Success was Claimed by PRC: Should They Really?!
CE-AGRESSION DEEMED RE-TAKE A USELESS EXERCISE,
WILL ASK THE COURT OF APPEALS NOT TO RELEASE THE RESULT OF THE RE-TAKE
CE-AGRESSION whose members boycotted the re-take of the examination of subjects Hydraulics and Geotechnical Engineering and Structural Engineering and Construction last January 12, 2008 refute the statement of PRC and DOLE that the re-take was successful.
A total of 1,515 or about 31.72 percent of the 4,776 civil engineering graduates did not re-take the board exams nationwide, the Department of Labor and Employment said Saturday.
“The ‘success’ which PRC would want the public to believe refer only to the peaceful conduct of the re-take. Certainly, it does not refer to all the examinees having taken the re-take. 1,515 is considerably a big number. That only shows that one-third of the examinees did not want to participate in the re-take because in the first place it is of doubtful validity. We did not participate in the re-take for to do so would gratify PRC and give semblance to its claim that the examinees of the November 2007 Civil Engineering Licensure Examinations are cheaters. We do not want that tag appended to our name. We would rather take the regular examination than to participate in the re-take and be labeled as cheats.” according to CE-AGRESSION.
In the meantime, so as not to complicate further the controversy, CE-AGRESSION said their lawyer Jobert Pahilga will file a motion with CA on
“It is just okay if the examinee passed both the November 2007 examinations and the re-take. It would be a different story if he passed the re-take and failed in the November 2007 exams. In such a situation, would he be considered to have passed the exams? Would he be allowed to take the oath? What if he was already employed as engineer but after the petition is granted and the result of November 2007 examinations is released, he failed in the said examinations? Is it not according to CA resolution, the result of the re-take, should the petition is granted, will simply be nullified? This was included in our argument for the issuance of TRO but which was unfortunately not considered by CA”, CE-AGRESSION noted.
The Court of Appeals on
According to the resolution of Justice Ricardo Rosario, 12th Division of Court of Appeals, there is no sufficient ground to warrant the issuance of a TRO.
“While petitioners fear the holding of retake examination might render the petition moot and academic in that those who passed the first examination might fail in the second. And therefore can no longer take the oath, such fear has no basis in reality. In the first place, if the petition is later found to be meritorious and granted, the second examination will simply be nullified ” according to the resolution of CA 12th Division.
But in an Extremely Urgent Motion for Reconsideration, CE-AGRESSION insisted that the fear of taking the retake examination is not the issue in the application for TRO. “What we fear is for the re-take to proceed which will eventually tarnish our reputation”.
In the said motion, CE-AGRESSION also argued that the re-take will result to irreparable damage and injury to the examinees as the result can and will be nullified later on if the petition is granted. It would therefore only complicate matters for the examinees according to the group.
The Extremely Urgent Motion was not resolved by the CA for which reason the re-take proceed as scheduled.
RE-TAKE - A USELESS EXERCISE
“As stated in CA Resolution issued on
PRC GIVEN TEN DAYS TO ANSWER PETITION
Although CA denied the TRO, in the same resolution, it ordered the PRC to answer within ten (10) the petition filed by CE-AGRESSION and to show cause why the injunction will not be granted.
“Although the injunction we prayed for is primordially to enjoin the re-take, we have also asked the CA to order PRC to release the result of the November 2007. We are and would again be asking the CA to order PRC to release the result of the November 2007 exams should PRC fails to justify within ten (10) days the resolution nullifying the results of the said examination.” according to Pahilga.
The petition filed by CE-AGRESSION asked the court to nullify the resolution of PRC that ordered the re-take and for the court to order PRC to release the result of the examination of November 2007.
“We are confident that the petition will be granted by the Court of Appeals. There is no irregularity or leakage in the November 2007 examinations. Only two (2) examinees were caught cheating. That would not be enough bases to nullify the entire result of the examination. After ten (10) days, we will see what evidence does PRC have in saying that the November 2007 was marred with irregularity for which reason they did not to release the result of the November 2007 examination and order the re-take.” added Pahilga
EXAMINEES ARE MULLING TO FILE CASE FOR DAMAGES AGAINST PRC
On the other hand, CE-AGRESSION said “After the petition is granted in our favor, we will deliberate if there is enough bases to file damages against the PRC, its commissioners and the Board of Civil Engineering.”
Meanwhile, Engineer Padilla, owner of
“The four thousand seven hundred eighty other examinees should not be penalized for the misdeeds of only two (2) of their peers.” according to Engr. Padilla.