The rationale for this RL as stated in the previous post:
“the proposal of using RL after the name of licensed librarian (e.g. Rene Manlangit, RL) to ‘level-up’ so to speak the professionalism of licensed librarian. The GA viewed this initiative as a form of “community of practice” within Region IV (composed of 11 provinces) and hopefully to be adopted by other librarians in other provinces. Further, it was agreed to be on voluntary basis initially as some are not yet sold to the idea of using the initials”.
During the January 2007 monthly meeting and the succeeding monthly meetings, the consensus of the majority (or silence of the majority of co-officers), the new PLAI-STRLC chair instructed everyone to “wait for the action of the PLAI-National as they are already studying it” and to refrained from further action/activities regarding the RL initiative. I inquired until “when we are going to wait for the PLAI-National action” but got no definitive response.
Not letting our initiative die a natural death while waiting for the PLAI-National “action”, we posted a Survey Questionnaire on the use of RL sometime April 2007 as data collection activity to augment our available facts/information that could be handy later later in defending our position:
“[We] would like to conduct a survey of your preception, views, comments and suggestion regarding the issue on the use of the initials RL (registered librarian) by accomplishing some questions. I together with 3 other fellow librarians would like to make a paper on promoting the librarianship as a profession and thus building a larger community of librarians in the Philippines. This is a preliminary survey and may contact you again as the paper is also part of my research output”.
We have been researching (not diligently of course :=) i guess) for the legal justification on the use of RL and also as part of the arguments for the position paper to be submitted to PLAI-National. What a surprise indeed that belatedly (better late than never), that document is the librarian COE as promulgated last September 13, 2006. A few days ahead of the September 26, 2006 PLAI-STRLC General Assembly.
In this BFL resolution no. 6 series of 2006, especially paragraph 4 and disciplinary action of the COE, which we are not aware even existed/drafted before we independently arrived through a series of brainstorming session several months away before the GA to the term “registered librarian” or “RL” in lieu of “licensed librarian”, the term currently in use then to distinguished from those without PRC license, for its initial could be LL (or loko-loko as a Batangas colleague jokingly shared at that time).
WHEREAS, any Registered Librarian who violates the said Code, after due hearing in an administrative case conducted by the Board against him/her, shall be subject to the disciplinary action of either the revocation of his/her certificate of registration or suspension thereof (Sec. 11 (i), Art. II; Sec. 23, Art. III of R.A. 9246; and Sec. II (i) and (m) of Rule II and Sec. 23, Rule III of Res. No. 05, Series of 2003);
A Registered Librarian who is found guilty for violation of any provision in this Code by the Board after his/her investigation shall be subject to a disciplinary action of either revocation of his/her Certificate of Registration or suspension thereof which the Board shall impose thereto after his/her due investigation.
Even more revealing is the earlier PRC-BFL Resolution no. 2 series of 1992 entitled “Code of Ethics for Registered Librarians“. The term registered librarians was used in the title of this pioneering code of ethics for Filipino librarians wherein in the latest PRC-BFL Resolution no. 6 series of 2006 it was simply titled “Code of Ethics for Librarians”
In this merely a coincidence? I remember then Ma’am Nera who was one of the resource speaker for the IL Conference was going to be inducted in the next 2 days as the new BFL chair, the same day the current BFL chair was our resource speaker. We briefed her about the use of RL and “apologized” that the proposal is still to be submitted to the GA but we already use it in the “certificate of appreciation” to be given to her later. She seemed enthusiastic about this proactivity and could not recall now if she mentioned the new librarian COE wherein the term “registered librarian” was also used/preferred.
Encourage by this belated findings, we also peruse RA 9246 for the occurrence of the term “registered librarian” in the law to bolster our claim for the initial use of RL. I found out the term “certificate of registration” mentioned in several sections but only in Section 30 of Article IV wherein the term “registered librarian” was mentioned:
SECTION 30. Integrated and Accredited National Organization of Librarians. – All registered librarians shall be integrated under a single organization recognized and accredited by the Board and approved by the Commission.
SEC. 8. Powers, Functions and Duties of the Board. — The Board shall exercise executive; administrative, rule making and quasi-judicial powers in carrying out the provisions of this Act. It shall be vested with the following specific powers, functions, duties and responsibilities:
e. To look into the conditions affecting the practice of librarianship, and when necessary, adopt such measures as may be deemed proper for the enhancement and maintenance of high ethical, moral and professional standards of librarianship;
Resolution/Position paper still needed be submitted to PRC-BFL or moto propio the Board could already act on this issue? Please let us know. Thanks.