July 2011 Nurse Licensure Examination Result - July 2011 Nurse Board Exam Result

Please note the intolerable BAD EFFECT of including test 3 in the retake.

If the examinee FAILS the retake of tests 3 and 5, he becomes a FLUNKER and will have to repeat the entire exam of 5 subjects.

Whereas, if only test 5 is subject to retake, dahil passed na sa ibang subjects ang examinee, if he FAILS in the retake, he becomes CONDITIONED and will have to repeat test 5 only--meaning he is given another chance for the same subject. Only if this second chance is failed again will there be a need to repeat the entire exam of 5 subjects.

Kaya ang lupit ni Dante Ang na ipinagpipilitan ang retake ng both tests 3 and 5 gayung, come to think of it, PAKITANG TAO lang naman ang retake at kahit test 5 lang ang ulitin ay okay na rin--BASTA'T IPALIWANAG LANG NILA NG MAAYOS SA TAO, PATI SA ABROAD. Dahil hindi sila ang kukuha ng retake ay wala silang consideration sa 17,821 passers na siyang magdurusa.

you really blew me away....yan din lahat ang laman ng loob ko...kudos to you...

tama ka po! dapat test 5 lang ang iretake.yan din ang sabi ko sa mga batchmates ko na nakapasa. nakuha ko na license ko pero hindi pa nagiinit sa kamay ko, mukang mawawalang bisa agad. Nway sa mga kukuha n clex magfocus nalang tau sa review ng nclex.mukang mahabang diskusyon nanamang tong retake nila.

TAMA KA DIYAN---DAPAT LANG NILANG HIMAYIN ANG MAGRETAKE---HINDI DAPAT LAHAT NG 42THOU EXAMINEES AY MAGRETAKE...DAHIL SA MGA BUMAGSAK--TALAGANG BUMAGSAK SILA SA IBANG TESTS OF 1,2,4...GRABE NA ITO!!!! SANA NAMAN IGALANG NAMAN NILA ANG MGA PASSERS!!!!

dapat nga wala ng retake eh! he he! wala naman idudulot na maganda talga yan eh, duda akong yan nga ang makapaglilinis ng propesyon natin...

chum... oh you are so right in all aspect!!!! Call for a reelection!!!Invalidat the licenses of the PT from UST who were proven to have leakage.Sirang-sira na ang integrity ni PGMA, walang isang salita.Di hamak na masmalaki ang pandarayang ginawa mo sa election.Mr. Dante Ang, you really don't know what damage you have done to innocent lives.To Mr.Tadle, pano ka nakakatulog na pinahamak mo ang kinabukasan ng mga passers?You are one selfish son of a bitch!Alamo magcocomplain kami na maalis ka sa position mo.Ginagamit mo ang school mo sa pagpahamak sa mga tao.Ikinahihiya ka namin.Sana hindi ka na lang taga UST.Napakaganda ng paaralan na sinira mo.Dapat lang alisin ka na jan ng mayari.You are such a disgrace to the university.Napakabastos mo, walang modo,bakla ka,wala kang pinagaralan,kung nagladlad ka na sana mas masaya ka pa kesa puros kapahamakan ng iba ang inaatupag mo.We will aslo sue you,Dante Ang,together with George Cordero,Madeja,etc.etc for the moral damages,etc.Sana ay nagtratrabaho na kami ng matiwasay.Palibhasa puros mayayaman kayo.

Dear Rothel,

Thank you for furnishing me a copy of your communication to the President.

I say "Amen!" to most most of the points you raised. You have a lot of gray matter between your ears. I'm sure you passed the June exam legitimately. Although you are against retake, you feel righteous indignation at the cheating and do not condone it. I find your piece very interesting that in spite of my hectic schedule, I am finding time to react.

You are absolutely right: If GMA is voiding the result of Tests II and V because of the cheating, so too must the result of the 2004 presidential elections be voided. There was cheating. Everyone-especially GMA- knows this. She was the mastermind. She was the beneficiary. If this government has a policy against cheating, it must not be selectively applied.

I commiserate with all the innocent examinees who must now retake portions of the board exam. Since the beginning, it has always been my position that it is grave injustice to require the examinees to retake. You are right - why should the innocent be punished?

It might interest you to know that my husband, Leandro B. Yañgot, Jr. was the leader of the group of seven examinees who, in 2003, filed a petition before the Supreme Court to nullify the result of the Mercantile Law exam. I helped them craft their petition which was granted. I also helped them craft their motion asking the SC not to re-administer the nullified exam. Again, their motion was granted. Their arguments are the same if not identical to the arguments of the "no-retake of the the nursing exam" group. If you want confirmation, surf the net.

