This has reference to the two articles published in the April 1 and 22 issues of the Inquirer, on the increase in the number of questions in the Civil Engineering Examination in the Middle East.
We appreciate the discussion of Monica Feria, Jeannette Andrade and Irene Sino Cruz of the issues involved in the 2011 CE licensure examination in the Middle East. However, the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC) would like to make some clarifications.
First of all, we wish to reiterate that the increase in the number of questions in the CE examination from 30 to 100 is allowed under Item III, Conduct of Examinations, Annex A of Resolution No. 02, Series of 1995 (Promulgation of the Syllabi for the Subjects in the Civil Engineering Licensure Examination), which reads: “… The number of questions for each subject shall not be less than 20 at 4 points each. The maximum number of questions shall not be more than 100 at 1 point each.”
It may be pointed out that early last year, Commissioner Alfredo Y. Po, who has oversight responsibility for the engineering professions, made the recommendation to increase the number of test questions on the basis of the Test Question Analysis of the local and overseas civil engineering examinations in 2007 to 2010. The analysis was made by Dr. Milagros Ibe, PRC’s test question consultant.
The recommendation to increase the test items from 30 to 100 was adopted by the PRC as a collegial body, mindful of its mandate in securing a reliable, credible and progressive system of determining the competence of professionals through valid and trustworthy licensure examinations.
Prior to the December 2011 examination in the Middle East, the recommendation was presented and discussed with the chair and members of the Board of Civil Engineering in a consultative meeting with the commission en banc, where the increase in the number of questions was agreed upon and accordingly adopted.
This is in line with the principle that while the commission exercises administrative supervision over the various professional regulatory boards, the latter are accorded autonomy but within limits consistent with this commission’s responsibility of protecting the profession, the persons who would be declared members of the profession, and the public that we all serve.
Likewise, in a meeting called by this commission with the national leadership of the Philippine Institute of Civil Engineers, the accredited professional organization of registered civil engineers, the rationale of the decision was laid down and explained. The association, through its president, Public Works Undersecretary Romeo S. Momo, expressed its full appreciation of the wisdom of the decision.
With this clarification, we trust that the issue will now be put to rest.
—TERESITA R. MANZALA, chair,
Professional Regulation Commission