and Pound-foolish Pennywise

If given a chance to choose whether to send their child to a nearby private school or a public school, which is almost 30 minutes away from home, most families would choose the most practical way—to send them to an institution with free education.

Nevertheless, Misamis Oriental General

Comprehensive High school seems to have forgotten that despite the government being in complete disarray, stakeholders are still the one who provides the school with every penny it needs.

Public school is a governmentowned institution for underprivileged families to achieve quality education without worrying about finances. It provides learners with knowledge and practical skills, yet they receive funds from their supposedto-be beneficiaries of free literacy. They even collect from the learners’ struggling parents. If education is free, why do they need to pay fees?

Most departments are collecting funds from learners in all grade levels.

To sum it up, it will equate to a significant sum of money, which does not include the collected funds from different community involvement programs like ‘Barya sa Pandemya’— which claimed to have collected a whopping 131,000 under the façade of the school’s necessities amidst pandemic. Pandemic, they say. How does collecting money make sense when we are still trying to grasp the normalcy of life? Using the possibility of a faceto-face class is nothing but a lame and desperate excuse, the fact that the school was not able to receive the safety seal to operate. Who would even use those parks and laboratories? Unless they plan to revamp the school into a theme park, it will make sense. To top it all, what could be the purpose of constructing parks and areas on school grounds when the virus is still on the run?

What more do they need from the pockets of the learners?

The School Administration has the authority over the funds. They monitor the cash flow of all the donated money. However, when asked for a liquidation, they only provided partial figures obscuring the names of the beneficiaries due to confidentiality. Thanks to all the donated money, the school has changed so much in a brief period. Consequently, learners deserve to know where the collections proceeded since others are even going out under the volunteerism umbrella.

According to Dioniel Labuga, a tenth-grade student from section Opal, “We were asked to contribute money and our final grade for the performance task will depend on the amount of cash we give.”

Should people tolerate this kind of shamelessness from the teachers who are supposed to teach both knowledge and values?

What could they learn from it?

Performance tasks serve their purpose in making learners comprehend a specific topic; the struggle of comprehension is even more pervasive during the pandemic. The students learn nothing from the lesson but more about being compulsive moneymakers.

DepEd Secretary Leonor Briones had reiterated D.O. No. 41 s. 2012, no collection policy in an article from Manila Bulletin. She added that the institution is firm on providing learners with free education in public elementary and secondary schools. Thus, the collection of authorized contributions must remain voluntary, not compulsory. The excuse of volunteerism does not justify that they asked for money and, in some cases—were given options and cash as one of them.

One of the Grade 10 students named Inday said, “Our Science teacher gave us two choices, whether to pay P75.00 pesos for the Science Laboratory or comply with the Performance Task; of course, I would choose to pay because it is more convenient.”

What more do they need from the pockets of the learners? As if they are the principal or the shareholders of the school’s yearly funds in the guise of a voluntary contribution. However, will they turn a blind eye and stand still?

MisOr Torch Editorial Board

Editors-in-Chief

Karylle Jyn S. Gama

Mat Joseph Dy

Associate Editor

Khareema M. Dimnatang News Editor

Khareema M. Dimnatang

Opinion Editor

Chanel Alexa B. Betonio

Feature Editor

Karylle Jyn S. Gama

Science Editor

Anilynn C. Pangca Sports Editor

Princess Elisha M. Caibigan Copy Editing & Headline Writing Editor Francis Louis S. Rafisura

Staff Writers

Fritzi Mae G. Gapuz

Joshua Louise P. Solon

Jewel Rose S. Daguinotas

Catalina Cassandra Uyguangco

Samantha Mae M. Abanes

Marielle Jane A. Lagahit

Eleah Jaizel T. Cabili

Jerelou Mai E. Jabiniao

Wennie Boy S. Baroza

Jeacey A. Paraluman

John Jefferson R. Uy

Esha Zuleyka Morales

Chelsea Kaye

Annilyn C. Pangca

Khareema M. Dimnatang

Chrystel S. Layan

Elkanah S. Retor

Ythan Kyle A. Mercader

Karylle Jyn S. Gama

Rayu G. Tuanda

Desiree Corpuz Pangca

Mat Joseph B. Dy

Leslee Marie Getuaban

Cartoonists

Kent John L. Eduave

Ashlee Mae E. Del Pilar

Francis Louis S. Rafisura

Ethan Rhay Exclamador

Photojournalist

Sallendher John S. Bacaling

Layout Artist

Flor Angel C. Saromines

Rey C. Macaranas Jr.

School Paper Adviser

Leizel G. Rementizo

Layout Consultants

Richard Ryan A. Daguit

James M. Punsalan

Journalism Coaches

Virgenia Y. Pacardo

Junelyn E. Ceballos

Journalism Coordinator

Maria Evelyn B. Labadan

Principal

Abdon R. Bayana, Ph.D

Commentary

Builders’ Shattered Dreams

art by Ethan Rhay Exclamador

House Bill 10234 also known as The Philippines Architecture Act of 2022 seeks to address the shrinking spirit of the architectural industry. The bill was introduced during the 18th congress. It receives criticism from the affected sector. Architects were suspicious about this bill as it ‘disrespects’ their profession, degrades, and limits the scope of work of the architects. The bill amended ‘some’ of the futile section from the Republic Act 9266 which is known as The Architecture Act of 2004—which is still not enough for them to agree with the bill.

The country acknowledges the importance of every profession, especially architecture in the nation’s building and development. Thus, House Bill 10234 is introduced in the Senate.

The sole reason for the bill is to elevate the said profession but then ‘arkis’ are still questioning how it can elevate when the bill would allow non-architecture graduates to mentor its students.

As stated in Article III Section 21 (E) which roughly translates: the examiner must have completed the 3,900 hours of Diversified Architectural Experience in guidance/mentorship of an Architect or Engineer. According to Article I, Section 3. (A) “Architecture is the art and science profession of planning, designing and realizing building and structures…” It seems like an insult for an Architectural professor for engineering graduates to lecture their student.

Furthermore, in Article III Section 23 of the bill amended the passing scores for Architectural Licensure Examination from (70%) with no grade lower than sixty percent (60%) in any given subject to (75%) with no grade lower than sixty-five percent (65%) in any given subject; a reasonable measure to produce the best of the best examiners and soon-to-be architects. In addition, applicants who fail to pass the licensure exam three times will no longer be allowed to take the exam.

Lastly, one of the most crucial and controversial parts of the bill is the Article IV Section 35 2 (A) that any public building not exceeding 100.0 square meters does not require the signature or seal of an architect. However, contractors of the said establishments will still be held accountable for possible damage, if not done correctly.

Due to the said reasons, United Architects of the Philippines Graduate Auxiliary (UAPGACAMANAVA-HILAGA) filed a petition to stop the bill as it ‘contradicts its purpose. A petition from the affected sectors is a great call for reform. Like any other bill, it has its pros and cons. That is why a thorough study of the bill is highly suggested by everyone in the field.

Nevertheless, every profession contributes to every different aspect of the country’s development. As mentioned, the sole goal of the bill is to amend the Republic Act 9266 which is known as The Architecture Act of 2004. It is undeniable that the Architectural Industry is struggling especially in rural areas due to the lack of access and privilege to consult one, which pushes the architects to raise their concerns because every infrastructure, small or big, deserves quality. It may have altered the futile sections of the previous bill, but a call for conducting a thorough study from the affected profession should be heard because every profession