Before his decision to file that petition in 2003, I was always a fan of my husband. But this must have been, in large part, because I was always sooooo in love with him. (Permit me this too personal statement.) When he filed that petition, I admired him more - this time not as a man I was in love with but as a human being who chose to stand his ground on the trajectory of righteousness. His was a principled posture. That is why I admire Renato Aquino and the others who are passionately pursuing the cause of the no-retake group. I heard their arguments. They are valid.

You might now be wondering why I am acting as legal counsel for the group that filed the second petition before the CA. In that petition, we are asking the court to order PRC to re-administer Tests III an V. Am I being inconsistent? No, Rothel, I am not.

Rothel, it is my view that there is a fine distinction between the leakage in the bar exam and that in the nursing exam. When my husband and his 6 friends instituted the petition before the SC in 2003, the court acted expeditiously. It immediately demonstrated its condemnation of the cheating by nullifying, in a matter of days upon receipt of the petition, the affected exam. The SC's swift action prevented the decimation of the integrity of the legal profession and the credibility of bar examination. The nursing case is different. The PRC continued to deny the leakage notwithstanding the overwhelming evidence in its possession. After it received the formal complaint of the Baguio Braves, it dilly-dallied. I know this. I am a witness to how the PRC tried to whitewash the case. The PRC's mishandling of the leakage issue did more damage to the credibility of the exam than the leakage did.

My point, Rothel, is the credibility of the 2003 bar exam was salvaged by the judicious and hasty action of the SC which, by the way, administers the bar exams as the PRC administers professional exams. But the credibility of the June 2006 nursing licensure exam has been completely demolished because of the mismanagement by PRC. People have faith in the competence of the 2003 bar exam passers because they passed a credible exam. But people- at least, many of them anyway, do not have faith -wrongly or rightly- in the competence of the June nursing board exam passers because they passed a test that lost all trace of integrity.

Rothel, it is unfair, very so unfair, to ask the innocent to retake. When the no-retake group succeeds in preventing such a scenario, they will be sparing the innocent the burden of having to spend for their review and the stress of having to hurdle an exam. But these innocent examinees will face the prospect of being turned away by employers and of having their capability questioned by the health service consuming public. I think I am not imagining this. I have been fed enough facts to know that the stigma is real. It is not deserved, but it is real.

I am firmly convinced that it is more unfair not to ask the innocent to retake. When they do retake, they will lose money, time and effort. They will be subjected to stress. But they will be granted the only recourse to obliterate questions on their competence. They will be recapturing the glory of the nursing profession. And God willing, they will not be turned away by employers. If turned away, it would be for a reason other than doubt on their competence.

Should you find yourself lost in Baguio City, please get in touch with me. I would love to drink tea with you. Just look up the telephone directory. Maybe we can swap thoughts on issues other than the nursing exam leakage. I'd love to discuss the Garci nungaling telephone call and why I believe that the proposed charter change should be stopped. Maybe, we can also talk about the deteriorating quality of nursing education (which created the demand for the likes of Gapuz and Cordero), the inanity of the idea of putting PRC under DOLE, the bankruptcy of wisdom in the EO making CHED in charge of regulating the review schools (when it cannot be effective in its primary mandate of regulating and monitoring
colleges and universities), globalization, liberalization, privatization and free trade. Madami iyan - all interesting topics.

See you soon.

Cheryl L. Daytec-Yañgot

I like your piece so much that I am sending it as well as my reaction to people who may not agree to your anti-retake position but will understand you and appreciate your thoughts. I hope you do.

Buti pa itong si Atty. Yangot, kahit di siya agree sa atin di ko magawang magalit sa kanya. kasi talagang may ipinaglalaban. Napanood ko siya sa Senate at sa TV. Magaling talagang magsalita at tama naman mga puntos niya. Lagi niyang tinutuligsa PRC, NBI, BON at pati na si GMA. Palaban talaga. Di ko alam na maka-retake siya until nagfile sila sa CA ng kaso para mag-retake tayo. Nagalit ako sa kanya pero dahil me sense sinasabi niya nawala galit ko. Sana she will change her mind. Asawa pala niya ang nag-expose sa leakage sa 2003 bar at isa siya sa mga lawyers who went against retake. Bakit iba ngayon ang posisyon niya? Baka puwede pang magbago. Si Tadle, wala siyang redeeming value. Ayaw niya ng retake dahil basta ayaw niya. Walang puso.Di naman siya nurse. Kagaya ni Ang di pa iyan nakapasa ng isang board exam kaya di tayo naiintindihan. Dapat, magladlad na sila pareho.

