Regulating Psychologists: When Professional Standards Meet Constitutional Rights

The Supreme Court recently affirmed the constitutionality of a rule requiring psychologists to complete at least 100 hours of updating workshops and training programs to qualify for registration without examination. The case of Sobrejuanite-Flores v. Professional Regulation Commission (G.R. No. 251816, November 23, 2021) clarifies the balance between the State's power to regulate professions and an individual's right to practice their chosen career.

The Facts of the Case

Republic Act No. 10029, or the Philippine Psychology Act of 2009, required all applicants for registration as psychologists to pass a licensure examination. However, Section 16 of the law provided an exemption allowing registration without examination for those who possessed certain educational attainment and work experience before the law's effectivity.

For holders of a bachelor's degree in psychology, the exemption required: (a) a minimum of ten years of work experience in the practice of psychology as a psychologist, and (b) updated professional education in various psychology-related functions.

The Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 10029 defined "professional education in various psychology-related functions" as completion of at least 100 hours of updating workshops and training programs in the last five years immediately preceding the law's effectivity.

Florentina Sobrejuanite-Flores applied for registration without examination in 2015. The Board of Psychology denied her application, finding that she had only worked as a psychologist for about six years, not the required ten. She also failed to submit proof of completing the 100-hour training requirement.

The Issue Presented

Flores challenged the validity of the IRR provision requiring the 100 hours of training, arguing that it imposed an additional condition not found in the law itself. She claimed the requirement was unfair, unreasonable, and violated her right to due process and equal protection under the Constitution.

The Supreme Court's Ruling

The Court denied the petition and upheld the constitutionality of the IRR provision.

On the validity of delegated legislation. The Court explained that administrative agencies may implement broad policies laid down in statutes by filling in details that the legislature could not anticipate. A valid delegation of legislative power requires compliance with two tests: the completeness test (the law sets the policy, leaving nothing to the delegate except implementation) and the sufficient standard test (the law provides adequate guidelines to determine the boundaries of the delegate's authority).

The Court found that RA 10029 satisfied both tests. The law declared its policy clearly: to regulate the practice of psychology and protect the public from incompetent individuals offering psychological services. The standards set for subordinate legislation may be broad and abstract, and "public interest" has long been recognized as a sufficient standard.

On the reasonableness of the 100-hour requirement. The Court ruled that requiring continuing education before granting an exemption is not oppressive. The practice of psychology requires current and effective approaches adapted to the dynamic nature of human behavior. Psychologists must be equipped with the latest research and therapeutic modalities, as outdated approaches could potentially harm patients.

The Court noted that similar requirements exist in other professional regulation laws, including the Real Estate Service Act, the Philippine Dental Act, and the Philippine Fisheries Profession Act.

On equal protection. The Court held that the requirement does not violate the equal protection clause. The classification between bachelor's degree holders and those with advanced degrees rests on real and substantial distinctions. The requirement is germane to the law's purpose of protecting the public, applies equally to all members of the same class, and is not limited to existing conditions.

On the applicant's qualifications. The Court also found that Flores failed to substantiate her claim of ten years of work experience. Documentary evidence showed she started working as a psychologist only in March 2004, giving her about six years of experience by the law's effectivity. Her bare assertions had no probative value.

Practical Takeaways

• Administrative regulations enjoy a presumption of validity. They have the force of law and may only be nullified upon a clear and unequivocal constitutional breach.
• The State may regulate professions under its police power. The practice of psychology involves the delivery of services affecting mental health, which is a legitimate subject of governmental regulation.
• Exemptions from licensure are strictly construed. Applicants seeking registration without examination must prove compliance with all requirements, including those defined in the IRR.
• Continuing professional education is a valid requirement. The Court recognized that keeping skills current is essential in psychology, where outdated approaches could do more harm than good.
• Burden of proof lies with the applicant. Those seeking exemptions must submit credentials satisfactory to the regulatory board; mere allegations are not evidence.

The Court's parting words echo the law's purpose: "There is no health without mental health." The decision affirms that while it is acceptable to struggle with mental health issues, the professional qualifications of those who provide psychological services must never be compromised.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.