A Promotion Lost—and the System that failed due process

Today, my heart was broken—not by a romantic relationship, but by a naudlot na promotion. This experience reflects broader systemic issues within public institutions—issues that warrant reflection, scrutiny, and reform.

I have been teaching for almost 15 years. My last promotion was in 2018, making me a Teacher III. Colleagues encouraged me to apply for a Master Teacher item, but I hesitated, aware of how unpredictable and emotionally taxing promotion processes can be. When I finally applied last year, it was not only ambition, but also an affirmation of professional readiness.

By the end of July, a Master Teacher II retired, creating a vacancy. As part of the promotion “chaining,” a Master Teacher I would move up to fill the vacant position. I was included in the plotting for the resulting Master Teacher I item. By mid-August, all required documents were prepared, verified, and submitted.

Then came the waiting, which exposed the first systemic gap: uncertainty marked by minimal communication, leaving applicants professionally and emotionally suspended.

On Nov. 24, I was called to sign my appointment and was issued official documents, including a copy of my appointment—signifying completion of due process and administrative finality. I went home holding the papers, my heart full and hopeful. It felt real. It was real. In any functional public system, this step should represent accountability and closure.

Exactly one week later, I was instructed to return all issued documents; the promotion was on hold due to an internal issue. When I asked for clarification, I was told that a Master Teacher II had been disqualified over an academic credential issue. What followed revealed a deeper systemic failure: decisions affecting lower-ranked applicants were applied retroactively, even after processes were completed and appointments issued.

I was assured my item remained secure, but this was never documented nor supported by any official communication. The system relied on informal verbal guarantees, and a month passed without any update.

When I followed up again, I encountered different personnel and a different narrative. Instead, I was advised to reapply, as a new call for applications would be issued within the week. The system’s failure became unmistakable: a lack of continuity, accountability, and respect for professional labor within bureaucratic structures.

What hurt most was not just losing the promotion, but the lack of due process: no clear explanation, no transparency, no avenue for appeal, and no effort to clarify why an approved appointment was withdrawn. The system failed to protect the rights of a qualified applicant who had followed every rule.

Such failures erode trust—not only in individuals, but in institutions themselves.

This experience compels an examination of public systems burdened by irregularities and perceived corruption. When processes are unclear, communication inconsistent, and accountability diffuse, those most affected are the ones who serve quietly and diligently. In such an environment, merit becomes negotiable, and dedication risks being undervalued.

Public service, at its core, demands resilience. Disappointment becomes an unintended teacher—revealing not only personal limits, but institutional flaws. Whether I choose to reapply or take time to heal, this experience has reshaped my understanding of public systems.

When systems fail to safeguard integrity and due process, they do more than delay promotions—they fracture trust, which is far harder to restore than any oversight.

Desiree Negad,
neyanegad@gmail.com

For letters to the editor and contributed articles, email to opinion@inquirer.net