Nursing 0606 and Bar 0903: a sharp contrast Part I
Nursing 0606 and Bar 0903: a sharp contrast
By Prof. Rene Luis M. Tadle and Atty. Cheryl L. Daytec-Yangot
[Prof. Rene Luis M. Tadle is president of the faculty of the College of Nursing, University of Santo Tomas. Atty. Cheryl L. Daytec-Yañgot, M.PA., is the counsel for the Baguio Braves.]
More different than alike
The June 2006 Nurses Licensure Examinations (NLE) administered by the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC) and the September 2003 bar examination administered by the Supreme Court share one thing in common: both were blemished by leakage. In the case of the NLE, questions in two out of five subject areas were leaked. In the case of the bar, questions in mercantile law, one of the eight subjects, were leaked.
The stakeholders in the nursing issue are split into two groups: those who are for retake and those opposed to it. The latter have more than once invoked the application to the nursing case of the Supreme Court treatment of the 2003 bar exam leakage. In its highly controversial decision in the prohibition case filed by Rene Luis Tadle, Earl Francis Sumile and Michael Angelo Brant, the Court of Appeals did not once make reference to the 2003 bar debacle. The silence of the Court of Appeals only means that it did not consider it a precedent.
While leakage is common to the two cases, they are more different than alike.
Swift action versus sluggish action
On September 23, 2003, two days after the mercantile law test, the Supreme Court nullified it upon receipt of leakage complaints. This was a display in no uncertain terms of the Supreme Court’s abhorrence of fraud. It sat very well with the public. In the case of the NLE, PRC officials repeatedly denied any leakage because there was no formal complaint. That early, the Filipino nation already had an ample glimpse of the kind of logic—or the pathetic absence of it—our PRC officials have. It was convenient for them to forget that under the law, the PRC could—or should—investigate cheating, with or without a complaint. The only prudent thing PRC should have done was to assure the public that it was investigating the matter. Its officials’ subsequent actions such as the premature release of test results and the hasty scheduling of oath-taking would demonstrate that prudence was never their virtue.
The chilling truth is that even the PRC records acknowledge that as of June 17, 2006, it had substantial evidence that fraud had defiled the NLE. And yet, with unparalleled audacity and in blatant disregard of truth, PRC issued an official statement on June 20, 2006, that there was no leakage. It had a more disquieting effect than the previous denials. This time, it was in writing and signed by PRC Chairman Leonor Tripon-Rosero and Commissioners Renato Valdecantos and Avelina de la Rea. With a ring of finality, they gave their last word on the matter as they declared that the papers were being checked and that the NLE result would be out in a month.
Condemnation versus cover-up
This was cover-up, pure and simple. Dreading the prospect that the cheating would be glossed over, 92 Baguio-based examinees, supported by officials of the local Philippine Nurses Association and leaders of academe, filed an official complaint on June 21, 2006. These complainants would be called the Baguio Braves. They had to overstate their determination to pursue their complaint before the PRC would finally pay attention to it with token gestures.
In the case of the 2003 bar exam, did the Supreme Court 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 reports and examination of the evidence, the Supreme Court spontaneously demonstrated its indignation by immediately nullifying the tarnished examination.
The Court’s instantaneous condemnation of the bar leakage secured public faith in the integrity in the court of last resort even as it sealed the credibility of the bar examination. It is not comparable to the snail-pace (no offense meant to snails) with which the PRC acted on the complaint lodged by the Baguio Braves, which, taken together with the officials’ publicly exhibited reluctance to look into the leakage and the precipitate release of the result and holding of the oath-taking, decimated PRC’s credibility.
The grim irony is that under the PRC Modernization Law, the agency’s primary mandate is to ensure the integrity of all Philippine professions and protect the credibility of the licensure examinations.
Continue reading on : http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2006/oct/29/yehey/top_stories/20061029top2.html
By Prof. Rene Luis M. Tadle and Atty. Cheryl L. Daytec-Yangot
[Prof. Rene Luis M. Tadle is president of the faculty of the College of Nursing, University of Santo Tomas. Atty. Cheryl L. Daytec-Yañgot, M.PA., is the counsel for the Baguio Braves.]
More different than alike
The June 2006 Nurses Licensure Examinations (NLE) administered by the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC) and the September 2003 bar examination administered by the Supreme Court share one thing in common: both were blemished by leakage. In the case of the NLE, questions in two out of five subject areas were leaked. In the case of the bar, questions in mercantile law, one of the eight subjects, were leaked.
The stakeholders in the nursing issue are split into two groups: those who are for retake and those opposed to it. The latter have more than once invoked the application to the nursing case of the Supreme Court treatment of the 2003 bar exam leakage. In its highly controversial decision in the prohibition case filed by Rene Luis Tadle, Earl Francis Sumile and Michael Angelo Brant, the Court of Appeals did not once make reference to the 2003 bar debacle. The silence of the Court of Appeals only means that it did not consider it a precedent.
While leakage is common to the two cases, they are more different than alike.
