Saturday ∗ 03 Dec 2011

reputation, credibility, disclaimer

if you look at the comments section of the bad vibes for NAIA 1 rehab piece, it’s easy to see how pouncing on the Cobonpue-Layug-Pineda team became the order of the day. especially after the Professional Regulatory Board of Architecture (PRBoA) released a statement questioning the three’s reputation and credibility vis a vis their “right” to even be working on the NAIA 1 project.

yesterday, the PRBoA issued this disclaimer:

PRBoA disclaimer

PRBoA disclaimer

it’s bad enough that we totally missed the point when we decided to pounce on the team that was doing work pro bono, with government, and the MIAA 1 officials — everything transparent and above ground. but to have used a statement from the PRBoA, one that has now been recalled? what happens now to those words mean and nasty and ultimately unfair and unjust?

and given the disclaimer, one can’t help but wonder: what — or whose — invisible hand is at work here?

Posted in: bayan, gobyerno, komentaryo

Tagged:

5 Comments/Pingbacks

  1. Sphynx
    December 4, 2011 at 10:20 am

    For me, I think the PRBoA’s statement is pretty clear.

    It was a neutral stance, not favoring for or against anyway but simply execute what is written as part of their mandate.

    However, a lot of people viewed it as such and they had to put a disclaimer to avoid any more misinterpretation.

    But I do agree, I found it odd that they had to take it down/retract it when it was in fact neutral in my view.

    They stated for LVLA’s case that it may be justifiable because of potential urgency.

    Anyway, if you also look back into the NCC’s news/articles dating back early 2011, you will not find any publication, article or even announcement of such regarding NAIA at any point in time. Which is in part why I think the PRBoA mentioned that they were not unaware of such.

    PRBoA is simply trying to avoid any confusion as to who can really practice architecture. Of course, for this case, it was Arch’t Royal Pineda. However, media keeps mis-labeling in instances of Mr. Kenneth Cobonpue as an architect which is in fact illegal. It is however not the fault of Mr. Cobonpue, but rather those of the media.

    If you look at one snippet of news of GMA or TV5 (I can’t recall) on the press conference, they actually labelled Mr. Cobonpue as an architect which is incorrect. However, again I stress, not his fault.

    And with them working together to uplift the design of NAIA is in itself not illegal as none of the non-architects of the group misrepresented themselves as contrary to the fact (to the best of what is public knowledge).

    PRBoA is trying to stem or prevent those who may use this collaboration as an excuse to justify practice of architecture while being non-architects. That which is clearly stated in RA 9266.

    This goes the same for practice of interior design without being registered interior designers.

    RA 9266 – Architecture Act of 2004
    RA 8534 – Interior Design Act of 1998

    • GabbyD
      December 4, 2011 at 11:01 am

      while i appreciate your interpretation of what the pboa wants/did, etc, the fact is that they recalled the statement, and we don’t know what they want/think.

      • Sphynx
        December 4, 2011 at 11:39 am

        Found that odd too. I don’t know what happened but I view as a way of closing the books as well on their end, both towards the NCC and DPWH.

        To stop the word war and help in calming the seas, if you can call it that.

        So now we wait for an initial output.

  2. Anina
    December 13, 2011 at 3:07 pm

    Hi! Where can i find the statement issued by PRCoA? Thanks!

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

© Katrina Stuart Santiago  ·  Contact Me
Wordpress theme and web development by @joelsantiago