Puede bang i-block si Atty. Yangot sa pagpo-post ng comments? Marami siyang nakukumbinsing examinees na gustng magretake. Maski galit ako sa kanya, I must admit na napakagaling niya. Atty Yangot, please shut up!

Ang mga makaretake, pare-pareho lang mga iyan. Si Dante Ang, Rene Tadle, Richard Gordon at Cheryl Daytec-Yangot ay dapat magsamasama sa isang barko at ipalubog sa gitna ng karagatan. Magkakaroon ng peace sa country if that happens. Palibhasa ang apat na iyan ay mga burgis. Halata sa pananalita nila. Taga-States yata silang apat. Hoy, bumalik kayo sa bansa ninyo.

Ang mga makaretake, pare-pareho lang mga iyan. Si Dante Ang, Rene Tadle, Richard Gordon at Cheryl Daytec-Yangot ay dapat magsamasama sa isang barko at ipalubog sa gitna ng karagatan. Magkakaroon ng peace sa country if that happens. Palibhasa ang apat na iyan ay mga burgis. Halata sa pananalita nila. Taga-States yata silang apat. Hoy, bumalik kayo sa bansa ninyo.

ano naman kinagaling nya, asawa nga whistle blower din sa bar exam, isa lang masasabi ko PAREHO SILA WALA MAGAWA SA BUHAY KAYA GUMAGAWA NG STORY LAGI PARA NAMAN SUMIKAT, MAHIRAP KASI SUMIKAT SA LAW.

For: ATTY. YANGOT

Please be reminded that you did not answer the points raised in the article posted herein. Instead, you shifted the topic to your personal circumstances, an evasive tactic of reacting to issues.

Systems experts guard against solving a problem by creating another problem. In your case, it is worse. You want to solve a problem--cheating in nursing exam--by creating INJUSTICE through having innocent passers retake the exam.

We do not begrudge the Baguio Braves exposing the cheating, in having the guilty punished, with capital punishment if you want. We couldn’t care less if you do it by firing squad if they are really guilty of an ignoble crime. But we do care about innocent passers whom you want to punish as well through retake for shallow and illogical reasons.

If I may say so, what is not right in what you are doing is that you are demanding a wrong and OA (overacting) solution to the problem instead of pushing for the crucial solutions alone.

What is needed is to punish the guilty and reform the exam system. You are not satisfied with that, you want retake--worse, not only of Test 5 but also of Test 3. You are a lawyer, you belong to the profession where if you find one saying yes, you can always find another one saying no. If you really wanted to exclude Test 3 from retake, you know you can find strong justifications for it, not the least of which is the PRECEDENT in the 2003 bar exam scandal where an entire subject was excluded without invalidating the exam and without retake! Yet, while you profess a bleeding heart for the innocent passers, you want to crucify them by doubling their problem--reviewing and passing two subjects instead of just one, Test 5.

While punishing the guilty and reforming the exam system are non-negotiable solutions, having passers retake the exam is not even a needed solution.
First, you said the 2003 bar-scandal handling is not applicable because the Supreme Court (SC) acted expeditiously on it while PRC did not. This is not a fact. The bar scandal took place in September 2003, the SC finally resolved it in February 2004 despite the absence of petitioners against no-retake. The SC did a recomputation of grades on October 7, 2003. Nobody petitioned against it. Then, it was only a week after such recomputation was done that it ordered an investigation of the scandal--the source of leakage, the persons responsible, etc.--or on October 14, 2003 to be exact, almost one month after the Supreme Court learned about the leakage!!! The investigation report was submitted to the SC on January 15, 2004.

If the bar scandal was resolved more expeditiously, it was because there were no petitioners for retake. On the contrary, petitions submitted were against retake, which made SC relent and decided against retake. In the case of PRC, it did a similar recomputation of grades but, unlike in the bar exam scandal, it was deluged by objections by many complainants, including your group.

You cited as reason PRC’s delayed action on the leakage as ground for concluding that the 2003 bar exam scandal cannot be cited as PRECEDENT. How did that happen? Even assuming that you are right--which is not exactly correct as just explained--why should the acts of PRC deprive the innocent passers of their right to invoke SC’s handling of the 2003 bar exam scandal as PRECEDENT? Looks like that is a new principle in law!

