PhilRES Response to the Denial by the PRBRES and the PRC of the PhilRES Petition for the Renewal of its status as the AIPO for the real estate service industry in the Philippines
FROM: The Secretary General
DATE: 09 February 2016
SUBJECT: PhilRES Response to the Denial by the PRBRES and the PRC of the PhilRES Petition for the Renewal of its status as the AIPO for the real estate service industry in the Philippines
Dear Fellow Members of the Philippine Institute of Real Estate Practitioners (PhilRES) Incorporated:
At its Emergency Board Meeting held on February 9, 2016, at the PhilRES National Office in Makati City, the PhilRES National Directorate has instructed the Secretary General to immediately issue this Official Communique to all PhilRES Members and Chapters nationwide.
This Communique is with reference to the official position and actions to be undertaken by the National Directorate on the Denial of the PhilRES Petition for the Renewal of its Status as AIPO for the Real Estate Service Sector in the Philippines by the Professional Regulatory Board for the Real Estate Service (PRBRES) and approved by the Professional Regulatory Commission (PRC) of the Petition in a letter dated February 2, 2016.
I - REASONS FOR THE DENIAL
PRBRES/PRC have denied the PhilRES petition for the renewal of its status as the AIPO for the real estate sector for the reason that PhilRES has fallen short of accomplishing its mandate as provided for under RA 9646, or RESA, as well as PRC Resolution No. 19, series of 2011. Several specific reasons are cited, namely:
1. Failure of PhilRES to Amend its Bylaws…specifically on the election rules and chaptering..which resulted in the protracted delay in the conduct of its national election…even after the lapse of more than three (3) years;
2. Breach of its Mandate to Integrate all real estate service practitioners into One National Organization…thus failing to comply with one of the purposes for which it was incorporated and accredited, as evidenced by the low turnout of its general membership since its accreditation in 2011;
3. PhilRES has sanctioned “the incorporation and continued existence of four (4) organizations under its auspices (and) has breached its avowed mandate to integrate the profession into one (1) national organization of real estate service practitioners.” These are the Cagayan de Oro, Quezon City, Mandaue, and Marikina PhilRES chapters. This is deemed “in direct contravention of the position taken by the PRC as stated in its Position Paper dated March 26, 2012 and by the Philippine House of Representatives on the deliberations on House Resolution No. 299.”
4. Loss of Trust and Confidence entrusted to PhilRES by the PRC and PRBRES caused by the above default by PhilRES.
II - PHILRES WILL IMMEDIATELY SUBMIT A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (M.R.), FULLY CONFIDENT THAT THE ABOVE REASONS DO NOT APPLY TO PHILRES AS BORNE OUT BY THE VARIOUS RECORDS AND DOCUMENTS ATTACHED TO ITS PETITION SUBMITTED BY PHILRES MORE THAN A YEAR AGO AND DATED OCTOBER 29, 2014.
In submitting our Motion for Reconsideration, PhilRES adverts to the following circumstances:
1. PhilRES submitted its Petition for Renewal as AIPO within the stipulated period and in accordance with the guidelines issued by no less than the PRBRES and PRC. But these regulatory agencies failed to act as mandated by law (cf. the Anti-Red Tape Act) and in accordance with PRC Resolution No. 19, series of 2011.
Had they done so, their adverse findings, if any, to the PhilRES Petition could have been subjected to due process. Proper hearings could have been called so that appropriate explanations and records could have been presented. PhilRES is confident that all the alleged reasons or objections on which the Denial has been based could have been found to be of no merit.
2. On the alleged failure of PhilRES to amend its bylaws, records will show that: a) PRBRES/PRC approved the existing PhilRES bylaws; and b) when requested by then PRC Chairperson Teresita Manzala to amend certain provisions that PRC found to be controversial, PhilRES took cognizance of the PRC request, formed a committee to amend the bylaws, and actually completed an amended version of the bylaws that either removed or revised controversial provisions, including those on elections and chaptering.
3. On the alleged breach of its mandate to integrate all real estate service practitioners into One National Organization, official records will show that all so-called stakeholders were actively involved during the entire process of organizing the AIPO under the watchful eyes of the PRBRES and the PRC officials. All these players were present in the proceedings until PhilRES was officially recognized as the AIPO and began functioning as such.
