×
ADVISORY!

The views and opinions expressed in this forum are those of the online action officers and not necessarily those of the Office for Legal Affairs or the Commission on CSC laws, rules and regulations. Also, be reminded that the views of the action officer is a mere advice that does not bind the office.

When posting, you agree that the administrator has the right to delete your posts or ban your account without prior warning in case of non-observance of any of the guidelines.
Guidelines to clients:

1. Please browse the frequently asked questions first to see if there are already the same or related questions that were asked on your query/ies;
2. Official response to issues shall be provided by the concerned office of the Commission, not through this forum;
3. Requests for the status of the case is not allowed in this forum;
4. Questions regarding the scheduled CSC examination will be deleted;
5. This forum is categorized according to subject matter. Please post your queries in appropriate category;
6. Post a descriptive topic name. Give a short summary of your problem/s;
7. No spam in this forum. Your posts will be deleted and your account will be banned without prior warning;
8. Refrain from posting pictures and offensive words or links. Violation of this rule shall give the administrator the right to delete your posts and ban your account without prior warning;
9. Please report to administrators if you see a user violating any of this guidelines;
10. Be respectful to the administrators and users; and
11. Please avoid text-message style substitution of words like “r” for “are” and “u” for “you”. If your message is difficult to understand the administrator shall inform you to rewrite your message.

Question Clarification on the Sec. 54 of the 2017 ORAOHRA

More
2 years 7 months ago #8466 by Mc
Mc created the topic: Clarification on the Sec. 54 of the 2017 ORAOHRA
Good day!

I would like to ask a clarification/ interpretation on the sec 54 of the 2017 ORAOHRA.

according to this, "who have been allowed to register and are issued certificate of registration or valid professional license of a specific board law shall be considered as having met the educational requirements for appointments to positions covered by the corresponding board law or other functionally related positions"

Is having an Environmental Planner license even though a medical related bachelors degree graduate (it was allowed by RA 10587 having met the required years of experience working in a Planning Department) will qualify the person to apply for a Planning position (Planning Officer II) that requires a Bachelors degree related to the Job. Will the Environmental Planner license be considered as having met the educational requirement.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
2 years 7 months ago #8476 by Action Officer 23
Action Officer 23 replied the topic: Clarification on the Sec. 54 of the 2017 ORAOHRA
Please be informed that as a policy, the Commission does not render opinions/rulings on issues that may eventually be the subject of a complaint or appeal before it. This is especially so if the material facts necessary to a judicious adjudication of the issues are not fully presented or substantiated as in this case.

In addition, we don’t want to preempt the action of our CSC Field Officer who would be assessing your qualifications in case an appointment is issued to you and the same (together with the documents in support thereof) is submitted to him/her for attestation/approval.

We hope to have been of service to you.

Thank you.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Powered by Kunena Forum