Passers, flunkers want a retake (Conclusion)
Passers, flunkers want a retake
Conclusion
http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2006/sept/26/yehey/top_stories/20060926top6.html
The petitioners defined the issues they are asking the Court of Appeals to consider in these words:
“Whether or not the Board of Nursing and the Professional Regulation Commission acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in promulgating and approving, respectively, Board Resolution 31, Series of 2006, which became the basis for the computation of the scores of the examinees in the June 2006 licensure examination for nurses; and
“Whether or not it is the ministerial duty of the respondents under Republic Act 8981 and Republic Act 9173 to disregard the result of Test 3 and Test 5 of the June 2006 licensure examination and to administer a reexamination thereon.”
The petitioners supported their “prayer for annulment and prohibition” with these arguments:
*That the premises of the questioned resolution are not factual. “Its issuance is therefore arbitrary and, beyond doubt, a display of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.” But even if it is assumed that the premises stated by the Board were factual, “the statistical treatment adopted to deal with Test 5 is erroneous and is an invalid instrument to measure the competence of the examinees.”
“Board Resolution 31 shows that the Board virtually manipulated the scores whimsically and arbitrarily, an act of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.”
“1. The questioned board resolution states:
“. . .[since] June 17, 2006, the Board had received the supposedly leaked materials from different sources and submitted the same to the Chairperson of Nursing of the Professional Regulation Commission for appropriate action;
“. . . [immediately] the Commission instructed the Board to evaluate and compare the above materials with the actual items of Test 3 and Test 5;
“. . . [T]he handwritten notes for Test 3 and the typewritten documents for Text 5 were similar to the unextracted questions in the manuscripts of two Board members for Test 3 and Test 5, as follows: 20 test items out of 100 in Test 3 were very similar in content or substance to the leaked materials; and 90 items out of 100 in Test 5 were identical in substance, forms, situations and choices with the leaked material. . . .”
The petitioners then range an array of facts to show that the respondent members of the Commission and the Board had not been “conscientious, circumspect and judicious in comparing the evidences at their disposal—the blue spiral notes, the manuscript of Board member Anesia Dionisio, and the other pieces of evidence submitted to them and which the Commission’s investigation report referred to—to the actual questions in Test 3 and 5, they would have established that all of the 100 questions asked in Test 5 were leaked. They would also have established that 25 and not just 20 questions of Test 3 were similarly leaked. Even the Commission admitted in its Resolution No. 2006-345 that 25 questions of Test 3 were leaked.”
The petitioners then enumerated and described all the alleged steps and missteps that the respondents took, the allegedly wrong assumptions they based their decisions on, and so forth.
The petitioners informed the court that “respondents assumed that only 90 questions of Test 5 and 20 questions of Test 3 were leaked is a glaring indication of the lackadaisical and carefree manner they employed in dealing with the anomaly that affected the Board examination. They had the evidence right under their noses. The report of their ‘independent, responsible and competent’ fact-finding committee clearly stated that 25 questions of Test 3 were leaked. It is beyond cavil that they acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.”
The petitioners drew a parallel between correct nursing practice and how the respondents should have acted.
“4. In nursing practice, if the assessment of the condition of a patient is wrong, the prescribed treatment based on such erroneous assessment is necessarily wrong! In medical practice, if the diagnosis is wrong, it logically follows that the treatment based on it is wrong. So too must it be said that the solution to the leakage problem immortalized in Resolution 31 is wrong because the premises are wrong.
“By issuing and approving Board Resolution 31, respondents violated Republic Act 9173, which provides the requisites for admission to the nursing practice and allowed the admission into the nursing profession of people who have not proven their competence in an indispensable subject area.”
The petitioners then presented a discussion of why the computation made is wrong.
In arguing that the court should order a retake of the examination, the petitioners said:
“.5. Any examination tainted with allegations of fraud loses its credibility. And when an examination is stripped of its credibility, those who pass it lose their integrity as well. The only course of action left to the Commission to explore is to invalidate the examination and administer it all over again. It must be stressed that this is not a matter of discretion; it is a ministerial duty.
