Tuesday, January 08, 2008 Civil engineering examinees appeal to stop board retake
CIVIL engineering board examinees on Monday asked the Court of Appeals (CA) to stop the Professional Regulations Commission (PRC) from conducting a retake of two out of three subjects in the Civil Engineering Licensure Examinations (Cele) held last November 17 and 18 due to allegations of "irregularities."
In a petition, a group of examinees from different colleges asked the appellate court to issue a temporary restraining order (TRO) setting aside Resolution 07-12 of the PRC nullifying the examination results in the subjects Hydraulics and Geotechnical Engineering and Structural Engineering and Constructions.
David Erro, petitioners' lawyer, also asked the CA to enjoin PRC from conducting the retake of the subjects on January 12, 2008, and to compel the regulating body to release the results of the Cele and subsequently schedule the oath taking of those who passed the exams.
Among the petitioners are Dianne May Casimiro, Neil Erich Galicia, Jennyl Estil, Allam Paul de Castro, Rachel Ann Apuan, James Benjamin Zapata, Adais Bautista, Carlos Sanvictores, Mark Franz Abundo, Gregory Gabelo, Daniel del Villar, Dean Clayton Vergara, and Eloyd Selda.
The examinees said the PRC committed grave abuse of discretion when it ordered the retake of the subjects despite National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) has yet to submit its findings on the alleged anomaly resulting in the "unusually high grades" obtained by examinees.
They further belied PRC assurance that the retake is optional since a memorandum it issued on November 29, 2007 provides that examinees who fail to take the examinations for the two subjects will be marked absent and will re-take all the three subjects and pay the corresponding examination fee.
The students also claimed that the PRC failed to observe due process before issuing the resolution, as they were not properly informed as to the real nature of the controversy that prompted the agency to nullify the results of the examination and order the retake of the two subjects.
They claimed that the PRC have not been given any notice that there was an irregularity in the examination or that an investigation was held prior to the decision to nullify the results in two subjects.
They added that the PRC also did not conduct a hearing before issuing the assailed resolution.
Petitioners claimed there is yet no evidence to prove the extent of the effect of the supposed irregularities in the two subjects.
In fact, what was uncovered by the PRC is a case of cheating by two out of 4,782 examinees.
"In any event, the act of cheating is merely a ground for the cancellation of their examination papers and suspension from taking the examinations for two years. It is not a ground to nullify the entire results of the examination for the subjects," the group said.
In its Resolution 07-12, the PRC noted that the irregularity in the subject Hydraulics and Geotechnical Engineering consist of "statistically improbable" result considering that 461 examinees out of the total of 4,782 got perfect scores and 627 others got scores higher than 90 percent.
On the other hand, in the Structural Engineering and Construction, an agent of the NBI caught two examinees in possession of mobile phones.
According to the PRC, one of the phones contained answers to 30 questions wherein 21 were found to be correct.
However, the students claimed that there is no evidence yet to prove the irregularities since the NBI still has to finish its investigation.
They noted that the examinees got high grades since the questions asked in the Hydraulics and Geotechnical Engineering are "basic, fundamental and elementary
Concepts" that all future civil engineers should know.
They added that the confiscation of the mobile phones from two examinees during the examination on Structural Engineering and Construction subject on November 18 cannot be linked to the high grades obtained by the examinees in Hydraulics and Geotechnical Engineering subject which was held a day before.
The examinees insisted that the issuance of Resolution 07-12 has no basis since there is no law or regulation that makes "unusually high grade" a ground to nullify examination results. (ECV/Sunnex)
