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

Pag nag-retake ba, solve na ang perennial problem of cheating?

Saka, it is not a matter of asking 42,000 examinees to retake Tests 3 and 5. Kailangang i-sort out yung talagang bagsak sa ibang subjects na dapat magretake hindi lang ng Tests 3 and 5 kung hindi lahat ng Tests 1 to 5.

Otherwise, magdadalawang retake sila. Na kahit ipasa nila yung retake ng Tests 3 and 5, ay hindi pa rin sila pasado sa entire exam dahil bagsak rin sila sa Tests 1, 2, and 4. Kaya kailangang isabay na nila ang pag-retake nito.

Dapat ma-realize ito ng PRC, na kailangang himayin nila yung ang retake ay Tests 3 and 5 lamang sa ang retake ay dapat entire exam.

In fact, dapat yung Test 5 lang ang may retake, not Test 3. Kaya lang, talagang bobo yung mga gustong isali sa retake ang Test 3. Kaya dapat paratingin ang kasong ito hindi lang sa Court of Appeals kung hindi hanggang sa Supreme Court.

Sasabihin nila, punish the guilty but spare the innocent, eh bakit yung mga inosenteng passers sa Mindanao na malayo sa cheating ay kasali rin?

Kung ganyan din lang ang usapan, ay protect na rin ang integrity hindi lang ng nursing profession kung hindi buong bansa. Remove the doubt of cheating in the last national election--REELECTION na rin ng Presidente!!!!

Copy of Email from a concerned citizen to OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
AND OTHERS CONCERNED, copy furnished selected senators, congressmen, PRC Chairman, members of media, etc.:


ON 42,000-EXAMINEE EXAM RETAKE,
WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE DEMOCRATIC TENET: PUNISH THE GUILTY AND SPARE THE INNOCENT?


Pag nag-retake po ba ang 42,000 examinees, solved na ang perennial problem of cheating? Me foolproof system na ba na magsisiguro na ang retake mismo ay wala ng cheating? Ano ang mga steps na gagawin para in a short period of time ay mayroong foolproof system within the year?

Saka, it is not a matter of asking 42,000 examinees to retake Tests 3 and 5. Kailangang i-sort out yung examinees na talagang bagsak sa ibang subjects at dapat magretake hindi lang ng Tests 3 and 5 kung hindi lahat ng Tests 1 to 5. (Otherwise, magdadalawang retake sila, at hindi dapat ang pagtake ng entire exam in two installments—dahil mas madali yan at baka may umangal na naman.) Na kahit ipasa nila yung retake ng Tests 3 and 5, ay hindi pa rin sila pasado sa entire exam dahil bagsak rin sila sa Tests 1, 2, and 4 at ang average grade nila ay hindi passing. Kaya kailangang isabay na nila ang pag-retake ng Tests 1, 2, and 4.

Dapat ma-realize ito ng PRC at Malacanang, na kailangang HIMAYIN nila yung ang retake ay Tests 3 and 5 lamang at ihiwalay sa ang retake ay dapat entire exam! Kung ang retake ay SEPARATE sa regular exam in December, ay hindi 42,000 ang kasali dito, yun lang na kung maipapasa ang Tests 3 and 5 ay pasado na sa entire exam! Kung SABAY naman, dapat himayin at pagkatapos ay bigyan ng notice ang lahat ng examinees. Yung nag-meeting sa Malacanang na nagsabi ng retake ng 42,000, hindi siguro inisip ito kaya akala nila ay ganun kabilis ang magpa-retake ng 42,000. Kailangang mag-ingat sa paghimay dahil puedeng magkamali diyan kung hindi foolproof ang instructrions o programming sa computer.


In fact, worst case scenario, dapat yung Test 5 lang ang may retake, not Test 3. Kaya lang, talagang matigas yata ang ulo (bobo o tuso?) nung mga may gustong isali sa retake ang Test 3. The 17,000 PASSERS have earned VESTED RIGHTS on Test 3, na may natirang 80 or enough valid questions (more than the first 60 graded questions in NCLEX that if answered right enough, the examinee is immediately declared as PASSER of the entire exam with many subjects), kaya dapat walang retake nito.