Moreover, what ACTUAL harm did PRC’s delay produce to which the logical solution is retake? Bad image of the passers? But that happened because of what Dante Ang and the petitioners said against them! Had they said otherwise, it would have been different. The government could not be pinned down for human rights violations involving hundreds of killings. It depended itself before the international community. The case of the 17,000 passers is much easier to defend. All that has to be said is that “they passed fair and square some 390 remaining valid questions, exclusive of purged leaked questions, and that number is much more than the first 60 graded questions in NCLEX that if passed automatically makes the examinee a PASSER, without the need to go to the last 265th question.” Then to this should be added the challenge to foreign recruiters and hospitals: “Why don’t you try them, just follow your usual testing procedure and you will find that they will qualify.” But no, Filipinos themselves are the ones downgrading the 2006 passers, and if Filipinos themselves are the ones saying it, foreigners will of course believe because they assume that Filipinos know more about themselves than them foreigners! What’s more, the passing of examinees should depend on what they did, not on what others think about them, which is subjective. It is not a conclusive fact, as can be proven later by potential successful examinees in NCLEX who do not have to prove that they are competent passers of the 2006 PRC exam because passing PRC exam is not even a requirement for NCLEX--and yet they can work abroad for as long as they pass NCLEX and related requirements!

Perhaps, PRC Commissioners bungled the aspect of taking prompt actions against the suspected BON examiners. They should be taken to task or even charged for that, but why did you not protect the passers from them? Right at the start, your stand was for retake--even when it was still not too late for PRC to promptly act against the examiners and others involved. Why did you not recommend ways that will avoid retake, considering that it is quite prejudicial to innocent passers. In the 2003 bar exams, without prior PRECEDENT, passers thought retake was not right, so they fought for it and won. In the 2006 nursing scandal, there is already an existing PRECEDENT, so you should have been solicitous about the passers rights, but no, right at the start, even when it was not yet too late for PRC to correct itself, your position was retake.

If the ground for retake is to show competence, it does not apply to Test 3 with 80 remaining valid questions out of 100, especially in the light of the 2003 bar exam PRECEDENT and the very much lesser number of questions that if successfully answered makes the examinee a passer--the first 60 graded questions for all subjects in NCLEX. On the other hand, if the reason is to erase their stigma, especially before the international community, two subjects need not be retaken just for that PAKITANG-TAO purposes. Retake just of one subject, Test 5, should be enough. But in your case, you did not show any signs that you wanted to do that--lighten the problem and burden of innocent passers by excluding Test 3 from retake.

As explained in other comments in this Pinoy BSN, there is a hell of difference to innocent passers between asking them to retake Tests 3 and 5 and Test 5 only. Buty it seems that does not matter to you. You also did not even consider that asking for retake of Test 3 can be downright WRONG and ILLEGAL in case there are examinees who got 75 correct answers out of the remaining 80 valid questions because that still meets the required 75% passing grade out of the original 100 questions for Test 3. You would not exclude Test 3 from the retake even if doing so would make things doubly hard for those who will retake because in that case they will have to review for two subjects, plus the fact that if they become unlucky, like the honor graduates of UST, and they fail the two subjects, they will become flunkers who will have to repeat the entire exam of 5 subjects. Whereas if there is only one subject to be retaken, only Test 5, then even if they fail, they can be CONDITIONED, which will require retake of only Test 5 again. Yeah, your heart bleeds for the innocent passers but you will not grant them the consolation of less severe punishment by way of retaking Test 5 alone. You care for them in words but your actions have shown the opposite, meaning, you may not be the person you think you are? And that seems on record, in the petition you submitted to the Court, which will remain there for posterity.

Stop stop stop. Itigil ninyo na iyang away-away ninyo - Atty Saguisag (Anonymous hehehe. Kapangalan pala kita) at Atty. Yangot. Doon na kayo sa court magpatayan at bigyan ko pa kayo ng tig-isang balisong galing sa Batangas. Doon ninyo na ipakita kung sino sa inyong dalawa ang tama. Huwag ninyo gamitin itong blogsite. Dapat madisbar kayong dalawa.Ikaw, Saguisag na abugado ng mga rapist (Sanchez) at magnanakaw (Estrada) - pekeng human rights lawyer. Ikaw, Yangot, na abugado ng mga sour grapes - tumakbo ka na lang sa beauty pageant. Please lang leave as in peace.

Igan, huwag mo na lang buksan yung comments.

