Supreme Court E-Library
Information At Your Fingertips

WHEREAS, the Board in its June 13, 2013 meeting agreed to revisit certain rules on the retake of the Assessment Center, and on the revalidation process;

WHEREAS, such revisit entails amending Resolution No. 791 s. 2009 to reflect three (3) - year intervals between the 3^rd retake and every retake thereafter;

WHEREAS, the integrity of the AC process is not affected by the amendatory policy to be adopted as sufficient safeguards are in place to protect such integrity; and

WHEREAS, such revisit likewise entails further amending Resolution No. 791 s. 2009 to reflect that revalidation be conducted within six (6) months reckoned from the time the Board decided en banc to subject the applicant to a revalidation but with an option for extension upon request of the applicant.

NOW THEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, the Board RESOLVES, as it is hereby RESOLVED, to amend Rule Ill, Section 4; and Rule IV, Section 3 of Resolution No. 791 s. 2009 to read as follows

“RULE III
ASSESSMENT CENTER

Section 4. Assessment Center Retake. The following are the rules on AC retake:

4.1	An applicant who did not pass the AC for the 1st time shall be allowed to take the same, or a 1st retake, only after one (1) year reckoned from the date of conduct of the AC.
4.2	An applicant who is unable to pass the 1st retake shall be allowed another retake, or a 2nd retake, only after two (2) years reckoned from the date of the 1st retake.
4.3	An applicant shall be allowed a 3rd retake of the AC, and for as many retakes thereafter, if he does not pass said 3rd retake and for said retakes thereafter, only on the condition that a 3-year interval should elapse from the conduct of the 2nd retake and the 3rd retake, and that retakes thereafter shall be allowed after 3-year intervals between the previous and succeeding retakes.

An applicant shall only be scheduled for a retake upon payment of an appropriate AC fee.

x x x

RULE IV
PERFORMANCE VALIDATION

x x x

Section 3. Validator’s Recommendation. A Validator may submit any of the following recommendations:

3.1	The applicant shall undergo the in-depth Validation Process;
3.2	Proceed to the next stage of the CES eligibility examination process;
3.3	Defer the conduct of the Performance Validation; or
3.4	Undergo the revalidation of performance on-the-job.

In case of revalidation of an applicant’s performance on-the-job if he/she failed to meet the standards set by the Board after conduct of the In-Depth Validation Process, the Board may require that such revalidation be conducted within (six) 6 months reckoned from the time the Board decided en banc to subject the applicant concerned to a revalidation. The applicant nonetheless may opt, through a written request, that said 6-month period be extended.

The applicant and his/her immediate superior shall be given appropriate feedback of the result of the conduct of the Performance Validation. The Office of the applicant shall be advised by the Board to provide an appropriate developmental intervention to the applicant concerned.

x x x”

FRANCISCO T. DUQUE III, M.D., M.H.A. Vice-Chairperson
By Authority of:
(SGD) NIEVES L. OSORIO, CESO I Commissioner
(SGD) CHARITO R. ELEGIR, CESO I Member	(SGD) ANTONIO D. KALAW, JR., CESO I Member
(SGD) EVANGELINE C. CRUZADO, CESO III Member	(SGD) SUSANA D. VARGAS Member
ANGELITO M. TWANO, CESO III Member
Attested by:
(SGD) IMELDA B. GUANZON Board Secretary III