Question ICT Qualification Standards in the Philppines

Hello. I graduated with a Diploma of Information Technology, and have demonstrable/provable work experience in the ICT field since 2001, including programming, networking, and general systems administration. However, I do not have a Bachelor's Degree. Can my work experience count as subtantial to qualify me for the following plantilla items in lieu of the Bachelor's degree requirements?

• Computer Maintenance Technologist
• Information Technology Officer
\

• Systems Analyst
• Computer Programmer

Additionally, the place where I grew up and stayed for 17 years has 13 years of basic education. The 13th year is considered as University foundation - equivalent to 1st year college. The education systems uses British-influenced curricula. More importantly, my 2-year Diploma course had only subjects relevant to Information Technology. We had no general subjects. Can the CSC provide a more comprehensive, ICT-relevant examination for the aforementioned ICT plantilla items? The EDPSE at present is only focused on programming.

Please advise. Thank you so much.

Eduardo

Please be informed that as a matter of policy, the CSC does not render opinions or rulings on issues that may eventually be the subject of a complaint or appeal before it. This is so especially when there are material facts necessary to the judicious adjudication of the issue which are not fully represented or substantiated as in this case.

Nevertheless, your attention is invited to Section 1 (d), Rule X of the CSC Memorandum Circular No. 40, s. 1998, which provides, as follows:

“RULE X
QUALIFICATION STANDARDS

SEC. 1. The appointee must meet the approved qualification standards for the position for which he is being appointed. The HRMOs must be guided with the common requirements of the approved qualification standards:

[…]

d. No substitution shall be allowed for deficiencies in education and experience requirement.”

On the other hand, Rule VIII, Section 35 of the 2017 Omnibus Rules on Appointments and Other Human Resource Actions (2017 ORAOHRA), explicitly states thus:

“Sec. 35. Appointees to career service positions must meet the education, training, experience, eligibility and competency requirements prescribed in the Qualification Standards manual or CSC-approved agency qualification standards for their positions at the time of the issuance of the appointment.”

Hope to have guided you on the matter.

Action Officer wrote: Please be informed that as a matter of policy, the CSC does not render opinions or rulings on issues that may eventually be the subject of a complaint or appeal before it. This is so especially when there are material facts necessary to the judicious adjudication of the issue which are not fully represented or substantiated as in this case.

Nevertheless, your attention is invited to Section 1 (d), Rule X of the CSC Memorandum Circular No. 40, s. 1998, which provides, as follows:

“RULE X
QUALIFICATION STANDARDS

SEC. 1. The appointee must meet the approved qualification standards for the position for which he is being appointed. The HRMOs must be guided with the common requirements of the approved qualification standards:

[…]

d. No substitution shall be allowed for deficiencies in education and experience requirement.”

On the other hand, Rule VIII, Section 35 of the 2017 Omnibus Rules on Appointments and Other Human Resource Actions (2017 ORAOHRA), explicitly states thus:

“Sec. 35. Appointees to career service positions must meet the education, training, experience, eligibility and competency requirements prescribed in the Qualification Standards manual or CSC-approved agency qualification standards for their positions at the time of the issuance of the appointment.”

Hope to have guided you on the matter.

Thank you for the response, Ms./Mr. Action Officer. It has been 9 months since, but I still have lingering questions.

I do believe rules should evolve with the times. Some of the 2017 ORAOHRA rules are outdated. How can we get Section 1.d amended? Are there specific fora where this can be addressed directly by those who have the power to make amendments to these rules?

Regarding the Computer Maintenance Technologist item, for example - a Bachelor's Degree is really not needed for one to qualify for these. Why is the CSC still requiring a Bachelor's degree for the CMT positions when industry certification should suffice? A graduate of TESDA's National Certificate II in Computer Systems Servicing has these competencies already. Likewise, someone without a Bachelor's Degree but is CompTIA or Cisco certified proves that she/he can accomplish what may be needed for CMT Positions - and more. ICT Industry qualifications should be sufficient for the CMT item, as long as the personnel is dedicated to and passionate about her/his craft. It should not be about being a graduate of a four year course, but being truly competent in one's work.

CMT qualifications standards should be similar to the QS for Electronic & Communications Equipment Technician. The only things that make a four-year ICT course four years are the general subjects. Remove the general subjects, and you have a two-year, ICT-focused college degree. In fact CMT I should emphasize true competency over and above the length of time one has undergone college education.

Anyway, while on the subject, does MC10 S2013 mean that for Category II Positions, EITHER a relevant TESDA qualification OR at least one year of relevant work experience are all that needed for - for example, ECE Technician - meaning that if one can troubleshoot and repair electronic equipment with relative ease, then she/he is qualified for ECE Technician even without a relevant TESDA Certificate and vice versa?

Thank you in advance.