A major turning point with enormous implications in the accountancy practice was handed down by the Supreme Court lately. The en banc decision on petition for certiorari by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) challenging the original decision of the Regional Trial Court of Davao City that declared illegal SEC’s separate accreditation rules in the accountancy practice, particularly Rule 68 and related circulars was unanimously upheld by the SC. In the ruling, SEC overreached its authority beyond its mandate by issuing and promulgating accreditation, classification and sanctions of CPA professionals, for which power only the Board of Accountancy (BOA) under Republic Act 9298, known as the Philippine Accountancy Act of 2004 has absolute authority. It was an ultra vires case – SEC acting beyond its legal power or authority bereft of legal leg to stand on. By extension, the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) entered into by SEC, the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP), and the Insurance Commission (IC) was void ostensibly as a “fruit of a poisoned tree.” Curiously, there is a perception of a muted or a taciturn reaction from BOA that makes a certain sector of the profession, the small and individual practitioners a little uneasy. Curiously too, the Philippine Institute of Certified Public Accountants (PICPA) as the Accredited Professional Organization (APO) is also eerily quiet. A counter-intuitive reaction diametrically opposite the reaction of many small and individual practitioners who “jump with joy” for its profound impact vindicating their assertion that the void rules were utterly unfair and costly that marginalized their practice. Their discomfort has been actively discussed on social media - BOA and PICPA “shirking” their responsibility to develop and strengthen the profession. Their view has been unwittingly exacerbated by the fact that the original plaintiffs/respondents were all individual practitioners in their own capacities. They rued the fact that BOA and PICPA as concerned institutions did not join them in their quest. To be fair, the SC decision has stupefying and overwhelming implication on BOA’s capacity and capability as the sole regulatory body and that of PICPA as the umbrella organization that requires a more deliberate and cautious response so as not to create high expectations can be understood by their reticence. Whatever it is, a timely response might be needed to reassure the profession and the professionals of their full support. As a watershed decision, the SC ruling may be used to challenge the similar authority of BSP, IC, CDA, and BIR to issue and require accreditation of CPAs before they can practice. More significantly, it has opened up opportunities for all CPAs big and small to leverage and improve their practice. The public accounting practice is fragmented: a few big firms, a motley of medium firms, numerously small and thousands of individual practitioners. The big firms exercise high bargaining power by their size and resources to attract the top value companies in the major sectors of business, which small and individual practitioners sorely lack. The small and individual practitioners are scattered but they cater to the MSMEs, which is a major backbone of the economy. There might be creative ways where big and small practitioners collaborate and develop partnerships instead of compete. Through collaborative efforts, the profession of public accounting would immensely develop for the nation’s business. The ruling may also be a boon to maintain a fair level playing field for small practitioners but it is not enough because companies ultimately have the power to choose their auditors. They need to ratchet up their capabilities and competencies to compete. This is a tall order; they need all the motivation and support to make them become more effective and to grow. For PICPA, it should consider recognizing another sector in its organization and leadership. That of making the Association of Small Accounting Practitioners of the Philippines (ASAPP) a distinct sector apart from ACPAPP, ACPACI, NACPAE, and GACPA. This sector has distinct characteristics and challenges that require “customized” approaches. One size does not fit all. With a sole mandate, BOA has a clear visionary pathway: to organize and build its capacity and capability to direct and develop the profession leading towards self-regulation like other country jurisdictions. The profession currently celebrates its 100th centenary this month in March. Perhaps, it is not a stretch to wish that the profession is to grow soon as a “mature adult” capable of substantive self-governance without overreaching regulation or with minimum fundamental regulation of agencies of government. Operationally, BOA should vigorously continue to engage SEC, BSP, IC, CDA, and BIR on how to improve the quality of the profession’s performance without surrendering its sole power of accreditation in line with ease of doing business under the Anti-Red Tape Act (ARTA). Finally, the Quality Assurance Review (QAR) should be strengthened as an institution to achieve the singular goal of professional excellence. And if this must compel revision and amendments of the Accountancy Act to respond to the current demands and challenges, it must be done imperatively. Like any watershed, it needs nurturing to ensure the waters flow smoothly through rivers and streams so that they will not dry up. So it is that all stakeholders in the profession bond together to effectively capitalize on the benefits of this highly significant ruling for its long-term sustenance. All stakeholders cannot afford to watch things happen. Proactive, collaborative and concrete systemic solutions must be sustained to nurture this watershed. *(Dr. Cesar A Mansibang is a business executive, management consultant and professor in graduate schools of business.* *The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of PICPA to which he belongs.)*