“In the past where licensure examinations were tainted with fraud, the Commission nullified and readministered them in keeping with its mandate to ensure the integrity of the professions.
“1. The Commission is not without precedents to bank on. In 1989 it was established that some of the test questions in the Board examinations for electrical engineering and certified public accountancy were released to examinees before the actual examination. As a consequence, the Commission, conceding that the only way to regain the credibility of the affected licensure examinations, invalidated them and administered a retest. Although the solution was unjust to those who did not benefit from the leakage, it was the only option that had redeeming value. The swift action was a demonstration in no uncertain terms of the State’s policy against fraud and regained the Commission’s damaged credibility.
“2. The case at present is no different, although worse. The integrity of the June 2006 nurses’ licensure examination was shattered by the leakage, but the mishandling by the Commission of the mess completely destroyed the integrity of its result which respondents, unmindful of the expected consequence of their action, released even while the investigation was in progress.
“3. Respondents should have readministered Tests 3 and 5. But their obstinate refusal to do so and their continued insistence that the result of the exercise under a ludicrous formula is credible are manifestations of their unlawful neglect of the performance of an act which the appropriate laws specifically enjoin as a duty resulting from the mandates of their respective offices. Hence, they must be ordered by way of mandamus to perform such ministerial duty.
“Petitioning examinees have a right to retake Test 3 and Test 5, a right which respondents must recognize as a matter of ministerial duty.”
The petitioners present “Additional allegations in support of the prayer for preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order.”
“1.Petitioners hereby adopt, replead and incorporate the foregoing allegations as maybe material hereto.
“2. Petitioners are entitled to the main reliefs prayed for which consist in prohibiting respondents from issuing the licenses of examinees who were able to obtain a general weighted average of at least 75 percent under the formula contained in Resolution 31, Series of 2006 adopted by the board and approved by the Commission, and in ordering respondents to administer examination in Tests 3 and 5 among all those who took the June 2006 licensure examination for nurses. It follows that petitioners are entitled to the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order upon the filing of this petition, and, after due notice and hearing, to a writ of preliminary injunction.
“Respondents are threatening or attempting to do, or procuring or suffering to be done some act or acts probably in violation of the rights of the petitioners respecting the subject of the action or proceeding and tending to render the judgment ineffectual. The acts include the issuance of the professional license to the examinees who were placed on the list of passers by virtue of Board Resolution 31. On September 15, 2006, the Commission chairman announced on national television that all the examinees who passed under the assailed Resolution 31, Series of 2006, may take their oaths before any official authorized to administer an oath.
“If the respondents are not restrained by virtue of a temporary restraining order and, eventually, a writ of preliminary injunction, the petitioners would suffer great and irreparable injury and this instant petition will be mooted. On the other hand, the respondents will not suffer any damage that may be occasioned by the issuance of such restraining order and preliminary injunction order.”
The following are the reliefs the petitioners are requesting the Court of Appeals to grant them:
1. Issue a temporary restraining order prohibiting respondents from issuing the licenses of the examinees who passed the June 2006 licensure examination under Resolution 31, Series of 2006, adopted and approved by the Board and the Commission.
2. Issue a writ of preliminary injunction to the same effect.
3. Nullify Resolution 31, Series of 2006, adopted by the Board of Nursing and approved by the Professional Regulation Commission
4. Nullify all licenses issued by the respondents under the questioned resolution;
5. Prohibit respondents from issuing the licenses of the examinees who are deemed to have passed under the questionable statistical treatment they adopted.
