15 March 2012
During the 2nd meeting of the 2012
National Board of the Philippine Society of Mechanical Engineers held in Cebu
City last February 4, I was handed a copy of a 3,801 word document titled “RA
8495: Clarification on our hierarchy based on different perspectives”, authored
by Eng’r. Carmelo P. Tompar. I was also made to understand, that this document (available
at http://www.psmecomments.
blogspot.com/) was written as a response to my December 4,
2011 article titled “Professional imbalance also an ME concern”.
As a backgrounder, my December 4 article zeroed in
on the “prevalence…of
the shortage of [Professional Mechanical Engineers]… that has resulted in the
unchecked and large scale violation of the ME law [which] is a disservice not
only to the [mechanical engineering] profession but also to the country, as the
shortage, in a way, deprives the various enterprises of competent personnel
that can enhance their success, and in effect, undermine the country’s nation
building and development initiatives. Such a situation, to this writer’s mind,
points only to one course of action, which is, expediting the correction of the prevailing particular
professional imbalance”.
Going
through Eng’r. Tompar’s document, I would interpret its essence as follows: He
believes that in order to address the PME shortage, there is the need to provide “Focus and emphasis on
[the] Professional Mechanical Engineering Examination…” He believes that the Fundamental
Cannon #2 of the “Code of Ethical and Professional Standards for the Practice
of Mechanical Engineering Profession” should likewise be an operative factor,
together with Sec.17 (a) of RA 8495, in the “structuring” of the prerequisites
for granting the PME grade. In so doing, there would be a full implementation
of the provisions of the law.
Sec.
17(a) specifies that “The granting of professional mechanical engineer Certificate
of Registration shall be testimonial in nature…”, while Cannon #2, which was
crafted as part of BME Resolution No.6, Series of 2003 (on the strength of Sec.
9(a) of RA 8495), states that “Mechanical Engineers in the fulfilment of their
professional duties, shall…Perform services only in areas of their competence”.
The logic of this approach is that it can
speed up the processing of PME applicants without compromising on the
qualifications of a passing engineer since his/her competence would be tested with
respect to his/her own experience and expertise. More PMEs can then be
generated in the process.
Eng’r.
Tompar also opined that “the full implementation of RA 8495 could only be
actualized if there is
immediate action of PSME, the PRC and the Department of [Interior and] Local
Government”. He did not support this statement with details but I would
hazard to guess what he means as follows:
The
function of DILG and PRC will be material in terms of enforcing the ME Law on the strength of Sec. 40
empowering them to enforce the provisions as well as prosecute violators.
The
function of the PRC and BME will be material on the strength of Sec.9 (a) and Sec.9 (g) of the
ME Law. These sections empower them to promulgate and adopt rules and
regulations necessary for carrying out the provisions of the law.
Perhaps what can be addressed along this line is to reconsider current
operating policies in the light of what is stated in Sec.2, Statement of Policy,
which includes also, aside
from regulatory measures, programs and activities as other means of nurturing
and developing the mechanical engineers and the mechanical engineering
profession. Perhaps even the policy of not entertaining applications of RMEs connected with non-compliant
companies can be reconsidered as it seems to be one of the PME stumbling
blocks.
As
to the function of PSME,
perhaps what it can do is to fortify
its effort in getting the ME Law amended as soon as possible so that it can be
improved to be a truly effective law
for the enhancement of the mechanical engineering profession.
No comments:
Post a Comment