Sa totoo lang, kaya gustong isama ang retake ng Test 3 sa Test 5 ay dahil kung Test 5 lang ang may retake at nakarating ang issue sa Supreme Court, eh di SIMILARLY SITUATED ito sa 2003 scandal-rocked bar exam na isang subject lang, Mercantile Law, ang may issue ng leakage kaya nagkaroon ng PRECEDENT na NO RETAKE, excluded na lang ang entire subject sa recomputation ng grades--at kung COVERED NG PRECEDENT eh di timbog ang retake proponents sa Supreme Court!!! Kala nyo di namin alam, he, he, he!

Pero, ang mahal na Pangulo, alam ba niya ito? Kung hindi, naisahan siya at ang mga 17,000 passers at pamilya nito nung nagpa-approve sa kanya ng retake without full disclosure of relevant facts—TANTAMOUNT TO MISREPRESENTATION! Di hindi pala sila bobo kung hindi tuso?

Walang sure passing sa board exams, kahit nga honor graduates may bumabagsak dito, tulad nung sa UST, kaya passers want to protect and preserve their hard-earned rights. Dahil may element of LUCK din ito, depende sa kung ang napag-aralang mabuti ng examinee ang siyang lalabas sa exam o hindi—kaya kayabangan o katangahan ang sabihing kung pumasa nung una ay pasado rin sa retake kaya dapat pumayag agad sa retake. Sabagay, hindi ito alam ng mga hindi nakaranas na kumuha ng mahirap na board exam sa buong buhay nila—tulad ni Dr. Dante Ang???

In fairness to the PASSERS, kung ang retake ay Test 5 lang, kung sakaling malasin sila at hindi pumasa sa retake ay posibleng CONDITIONED pa rin sila, hindi total flunker, at pag umulit uli ay Test 5 lang ang uulitin. So including Test 3 in the retake is not a simple matter. It INFRINGES on the VESTED RIGHTS of passers who have substantially passed the requirement for this test subject, especially if we consider the NCLEX system and the Supreme Court's handling of the 2003 scandal-rocked bar exams. Baka magkahiyaan pag nakarating ang isyung ito sa Supreme Court. Saka, hindi ba being bureaucratic lang ang hindi makakita ng validity ng Test 3 under the circumstances?

The PRC exam tests the examinees’ ability to pass at least 75% of whatever number of questions is given. If this is applied to Test 3 exclusive of leakage, the examinees should pass 75% of the 80 questions. However, because there are remaining 80 valid questions out of the total 100 questions for Test 3, it is still mathematically possible that there are legitimate and valid passers in Test 3 who will be jeopardized by the subjective and mindless order to retake Test 3—those who got at least 75 correct answers out of the 80 valid questions, which 75 correct answers still meet the required 75% not of the 80 remaining valid questions but of the original 100 questions for Test 3!!! Thus concluding that Test 3 needs retake is NOT ABSOLUTELY CORRECT and violates the rights of those who may have gotten at least 75 correct answers in that test, GET IT??? O where art thou, bakit hindi kayo kumikibo, mathematicians from UP, UE, and UST!!!! Bakit hinayaan ninyong magbigay sa Presidente ng hindi foolproof na recommendation on Test 3 ang mga retake proponents na hindi naman mathematicians???


Sa gobyerno, daming napakalaking KAWALANGHIYAAN ang ginawa ng maraming matatanda na (gaya ni Jocjoc Bolante, Gen. Garcia, etc.?), pero ang Malacanang, ang LUWAG sa kanila--walang ginawang vigorous pursuit of the cases against them, bakit sa mga 17,000 kabataang nursing passers, ang HIGPIT ng Malacanang?

O kaya si Gng. Imelda Marcos, bakit hindi nag-exert ng all-out effort ang Malacanang na ipakulong siya, and once she is in jail, that is the time to talk of compromise settlement on hidden wealth (assuming compromise is to be tried at all)--meaning NEGOTIATE from a POSITION OF STRENGTH, hindi yung parang si ABCEDE pa ang nanunuyo sa kanya. Kaya ba ayaw habulin si Imelda ay nanunuyo ang Malacanang dahil may clout pa rin siya at mga anak niya sa voters sa Ilocandia at sa Visayas? Kala nyo hindi rin namin alam, he, he, he!