From then on the alleged representatives of the stakeholders showed continuing discontent and opposition to PhilRES as AIPO. Such behavior is traceable to their failure to be elected to the Board and top positions in the PhilRES. Unfortunately, the opposition by the malcontents was publicly abetted, wittingly or unwittingly, by the PRBRES itself under the chairmanship of Dr. Eduardo G. Ong.
4. As to the alleged low turnout of membership since PhilRES’s accreditation in 2011, records will again show that, in fact, the more than 10,000 PhilRES members of record still constitutes the largest number of membership of any real estate service organization in the country today.
But records will also show that the PhilRES membership rose to 3,841 in 2012, but plunged to only 384 members in the whole of 2013. It picked up strongly again in 2014 with 5,182 new members, and slowed down considerably in 2015 with only 1,577 members paid.
Each time the PhilRES membership drive slowed down or dropped considerably, it was because of public statements issued by Chairman E. G. Ong that were adverse to the need for licensed practitioners to either register as members of the AIPO or renew their membership and keep it in good standing as a pre-requisite to obtaining or renewing their PRC identification cards. Such statements caused considerable confusion among the licensed professionals and even some of the PRC offices. The opposing stakeholders were quick to seize upon this confusion to dissuade the concerned professionals from registering or renewing their dues with PhilRES.
5. As to PhilRES sanctioning the continuance in its membership of four organizations that sought registration with the Securities and Exchange Commission, records will also show that: a) in fact, these organizations applied as chapters of individual natural persons and were admitted as such by PhilRES; and, b) now that PhilRES has been apprised of their SEC registration, PhilRES is asking these four organizations, namely, the Cagayan de Oro, Mandaue, Quezon City, and Marikina chapters, to withdraw their SEC registration.
6. As to the alleged loss of confidence and trust by the PRBRES and PRC in the ability of PhilRES to function as the AIPO, it should be clear from the foregoing and in light of the full documentation that accompanied the PhilRES Petition for its Renewal as AIPO, that there is no basis for such loss of confidence and trust.
III - PHILRES IS NOW LEFT WITH NO RECOURSE BUT TO TAKE ALL THE NECESSARY LEGAL ACTIONS AGAINST PRBRES, PARTICULARLY ITS CHAIRMAN EDUARDO G. ONG.
In light of the ups and downs in the growth trajectory of PhilRES as the AIPO and its continuing problems with the PRBRES, it is clear from facts observed and documented that PRBRES Chairman Eduardo G. Ong must bear considerable responsibility and accountability for the problems that have beset PhilRES since 2011 and are now being alleged as the reasons for denying PhilRES its Petition to be renewed as the AIPO.
In previous official communication with PRC chairpersons Teresita R. Manzala and her successor, Florentino Doble, PhilRES has sought the official intervention of PRC to enjoin Chairman Ong and his fellow Board members to comply with their legal mandate to assist the AIPO in fulfilling its role and mandate as envisioned in the RESA. Such communication also detailed some of the harmful and illegal acts that were being committed by Chairman Ong and his Board that needed to be stopped immediately.
To date, no such intervention by PRC has been made. No official response to PhilRES regarding its legitimate complaints has been sent. Thus, it comes as no surprise that the PhilRES Petition has been treated with such neglect and disdain, and ultimate denial.
In view of the foregoing, PhilRES is left with no recourse but to seek all the legal remedies provided by our justice system to protect itself and its members as well as its reputation and its rights that have been unfairly, unjustly, and grossly impugned by the PRBRES Chairman and his Board. The appropriate legal actions will immediately be taken.
IV - IN THE MEANTIME, ALL PHILRES MEMBERS AND CHAPTERS ARE ENCOURAGED TO CONTINUE FUNCTIONING REGULARLY AS BEFITS THE ONE AND ONLY ORGANIZATION THAT WAS ABLE TO MEET THE STANDARDS AND CRITERIA SET BY THE PRC/PRBRES TO BE THE ACCREDITED AND INTEGRATED PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR THE REAL ESTATE SERVICE PROFESSION.
