THE Supreme Court has upheld the validity of a provision in the Implementing Rules and Regulation of the Philippine Psychology Act of 2009 that offers protection to the public against incompetent individuals offering psychological services.
The SC en Banc unanimously said Section 16(c) of the IRR of Republic Act 10029 was “not unconstitutional.”
The assailed provision granted a period for practitioners to register as psychologists without examination and crafted sufficient standards on who may avail the exemption, measured in terms of educational attainment and work experience.
Specifically, the law provides that applicants who have a bachelor’s degree in Psychology may be registered without examination if they have accumulated a “minimum of 10 years of work experience in the practice of psychology as a psychologist” and “updated their professional education in various psychology-related functions.”
“We find no constitutional violation to pronounce void Section 16(c) of the IRR of RA No. 10029. Every administrative regulation has the force of law and has in its favor the presumption of validity. The regulation may be nullified only upon clear and unequivocal constitutional breach and not one that is speculative or argumentative,” said the Court in its decision penned by Associate Justice Mario Lopez.
The ruling upheld the decision issued by the Court of Appeals on May 21, 2019 which denied the petition for review filed by Florentina Caoyong Sobrejuanite-Flores assailing the validity of the administrative regulation.
The appellate court’s ruling affirmed the findings of the Professional Regulatory Commission (PRC) and the Board of Psychology (BOP) that Flores was not qualified to avail the exemption, or to register as a psychologist without examination pursuant to Section 16(c) of the said IRR.
The SC stressed that the “the clear legislative intent” of RA 10029 was to regulate the practice of psychology and to protect the public from incompetent individuals offering psychological services.
“The Code of Ethics for Philippine Psychologists enjoins to develop and maintain competence in caring for the well-being of the patient which requires the application of knowledge and skills that are appropriate for the nature of a situation as well as the social and cultural context,” the SC said.
It added that the assailed proviso “is not in conflict with the equal protection clause which simply provides that all persons or things similarly situated should be treated in a similar manner, both as to rights conferred and responsibilities imposed.”
