Policy Concerning the Commission of Any Irregularity in Any of the Four Stage CES Eligibility Examination Process

November 26, 2012

CESB CIRCULAR NO. 004-12

 

On September 19, 2012, the Career Executive Service Board adopted CESB Resolution No. 1046 dated September 19, 2012 entitled "Policy Concerning the Commission of Any Irregularity in Any of the Four Stage CES Eligibility Examination Process." The said resolution provides for the rules and guidelines that would govern the commission of any irregularity done before, during or after each stage of the CES eligibility examination process. The same resolution authorizes the Board, after notice and due process, to invalidate the result of any stage of the eligibility process. SaAcHE

The said rules and guidelines are as follows:

RULE 1

Preliminary Provisions

SECTION 1. Declaration of Policy. — Public Office is a public trust. As such, it is hereby declared the policy of the State to ensure that honesty, integrity and merit and fitness principle be always the measure of entry into public service. Thus, all forms of cheating in the four stage CES eligibility process including those committed by private individuals shall be immediately and effectively addressed.

SECTION 2. Jurisdiction. — The Career Executive Service Board, as the governing body of the Career Executive Service (CES),shall exercise primary jurisdiction to investigate cases pertaining to cheating as defined under this policy. This jurisdiction shall cover government officials/employees as well as private individuals.

SECTION 3. Coverage. — These rules shall cover administrative cases pertaining to acts or omissions by government officials, employees and private individuals, including the officers or authorized representatives of juridical entities, as defined and declared unlawful under RA 9416. The criminal aspect of RA 9416, however, shall be governed by the Rules on Criminal Procedure.

SECTION 4. Manner of Construction. — These Rules shall be liberally construed in order to promote a just and expeditious resolution and disposition of cases.

SECTION 5. Applicability of the Rules of Court, the Revised Penal Code and the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9416. — The Rules of Court, the Revised Penal Code, and the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9416 shall be suppletorily applicable.

SECTION 6. Technical Rules in Administrative Investigation. — Administrative investigation conducted under these Rules shall not strictly adhere to the technical rules of procedure and evidence as provided in the Rules of Court. AEIHaS

RULE 2

General Provisions

SECTION 1. Definition of Terms. — For purposes of these Rules, the following shall mean:

a. Career Executive Service Board — refers to the Board as the governing body of the Career Executive Service.

b. Career Executive Service — The Career Executive Service (CES) is the 'third level' or the managerial class in the group of career positions in the Philippine civil service. The CES was created by Presidential Decree No. 1 to "form a continuing pool of well-selected and development-oriented career administrators who shall provide competent and faithful service."

c. Career Executive Service Eligibility Examination — refers to the four (4) stage CES examination process, comprised of the 1) Written examination; 2) Assessment Center; 3) Validation of On the Job Performance, and 4) Board Interview, which are administered by the Board.

d. Written Examination Stage — is a test given to determine the aptitude and competence of an applicant.

e. Assessment Center Stage — is a series of simulation exercises designed to determine whether the applicant has the capacity to advance to managerial duties and responsibilities and the ability to grow and develop in the bureaucracy.

f. Validation of On-the-Job Performance Stage — is a process where the applicant's capacity to perform managerial functions and the applicant's character (i.e.,potential leadership qualities, integrity on the job, loyalty to the government, lifestyle check, etc.) based on the records of accomplishments, and interview of key informants are validated by a qualified evaluator.

g. Board Interview Stage — is an interview conducted by a member of the Board or a panel of Board members. It is conducted to determine and assess the applicant's confidence, creativity, self-worth and outlook on his/her work and the bureaucracy and opportunity to give feedback to the applicant in his/her performance on the previous stages he/she underwent. IDCScA

h. Cheating — refers to any act or omission committed before, during or after any of the four stage CES eligibility examination process, that will directly or indirectly undermine the integrity of the CES examination process, such as, but not limited to, the following:

1. Impersonation;

2. Use of "codigo" or "crib sheets";

3. Employing a "poste";

4. Tampering with the examination records;

5. Collusion of whatever nature between examinees and examination personnel;

6. Examination number switching;

7. Such other acts of similar nature that facilitate the passing of examination including those committed by review centers, entities or persons offering refresher courses or tutorials.

i. Cheats — shall include all persons or review centers or entities offering refresher courses or tutorials, who directly or indirectly commit the act or acts of cheating.

j. Codigo or Crib Sheet — refers to any material or device in the possession of an examinee containing codes, in any form, representing answers to test items.