The 2006 nursing scandal should not be taken in ISOLATION. It has to be related to what was done in the past, in the 2003 bar exam scandal, in the 1996 physical theraphy exam scandal, in the kid-glove treatment of suspected plunderers of the nation, and of murderers and kidnappers whose death penalty has been abolished, and so on. Being so EASY on them and so HARD on the 2006 passers is unfair and unjust to the latter. And please don't tell them that it is for their own good. Pure speculation lang yung sinasabing kasiraan nila. Iyon ay direct result lang ng paninira sa kanila, kaya na-conditioned tuloy ang minds ng public. Siyempre kung ano ang laging sinasabi tungkol dito, lalo na ng ABS-CBN at Manila Times, ay iyon ang magiging impression ng lahat. LIES repeated often enough will appear as TRUTH. But it is a fact of life that employers do not totally rely on PRC license, they also consider the transcript of record and the fact that the applicant is a nursing graduate--this is exactly what NCLEX is doing (it asks for diploma and transcript of record)--and it is the final nursing licensure exam process in the United States--eh bakit ayaw sabihin na incompetent din ang passers nito! May challenge na sa Pinoy BSN for Dr. Dante Ang and other retake apostles to denounce the very few questions in NCLEX exams for the sake of sick OFW’s and other Filipino patients in US hospitals, so let them heed the challenge kung talagang hindi sila believe sa remaining 80 questions ng Test 3 for one subject vs. first 60 graded questions in NCLEX for all subjects!!! Let them show to the President and to other cabinet officials present during the meeting in Malacanang their conviction of the validity of their retake advocacy by denouncing before the world the established NCLEX exam system with very few questions (75 to 265) compared to that of the 500-question PRC exams. (In the NCLEX exam, if the examinee passes the 60 graded questions out of the first 75 questions, he is automatically declared PASSED and the computerized checking of answers stops, otherwise he is given a second chance and the checking of answers proceeds up to the last and 265th question. If he passes the remaining questions, the examinee passes the exam.)


Kaya siguro dapat ay paratingin ang kasong ito hindi lang sa Court of Appeals kung hindi hanggang sa Supreme Court.


Saka, hindi ba't sinabi na ng maraming government officials, pati ng Presidente, pati ni DOJ Secretary Raul Gonzales sa TV, etc. noong una pa na PUNISH THE GUILTY and SPARE THE INNOCENT, ano na ang nangyari sa pronouncement na ito?

Bakit yung mga inosenteng passers sa Mindanao at iba pang lugar na malayo sa cheating ay kasali rin, kung 42,000 ang magre-retake? TALAGA PO BANG ANG PINAKAMATAAS NA OFFICIALS NG BANSA AY WALANG ISANG SALITA? Paano na maniniwala ang taong bayan sa kanila? Kaya tuloy yung sinasabi nila sa Cha-cha, maraming hindi believe--kaya hintayin na lang ang plebiscite kahit ito ay gastos lang.


Kung ganyan din lang ang usapan, baka mabuti ay protect na rin ang integrity and image hindi lang ng nursing profession kung hindi ng buong bansa before the world. REMOVE THE DOUBT OF CHEATING IN THE LAST NATIONAL ELECTIONS--BECAUSE THAT DOUBT IS REAL, AS ELOQUENTLY EXPRESSED BY THE ONGOING APPEAL BEFORE THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL OF MS. LOREN LEGARDA IN THE PURSUIT OF WHICH SHE SPENDS MILLIONS IN PESOS, AND THE SUPPRESSED GARCI TAPES AND THE MAYUGA REPORT AND WHO KNOWS WHAT ELSE--KAYA DAPAT AY REELECTION NA RIN NG PRESIDENTE AT IBA PA!!!!


In short, ang sagot sa RETAKE: REELECTIONNNNN!!!!

I believe that GMA and PRC Chair Leonor Tripon-Rosero are acting out a poorly written script.

Just imagine the scene: GMA orders a retake of the leaked portions of the June 2006 board exam for nursing. Immediately, her personal dentist Rosero announces to the nation that she would listen to no one but the court. The always combative GMA lets the comment pass. She does not castigate her dentist who is her alter ego under the PRC Modernization Law. Is this a dream? Where is the GMA who publicly berated Dep Ed Secretary Fe Hidalgo for claiming that our public school system is suffering from acute dearth of classrooms and facilities?