V - ADDENDUM FOR BETTER APPRECIATION OF FACTS & EVENTS BY ALL PHILRES MEMBERS & PARTIES CONCERNED - IMPORTANT FACTS & RECORDS THAT STRONGLY REFUTE THE PRBRES/PRC REASONS FOR DENYING THE PHILRES PETITION TO RENEW ITS STATUS AS THE AIPO FOR THE REAL ESTATE SERVICE INDUSTRY
1. On the PhilRES Bylaws and the Alleged Failure of PhilRES to Amend Certain Provisions as per request of then PRC Chairperson Teresita Manzala:
a) It was PRBRES itself that took an active hand in formulating, and eventually approved, the existing PhilRES Bylaws that paved the way for its official accreditation by the PRBRES/PRC as the AIPO.
b) When subsequently requested by then PRC Chairperson Teresita Manzala to amend certain provisions of the bylaws that PRC found to be controversial, PhilRES took cognizance of the PRC request, formed a Committee on Review of Bylaws & Policies and actually completed an amended version of the bylaws. This amended version either removed or revised controversial provisions, including those on elections and chaptering.
From the PRBRES/PRC-approved Bylaws that contained 39 Articles and 149 Sections, the PhilRES Committee submitted to the National Board and obtained approval of the amended version that contained only 11 Articles and 72 Sections.
This Amended PhilRES Bylaws was presented and discussed at the First PhilRES General Assembly on September 5, 2014 at the World Trade Center. However, the PhilRES CDO, Mandaue, and Quezon City chapters subsequently presented to the National Board their own amended version consisting still of 30 Articles and 122 Sections, virtually stalling the approval of the Amended PhilRES Bylaws for submission to the PRBRES/PRC.
c) Additionally, towards the amendment of the PhilRES Bylaws, two initiatives were undertaken by the PRBRES and PRC in the exercise of their oversight functions over the PhilRES.
(1) The PRBRES formed an Ad Hoc Committee in 2013 consisting of representatives of PhilRES and other associations considered as stakeholders in the real estate service industry and which had registered opposition to the selection of the PhilRES as the AIPO. The Ad Hoc Committee was chaired by PRBRES member Rafael Fajardo, with PhilRES director Rem Ramirez as recording secretary.
Written and audio records of the meetings show that the stakeholders not only tried to propose amendments to what they considered restrictive provisions of the existing PhilRES By-Laws but attempted to resurrect the issues on the membership of AIPO as an “association of associations (juridical persons) and not merely of individuals (natural persons)”. It also became clear that the opposing stakeholders wanted automatic representation of their associations in the National Board of PhilRES.
(2) In 2015, in an attempt to revive the stalled efforts to “unify” the real estate service industry, PRC Commissioner Yolanda D. Reyes convened an ad-hoc “Unity Council” which she requested PhilRES national president Rodolfo G. Valencia to chair. The so-called Unity Council included members of the erstwhile 2013 Ad Hoc Committee.
The council met several times but failed in its efforts to unify as PhilRES president RGV found that the other committee members still stubbornly clung to the notion that the AIPO should be an association of associations and not only of natural persons, and, therefore, violative of RA 9646, or the RESA Law. A draft of a new bylaws for a new AIPO was also submitted but not officially taken up as the council clearly went beyond its mandate.
It became increasingly obvious that the main purpose of the council was to replace the PhilRES as AIPO; wherefore, PhilRES president RGV repeatedly asked that the long-delayed official PRBRES/PRC position on the more-than-a-year-long standing PhilRES Petition for the Renewal of its Status as the AIPO be first acted upon.
2. On the alleged breach by PhilRES of its mandate to integrate all real estate service practitioners into One National Organization, official records will show that all so-called stakeholders were present during the entire process of organizing the AIPO under the watchful eyes of the PRBRES and the PRC officials.
a) PRBRES initiated and actively involved itself in the integration of stakeholders on April 28, 2010 at the Hyatt Hotel in Manila for the formation of the APO. Both written and audio-visual records of the integration and organizational meetings will show the following:
(1)The List of Stakeholders invited by PRBRES;
(2) The Signed Attendance Sheet that contains the list of invitees and attendees that included the chairpersons and presidents of the various organizations that were considered the stakeholders at the time; and
(3) The Minutes of what transpired in the Meetings. The attendance sheet proves the presence of the same stakeholders and their purported representatives who later became rabid oppositors to PhilRes as AIPO.
b) The minutes of the Meeting taken by the recording secretary will also show that PRBRES member Bansan Choa clarified from the very beginning that the APO is to be composed of individual licensed real estate practitioners and cannot be an association of associations.