Pero kami, hihintayin namin yung sagot ke Saguisag. Para malaman namin kung kayang i-justify yung retake ng test 3. At saka kung kaya niyang upakan yung Supreme Court na nag-recompute na pala ng grades ay ni wala pang investigation na inuutos, he, he, he. At ng mag-order ng investigation ay almost one month na after the leakage was brought to its attention, he, he, he! So me precedent naman palang sinunod yung PRC!

Pag hindi sumagot, alam na namin kung bakit.

Dear Concerned Citizen:



I have been busy that I was able to open my mails only this evening. Thank you for writing me.


Before anything else, I did not post a reaction to PinoyBSN. I am a very busy person that I have no time to visit the blogsite. Which is why your mail came as a surprise. I made inquiries and learned that a letter I sent to the editor of the Philippine Daily Inquirer and the Public Statement of my clients which was also submitted to the PDI and partly printed by said paper were posted by concerned people who were furnished (by me via email) copies of the same. They put my name as the one who posted the letter (on Rosero and GMA acting out a script). Although done without my prior authorization, I am glad they did. It sparked reactions. I also received a letter via email from a board passer named Rothel Bayudan (assuming he or she does exist. The point is I got a mail from someone claiming to be Rothel.). I liked it so much that I reacted by email. I forwarded to friends Rothel's letter as well as my reply to it. And then a nursing leader who apparently liked my answer posted it on Pinoy BSN. Since it is the only piece the authorship of which is attributable to me that makes mention of some of my personal circumstances, it must be the one reacted to by Atty. Saguisag. (You know, Concerned Citizen, I am wondering why a person of Atty. Saguisag's stature would take cover under the identity or non-identity of "Anonymous." His record during the Martial Law speaks for itself. He was courageous. He braved the feared Marcos Dictatorship. Why would he react to a letter of a harmless nobody like me and cowardly resort to hiding under the cloak of the name or non-name Anonymous? I have doubts that Mr. Anonymous is Atty. Saguisag. The latter would not do such a gutless thing!)



Mr. Anonymous claims that I did not answer the points raised by Rothel. I did. I told Rothel I agree to most of the points he/she raised. I agree that virtually if not actually, the innocent stand to be punished whether they will retake or they will not retake.



But Rothel and I differ on the issue of whether or not there should be a retake. Standing FIRM on the premise that a retake is unjust, I say that it is necessary. I still am convinced that the 2003 Bar Examination case is different, although similar.



How similar? In both the bar and the nursing licensure exam (NLE), there was leakage. The similarity ends there. But how different? Let me count the ways they are so:



1. Upon receipt of the evidence of the leakage (PRC records show that on 17 June 2006, they had enough evidence.), the PRC claimed that no fraud plagued the administration of the NLE. On 21 June 2006 (the day the Baguio Braves filed the complaint officially exposing the leakage), it announced in a public statement that as long as there was no FORMAL complaint, there was no leakage. This is an acute case of non sequitur . Worse, PRC claimed that the allegations of leakage were the result of intense rivalry among the review centers. In the case of the 2003 Bar exam, did the Supreme issue a public statement disclaiming leakage? No. Did it say that there was no leakage unless there was a formal complaint? No. Upon receipt of the evidence, the SC spontaneously demonstrated its indignation by immediately nullifying the tainted exam and ordered a retake. It was only because individuals including my husband asked the court not to administer a retake that the SC backtracked.



2. Owing to the fact that the SC immediately condemned the leakage practically as soon as it happened, the faith of the public in the integrity of the body that administered the exam was not diminished. In fact, the SC earned "pogi points" with its swift action which sealed the credibility of the bar exam. In the case of the PRC, its publicly exhibited reluctance to look into the leakage shattered its own credibility. Any right thinking individual would not agree to PRC's snail's pace in taking cognizance of the leakage issue. Under the PRC Modernization Law, it is the primary mandate of the PRC to ensure the integrity of all Philippine professions and protect the credibility of the licensure examinations. Before it can be effective in this mandate, IT MUST HAVE INTEGRITY AND CREDIBILITY first. How can it ensure the credibility of the NLE when it was (and still is) not itself credible? I'm sure even Atty. Saguisag would concede this point. The SC would be insulted if it learns that its handling of the 2003 bar exam leakage is being equated with the grossly clumsy PRC handling of the NLE leakage.



3. To be sure, the 2003 bar leakage issue did not escalate into a scandal of international prominence or notoriety. Why? a) The Supreme Court acted swiftly by censuring the leakage. Of course, it took a longer time for the SC to establish those who were responsible and mete out the appropriate punishment. They could not precipitously punish the guilty. To have done so would have been a violation of due process enshrined in the Philippine Constitution which the SC justices are legally and morally obliged to uphold. When they observe due process, they are only defending the fundamental law which demands no less. b) The US does not give a heck about the competence of our lawyers. We cannot be treated as export goods by the GMA administration which has commodified the labor of our nurses. There is no demand for our skills abroad. The outside world has no fear that we as lawyers will be let loose in an unsuspecting society - theirs. Lawyers as we all know do not study to leave the country to work as lawyers (I know a few lawyers who are enrolled in nursing schools right now. This is a manifestation of the sorry state of our economy - even the lawyers are having a hard time surviving. Or it could also be a manifestation of surrender. Sawa na ang mga tao. GMA saw to that!). The SC handling of the leakage issue passed public scrutiny as it was dealt with in the blink of an eye and was not forsaken to metamorphose into a scandal of national proportion . It is true that no one among the bar examinees petitioned for retake. Why should they do this when the trustworthiness of their exam was not impaired? But if the credibility of that bar exam were subjected to the same questions as the June NLE, who is to say that no one would have moved for retake? I will tell you again what I told Rothel: People have faith in the competence of the 2003 bar exam passers because they passed a credible exam. But people- at least, many of them anyway, do not have faith -wrongly or rightly- in the competence of the June nursing board exam passers because they passed a test that lost all trace of integrity.





4. The NLE leakage was a totally different matter. It started as a manageable issue. PRC could have arrested its development into a badge of national shame if it did not try to cover it up - and cover it up unskillfully that its mishandling was so palpable. When did news of the NLE leakage erupt? The day of the last examination. I'm sure you monitored the news. How long did it take for the PRC to acknowledge there was a leakage? More than a month after the exam. What took them so long? What was the basis of their conclusion there was a leakage? The evidence already in PRC's possession as of June 17! In short, between June 17 and July 12 when it allegedly came out with the resolution affirming the leakage, it did not come up with anything new. What it did on July 12, it could have done on June 17! Because of the foot-dragging of PRC, any shred of credibility attached to the Rosero-led (or plagued) PRC evaporated into thin air, taking with it (dinamay) the integrity of the June NLE.



5. The SC nullified the mercantile law exam in 2003. It did not tone it down by reducing its weight, and padding it with equal parts coming from the seven other examinations. For the SC to have done that would have been sheer absurdity. What did the PRC do? It adopted Resolution No. 31 of the BON. This resolution employed a highly dubious formula to determine the examinees' scores for Test V. Only 10 questions in Test V were considered. The average of Tests 1-5 was computed and added to the average of Tests 1-4, divided by 2 (Try applying the MDAS rule here.). Is this not an example of foolhardiness? No wonder the team conducting the CGFNS here in this country called the formula unusual (a kind word, I must say. The formula is stupid!). Why did PRC-BON not simply disregard Test V? Or why did they not consider the test in its totality since according to them, the statistical data show that leakage of Test V was not massive?



6. The next question is: But the SC excluded Mercantile Law in the bar. Why can we not also exclude medical-surgical nursing and psychiatric nursing in the NLE? The nursing profession deals with human life. All the subject areas deal with life. Mercantile Law deals with commerce - it deals with property. A mistake in the business of caring for lives is irreversible. It can result in death or an existence akin to it. The nurse has to be competent in all the broad areas of caring for lives. There is no room for mistake. Unlike a mistake committed by the lawyer whose competence in mercantile law was not measured, that of a nurse cannot be appealed. (I do not wonder why an NLE examinee who gets an average of 90% but obtains a score of less than 60% in any subject does not pass the exam. He/She has to take a removal exam. In the case of a bar examinee, if he/she garners a score of less than 75 but not lower than 50 in any subject, he/she still qualifies as a lawyer as long as his/her general average is 75%.) This is not to say, of course, that lawyers are entitled to commit mistakes and may adopt a cavalier attitude in dealing with the properties of their clients. What I mean is that there is an opportunity to correct the mistake of a lawyer who did not take an exam in mercantile law whereas there is no opportunity to correct the mistake of a nurse which led to a patient's jumping off a bridge to his/her death.



7. Another point: the SC promulgates the rules for admission to the bar. It has sole discretion to determine the criterion standards to determine the competencies of the examinees. When it disregarded Mercantile Law in the 2003 bar, it was acting within the ambit of its powers. In the case of the BON, it is not free to do that. The Nursing Act of 2002 unequivocally provides that it should prepare questions on the broad areas of nursing. It is not at liberty to disregard a test if doing so will narrow down the coverage of the exam. Definitely, what it did- practically excluding Test V - violated the law. It did not conduct an exam on the broad areas of nursing.



Mr. Anonymous says that the NCLEX asks 265 or so questions. By analogy therefore, the 380 NLE questions (assuming without admitting that they were not all leaked) that were not disregarded by PRC are enough basis to measure the abilities of the examinees . But the issue here is not the number of questions asked; It is the comprehensiveness of the examination. Highly reliable sources say that the NCLEX is a "threaded through" exam. Meaning, it is comprehensive and measures competencies in all nursing areas. Our own NLE does not have to quiz the examinees with 500 questions. The BON can ask only 100 as long as the questions cover all the nursing areas. In other words, what is of significance is not the quantity of questions asked but the quality of the test instrument. To say that we can disregard Test V altogether is to tolerate an exam that is not comprehensive as it does not measure the competencies of the examinees in an important subject area which is psychiatric nursing.



The differences in the case of the 2003 bar and the June NLE are crystal clear. Mr. Anonymous failed to convince me that the 2003 bar exam is a precedent on which to base the decision on the June NLE case.



Mr. Anonymous was wrong when he said that from the very beginning I was for retake. Obviously, he did not research very well. The complaint filed by the Baguio Braves before the PRC prayed ONLY FOR THE INVALIDATION OF THE LEAKED QUESTIONS. THERE WAS NO PRAYER FOR RETAKE. Since you are a concerned citizen, I hope you will not mind if you include among your concerns the verification of this fact with the PRC.



How did it happen that individuals who did not ask for retake at the first instance asked for it at the second instance?



It happened because of the following reasons: In the case of those who are on the PRC "passed list", they realized that they would be bigger losers without retaking than if they were to retake . The integrity of the NLE and its result was so compromised if not obliterated in its entirety primarily for two reasons: a) PRC's mishandling of the scandal (A poisonous tree bears a poisonous fruit. That is what everyone or almost everyone believes- rightly or wrongly.); b) the basis of the computation of grades which is Res. No. 31 is highly questionable. (Read it and you will understand. My hunch is that Atty. Saguisag himself will not shout for joy when he reads Res. No. 31. I have yet to hear him comment on it. ) In the case of those with borderline scores on the "failed list", it is for the same reasons that the no-retake group is opposing a retake – They are innocent so why should they be punished? Why were their scores in Test V disregarded? Res. No. 31 as applied to them is severe injustice!



And by the way, even the premises of Res. No. 31 are wrong. Go over the pieces of evidence upon which PRC-BON based the assailed Resolution. It is not true that only 90 questions of Test V were leaked. All the 100 questions were. It is not true that only 20 questions of Test III were leaked. 25 were. Wrong premise, wrong conclusion. Resolution No. 31 is therefore wrong. As it was the basis of PRC to determine those who passed and those who flunked, the result is wrong. It cannot be disputed that there are those who passed but were failed (or made to fail) because of the application of Res. No. 31.



Concerned Citizen, do you honestly believe that Res. No. 31 was correct, if you assume the data I gave you as facts? I am sure that you are open minded and are interested to explore all the angles and the facets of the problem.



Mr. Anonymous projects himself as a human being with a bleeding heart for the innocent. He goes overboard by accusing me of being callous - in so many words. Who are the innocent here? Those who passed under the questionable BON-PRC formula as well as those who failed under it but could have passed if their scores in Test V were not subjected to fatuous tweaking. Twenty-seven of the Petitioners in the 2nd case filed before the CA flunked. Their scores are up in the air. Like Atty. Saguisag's client, these people did not cheat. They are now questioning why, as claimed by the BON in its Res. No. 31, if leakage of Test V was not widespread, their scores for that test were manipulated. Most Board passers agree that Test V was the easiest to hurdle and it was the most well-crafted among the exams, but it was practically disregarded. If the leakage was not pervasive, why was there a need to engineer the results and deviate from the standards? Does the heart of Mr. Anonymous bleed for these poor, unfortunate souls? Mine does.



