Message from the 4 seats of IPORESP: The PRB-RES 8 Dec 2012 Memo has no legal basis

Last 31 October 2012, I posted a message here that PhilRES accreditation will be cancelled very soon. I was told that the message ignited a huge explosion resulting to PRC Chairperson Manzala calling an emergency meeting to all traditional stakeholders of AIPO Formation.

In the morning of 8 Nov 2012, I went to PRC to personally hand over IPORESP's request for cancellation of APO accreditation of PhilRES based on the PRC Rules on APO Cancellation. I also delivered a separate letter expressing IPORESP's intent to get PRC accreditation as a Professional Association, with a clear disclaimer that this is not yet our AIPO application.

Coincidentally, on the same day, without legal basis, without stating the the background, and without stating the clear purpose, the PRB-RES issues a Memo on 8 Nov 2012 to facilitate the participation of Non-PhilRES associations and individuals to propose and discuss amendments to the PhilRES By-Laws.

PRB-RES' non-compliance to the Rule is an act of negligence, and there is no excuse to that. That PRB-RES 8 Nov 2012 Memo is a WEAK defense if I will complain them in Ombudsman for negligence of duty after 15 days. They are creating more problems instead of solutions. They have to learn a lesson that their job is just to implement the Rules and the Law. They have to learn their lesson in a hard way.


The remedy is to implement BOTH. The PRB-RES will just show good faith that they will implement the Law and Rule, and will right away cancel the APO Accreditation of PhilRES; and then the stakeholders of PhilRES will sit down to discuss how to improve PhilRES By-Laws and other things that needs to be improved (if that is what "they" think is the solution). In this remedy, PRB-RES-PRC will be acting as a true administrator of the law.

The 8 Nov 2012 memo of PRB-RES reduces the image of the PRB-RES-PRC from Administrator down to a Law-Firm representing the interest of the survival of PhilRES.

Besides, the PRC Rule says if after one year the APO falls below 50% membership of all licensed professionals, then consequence is that the APO Accreditation is to be cancelled. The Rule neither said that the consequence is the By-Laws will be revised, nor the consequences is the officers are to be replaced, nor any other 1,000 possible consequences. The Rule is there so you will know what decision to take and others will anticipate what decision you will take in any eventualities -- that is what we call TRANSPARENCY of GOVERNANCE.

No comments: