Petition Closed

RA9266 The Architecture Act of 2004 prevails over RA10912 The CPD Law

This petition had 739 supporters


AN OPEN LETTER TO THE UAP NATIONAL PRESIDENT

October 8, 2017
ARCH. GUILLERMO HISANCHA, FUAP
National President
United Architects of the Philippines

Subject: UAP AS THE IAPOA AND THE CPD LAW IN RELATION TO RA9266

Dear Arch. Hesancha,

Recently, Republic Act No. 10912 or what have been known to the general membership as, “THE CPD LAW FOR BREVITY” was passed and lapse into law on July 21, 2016 which entitled “AN ACT STRENGTHENING THE CONTINUING PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR ALL REGULATED PROFESSIONS, CREATING THE CONTINUING PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL, AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER RELATED PURPOSES”, hence; this new law as a General law is not created for the purpose of establishing per se a new Continuing Professional Development (CPD) program but only to strengthen the existing program mandated by Professional Regulation Commission in their PRC Resolution No. 2013-774 Series of 2013 re: “Revised Guidelines on the Continuing Professional Development (CPD) Program for all Registered License Professional” which the same has an effect of law respectively.

As a matter of brief history, and we believed you are very much aware of the circumstances on this issues, CPD since then is present and is previously called as CPE (Continuing Professional Education) from the time the architecture law is under RA545 and it was implemented in the same way of what RA10912 has been provided for under Art. 3. Sec. 10 of the latter. However, the CPE that is being in force and in effect from the time it was mandated by the PRC was challenge by PIA on their petition for declaratory relief and was given judgement on the merit by the Court of Appeals 11th Division on May 27, 1999 being the PRC and UAP as the appellant to which the dispositive portion of the decision provides;

“WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The assailed decision order are all AFFIRMED in toto”.

In connection with the above decision, the mandatory requirement of the CPE for renewal of professional identification card has been terminated for the architecture profession, till then that RA9266 has passed into law repealing RA545 incorporating therein on Art. 2. Sec. 7 which says;

“Power and Functions of the Board - The Board shall exercise the following SPECIFIC powers, functions and responsibilities:

(i) Prescribed guidelines for the Continuing Professional Development (CPD) program in consultation with the integrated and accredited professional organization of architects; PROVIDED, THAT THE ATTENDANCE TO SAID CPD shall not be a mandatory requirement for the renewal of a professional license;” (Emphasis supplied).

In lieu of which, UAP being presently an organisation claiming to be the IAPOA (Integrated and Accredited Professional Organisation of Architects), believing as embodied by all the Architects individual in this country, in compliance to the provisions of Sec. 40 of RA 9266, shall first to determine the possible adverse effect of the new law RA10912 (a general law) for the best interest of the practice of the architectural profession and the General Membership as a whole.

In our belief, UAP being an IAPOA is supposed to be the voice of the general membership, an IAPOA embodied by the architects of this country as an organisation supposed to be created for the purpose of the protection of its members if adverse action by the state and its political subdivisions shall occur.

The IAPOA as we believed being an organization mandated by Sec. 40 of RA9266 is not an extension arm of the PRC/PRBOA, where all actions and resolutions promulgated by it even if favourable to the UAP as an organization but if it prejudice the interest of the General membership shall be disregarded.

To note with on this CPD issue, the UAP as the IAPOA failed to act on behalf of the General Membership as supposed to be the voice of all architects to question the implementation of the mandatory requirement of this CPD, notwithstanding that under RA9266 being a special law as intended primarily for Architecture, Art. 2 Sec. 7 (i) provides that “The Board shall exercise the following SPECIFIC powers, functions and responsibilities: Prescribed guidelines for the Continuing Professional Development (CPD) program in consultation with the integrated and accredited professional organization of architects; PROVIDED, THAT THE ATTENDANCE TO SAID CPD shall not be a mandatory requirement for the renewal of a professional license;” (Emphasis supplied).

While Art. 3. Sec. 10 of RA10912 (General Law) provides that; “The CPD is hereby made as the mandatory requirement in the renewal of the PIC’s of all registered and license professional under the regulation of the PRC. There is a doctrine that says;
“Lex Specialis Derogat Generali - Special Provisions of Law prevails over General One”.

Therefore, in this view, RA9266 as a special law shall prevail over RA10912 which is a general law, conflict or repugnancy to which shall be resolved in favour of a special law.

As for a matter of discussion, we would like to submit some views that can possibly explain further our stake on why the UAP as the IAPOA must supposed to lead on this endeavour, rather that being excited to implement programs that shall not supposed to be correct moved that will really benefit the members of this organization as an IAPOA. Below are my points for your perusal;

1. If the General law was enacted first, the Special Law is considered as the exception to to the General Law. Therefore the General Law remains a good law, and there is no repeal (lichauco v. Apostle, 44 Phil 138). Except in so far as the exception or Special law is concerned. However, if there are inconsistencies with the General Law it is considered as a repeal to a General Law. (Which is not the Case).
2. if the Special Law was enacted first, both Special Law and General Law are good laws, unless:

a.) There is an express declaration to the contrary.
b.) or there is a clear, necessary and UNRECONCILABLE conflict (Cia General v. Coll of Customs, 46 Phil. 8 (1924)
c.) Or, unless the subsequent General Law covers the whole subject and clearly intended to replace the Special Law on the matter. (Joaquin v. Navarro, 81 Phil. 373).