3. On the alleged protracted delay in holding a national election, records will show that the PhilRES National Directorate, in fact, scheduled such national election several times and publicly announced such schedule in national newspapers.
a) The records include several press releases by PhilRes on three (3) broadsheets (PDI, Philstar and Manila Bulletin) on its first national election and its guidelines for the guidance of its members nationwide.
b) The press releases appeared on Feb. 28, 2012, August 11, 2012, November 18 and November 30, 2012, but had to be called off each time due to official interference and postponement by PRC/PRBRES.
c) Records will also show that PRBRES again interfered when it issued the Guidelines on the Formation of the AIPO and provided for a Nominating Committee in lieu of a national election. In an official letter dated Philres June 5, 2010 to PRBRES, PhilRES stated its opposition to such a scheme, as it was violative of its duly constituted and approved Bylaws.
4. On PhilRES’s alleged failure to integrate all real estate service practitioners into One National Organization as evidenced by the low turnout of its general membership since its accreditation in 2011.
a) Records will show that, in fact, the close to 12,000 PhilRES members of record still constitutes the largest number of membership of any real estate service organization in the country today. Total paid members climbed to 11,984 members.
b) Records will also show that the PhilRES membership rose to 3,841 in 2012, but plunged to 384 new members in the whole of 2013. It picked up strongly again in 2014 by 5,182 members and then slowed down considerably in 2015 with only 1,577 members paid.
c) What were the primary reasons for the roller-coaster trend in membership registration? Without doubt, it was the unwarranted intervention and misinformation by none other than the PRBRES.
(1) In 2013, PRBRES released an executive order which left out the requirement of a paid Certificate of Membership in Good Standing (CMIGS) as a pre-requisite to obtain new or renew PRC licensees or identification cards.
(2) In 2015, PRBRES officials led by Chairman Eduardo G. Ong began making public statements that PhilRES had ceased to be the AIPO and members were no longer required to pay and secure CMIGS from PhilRES, which became an operating guideline for the majority of PRC offices where licensed professionals went to renew their PRC identification cards.
Each time the PhilRES membership drive slowed down, this was directly traceable to the public statements issued by Chairman Ong that were adverse to the need for licensed practitioners to either register as members of the AIPO or renew their membership and keep it in good standing as a pre-requisite to obtaining or renewing their PRC identification cards.
5. On the manifest Malevolence and Culpability of the PRBRES, particularly its Chairman, Dr. Eduardo G. Ong, in not only withholding the support of the agency to PhilRES as the AIPO that it is mandated by law to provide, but in actively working for its failure so that the PRBRES can replace it with another organization that Dr. Ong and his cohorts favor.
a) As clearly explained in a foregoing paragraph (see #2), the continuing discontent and opposition of some of the alleged leaders of the stakeholders to PhilRES as AIPO was abetted, wittingly or unwittingly, by the PRBRES itself under the chairmanship of Dr. Eduardo G. Ong.
b) To explain Dr. Ong’s bias and actuations against PhilRES, it is of record that his name was not among the official nominees to the PRBRES that were sent by the then interim AIPO – the Federation of Real Estate Service Associations (FRESA).
Upon the promulgation of RA 9646, and at the instance of the PRC, FRESA was hastily formed for the single purpose of acting as the AIPO in recommending the first members of the PRBRES for appointment by the Office of the President of the Republic of the Philippines as required by RA 9646.
At the time, FRESA was as an unregistered organization of associations which were considered stakeholders in the real estate industry. FRESA was borne out of the former DTI-sanctioned Real Estate Council of the Philippines (RESCOP).
The representatives of the associations that formed the FRESA subsequently became the Founding Members of the PhilRES, some of whom are still active members of the PhilRES National Directorate.
Eventually, FRESA opted to register itself with the SEC as an independent association of real estate associations. It actively applied, and competed against PhilRES in 2011, for accreditation as the AIPO. It lost out to PhilRES, as the PRBRES and PRC chose PhilRES as the organization that best satisfied all the criteria and guidelines laid down by both agencies for the AIPO.
b) Additionally, Dr. Ong has over-stayed at his post as PRBRES Chairman beyond the term of office stipulated in RA 9646, and has stayed on for practically a second term only by virtue of the fact that no new chairman has been appointed to replace him. His second term is due to end in March of 2016 and the law prohibits the appointment of PRBRES members beyond two consecutive terms.
Keen observers of the above dynamics cannot help but speculate that Dr. Ong’s actions and actuations against Philres are calculated to enable him and other members of the current PRBRES to cling to their positions as holdover office holders. For what motives, only they can explain.