Swift action versus sluggish action
On September 23, 2003, two days after the mercantile law test, the Supreme Court nullified it upon receipt of leakage complaints. This was a display in no uncertain terms of the Supreme Court’s abhorrence of fraud. It sat very well with the public. In the case of the NLE, PRC officials repeatedly denied any leakage because there was no formal complaint. That early, the Filipino nation already had an ample glimpse of the kind of logic—or the pathetic absence of it—our PRC officials have. It was convenient for them to forget that under the law, the PRC could—or should—investigate cheating, with or without a complaint. The only prudent thing PRC should have done was to assure the public that it was investigating the matter. Its officials’ subsequent actions such as the premature release of test results and the hasty scheduling of oath-taking would demonstrate that prudence was never their virtue.
The chilling truth is that even the PRC records acknowledge that as of June 17, 2006, it had substantial evidence that fraud had defiled the NLE. And yet, with unparalleled audacity and in blatant disregard of truth, PRC issued an official statement on June 20, 2006, that there was no leakage. It had a more disquieting effect than the previous denials. This time, it was in writing and signed by PRC Chairman Leonor Tripon-Rosero and Commissioners Renato Valdecantos and Avelina de la Rea. With a ring of finality, they gave their last word on the matter as they declared that the papers were being checked and that the NLE result would be out in a month.
Condemnation versus cover-up
This was cover-up, pure and simple. Dreading the prospect that the cheating would be glossed over, 92 Baguio-based examinees, supported by officials of the local Philippine Nurses Association and leaders of academe, filed an official complaint on June 21, 2006. These complainants would be called the Baguio Braves. They had to overstate their determination to pursue their complaint before the PRC would finally pay attention to it with token gestures.
In the case of the 2003 bar exam, did the Supreme Court 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 reports and examination of the evidence, the Supreme Court spontaneously demonstrated its indignation by immediately nullifying the tarnished examination.
The Court’s instantaneous condemnation of the bar leakage secured public faith in the integrity in the court of last resort even as it sealed the credibility of the bar examination. It is not comparable to the snail-pace (no offense meant to snails) with which the PRC acted on the complaint lodged by the Baguio Braves, which, taken together with the officials’ publicly exhibited reluctance to look into the leakage and the precipitate release of the result and holding of the oath-taking, decimated PRC’s credibility.
The grim irony is that under the PRC Modernization Law, the agency’s primary mandate is to ensure the integrity of all Philippine professions and protect the credibility of the licensure examinations.
Continue reading on : http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2006/oct/29/yehey/top_stories/20061029top2.html
prof. tadle, et. al, wala kayo alam gawin kundi manira ng buhay. why don't you just give up? mga students and passers mismo ng ust ang nanguna sa oathtaking and registration. nasusunog na sa ngayon ang kaluluwa mo sa impyerno!
in the first place, hindi ka nurse! isa ka lamng rizal professor! ang dean ng college of nursing ng ust, bakit hindi siya ang humarap? kasi isa siya sa mga nagcoconduct ng review sa inress? kasi panigurado nakinabang talaga ang ust sa leakage. at para malinis ang pangalan ng ust ay ginagawa mong manira ng buhay ng mga passers.
why don't you just SHUT UP and GO TO HELL!
Posted by
Anonymous |
10:36 AM
bkt nursing 06 and bar 03 lng? hw about PT 96? PT 06??? hawak nyo ang 2 board of pt kya top 10 ay nsa inyo!!! hndi porket ust kau e kau na ang anak ng diyos!!!o ano tadle??!!! at kw naman yangot sa sobra ng exposure mo sirang sira k na!!! bka naman tatakbo k rn ng cuoncilor sa bguio at vice ung asawa mo!!!! talo ka na tama ng ambition mo!!! lawyer na tanga!!! kuyangot!!!
Posted by
Anonymous |
12:01 PM
Whether PRC was slow or fast enough in reacting to the leakage has absolutely nothing to do with the competence of the 2006 passers. Their fate should depend on their own performance, not on what PRC did or did not do--lawyer ka Atty. Yangot, gamitin mo naman ang utak mo!
Yung Supreme Court, nag-recompute na ng grades, wala pang investigastion. When it ordered investigation of the mess, it was almost one month from the time they confirmed it direct from the exaaminer.
Moreover, in the case of the 2003 bar exam scandal, the bar examiner where the leakage originated was not a perpetrator of the leakage, so he readily admitted the existence of leakage. Despite that, as stated, it took SC almost one month to order its investigation.
On the other hand, in the case of PRC, the BON examiners denied the leakage and assured PRC that there was none, so it was not a case of having a basis for automatically concluding there was leakage, especially in the light of PRC's belief that leakage is not probable under its tight security measures in the exam system.
The Baguio Braves and others, who included flunkers, insisted on including test 3 in the retake. That is unjust because it has 80 remaining valid questions as against 20 leaked ones. Why should the measly 20 questions revoke the entire test instead of the more numberous 80 (or 75?) questions sustaining and saving the validity of test 3? The passers have a vested right on the more valid questions that they passed, and that should not be taken away from them, so, at worst to them, retake of test 3 should be for the 20 leaked questions only. By asking for the retake of entire test 3, the lawyers of the complainants played into the hands of the flunkers who want to erase the stigma of their being flunkers in the entire exam, which flunking can be nullified through a retake that will afford them a cost-free second chance on test 3, which if they pass together with test 5 during retake, will make them come out winners! Indeed, they will be winners as can be seen from the fact that when CA asked PRC to go back to the original exam results, they are still flunkers despite the leakage that they received!!!
