Today, the Society of Litigation Valuer Experts, an organization of real estate practitioners, formally submitted their comments to the Professional Regulatory Board of Real Estate Service (PRBRES) concerning the recently proposed operational guidelines for accreditation. The submission highlights significant concerns and recommendations to ensure that the new guidelines align with existing laws and do not impose undue burdens on practitioners.
The proposed guidelines, released by PRBRES, introduce several new accreditation criteria, including stringent financial requirements, mandatory professional experience, and extensive documentation for corporate and individual practitioners. Additionally, the guidelines grant PRBRES broad powers for inspection, monitoring, and evaluation.
In their detailed comments, SOLVE emphasized the potential regulatory overreach of the proposed guidelines. They pointed out that some provisions may exceed the legislative authority granted by Republic Act No. 9646 (RESA), which governs the practice of real estate service in the Philippines. Specifically, they raised concerns about the financial thresholds, experience requirements, and the extensive documentation demanded, which they argue are already covered by existing professional licenses.
The submission also referenced judicial precedents, such as the case of Philippine Lawyer’s Association v. Agrava, which underscores that regulatory bodies must have precise legislative authority to impose additional requirements beyond what is specified in enabling statutes. SOLVE argued that the proposed guidelines lack such express legislative backing.
In their comment, the group highlight the necessity for regulatory actions to remain within the bounds of established laws and judicial precedents. They reference Article VI, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution, which vests legislative power solely in Congress, underscoring that any regulatory guidelines must derive their authority from existing legislation. The submission also draws attention to judicial precedents, such as those set in Philippine Lawyer’s Association v. Agrava, which emphasize the need for precise legislative authority to impose additional requirements on professionals.
The submission concludes by urging PRBRES to carefully review and possibly revise the proposed guidelines to ensure they align with RA 9646 and do not impose undue burdens on real estate practitioners. The stakeholders recommend that any new requirements should be clearly backed by legislative authority to prevent regulatory overreach and ensure fairness in the accreditation process.
PRBRES is expected to review the comments and provide a response or further revisions to the proposed guidelines in the coming weeks. The real estate community remains hopeful that a constructive dialogue will lead to a balanced and effective regulatory approach that supports both the development of the industry and the interests of practitioners.
You can access a copy of the comments here.
The Exposure Draft of the Proposed Guidelines can also be downloaded here.
Real LexEcon 