With all the considerations above, there is only one (1) UNRECONCILABLE conflict as to the enactment of RA10912, since CPD mandate is present already to the provisions of RA 9266 prior to RA10912 which is a General Law, the directives that this CPD is a pre-requisite for the renewal of PRC ID is the one that is considered as UNRECONCILABLE to the Special law which says, CPD shall not be a mandatory requirement for the renewal of PRC ID (RA9266 Art. 3. Sec. 7 (i)). which is in need to harmonized with this Special Law (RA9266).

In scrutinising RA10912 vis-a-vis RA9266, the General law (RA10912) is clearly a repugnant to RA9266 when it comes to the mandate of the CPD requisite for the renewal of license, as CPD is already present prior to the enactment of the the General Law, and UAP being the IAPOA had supposedly look into this, since this mandate in the General Law is conflicting with what the Special law provides, and we all know that it affects the interest and practice of the members of making it a mandatory requirement for the renewal of PRC ID, and the profession as a whole. As an IAPOA, we are happy to believed, that the UAP as the IAPOA abide with the laws this republic as enacted, but IAPOA failed to protect the interest of the members to be free of the burden on the effect if such a member cannot renew their PRC ID representing his authority to practice a profession.

Does RA10912 impliedly repeal RA9266 under its repealing clause provision?

To note again, repeal by implication is not favoured. The two laws must be absolutely incompatible, and a clear finding thereof must surface, before the interference of implied repeal may be drawn. The rule is expressed in the maxim “interpretare it concordat legibus eat optimus interpretendi, i.e., every statute must be so interpreted and brought in accord with other laws as to from a uniform system of jurisprudence”. The legislature should have presumed to have known the existing laws on the subject and not have enacted conflicting statutes. hence, all doubts must be resolved against any implied repeal, and all efforts should be exerted in order to harmonise and give effect to all laws on the subject. Implied repeal is generally not favoured. (PNCC v. Pabion, 116 SCAD 911; Hagad v. Dozo Dadole, 251 SCRA 242).

A repealing clause is an act which provides that "all laws or parts thereof inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed or modified accordingly, (Sec. 18 of RA10912)“ is not an express repeal as it does not identify or designate the act or acts intended to be repealed. Rather, it is a clause which predicate the intended repeal on the condition that a substantial conflict must be found in existing and prior acts. Such being the case, the presumption against implied repeals and the rule against strict construction regarding implied repeal apply ex proprio vigre. (Iloilo Palay and Corn Planters Assn., Inc. v. Feliciano, 13 SCRA 377). More specifically, a subsequent statute, general in character as to its terms and application, is not to be construed as repealing a special or specific enactment, unless the legislative purpose to do so is manifest. (Jalandoni v. Endaya, 53 SCRA 261).

In addition, a specific statute prevails over a general statute and that where two statute are of equal theoritical application to a particular case, the one designed therefore SPECIALLY shall prevail. (Republic v. Sandiganbayan, 173 SCRA 72). or where two constructions of a statute are possible, one which harmonizes the provisions of the entire act, the other creating discord or conflict between different provisions, the former should be adopted. ( Rivera v. San Miguel Brewery Corp. 24 SCRA 947).

or, where there are two statute, the earlier special and the later general, the terms of the general broad enough to include the matter provided for in the special - tha fact that one is special and the other is general creates a presumption that the special is to be considered as remaining an exception to the general, one as a general law of the land, the other as the law of a particular case. (Butuan Sawamill, Inc. v. City of Butuan, 16 SCRA 755; Ilocos Norte Electric Co., Inc. v. Municipality of Laoag, 18 SCRA A703).

Please note then being an IAPOA and a supposed protector of the members, that when a person or a professional restricts to renew his his PRC ID, the same that a person is restricted to practice his profession, and tantamount to the effect that he has no authority whatsoever to be called as “Architect” when his license was expired, and he cannot even be allowed to collect professional fees, which is detrimental to his family. (Wineman v. Blueprint, 75 Misc. 2d 665, 667, 348 N.Y.S. 2d, 721, 723-24 (1973).

Citing Foreign case for a better understanding to this effect, please look into the case of Holiday Homes, Inc. v. Briley, 122 A. 2d 229, 2331 (D.C. Man. Ct. App. 1965) “rendering of designs in connection to prefab housing by architect whore registration has lapse constituted unlicensed practice of architecture”, It is the reason why architects/members opposed to this mechanism of making CPD a pre-requisite for the renewal of PRC ID, to which the members gave their trust and confidence to the UAP as the IAPOA, to be the protector to those action by the state who is adverse to the interest of the members, being the IAPOA, the general membership believed that you are the voice of the members to look on this issues, to take action on this issues, to opposed when it affects the profession. It is the mere issues on this CPD, not the fees, the time which are only secondary issues.