GMA has been soft on the PRC head since day one. The leakage issue was a manageable one, but Rosero’s mishandling caused it to metamorphose into a scandal of international magnitude. It embarrassed the nation. It spawned untold turmoil on the examinees and their families. There is no doubt that Rosero’s head must roll. It should have rolled a long time ago.

But then again, one should not wonder why Hidalgo and Rosero were not similarly treated by GMA. Hidalgo was on the side of truth while Rosero was and still is on the opposite side. We know which side this administration will support as shown by recent events.

And because of the irresoluteness with which the government dealt with fraud and the personalities who started it and who aggravated its impact, we are still on a stalemate. The real victims here, aside from the nursing profession whose integrity has been shattered, are the innocent examinees. Whether it is retake or no retake, there is no “win-win” solution for them. It is unjust to require them to retake an examination where they did not cheat. It is also unjust to prevent a retake because retake is the only option that will result in the elimination of the stigma engendered by PRC’s mismanagement of the mess. A license clouded by doubt on the competence of the holder is a useless one. It will not put food on his/her table, as the employers made loud and clear.

The victims will retake. Some will do it gladly and are thankful for the decision. More will do it grudgingly and may even blame the Cordillera-based whistleblowers- who are actually unsung heroes though not everyone realizes this yet- for instituting the action that called attention to the cheating, the action that challenged this government to take either the side of righteousness or iniquity. These victims cry for what approximates justice- the guilty must be punished - and be punished soon. The PRC officials who exacerbated their woes should go- and go fast!


CHERYL L. DAYTEC-YAÑGOT
Counsel for the “Baguio Braves” who exposed the leakage
St. Louis University, Baguio City
E-mail address: chytdaytec@gmail.com

PUBLIC STATEMENT


The announcement of Malacanang that it will order a retake of the nurses' licensure examination is a belated but welcome development. The examinees, whose fate has been in a state of suspended animation since June 2006 and whose anxiety has been growing day by day because of the irresoluteness with which the PRC-BON handled the leakage issue, are now finally receiving a clear response.

But it is imperative for Malacanang to define the details of its order. The examinees and other concerned stakeholders do not know yet if the retake will be of the entire examination or only the fraud-plagued portions. Hopefully, the government will clarify its position as soon as possible to allay the angst of the examinees..

When PRC-BON prematurely released the examination result on 19 July, the stakeholders got divided into two camps- those who wanted a retake and those who did not. It was unfortunate that the public's attention was diverted from the complicity of the guilty. The division was so pronounced that the Cordillera-based group which exposed the fraud in the exams wrote a letter to the President of the Philippines appealing that Her Excellency step into the fray. They informed the President that only she could resolve the impasse. While Malacanang was studying the issue and as PRC was stubbornly clinging to its ill-conceived position that there be no re-administration of Test III and Test V, the stakeholders got more polarized. The polarization among the ranks of nurses and examinees and even the public, progressed to such a state that it had the potential of totally mangling the nursing profession. Thus last week, 27 "flunkers", 7 passers, 5 deans and former deans of nursing schools, and several respected members of the nursing profession were constrained to invoke the power of the judiciary. They instituted a petition with the Court of Appeals asking it to declare that PRC acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in managing the leakage issue. They also asked the court to nullify the resolution of the Board of Nursing which became the basis of the computation of scores of the examinees. That resolution is a telling proof of the PRC-BON's unprecedented manipulation of the scores of the examinees, casting serious doubt on the credibility of the exam result.

Malacanang's position is an affirmation of the PRC's mishandling of the examination and the fraud that attended it. The nurses and examinees who embraced and relentlessly advocated the unpopular stand for retake as the only course of action to reclaim the integrity of the nursing profession can now breathe a sigh of relief. Theirs is a moral and legal victory that they truly deserve. That GMA ordered a retake is an acknowledgment, in no equivocal language, that the result of the 2006 licensure examination is not credible. We maintain that it is not, not only because of the erroneous statistical treatment applied by PRC-BON in computing the scores (as detailed in the petitions pending with the Court of Appeals) but more because PRC's questionable actions on the leakage completely obliterated the integrity of the licensure examination. The primary victims here are the examinees who did not participate in the cheating. We maintain, as stated in the latest CA Petition, that there can never be a win-win solution for the examinees. A retake is unfair, but not to retake is more so. The examinees deserve every the chance to wave a license untainted with questions on their competence. Such questions are not imagined. They are real. They come from the public that consumes the health service provided by the nurses. They come from the local employers. They come from the overseas employers.

