SC upholds exemptions from psychologists' board exams

The Supreme Court upheld on Monday a provision in the Philippine Psychology Act of 2009 allowing exemptions to practitioners from taking the board examinations.

According to the high court, the law provides that applicants who have Bachelor’s Degree in Psychology may be registered without examination if they accumulated a “minimum of ten (10) years of work experience in the practice of psychology as a psychology” 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,” the court said in a unanimous decision that declared not unconstitutional the provisions of Section 16(c) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of Republic Act No. 10029, or the Philippine Psychology Act of 2009.

“Psychology involves the application of scientific methods to inquire into the biological, cognitive, affective, developmental, personality, social, cultural, and individual difference dimensions of human behavior. No one can deny that the competent practice of psychology is a legitimate objective of governmental effort and regulation,” the court added in the decision penned by Justice Mario Lopez.

The case originated from a petition for review certiorari filed by Florentina Caoyong Sobrejuanite-Flores assailing the May 21, 2019 ruling of the Court of Appeals.

The appelate court earlier 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 with as psychologist without examination according to the Section 16(c) provisions.

The IRR of RA No. 10029, approved on November 28, 2012, provides a window period for registration without examination for psychologists within three years after the creation of the BOP, or until May 21, 2015.

On May 7, 2015, Flores applied for registration as a psychologist without examination but the BOP rejected her application on the ground that she had insufficient work experience and had not updated her professional education.

She appealed to the PRC and elevated her case to the CA, which both denied her.

The SC said that Flores "is not assailing the propriety of the Section 16 of RA No. 10029 on registration without examination but only the validity of Section 16(c) of its IRR."

The Court pointed out that the completion of at least 100 hours of updating workshops and training programs under Section 16(c) can hardly be considered oppressive, as argued by Flores.

"The practice of psychology inherently entails the employment of current and effective approaches well-adaptive to the dynamic, evolving, and complex facts of human behavior. To consider the required updating workshops and training programs as onerous would condone a lackluster desire of the part of psychologists to harness their craft and develop their expertise," the high court said.

In its decision, the SC also said it agreed with the CA, the PRC, and the BOP that petitioner Flores "is not qualified to avail of the exemption," stressing that Flores' claim that she worked since 1980 as a school psychologist, counselling psychologist, industrial psychologist, and migrant psychologist was unsubstantiated.

According to the high court, Flores started working as a psychologist only in March 2004 or for a period of six years and two months from the effectivity of the law on June 2, 2010.—LDF, GMA News