During our oathtaking as new real estate professionals, PRBRES Board Member Pilar Banaag stood at the podium and, without glancing at a single note, flawlessly recited the key clauses of the Real Estate Service Act (RESA). That moment reminded me of something important: these are not just policies, they are mandates.
But here’s the striking reality—15 years since RESA was passed, one major mandate still hangs in limbo: the Accredited Integrated Professional Organization (AIPO). Unlike other professions regulated by the PRC, real estate practitioners still don’t have a fully functioning AIPO
Why Is There No AIPO?
RESA (RA 9646) clearly requires the establishment of one AIPO to represent all licensed real estate practitioners—brokers, appraisers, consultants, and salespersons. On paper, it was already recognized years ago. But in practice? It has remained vacant.
Why? Several factors:
- Fragmented Groups: The industry has multiple organizations with long histories and strong memberships. Each has its own identity, advocacy, and leadership. Unifying them under one umbrella has been easier said than done.
- Leadership Conflicts: Who gets to lead? Who sets the agenda? These questions have stalled the AIPO’s full implementation.
- Generational Disconnect: Many younger brokers and appraisers—especially Gen Z who inherited family firms—don’t even know the AIPO was supposed to exist. For them, industry life has always been about joining whichever organization aligns with their network or preference.
The Rise and Fall of PhilRes
Many in the industry still remember Philippine Association of Real Estate Service Practitioners, Inc. (PhilRes)—the first recognized AIPO under RESA. At first, it carried the promise of unity, finally giving brokers, appraisers, and consultants a common professional home.
So what happened?
In 2011, the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC) officially accredited PhilRes as the AIPO. But in 2016, the PRC revoked its recognition. When the PRC / PRBRES reviewed the accreditation / renewal of PhilRES (the first AIPO under RESA), they found multiple lapses. These can be grouped under transparency, inclusivity, governance, and membership / compliance with requirements. Some of the specific problems:
| Area | Specific Issue(s) Found or Cited By PRC or PhilRES |
| Governance & Organizational Structure | PhilRES was no longer strictly an "association of natural persons" but had chapters and associations (juridical persons) mixed in, in violation of RA 9646's requirement of "one national organization" composed of individuals The by-laws contained provisions that PRC considered inimical to the welfare of practitioners, including controversial or restrictive election and chaptering rules. Some of these needed amendment. |
| Inclusivity / Membership | PhilRES failed to recruit enough members nationwide. Although "automatic membership" of all licensed practitioners with the AIPO was mandated in Section 34 of RESA, membership registration was "substantially low" for extended periods. Incomplete or questionable documentation of membership (some claimed members without showing PRC registration numbers, or date of registration) in submitted lists. |
| Transparency & Financial Reporting | Lack of submitted financial reports for its chapters. There were concerns that funds (membership dues, etc.) from local chapters were not transparently reported. |
| Failure to Meet Statutory / Regulatory Requirements | PhilRES was supposed to hold national elections regularly, which didn't happen for more than 3 years. By-laws needed to be amended to comply with certain regulatory instructions (e.g., those issued by PRC Chair Teresita Manzala) and internal rules (e.g. chapter incorporation, election clauses). There was delay or partial compliance. |
What Legal / Procedural Challenges Followed
After PRC denied the renewal of PhilRES’s status as AIPO, there were several legal steps taken by PhilRES and controversies, such as:
- Motion for Reconsideration: PhilRES filed a Motion for Reconsideration arguing that the grounds cited by PRC / PRBRES were not valid, or had been addressed, and that due process was not properly observed.
- Dispute over By-Laws / Electoral and Chapter Provisions: Some chapters of PhilRES (e.g. Cagayan de Oro, Quezon City, etc.) resisted the amended by-laws submitted in 2014 which aimed to simplify or harmonize the structure.
- Judicial / Supreme Court Review:
- Case Yaphockun vs. PRC challenged certain provisions of the IRR of RESA, including Section 3(h) which defines the AIPO as being comprised of natural persons. The argument was whether that IRR clause contradicted the idea (in RESA) of integrating associations.
- The Supreme Court’s decision in that case upheld certain interpretations about what the law required in terms of structure and membership.
- Regulatory Non-Renewal of Accreditation: Ultimately, the PRC passed a resolution (No. 19, 2011, and later Resolution 2014-178) that denied renewal of PhilRES’ AIPO status because of all these deficiencies.
Since then, the “AIPO seat” has remained empty. With PhilRes gone, no other group—or coalition of groups—has stepped in to take its place.
This left the industry fragmented once again, with multiple organizations existing side by side but none holding the official mandate to be the one AIPO of real estate.
Why does this matter?
Without an AIPO, the profession lacks:
- A unified voice in lobbying for our interests.
- A formal body to enforce discipline and ethical standards alongside PRC.
- A clear identity in the eyes of the public.
This vacuum makes it harder to fight illegal practice, push for better policies, and even streamline our CPD requirements.
So, What's Next?
The PRC hasn’t given up. In fact, it has opened application windows (in 2020 and 2022) for groups to apply as the official AIPO. Several federations and associations are trying to meet the strict requirements — like proving they represent a majority of practitioners nationwide.
That’s where the future lies: either one group consolidates enough support and gets accredited, or we stay fragmented, which weakens us all.
Closing Thought
The future of the AIPO depends on us. If our generation continues to see real estate as a fragmented industry of cliques and organizations, the AIPO will remain a mandate only on paper. But if we can bridge the divides—old vs. young, broker vs. appraiser, organization vs. organization—then perhaps the AIPO can finally be realized.
The future of the AIPO is not just about compliance with RESA—it’s about unity, credibility, and professional strength. Until then, the industry remains vulnerable to external influences, underrepresentation, and missed opportunities.
The question is not just what happened to the AIPO—the real question is: will we, as the next generation of brokers and appraisers, finally make it happen?
