IPORESP at http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?topic=136&uid=123801497658445. Please join the group and add me up as Friend so I can easily communicate to you by Facebook.
At this time of RESA crisis, it does not matter anymore if you are PAREB or REBAP or you have no organization. It does not matter if you are independent or in-house, or with or without license and registration. We are now called IPORESP -- Integrated Professional Organization of Real Estate Service Practitioners. What is important is we consolidate ourselves. As automatic member of IPORESP, you must join our group in Facebook titled IPORESP (click the logo below) because Facebook is the primary way we can communicate and coordinate activities efficiently.
You can also print this blog of mine and distribute it among the members of you local real estate professional associations. Open this issue for discussion among yourselves. I am also willing to come over to your small group meetings if you want to personally hear me talk about our advocacy.
Our organization's objective is to defeat the existing dummy IPO that the developer lobbyists organized and used to manipulate the PRC. I just don't want to mention names, but I have received reports this dummy IPO is composed of high ranking officials of the old Federation of Real Estate Service Association (FRESA), REBAP, PAREB, and CREBA that you all might personally know. You should not forget that FRESA was a lame sitting duck for decades in our fight against the colorum.
I am so disappointed that many of them turn out to be traitors in our profession. This dummy IPO they are putting up right now who nominated the PRB-RES are the same people who did nothing to advocate the MO-39 and the IRR of PD 957 -- they are now on board to manipulate the RA 9646.
OPINION OF OTHER REALTORS
Armando Macasieb Valencerina on 10 June 2010.
I share the same sentiments that you expressed during the public hearing of the IRR of RA 9646.
I was completely dismayed, frustrated and appalled and yes as you aptly put it – “betrayed” - by the way the Board defended their position regarding the exemption to the practice of real estate.
It is clear that under Section 28 as cited above, the exceptions in Sec. 28 (a) that the law exempts “Any person, natural or juridical, who shall directly perform by himself/herself the acts mentioned in Section 3 hereof with reference to his/her or its own property”. An exception to this section are real estate developers.
The way I understand the law, real estate developers are an exception to an exception.. Therefore, the provisions of the Act and its Rules and Regulations shall also apply to them as as well as this is mandated by law. If the law intended that real estate developers be exempt, the law should be explicit.
As we all know, during the public hearing, despite Section 28 (a) as above cited the Professional Regulatory Board of Real Estate Service proposed the following in it's Implementing Rules and Regulations:
“a. Exemptions from Acts Constituting the Practice of Real Estate Service -
The provisions of R.A. 9646 and this IRR shall not apply to the following:
1.Any person, natural or juridical, who shall directly perform by himself / herself the acts mentioned in section 3 hereof with reference to his / her or its own property, except real estate developers. For this purpose, however, those who are employed by such persons or entities who shall perform said acts, with reference to his / her employer's property, engaged in the practice of real estate service and receiving compensation from such persons or entities shall be exempt.” [insertions marked in italics]
The Board explained that the above exemption shall apply exclusively to in-house agents employed by and receiving compensation from real estate developers... Clearly, the IRR is not in accordance / consonance with and is contrary to Section 28 (a) of RA 9646.
The Board may make only such rules and regulations as are within the limits of powers grated to it. It may not make rules and regulations which are inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution or a statute (law) particularly the statute / law it is administering or which created it or which are in derogation of, or defeat the purpose of the statute / law.
Furthermore, it may not, by its rules and regulations, amend, alter, modify, supplant, enlarge, or limit the terms of a legislative enactment. In case of discrepancy between the basic law and the rule or regulation issued to implement the law, the basic law prevails because the said rule or regulation cannot go beyond the terms and provisions of the basic law. Lastly, a rule or regulation should be uniform in operation, reasonable and not unfair or discriminatory.
However, in proposing the above cited provision in the IRR, the Board completely changed the tenor and intent of the law thereby completely amending the law such that developers are no longer covered by the said act. This is in effect an amendment, alteration, modification, in derogation and defeats the purpose of the law.
Furthermore, the IRR in exempts and expressly allows the proliferation of a particular class of unlicensed real estate practitioners.. The proposed section in the IRR is not uniform in its operation and application, is very unreasonable, unfair and discriminatory.
I am sending this to all my fellow realtors so that they may make the same united stand against the above provision of the IRR.
I just finished reading your revised article. You truly are an advocate and you write with purpose, passion, and determination.
I stayed up late last night to read your articles which I found very informative and inspiring. I see that you have tapped that inner fire that drives you to be the best in you..
John, do you remember the guy who questioned the Board as to how and who formulated the IRR? He also had a point. He was inquiring as to who participated in the formulation of the IRR The Board did not make a categorical answer but said that it was in accordance with what the law provides. If we go into the language of the law, section 42 of RA 9646 states that:
“Sec. 42. Implementing Rules and Regulations. - Within six (6) months after the effectivity of this Act, the Commission, together with the Board and the accredited and integrated professional organization of real estate service practitioners, the Department of Finance, and the CHED, shall prepare the necessary rules and regulations, including the Code of Ethics and Responsibilities for real estate service practitioners, needed to implement the provisions of this Act”.
The accredited and integrated professional organization of real estate practitioners should have been involved in the formulation of the IRR. Apparently, the AIPO did not have any participation because otherwise the Board would have stated so. Instead the Board chose not to give a definite answer the question.
I have started to read the law again in detail...and again... on the issue of exemption, the law clearly applies to the developers considering that Section 32 defines the corporate practice of real estate. The proposed IRR insofar as it exempts the developers is an insult to all licensed real estate brokers and licensed salespersons..
Talking about "insertion", did you know that raping a minor is called Statutory Rape, it is punishable by death. Raping the very young and newly implemented RESA Law is like Statutory Rape. What is worse is, the abuse is done by the yucky Dirty Old Men of the Real Estate Service Industry, the very same people who did nothing about the colorum during their long period of leadership with their respective organizations under the MO-39. The oldies and the usual faces must go if we want to go forward.
PERVERTED LEGAL OPINION
COMMENT: Sir John, I think the inclusion of "real estate developers" as an exemption to the exemption from coverage of the law is downright illegal and violative of the constitution... You're not a lawyer. I don't blame you for your limited understanding... However, if not corrected in the IRR, the law may be stricken down as unconstitutional...I like your comments against the PRBRES Chairman. Can you tell us more about his background? -- Atty. Carlos Velasco
MY RESPONSE: Atty. Velasco, I am not a lawyer, but I love laughing at lawyers who earn a living out of twisting laws, specially those who is very "assuming" about Supreme Court decision. Before you assume the decision of the Supreme Court, kindly bring your opinion to the Supreme Court first, and be a Supreme Court Justice first yourself. I am not the right person to convince about the alleged unconstitutionality of this particular law I strongly advocate. Did you know how many lawyers reviewed the draft of this law for 23 years in Senate and House? Oh you must be unthinkably good to say that you are better than all of them. By the way, did you know why the highly-paid lawyers of those big rich manipulative developers did not question the constitutionality of the RESA Law in the Supreme Court? Well, it's because they know their unconstitutionality argument won't stand. You are a lawyer, I don't blame you either about your limited understanding about my consumer protection advocacy that intends to reduce real estate cases in courts.
About the PRB-RES Chairman's profile, well, I know his profile, but as I associate this man with his treachery to us, everything about him just make me vomit. I think you can find him in PRC. Why do you look for a treacherous man? Are you an ambulance-chaser type of an Attorney?
Do you have a photo or a Facebook Account so I can hyperlink your name just in case people would like to know who you are and they would like to comment on your position?
// John Petalcorin