CASE DIGEST
SOBREJUANITE-FLORES V.
PILANDO, JR.
G.R. No. 251816,
[November 23, 2021]
EN BANC, LOPEZ, M.V
Licensure
Examination; Exemption to qualified Psychologist; Equal Protection Clause;
Constitutionality of RA 10029
The Court held that RA No. 10029
satisfied the completeness test and sufficient standard test which renders
valid the delegation of legislative powers. The completion of at least 100
hours of updating workshops and training programs under Section 16(c) of the
IRR of RA No. 10029 is not oppressive and not unreasonable.
On May 7, 2015, Florentina Sobrejuanite-Flores
applied for registration as a psychologist without examination but the Board of
Psychology (BOP) rejected her application on the ground that she had
insufficient work experience and had not updated her professional education.
Aggrieved, Florentina appealed to the PRC, which also denied her appeal for her
failure to substantiate her claim that she worked as a psychologist for a
minimum accumulated period of 10 years and for her failure to update her
professional education. She elevated her case to the CA, but her appeal was
also denied. A petition for review certiorari filed by Florentina assailing the
decision finding that she was not qualified to avail the exemption, or to
register with as psychologist without examination pursuant to the assailed
Section 16(c) provisions of the IRR of RA No. 10029.
Whether or 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 is unconstitutional.
NO. SC Upholds Validity of Sec. 16(c) of
the Rules Implementing the Philippine Psychology Act. 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 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.”
The Supreme Court finds no
constitutional violation to pronounce void Section 16(c) of the IRR of RA No.
10029. The said law satisfied the completeness test and sufficient standard
test which renders valid the delegation of legislative powers. The Court noted
that the completion of at least 100 hours of updating workshops and training
programs under Section 16(c) of the IRR of RA No. 10029 can hardly be
considered oppressive, as argued by Florentina. Furthermore, the Court held that the
same requirement emanates from the valid exercise of police power to prescribe
regulations that may interfere with personal liberty or property to promote the
general welfare of the people, and thus a valid exercise of the State’s police
power.
Aside from not finding any
constitutional violation, the Court agreed with the CA, the PRC, and the Board
of Psychology (BOP), that petitioner Florentina is not qualified to avail of
the exemption. It noted that Florentina’s claim that she worked since 1980 as a
school psychologist, counselling psychologist, industrial psychologist, and
migrant psychologist was unsubstantiated. Records revealed that Florentina
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. Hence,
she was not qualified to avail of the exemption as stated in the assailed
Section 16(c), of the IRR of RA 10029.
No comments:
Post a Comment