The Professional Regulation Commission defended the Walk-In Examination against criticism published by the Joint Manning Group (JMG) in a blog article.

Speaking on behalf of the PRC, Cynthia Topacio, PRC consultant on ICT, issued a statement entitled "Response to the Joint Manning Group comments on the PRC Walk-In Examination system," disputing the claims of the JMG that were published in its blog article entitled, “Wrestling with the Walk-n Exams Issue” posted in the Internet on January 5, 2010.

The JMG had stated that the WES had “kept the country from dealing vigorously with the problem of not having enough qualified ship officers to supply the world merchant fleet”.  This statement, said Topacio, showed a “lack of appreciation of the primary objective of WES and its accomplishments.” She added that “Observing WES from a distance and not having the opportunity to personally see the day-to-day experiences could not lend accurate judgment of its condition as “never been well”.

She defended WES as a solution to the current two-exam per year schedule of the conventional paper-and-pencil examination. She explained that WES was not expected to immediately produce ship officers that can supply the world merchant fleet, although this remained a goal.

JMG had claimed that there was a deliberate and malicious design to sabotage the efficient and successful implementation system of WES. It averred that AMOSUP’s participation in the WES examinations constituted the PRC’s incapability to perform its duty as a government agency. It complained of difficulty in making online applications and of the PRC’s inability to maximize the WES facilities in regional centers.  It contended that the average number of 30 examinees per week was far below the available 184 per week or 736 per month computer slots, which meant that 600 applicants were unable to take advantage of the system. The JMG blog also brought up the involvement of a union in the licensing of merchant marine professionals.

In her defense of WES, Topacio pointed out that the JMG had not named a single entity as a saboteur of the WES and denied any sabotage in is implementation.   She insisted that AMOSUP only provides the facilities to conduct WES and that no AMOSUP staff is involved in its administration.

She explained that the number of examination slots was not at full seating capacity to provide room for unexpected machine / workstation failures, and reduce possible occurrence of slow data transmission speed resulting from the big number of examination packages transmitted over the network. She also stated that the online application system had been misused by the applicants and by review center staff, which could have caused the inability to accept more applicants.

Since the WES applications are done on a first-come-first-serve basis, exam schedules as those published and made available at the PRC web portal, become fully booked within minutes.  Applicants have inadvertently sent inaccurate or wrongly accomplished application forms or wrong supporting documents.

In her concluding paragraph, Topacio called for queries on WES to be coursed through open lines of communication, instead of through unverified information and baseless comments blogged in the Internet. She ended her statement by seeing, “Criticisms must be discussed objectively, honestly, and openly with all concerned in order that these become constructive and basis for creative and collaborative solutions.”