k. Examination Records — refers to any document, in any form, in the custody of the Board, such as, but not limited to, the following: Master List, Examinees Attendance Sheet, Picture Seat Plan, Answer Data File, Answer Sheet and Examination Reports, containing relevant and necessary information, date and place of examination, personal circumstances of an examinee, examinee number, pictures of examinees, answers and general rating, used in connection with the CES Eligibility examination as defined herein. DScTaC

l. Examination Related Material — refers to any material in any form (e.g.,Written examination material, Assessment Center (AC) materials, Performance Validation materials, Board Interview materials) in the custody of the Board, which is used by in the conduct of the CES Eligibility Examination process. These shall include, but are not limited to, the following: computer or electronic program files and data, test items, answer sheets and test booklets or a part or portion thereof.

m. Impersonation — refers to an act of assuming the identity of another person, in whatever manner, with the end purpose of taking any of the four stage CES examination process.

n. "Poste" — refers to a person inside or outside of the examination room who may or may not be a registered examinee but who provides examinees with answers or "codigo" or "crib sheets" or such other assistance to enhance an examinee's chances of passing.

o. Private Individuals — those persons who are not yet considered government employees as well as those former government employees who had been separated from the service. These shall also cover individuals who are hired by government agencies based on job orders or contracts of service, where no employment relationship subsists between these individuals and the hiring agencies.

p. Review Centers — shall refer to entities, created or established formally or informally, by an individual or a group of individuals, to provide, conduct, specialize and/or assist individuals (students, professionals, employees) or group of individuals through tutorial programs and/or review classes or review programs, seminars/training programs, and advance subject/course orientation, intensive and comprehensive test preparation, familiarity with scope of tests through simulation activities and provision of documents or review materials and proficiency enhancement, with or without the assurance of passing or high possibility of passing any of the four stage CES eligibility examination process. cSEaDA

q. Statistically Improbable Result — refers to an unreliable examination result as determined by the Board based on any of the following conditions: (1) when in a particular examination room registers unusually high percentage of passing (2) when there is an identified pair or there are pairs of examinees that have high clustering of responses or where there are high answer similarities in both correct and incorrect answers of paired examinees, and (3) based on the evaluation of examination record and other circumstances as may be ascertained by the Board, there is wide discrepancy in an examinee's performance between his/her current and previous test results.

r. Unauthorized Source — refers to any person or entity who is not authorized by the Board to possess examination related materials. The term shall include test administrators and examination personnel who went beyond their authority in the handling of examination related materials and examination records.

SECTION 2. Institution of Administrative and Criminal Action. — The Board, through its authorized officers, shall file the appropriate administrative charge and/or criminal complaint before the proper forum pursuant to the Rules on Administrative Procedure and/or the Rules on Criminal Procedure.

RULE 3

Determination of Statistically Improbable Results

SECTION 1. Review of Examination Results and Records. — The Board, through the Examination and Rank Appointment Division (ERAD),shall, as a matter of procedure, conduct a review of individual examination results to determine if a particular room registers unusually high percentage of passing or there are high answer similarities between and among paired examinees as well as incidence of wide discrepancy in the current and previous examination results of an examinee. It shall identify the examinee/s involved. HTSIEa

SECTION 2. Conditions for Statistically Improbable Results. — With reference to the Omnibus Guidelines on the Administration of Civil Service Examinations issued by the Civil Service Commission, any of the following shall be the conditions necessary for the determination of statistically improbable results:

1) If there is a clustering of responses (either right or wrong) of at least 50% of the passers in the same room in at least 90% of the total number of scored items.

2) If there is a clustering of responses (either right or wrong) of at least 90% of the passers in the same room in at least 50% of the total number of scored items.

3) If there is a clustering of responses (either right or wrong) of at least 50% of the passers in the same room in less than 90% of the total number of scored items but the standard deviation (SD) of the room is at least 50% lower than that of the testing center.

4) The existence of identified pair or pairs of passers seated close to each other with lopsided clustering of incorrect responses in at least 30% of the total number of scored items.

5) The existence of identified pair or pairs of passers with lopsided clustering of correct and incorrect responses in at least 75% of the total number of scored items.

SECTION 3. Evaluation of Examination Results. — The ERAD shall forward the list of identified examinee/s to the Executive Director of the Board. The Executive Director shall thereafter evaluate the examination record of the examinee/s including circumstances attendant before, during and immediately after the conduct of the examination. The Executive Director shall submit its report and recommendation to the Board within fifteen (15) days from the termination of the evaluation.

SECTION 4. Declaration of Statistically Improbable Results. — The Board, upon recommendation of the Executive Director, shall declare an examination result statistically improbable as defined in Item Q, Section 1 of Rule 2, and shall be prima facie evidence of cheating.