6. On PhilRES’s practice of chaptering and that it has allegedly sanctioned “the incorporation and continued existence of four (4) of its chapters as SEC-registered organizations under its auspices, thus breaching its avowed mandate to integrate the profession into one (1) national organization of real estate service practitioners …“in direct contravention of the position taken by the PRC as stated in its Position Paper dated March 26, 2012 and by the Philippine House of Representatives on the deliberations on House Resolution No. 299”…that the AIPO shall be an association of natural persons and not of juridical persons.
a) At the launching of PhilRES, more than fifty (50) chapters of licensed real estate professionals from the major provinces, cities, and towns of the Philippines applied for membership. More than 40 chapters were initially approved. The list has now grown to more than 50.
Four of the chapters, namely Cagayan de Oro, Mandaue, Quezon City, and Marikina, applied for membership in PhilRES as chapters of individual natural persons and were admitted as such by PhilRES. Apparently, they also applied for registration with the SEC prior to, or immediately following, the release of House Resolution No. 299 on October 17, 2012 by the Philippine House of Representatives. Said House Resolution affirmed that the AIPO as envisaged by RA 9646 is to be an association of natural persons, not an association of associations.
b) Now that PhilRES has been apprised by the PRC Resolution No. 5 of the SEC registration of the above-named four chapters, the PhilRES Board is asking these four chapters to withdraw their SEC registration.
c) It is PhilRES’s contention that the practice of creating chapters should not be taken against PhilRES by the PRC or any other regulatory agency. Creating chapters in the various regions or provinces and major cities and towns is a widely accepted and established practice of national associations for purposes of better and more effective communication and governance of their members as well as the delivery of services to the latter.
Since PhilRES is a national organization whose mandate is to organize, integrate, supervise and monitor all licensed real estate service professionals that now number more than 30,000 nationwide, it is merely following a governance practice which many, if not all, of the APOs have adopted.
7. On the alleged Loss of Trust and Confidence entrusted to PhilRES by the PRC and PRBRES because of the alleged defaults on the part of PhilRES and its alleged inability to function as the AIPO:
a) It should be clear from the foregoing facts and records and in light of the full documentation that accompanied the PhilRES Petition for its Renewal as AIPO, that there has never been any basis for such loss of confidence and trust.
b) At the very outset, records will show that it was the PRBRES that practically endowed PhilRES its official name, developed its initial framework , and laid down the requirements for the accreditation and appointment of PhilRES as the AIPO. The PhilRES bylaws were, in fact, formulated with the end in view of fulfilling such requirements and ensuring its qualification as the AIPO. The PhilRES National Directorate has meticulously hewed to these bylaws and the operating guidelines for the AIPO. The PhilRES Petition for the Renewal of its status as AIPO clearly documents all these.
c) On the contrary, it is the PRBRES that has grossly failed in its obligations under the law to work closely with, and support, the AIPO in the pursuit of the goals and objectives of RA 9646, not the least of which is the full observance and compliance with the Code of Ethics and Professional Responsibilities.
In accordance with said RA 9646, PhilRES formulated and submitted a draft of this Code of Ethics to the PRBRES soon after it was chosen as the AIPO in 2011. To date and after four long years since its submission, PRBRES has failed to act on and approve the draft Code.
Thus, through the past years, the entire real estate service sector has been deprived of its official Code of Ethics and Professional Responsibilities that the AIPO has long wanted to disseminate and promote widely for proper compliance by all real estate service practitioners nationwide.
d) It is thus clear that it is the incumbent PRBRES that must bear principal accountability and responsibility for the operational problems of PhilRES that are now ironically being cited as the basis for not renewing its status as the duly accredited and recognized AIPO of the real estate service industry.
If is the PRBRES officials, led by their Chairman, Eduardo G. Ong, who have time and again caused confusion about the role of the AIPO, militated against its growth and development, and coddled the oppositors to the AIPO.
The industry is rife with suspicions about the real motives of Mr. Ong and his cohorts in repeated attempts to create difficulties for PhilRES and downgrade its ability to play the role of AIPO.
But this is a matter that is best left to the duly constituted authorities to determine and deal with in accordance with law. PhilRES is ready to present its records and files at the proper time and in the proper forum so that the truth may be laid bare for all parties concerned to see.