The usual reason for saying the the bar exams and the nursing exams cannot be compared is that the nursing exams involve matter of life and death. Thus, supposedly, the 2006 nursing scandal cannot be compared to the 2003 bar exams mess where the leakage-tainted Mercantile Law was totally excluded from the computation of grades. This is a presumptuous conclusion. The complainants never showed--and they are challenged to show now--that the specific leaked questions in the 2006 nursing exams indeed involved matter of life and death, so that retake of all the leaked questions is a matter of absolute necessity.
As told by a successful nurse in the US, she cannot understand the problem in the nursing scandal about supposed incompetence of the passers. According to her, as asserted by the complainants themselves in their complaints before CA, it is the doctor whose work really entails life and death risk. The duty of the nurse is to execute the doctor's order properly, and that is not exactly difficult if they can read and understand instructions and have the diligence to apply what they have studied and learned through internship practice during college. Repeat, it is a successful nurse herself in the US who said this--and she graduated not from the alleged reputable nursing school nor was she an honor graduate, yet she is being promoted in the US hospital where she works.
In the case of Dante Ang, his ignoble blunder if not malice in ascribing incompetence to 2006 passers--when their grades in the leaked questions were excluded in the case of test 3 and downgraded in the case of test 5--is obvious and simple. It was a situation where the passers, in effect, have no grades and with downgraded grades in the leaked questions in test 3 and 5--but it was not a case of having failing grades. Therefore, the situation called for suspended sentence, meaning one did not know whether the passers are competent or incompetent, much like their situation before they took the exams when nobody knew yet their performance. So, if the CGFNS and NCLEX people have now entertained doubts on the 2006 passers, the blame falls squarely on Dante Ang and other complainants who prematurely maligned the 17,000 passers through attributing incompetence to them without valid basis--and competent lawyers should be able to readily understand that.
Posted by
Anonymous |
5:14 PM
manahimik na kayo tadle at yangot.........
Posted by
Anonymous |
5:24 PM
"MORE DIFFERENT THAN ALIKE"
Wrong. The 06 nle can never be compared with 03 bar exam. In NLE yangot/tadle and company failed to prove that there was leakage beyond reasonable doubt. The reason why the PRC erroneously adated the 03 bar exam precedent is due to pro retake relentless media blitz.
SWIFT ACTION VS. SLUGGISH ACTION
Since there was no leakage, PRC should have released the result much earlier. They did not do so because of the badgering and threats of yangot/ tadle and company.
CONDEMNATION VS. COVER-UP
Tell that to the CA. Why did yangot/tadle and co. not asked the CA in their MR to extend the TRO and permannent injunction. In the conciliation meeting, they were rebuked instead of given way.Why go back to media?Why not pursue the CA? Why pursue the board passers. Tadle/yangot/Ang/Baguio Braves and pro retake advocates should rally and protest to the CA. No media, no politicians and even no devil will hear them except the CA.The CA has already ruled. DURA LEX SED LEX!THE LAW IS HARSH BUT THAT IS THE LAW!!!!!MAHIRAP BANG INTINDIHIN YAN!!!!!
HUNGKAG
Posted by
Anonymous |
4:32 PM
MORE DIFFERENT THAN ALIKE PART 2
LIONIZING THE GUILTY
Ano ba yannn?The ca already berated them that the board passers are not guilty! Why begrudge them. First they pronounce them guilty without proving it then they asked why they are lionized. After they failed in their media blitz and black propaganda, they now have the temerity calling them again guilty. These people really deserved to be countercharged!
DEMONIZING THE HEROES
KAPAL NA KUPAL PA!SORRY! Are they heroes when they failed in their accusation. Why drag the board passers with them to whatever hate and venom they have with BON/PRC.This is what is wrong with this people. Instead of training a sharpshooter's gun to hit the target they are using a nuclear bomb to destroy all passers.When the witnesses they paraded failed to prove a leakage, they whined and cried that these people are demonized!Kuuu!talaga naman oh!!!
Lastly
A STORY OF DEFEAT, A STORY OF TRIUMPH
When their deception was defeated in the CA they still have the gall and temerity to announce a "TRIUMPH".What triumph? Who triump are the board passers and their successful quest for justice.
Let us reject further attemps to muddle the issues and overturn a hardearned victory of fairness and the true triump of the rule of law
HUNGKAG
Posted by
Anonymous |
4:49 PM
what 'chilling truth' are you talking about Ms. Yangot?
that YOU DO NOT HAVE SOLID EVIDENCE THAT WAS ACCEPTABLE BY COURT WHEN YOU FIRST DRAG THE BAGUIO WHISTLEBLOWERS TO MAKE COMPLAINT TO PRC... AND HOW YOU MANIPULATED THE MEDIA AFTERWARDS...
Posted by
Anonymous |
11:18 AM