6. Order the respondents to schedule an examination of Test 3 and Test 5 of licensure examination for nurses; and
7. Grant such other reliefs, just and equitable, as warranted by the circumstances.
FROM: http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2006/sept/26/yehey/top_stories/20060926top6.html
Conclusion
http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2006/sept/26/yehey/top_stories/20060926top6.html
The petitioners defined the issues they are asking the Court of Appeals to consider in these words:
“Whether or not the Board of Nursing and the Professional Regulation Commission acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in promulgating and approving, respectively, Board Resolution 31, Series of 2006, which became the basis for the computation of the scores of the examinees in the June 2006 licensure examination for nurses; and
“Whether or not it is the ministerial duty of the respondents under Republic Act 8981 and Republic Act 9173 to disregard the result of Test 3 and Test 5 of the June 2006 licensure examination and to administer a reexamination thereon.”
The petitioners supported their “prayer for annulment and prohibition” with these arguments:
*That the premises of the questioned resolution are not factual. “Its issuance is therefore arbitrary and, beyond doubt, a display of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.” But even if it is assumed that the premises stated by the Board were factual, “the statistical treatment adopted to deal with Test 5 is erroneous and is an invalid instrument to measure the competence of the examinees.”
“Board Resolution 31 shows that the Board virtually manipulated the scores whimsically and arbitrarily, an act of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.”
“1. The questioned board resolution states:
“. . .[since] June 17, 2006, the Board had received the supposedly leaked materials from different sources and submitted the same to the Chairperson of Nursing of the Professional Regulation Commission for appropriate action;
“. . . [immediately] the Commission instructed the Board to evaluate and compare the above materials with the actual items of Test 3 and Test 5;
“. . . [T]he handwritten notes for Test 3 and the typewritten documents for Text 5 were similar to the unextracted questions in the manuscripts of two Board members for Test 3 and Test 5, as follows: 20 test items out of 100 in Test 3 were very similar in content or substance to the leaked materials; and 90 items out of 100 in Test 5 were identical in substance, forms, situations and choices with the leaked material. . . .”
The petitioners then range an array of facts to show that the respondent members of the Commission and the Board had not been “conscientious, circumspect and judicious in comparing the evidences at their disposal—the blue spiral notes, the manuscript of Board member Anesia Dionisio, and the other pieces of evidence submitted to them and which the Commission’s investigation report referred to—to the actual questions in Test 3 and 5, they would have established that all of the 100 questions asked in Test 5 were leaked. They would also have established that 25 and not just 20 questions of Test 3 were similarly leaked. Even the Commission admitted in its Resolution No. 2006-345 that 25 questions of Test 3 were leaked.”
The petitioners then enumerated and described all the alleged steps and missteps that the respondents took, the allegedly wrong assumptions they based their decisions on, and so forth.
The petitioners informed the court that “respondents assumed that only 90 questions of Test 5 and 20 questions of Test 3 were leaked is a glaring indication of the lackadaisical and carefree manner they employed in dealing with the anomaly that affected the Board examination. They had the evidence right under their noses. The report of their ‘independent, responsible and competent’ fact-finding committee clearly stated that 25 questions of Test 3 were leaked. It is beyond cavil that they acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.”
The petitioners drew a parallel between correct nursing practice and how the respondents should have acted.
“4. In nursing practice, if the assessment of the condition of a patient is wrong, the prescribed treatment based on such erroneous assessment is necessarily wrong! In medical practice, if the diagnosis is wrong, it logically follows that the treatment based on it is wrong. So too must it be said that the solution to the leakage problem immortalized in Resolution 31 is wrong because the premises are wrong.
“By issuing and approving Board Resolution 31, respondents violated Republic Act 9173, which provides the requisites for admission to the nursing practice and allowed the admission into the nursing profession of people who have not proven their competence in an indispensable subject area.”
The petitioners then presented a discussion of why the computation made is wrong.
In arguing that the court should order a retake of the examination, the petitioners said:
“.5. Any examination tainted with allegations of fraud loses its credibility. And when an examination is stripped of its credibility, those who pass it lose their integrity as well. The only course of action left to the Commission to explore is to invalidate the examination and administer it all over again. It must be stressed that this is not a matter of discretion; it is a ministerial duty.
“In the past where licensure examinations were tainted with fraud, the Commission nullified and readministered them in keeping with its mandate to ensure the integrity of the professions.