Further to which, crafting a program that was mentioned by NEVP Panganiban as he said a win-win solution is misplaced on this issue, as it only divert the mindset of the members to the real issues need to be resolved, the real issue as discussed above to which the IAPOA must gave consideration as the first that would take action in criticising the provisions of the law that shall have adverse or detrimental effect to its members, as it is the one that most probably affect the profession, occupation and livelihood of the members and to our title “ARCHITECT” and to which if not given much importance and utmost attention to provoke its implementation because of our excitement in holding CPD programs which supposed to be in effect since then even in the absence of this new law which this IAPOA does nothing, shall then be tantamount of restricting One’s practice of profession to which, ones’s employment, profession or trade or calling is a property right, and the wrongful interference therewith is an actionable wrong. (Crespo v. Provincial Board, 160 SCRA 66).

Furthermore, to the opinion of NEVP Panganiban that lawyers have their own CPD since 2001 and is called MCLE, I would like to note that failure of the lawyers to complete the MCLE is not a ground for the non-renewal of their license to practice law, the effect of which is that, pleading filed by the lawyers to any court or tribunal shall be subject to expunge from the records, the Supreme Court does not restrict them to renew their authority to practice the legal profession, a big difference to what RA10912 which make CPD a requisite for the renewal of PRC ID representing our license or authority to practice the profession, to which the supposed IAPOA as the protector of the General Membership does not take action to opposed with it, to complaint on it as it is tantamount to a taking of a property right granted by the state after passing the licensure examanation succeded by the taking of an Oath as the only requirement in acquiring such an authority to practice his profession, but instead go into flaw in offering CPD seminars without considering the real effect which is detrimental to one's occupation, profession to earn his livelihood.

On the other hand, travelling in asian countries as an example of ASEAN PRACTICE as also given as an example of NEVP Panganiban cannot be compare to what culture we have here in the Philippines, not all architects specially the small practice can sustain to travel in Asia or to be a member of ASEAN architects, that membership you think Filipinos are need to have this CPD because we are at far compare to some Asian countries shall not be practical to the members to be in that level, as those in the province is majority not capable to sustain it financially, they are better to choose to have foods on the table and send their children to a good school rather than bearing the title ASEAN Architect while their families has no food to eat.

“Generally, RA10912 to sum up with, is not created and passed into law to mandate for a mandatory CPD as a new, it is 1.) to strengthen the CPD Program; 2.) the creation of the CPD Council; 3.) The appropriation of funds and other purposes. This are the three elements that the CPD has supposed to give focus on its creation as written on the title of this RA10912.”

Finally, the officers of the IAPOA was elected by the General Membership, believing that being elected in the position, IAPOA shall first look into the interest of the members, the true IAPOA here is the General Membership and not the UAP as the juridical body representing the members, with out the General Membership, there was no UAP as the IAPOA, therefore, if there is to be served here, the IAPOA must served the General Membership, rather than serving the PRC as the regulatory body, the UAP as the IAPOA shall look into the welfare of the General Membership, look back first to the needs and protection of the General Membership you are representing, as they are the IAPOA, the true IAPOA in the profession of Architecture as established to meet the requirement of being an IAPOA to be accredited under Rule 2 par.(1 and 3) Resolution No. 2004-178, Series of 2004.

This is now a challenge to your administration, to show to the General Membership that you are for the welfare of the members and not for the UAP as a corporate juridical entity, show to the members that the IAPOA is acting to provoke Art. 3 Se. 10 of RA 10912 which are not a repeal to Art. 2 sec. 7(i) of RA9266. Show to the members your cause, a true cause of service to the members and not to the organization per se.

“Being an IAPOA, stand for the IAPOA embodying it, be the voice of the IAPOA your represent, bring back to the members their trust in voting you in the position, otherwise the TRUE IAPOA need be created separate and distinct to function in behalf of the member and not an arm of the PRBOA/PRC as what we had oberved.”

Lastly, We are writing this to exercise our freedom of expression being a fundamental principle of our democratic government, to express my sentiments to air on this issue if no one for now in the general membership stands to opposed to it in every chapters. Thank you and looking forward for your immediate action for the benefit of the IAPOA.

Yours truly,

- Architecture Council for Advocacy Philippines (ACAP) 
- Collaboration of Architects Venturing for Accreditation of a Legitimate Integration for Efficient Reform (CAVALIER) 
- TRAILBLAZER - 

 



Today: ACAP/CAVALIER/TRAILBLAZER is counting on you

ACAP/CAVALIER/TRAILBLAZER needs your help with “Arch. Guillermo Hisancha: RA9266 The Architecture Act of 2004 prevails over RA10912 The CPD Law”. Join ACAP/CAVALIER/TRAILBLAZER and 738 supporters today.