SECTION 5. Action on Declared Statistically Improbable Results. — Upon declaration by the Board of a statistically improbable result, the Executive Director shall take the appropriate actions pursuant to the provisions of these rules to determine the administrative liability, if any, of government officials and employees or private individuals. SAEHaC

RULE 4

Negative Findings on Integrity

SECTION 1. Negative Findings on Integrity Gathered During the Validation Stage. — Upon negative findings relating to the integrity of the examinee/applicant, said information shall be referred to the Agency Head, with a request to conduct an investigation on the reported findings.

SECTION 2. If the result of the investigation is favorable to the examinee, he/she should be endorsed by the Agency Head and shall be allowed to proceed to the last stage (Board Interview) of the CES eligibility examination process. On the other hand, if the result of the investigation is negative or unfavorable, the process provided for in Rule 5 shall be applied.

RULE 5

Procedure for Invalidating Any Results of the Four Stage CES Eligibility Examination Process

SECTION 1. Composition of Investigating Committee. — Upon determination of any incidence of cheating, or negative findings on the integrity gathered during the validation stage, the Board shall constitute an investigating committee composed of, but not limited to, the following:

a) A Board member, preferably the Chairperson;

b) The Executive Director or Deputy Executive Director of the Career Executive Service Board;

c) The Examiner, Proctor or AC Assessor and AC Administrator, as the case may be;

d) The Chief of the ERAD;

e) Representative from the Civil Service Commission;

f) Representative from the Development Academy of the Philippines, and

g) An Authorized representative from the NUCESO.

SECTION 2. Powers of the Investigation Committee. — The Investigating Committee may invite witnesses or person/s with personal knowledge of the incidence of cheating, or may request the production of affidavits and documents when there are negative findings as to the integrity of the examinee. ISCaDH

SECTION 3. Notice to the Parties. — The Investigation Committee shall inform all the parties concerned of the allegations for and against them, and shall require their written explanations under oath. They shall also be invited to a conference, wherein clarificatory questions may be asked.

SECTION 4. Submission of Report. — After the submission of their respective answers, the Committee shall evaluate and decide on the merits of the allegations. It shall submit a report with their recommendation to the Board.

SECTION 5. Board Action. — The Board, upon receipt of the recommendation of the Investigating Committee, shall call for a Special Board meeting, to discuss the merits of the case. Thereafter, it shall issue a ruling, through a Board resolution, whether or not to invalidate the result of the CES eligibility process. This shall be without prejudice to the filing of an administrative or criminal case against the examinee/s.

SECTION 6. The concerned parties shall be furnished a copy of said resolution.

RULE 6

Procedure Against Government Officials and Employees and Private Individuals

SECTION 1. Applicability of Rules in Administrative Cases. — The existing rules on administrative cases in the civil service including its amendments and revisions, shall be applied in the investigation, prosecution and adjudication of administrative cases of cheating, as defined in RA 9416, involving government officials and employees as well as private individuals.

RULE 7

Prescription of Offense

SECTION 1. Prescription of Offense. — The period of prescription of the offense shall commence to run from the day on which the crime is discovered by the offended party, the authorities, or their agents, and shall be interrupted by the filing of the complaint or information, and shall commence to run again when such proceedings terminate without the accused being convicted or acquitted, or are unjustifiably stopped for any reason not imputable to him. 1 As provided for in RA 9416, the penalty that may be imposed is imprisonment of not less than six (6) years and one (1) day but not more than twelve (12) years, and a fine of not less than Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00). Since the penalty that may be imposed on the offender partakes the nature of an afflictive penalty, said offense shall prescribe in fifteen (15) years. ECaITc

RULE 8

Application of Retroactivity

SECTION 1. These rules, being curative and remedial in nature, shall have retroactive effect and shall apply to incidents committed prior to the effectivity of these rules.

RULE 9

Miscellaneous Provisions

SECTION 1. Coordination with Government Law Enforcement Agencies. — The Board, as it may deem appropriate, may coordinate with government enforcement agencies, particularly, the Philippine National Police (PNP), National Prosecution Service (NPS), Department of Justice (DOJ), and the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) for the effective implementation of these Rules.

SECTION 2. Separability Clause. — If any provision or section of this Rules and Regulations is held invalid, the remaining provisions or sections shall not be affected thereby.

SECTION 3. Effectivity. — This Rules and Regulations shall take effect after fifteen (15) days from its publication in a newspaper of general circulation or in the Official Gazette.

In this regard, all concerned are formally notified for their information and guidance. DcSACE

(SGD.) ANTONIO D. KALAW, JR.Chairperson

Attested by:

(SGD.) MARIA ANTHONETTE V. ALLONES, CESO IExecutive Director

Footnotes

1. Art. 91, Revised Penal Code.