“1. The Commission is not without precedents to bank on. In 1989 it was established that some of the test questions in the Board examinations for electrical engineering and certified public accountancy were released to examinees before the actual examination. As a consequence, the Commission, conceding that the only way to regain the credibility of the affected licensure examinations, invalidated them and administered a retest. Although the solution was unjust to those who did not benefit from the leakage, it was the only option that had redeeming value. The swift action was a demonstration in no uncertain terms of the State’s policy against fraud and regained the Commission’s damaged credibility.
“2. The case at present is no different, although worse. The integrity of the June 2006 nurses’ licensure examination was shattered by the leakage, but the mishandling by the Commission of the mess completely destroyed the integrity of its result which respondents, unmindful of the expected consequence of their action, released even while the investigation was in progress.
“3. Respondents should have readministered Tests 3 and 5. But their obstinate refusal to do so and their continued insistence that the result of the exercise under a ludicrous formula is credible are manifestations of their unlawful neglect of the performance of an act which the appropriate laws specifically enjoin as a duty resulting from the mandates of their respective offices. Hence, they must be ordered by way of mandamus to perform such ministerial duty.
“Petitioning examinees have a right to retake Test 3 and Test 5, a right which respondents must recognize as a matter of ministerial duty.”
The petitioners present “Additional allegations in support of the prayer for preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order.”
“1.Petitioners hereby adopt, replead and incorporate the foregoing allegations as maybe material hereto.
“2. Petitioners are entitled to the main reliefs prayed for which consist in prohibiting respondents from issuing the licenses of examinees who were able to obtain a general weighted average of at least 75 percent under the formula contained in Resolution 31, Series of 2006 adopted by the board and approved by the Commission, and in ordering respondents to administer examination in Tests 3 and 5 among all those who took the June 2006 licensure examination for nurses. It follows that petitioners are entitled to the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order upon the filing of this petition, and, after due notice and hearing, to a writ of preliminary injunction.
“Respondents are threatening or attempting to do, or procuring or suffering to be done some act or acts probably in violation of the rights of the petitioners respecting the subject of the action or proceeding and tending to render the judgment ineffectual. The acts include the issuance of the professional license to the examinees who were placed on the list of passers by virtue of Board Resolution 31. On September 15, 2006, the Commission chairman announced on national television that all the examinees who passed under the assailed Resolution 31, Series of 2006, may take their oaths before any official authorized to administer an oath.
“If the respondents are not restrained by virtue of a temporary restraining order and, eventually, a writ of preliminary injunction, the petitioners would suffer great and irreparable injury and this instant petition will be mooted. On the other hand, the respondents will not suffer any damage that may be occasioned by the issuance of such restraining order and preliminary injunction order.”
The following are the reliefs the petitioners are requesting the Court of Appeals to grant them:
1. Issue a temporary restraining order prohibiting respondents from issuing the licenses of the examinees who passed the June 2006 licensure examination under Resolution 31, Series of 2006, adopted and approved by the Board and the Commission.
2. Issue a writ of preliminary injunction to the same effect.
3. Nullify Resolution 31, Series of 2006, adopted by the Board of Nursing and approved by the Professional Regulation Commission
4. Nullify all licenses issued by the respondents under the questioned resolution;
5. Prohibit respondents from issuing the licenses of the examinees who are deemed to have passed under the questionable statistical treatment they adopted.