We have a heart for the innocent passers. If we favor a retake, it is because we want them to have licenses not smeared with misgivings on their competence. Let us not debate on whether or not the stigma is real. The trustworthiness of the examination cannot be overemphasized. Only a credible examination or computation yields a reliable license. And only a credible license is of value to the holder. Needless to state, only a credible license is of value to the employer - foreign or local. The stigma is unfair. Whether the stigma was dexterously constructed or illegitimately fathered by Dante Ang, whether it is deserved or not, it is there, almost in the flesh. It is not enough that we say it is unfair. We have to face it squarely. The only way AT THIS POINT to exterminate it is to saunter the painful path – Retake Avenue. Retake is unjust but it is the only course of action that can salvage whatever it is that needs to be recaptured - the credibility of the passers, the integrity of the nursing profession, the stolen dreams of the examinees who were made to fail because of the implementation of a highly questionable formula. We have to assure the employability of our nurses abroad because this rotten government is sterile, if not impotent – it cannot create economic opportunities for its people. Our nurses and their families – not just Gloria Arroyo and her family - have to eat and eat well. It is not true that one does not have to pass the NLE before he/she can take the NCLEX. Save for two, all states in the USA require Filipino examinees to pass the local NLE. I condemn this government's labor export policy and its treatment of our nurses as commercial commodities, but I condemn it more for creating the monster –this leakage scandal- that prevents their absorption into the overseas labor, their only hope of employment which is observably nil in this doomed country. Had the PRC acted swiftly before the stigma emerged into a looming presence and had it not applied Res. No. 31 that seems to have emanated from mentally challenged spin doctors, there would have been no need for a retake as the integrity of the exam would not have been consigned to the devil.



Personally, I agree with Mr. Anonymous' view that Test III may be enough basis to measure the competencies of the examinees. It might interest you to know that I also broached this idea to my clients but most of them are for the retake of Test III. I am just a lawyer and, as Atty. Saguisag understands very well, the clients are the boss. I understand the point of my bosses. That 20 questions of Test III were leaked affects the integrity of the entire Test. Still, if it were up to me, I could compromise on Test III. I would not be unhappy if the CA were to say that there is no need to retake Test III.



Those who are against retake should also be sensitive to the issues of those who were made to flunk. Should there be no retake, it does not mean to say that the result as released by the PRC will stand. The scores of those on PRC's "passed" and "failed" lists should be recomputed to completely water down the bearing of Res. No. 31 on the exam result. If there was no cheating in Mindanao and Visayas, why should the preposterous resolution be applied to them?



By the way, did you know that there is a precedent that applies squarely to the NLE case? In 1989, board exam questions for Electrical Engineering and CPA were leaked. PRC ordered a retake. Five people who took the EE exam in 1989 will execute their Sworn Statement to this effect.



I am sending you this reaction by email. I will furnish copies to some of the petitioners whom I am representing in the CA. Will you please give me the email address of Mr. Anonymous? I would like to answer him via email. I cannot post my answer on the blogsite because doing so might be contemptuous. I am one of the lawyers in the 2nd CA Petition.



Again, thank you for calling my attention to the reaction of Mr. Anonymous. I repeat: I do not believe he is the distinguished Rene Saguisag. Mr. Anonymous and I do not have to be enemies. While we are divided on the issue of retake, we can work together on other issues.



If you still have questions that you need me to answer, I would appreciate your asking them.



Very truly yours,



Cheryl Daytec-Yañgot

sent via-email:
Dear Concerned Citizen,

I'm sorry that I did not correctly state what I meant in the following paragraph:

"Personally, I agree with Mr. Anonymous' view that Test III may be enough basis to measure the competencies of the examinees. It might interest you to know that I also broached this idea to my clients but most of them are for the retake of Test III. I am just a lawyer and, as Atty. Saguisag understands very well, the clients are the boss. I understand the point of my bosses. That 20 questions of Test III were leaked affects the integrity of the entire Test. Still, if it were up to me, I could compromise on Test III. I would not be unhappy if the CA were to say that there is no need to retake Test III."

Let me restate it this way:

Personally, I agree with Mr. Anonymous WHEN HE SAID that THE REMAINING (MEANING UNLEAKED) QUESTIONS IN Test III may be enough basis to measure the competencies of the examinees FOR THE SUBJECT AREA MEDICAL-SURGICAL NURSING. It might interest you to know that I also broached this idea to my clients but most of them are for the retake of Test III. I am just a lawyer and, as Atty. Saguisag understands very well, the clients are the boss. I understand the point of my bosses. That 20 questions of Test III were leaked affects the integrity of the entire Test. Still, if it were up to me, I could compromise on Test III. I would not be unhappy if the CA were to say that there is no need to retake Test III.



On second reading of my letter to you, I noticed other errors but the idea, I hope, was not lost despite the errors. So, I am not correcting them anymore.



Thank God, I could correct my mistake as there is a wide, wide room for it. As it happens, I was not dealing with a human life when I was writing you - any mistake I would have made would have been irreversible! (I hope I made you smile even if you do not agree with me).



Very truly yours,





Cheryl L. Daytec-Yañgot