We are not abandoning our position that the PRC Commissioners must resign to restore fully the integrity of the nursing profession and to save the other Philippine professions from suffering the misfortune it (nursing) did. Every action of the PRC served to worsen the leakage issue. In fact, what started as a manageable issue progressed to a scandal of international magnitude because of PRC's (mis)handling of it.

CORA AÑONUEVO (Professor, UP Manila); DR. CECILIA LAURENTE (Former Dean, UP College of Nursing); DR. ERLINDA PALAGANAS (Director, UP Baguio Institute of Management): DR. JOSEFINA TUAZON (Dean, UP College of Nursing); ELNORA NOLASCO (Convenor, Alliance of Nurses and Student Nurses for Relevant Education and Service-ANSWER) DR. MARY GRACE LACANARIA (Nursing Dean, St, Louis University); DEAN RUTH THELMA TINGDA (Nursing Dean, Easter College) and Governor, PNA Region I and CAR), NORENIA DAOAYEN (President, Philippine Nurses Association-Baguio Chapter); FELY MARILYN LORENZO (Director, National Institute for Health, UP-Manila).


FROM THE LAWYERS

The "retake order" of Malacanang may have rendered moot and academic the CA petition's prayer for the re-administration of Test III and Test V. But the petition itself, to our view, has not been mooted because said re-administration is not its only subject matter. We will not slacken in our determination to establish that PRC-BON acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. We will pursue the case to the finish until all the issues are addressed by the Court.

It is hoped that the action of Malacanang will not end with the order of retake. Under the law, it is only the President who has the power to remove or suspend the members of the Board of Nursing and the PRC Commissioners whose incompetence in dealing with the leakage scandal heightened its adverse effects on the nursing profession. Considering the magnitude of their offense and ineptitude and their impact on the Nursing profession both local and international, as well as the agony caused upon the examinees, their parents, and the nursing schools, Malacanang should not give them the kid-glove treatment.

There is a pending clamor in the Nursing Profession for all the Commissioners of the Professional Regulatory Commission to resign or be removed by the President because of their mishandling of the problem which makes them unfit to further stay in office. First, even with proof of leakage before their eyes, PRC Commissioners issued a statement that there was no leakage on the simple ground that there was no Complaint under oath. Under the law, PRC can motu proprio (on its own) investigate allegations of leakages and other examination anomalies, meaning, it does not have to wait for the filing of a formal complaint under oath. This function/duty, the PRC failed or refused to perform. Second, even after receipt of the verified complaint, PRC did not immediately conduct investigations or if it did, these were closed door. Third, the PRC initially declared that there were 20 questions in Test III and 90 questions in Test V that were leaked. This later turned out to be inaccurate because there were 25 and 100 questions respectively. Fourth, even after the determination that there were leakages of this magnitude, the PRC did not invalidate the examinations. Worse, PRC manipulated the computation of the grades of the examinees, and, after computing, published the names of the examinees who passed under the manipulated computation. Worst, despite the pendency of the investigation and the knowledge that an initial petition was filed before the CA, PRC proceeded to administer oaths to the examinees.

Considering the situation obtaining, the administration of oaths could have been held in abeyance until all the issues surrounding the questioned examination would have been resolved. The reason for the existence of the PRC as an office is to act as an alter ego of the President, and, as such it can and should act on its own on matters that are within its jurisdiction. The PRC failed. The Commissioners chose to fence sit and wait for the President to act. While there is a good reason for the existence of the PRC and it should not be abolished, the case of the Nursing Board Exam leakage is a substantial proof that the incumbent PRC Commissioners have no reason to further stay in office for even 1 day.

It is hoped likewise that the Office of the Ombudsman take the cue from the action by Malacanang in resolving the Criminal Complaint filed against the two Board Examiners. We also hope that the NBI will expand its investigation and include the PRC Commissioners in its inquiries.

ATTY. GEOFFREY D. ANDAWI, ATTY DOMINGO T. AÑONUEVO, ATTY. CHERYL L. DAYTEC-YAÑGOT