6. Order the respondents to schedule an examination of Test 3 and Test 5 of licensure examination for nurses; and
7. Grant such other reliefs, just and equitable, as warranted by the circumstances.
FROM: http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2006/sept/26/yehey/top_stories/20060926top6.html
Copy of email to Mr. Rene Bas of Manila Times:
Cc: newsboy1@manilatimes.net, opinion@manilatimes.net, cityed@manilatimes.net, lifestyle@manilatimes.net, provincial@manilatimes.net, business@manilatimes.net, sports@manilatimes.net, morotimes@manilatimes.net, advertising@manilatimes.net, web@manilatimes.net, feedback@philstar.net.ph, malayanews@yahoo.com, letters@newsbreak.com.ph, graphic@vasia.com, bulatlat@gmail.com, ancphil@abs-cbn.com, talkback@abs.pinoycentral.com, imbestigador_feedback@gmanetwork.com, bulletin@mb.com.ph, mst@manilastandardtoday.com, lettdt@tribune.net.ph, feedback@inquirer.com.ph, business@inquirer.com.ph
Date: Sep 26, 2006 9:25 AM
Subject: Part 2: THE UNREPORTED SIDE OF THE NURSING SCANDAL
Dear Mr. Rene Bas:
Thank you for wanting to publish my email with my name on it.
Please note, however, that the comments contained in my emails are not mine. I just sent it to you because I thought you may not be aware of the many hostile reactions to your (Manila Times) articles posted to the Pinoy BSN.
As it appears you have always published the side of the COMPLAINANTS only, you have to be reminded that that is exactly what you are doing, and that maybe a classic case of one-sided journalism. If so, that is not journalism but maybe PROPAGANDA! Your articles even quoted the retake proponents' complaints submitted before the Court of Appeals. Therefore, it is but COMMON SENSE, FAIR PLAY, and COMPLIANCE TO RULES OF JOURNALISM on your part, something that people in MANILA TIMES could have learned from the Dr. Dante Ang School of Journalism, to also publish the side of the respondent PRC and NO-RETAKE PROPONENTS as expounded on in their REPLIES or legal briefs submitted to the Court of Appeals--to the extent of quoting from them as you did in the case of the complaints filed by the retake proponents. That, I think, is what Manila Times OUGHT TO DO because the REPLIES to the complaints are COMPREHENSIVE in scope, while the comments I forwarded to you touched merely on the limited specific topics posted to Pinoy BSN, so publishing the contents of my emails is not the proper thing to do in the first place. It may create a false impression that the points for no-retake are limited to these comments and, therefore, no-retake is not fully justifiable….
I thought I have to be candid with you because what you are doing--giving one-sided information--is unfair to the reading public as well as to successful examinees. That is precisely the reason why the public formed a wrong impression against the 2006 nursing exam passers.
A Concerned Citizen
Posted by
Anonymous |
6:45 AM
Hoy, Manila Times, ang mga Pilipino matalino, hindi ninyo maloloko. Alam nila ang ginagawa ninyong mission para kay Dante Ang. Kaya nga lang, hindi sila kumikibo dahil busy sa hanapbuhay at iba pang mga personal na bagay.
Posted by
Anonymous |
8:26 AM
Mr. ANG talagang takang taka kami kung bakit masyado mong ipinagdidiinan ang retake????
Ano ba ANG dahilan???
Sigurado ka bang malilinis ANG integrity ng nursing profession kung magkakaroon ng retake???
Ikaw ba ANG gagastos ng bayad kung magkakaroon ng retake or pera namin taong bayan???
Baka naman meron kang Hidden agenda na kung magkakaroon ng NCLEX dito sa atin eh meron kabuntot na negosyo na maaaring pakikinabangan mo or maybe meron isang mahal sa buhay mo ang bumagsak at hindi nakapasa???
Huwag ka na magtago sa ngalan ng Integrity, etc. etc.
Masyado mong ipinadidiinan ang retake eh napiperwisyo na ANG mga 17,000 over na hindi tuloy makapaghanapbuhay. Hindi ka naman gumastos sa pag-aaral nila para makialam ka. Sa totoo lang isa ka lang sa nakikinabang ng pera namin taong bayan???
ALam mo Mr. ANG, Napaka "ONE SIDED MO" talaga, at kailanman ay walang puwang ANG katuwiran ng mga pumasa sa nursing sa batch 2006 sa iyo. Bias ka talaga!!!!!
Hindi ka kaya nasusuhulan??????
Posted by
Anonymous |
3:13 PM