17/08/2026
Repost from The Thinking Social Worker
OPEN LETTER: PROTECT THE IMPARTIALITY OF THE 4Ps REGULARIZATION PROCESS
To the DSWD Management and the Human Resource Merit, Promotion and Selection Board:
We strongly oppose the proposal to grant the Angels in Red Vest Social Workers, Inc. (ARVSWI) formal representation in the Human Resource Merit, Promotion and Selection Board (HRMPSB) for Social Welfare Officer positions under the 4Ps Regularization.
Our objection is not about personalities.
It is not about silencing an organization.
It is about one fundamental principle:
The body that evaluates applicants must remain institutionally impartial from organizations whose members may directly benefit from the outcome of the selection process.
The HRMPSB is entrusted with determining who should enter the permanent government service through a process governed by merit, fitness, fairness, and equal opportunity.
That responsibility demands more than actual fairness.
It demands the clear appearance of fairness.
AN ORGANIZATION OF POTENTIAL APPLICANTS SHOULD NOT SIT IN THE BODY EVALUATING APPLICANTS
The concern is straightforward.
If ARVSWI represents Social Workers who may themselves be applicants for Social Welfare Officer positions under the regularization process, then giving ARVSWI formal representation in the HRMPSB creates an institutional conflict that cannot simply be dismissed.
An organization may advocate for its members.
An organization may assist them.
An organization may raise their concerns.
But an organization representing a particular constituency of potential applicants should not also be placed inside the institution that participates in determining who among those applicants will be appointed.
One cannot credibly be both advocate and adjudicator in the same process.
Even if an ARVSWI representative acts with complete personal integrity, the institutional problem remains.
The issue is not merely whether actual favoritism occurs.
The issue is whether applicants outside the organization can reasonably believe that the process is completely neutral.
Unlike the Social Welfare Employees Association of the Philippines as the CSC accredited sole and exclusive negotiating agent of the DSWD workforce, this is one of their primary mandates and they represent the entire workforce without preferential choice to any profession within it and looks into the general interest of the entire workforce.
Member or not, SWEAP is mandated to represent the interests of the entire workforce. ARVSWI as merely as SEC registered entity is only limited to act for its membership which does not represent the entire workforce and even the entire population of RSWs in DSWD.
EVERY APPLICANT MUST ENTER THE PROCESS ON EQUAL GROUND
The 4Ps Regularization should not create two classes of applicants:
those whose organization has a presence inside the HRMPSB,
and those who have none.
Every qualified Social Welfare Officer applicant must have the same confidence that his or her qualifications will be assessed independently of organizational membership, affiliation, personal relationships, or collective influence.
The HRMPSB must belong to the **merit system, not to any particular association of applicants.
No applicant should ever have reason to ask:
“Does the organization represented inside the Board also represent my competitors?”
That question alone is enough to damage confidence in the process.
IMPARTIALITY MUST BE STRUCTURAL, NOT PERSONAL
Institutional safeguards exist precisely because fairness cannot depend solely on the goodwill or integrity of individual representatives.
We do not design credible selection systems by saying:
“Trust the person.”
We design them by ensuring that the structure itself minimizes conflicts of interest.
A fair institution should not place a representative in a position where organizational loyalty and public duty may intersect.
It should prevent the conflict before it arises.
The standard must therefore be simple:
No organization whose constituency has a direct and substantial interest in the appointments being deliberated should be given a special institutional position in the selection process merely because the vacancies fall within that constituency's profession.
THIS IS NOT ABOUT EXCLUDING ARVSWI FROM THE CONVERSATION
ARVSWI has every right to advocate for Social Workers.
Its experience and perspective may be valuable to the regularization process.
It may submit position papers.
It may recommend competency standards.
It may raise concerns about qualifications, workload, functions, or implementation.
It may participate in consultations.
It may be invited as a technical resource when appropriate.
But there is a critical distinction:
Consultation is not adjudication.
Technical expertise is not a reason to enter the decision-making body.
Representation of applicants is not the same as neutral participation in selecting applicants.
That boundary must remain clear.
PROFESSIONAL EXPERTISE CANNOT JUSTIFY SPECIAL ACCESS TO THE SELECTION PROCESS
If belonging to the profession affected by a vacancy becomes sufficient basis for HRMPSB representation, the same principle must logically extend to every occupational group in DSWD.
Professional organizations could demand representation whenever vacancies involving their members are deliberated.
That would transform the HRMPSB from an impartial selection institution into a forum of competing occupational interests.
That is precisely what should be avoided.
The HRMPSB must assess applicants as individuals based on merit and fitness—not as members of organizations competing for institutional influence.
THE 4Ps REGULARIZATION DEMANDS A HIGHER STANDARD
This regularization exercise will affect many careers and will shape the future workforce of the Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program.
Its credibility will depend not only on who is appointed, but on whether employees believe that the process was fair.
Once doubt enters the selection process, every appointment becomes vulnerable to questions:
Was the applicant selected because of superior qualifications?
Was organizational affiliation relevant?
Did certain applicants have better access to people participating in deliberations?
Did an organization have influence unavailable to similarly situated applicants?
A credible regularization process should never allow those questions to arise unnecessarily.
OUR CALL IS SIMPLE
We call upon DSWD Management and the HRMPSB to:
1. Reject the proposal to grant ARVSWI formal representation in HRMPSB deliberations involving Social Welfare Officer applicants under the 4Ps Regularization;
2. Maintain a clear institutional separation between organizations representing potential applicants and the body responsible for evaluating appointments;
3. Ensure that every applicant whether ARVSWI member or non-member, stands before the selection process on equal institutional footing;
4. Allow ARVSWI and other legitimate stakeholders to participate through consultation, technical inputs, and formal submissions without giving any applicant-based organization privileged access to the decision-making process; and
5. Protect both the actual impartiality and the public appearance of impartiality of the HRMPSB.
This should not be controversial.
An organization may advocate.
An organization may represent.
An organization may participate in consultations.
But when appointments are being decided, the selection machinery must remain independent of organizations whose constituencies are competing for those appointments.
The 4Ps workers deserve regularization.
They also deserve a process beyond reasonable suspicion of favoritism, organizational influence, or institutional advantage.
Protect the applicants.
Protect the credibility of the Board.
Protect the integrity of the merit system.
No organization representing potential beneficiaries of a selection process should be given a privileged seat in deciding its outcome.
References:
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1BvsiNh3Nh/
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1EwBsPACvg/
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1D2jknUdFy/
