"It's okay not to be okay." Yet, public interest in mental health justifies the State's interference in the practice of psychology because the well-being of the Filipino people deserves no less.

The validity of an administrative regulation is the core issue in this Petition for Review on Certiorari^[1] assailing the Court of Appeal's Decision^[2] dated May 21, 2019 in CA-G.R. SP No. 150841.

ANTECEDENTS

Republic Act No. 10029 or the Philippine Psychology Act of 2009 mandated that all applicants for registration to practice psychology must pass a licensure examination. However, Section 16 of the law exempted psychologists from the examination if they possess the following educational attainment and work experience, to wit:

Section 16. Registration Without Examination for Psychologists. - A person who possesses the qualifications required to take the examination for registration as a psychologist pursuant to the provisions of this Act may be registered without examination: Provided, That the applicant files with the Board within three (3) years after its creation an application for registration and issuance of [a] certificate of registration and professional identification card by submitting credentials satisfactory to the Board that the applicant had, on or prior to the effectivity of this Act, fulfilled the requirements under either subparagraphs (a), (b) or (c) herein:

(a) Obtained a doctoral degree in psychology and had accumulated three (3) years of work experience in the practice of psychology;

(b) Obtained a master's degree in psychology and accumulated a minimum of five (5) years of work experience in the practice of psychology;

(c) Psychologists or employees who hold positions as psychologists presently employed in various government or private agencies, who have a bachelor's degree in psychology, accumulated a minimum of ten (10) years of work experience in the practice of psychology as a psychologist, and who have updated their professional education in various psychology-related functions (Emphases supplied.)

On November 28, 2012, the Professional Regulatory Board of Psychology (BOP) of the Professional Regulatory Commission (PRC) approved Republic Act (RA) No. 10029's Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) and provided the details for registration without examination,^[3] thus:

RULE V
LICENSURE EXAMINATION
x x x x

Section 16. Registration Without Examination for Psychologists. - A person who possesses the qualifications required to take the licensure examination as a psychologist pursuant to the provisions of R.A. No. 10029 may be registered without examination: Provided, That the applicant files with the Board within three (3) years after its creation, or until May 21, 2015, an application for registration and issuance of a certificate of registration and a professional identification card.

To qualify, the applicant must submit credentials satisfactory to the Board that on or prior to June 2, 2010, the effectivity of R.A. No. 10029, he/she has fulfilled any of the following conditions:

(a) Obtained a doctoral degree in psychology conferred by a university, college or school in the Philippines or abroad, duly recognized/accredited by the CHED; and has accumulated a minimum of three (3) years work experience in the practice of psychology;

(b) Obtained a master's degree in psychology conferred by a university, college or school in the Philippines or abroad recognized/accredited by the CHED; and must have accumulated a minimum of five (5) years work experience in the practice of psychology;

(c) Psychologists or employees holding positions as Psychologists presently employed in various government and private agencies, who have a bachelor's degree in psychology, accumulated a minimum of ten (10) years work experience in the practice of psychology as a psychologist, and have updated their professional education in various psychology-related functions.

"Professional education in various psychology-related functions" shall mean completion of at least 100 hours of updating workshops and training programs across various areas and specialties in psychology conducted by duly established national or international organizations of psychologists, psychiatrists[,] and other allied mental health professionals, in the last five (5) years immediately preceding the effectivity of R.A. 10029. (Emphases supplied.)^[4]

On May 7, 2015, Florentina Caoyong Sobrejuanite-Flores (Florentina) applied for registration as a psychologist without examination but the BOP informed her that she has insufficient work experience and has not updated her professional education. Aggrieved, Florentina appealed to the PRC and invoked that she is qualified to avail of the exemption. Yet, the PRC denied Florentina's appeal for failure to substantiate her claim that she worked as a psychologist for a minimum accumulated period of ten (10) years. Moreover, the PRC pointed out that Florentina did not update her professional education by completing at least 100 hours of workshops and training programs across various areas and specialties in psychology in the last five (5) years from the time the law took effect on June 2, 2010, viz.:

This is in reference to your "final appeal for licensure as Psychologist" under the Grandfather Clause of RA 10029. We understand your concern and thus, we endorsed your appeal to the Board of Psychology (BOP) for consideration.

The BOP thoroughly reviewed and deliberated on your case repeatedly in the context of your appeals. However, they found no sufficient proof or evidence to substantiate your claim of having worked as [a] School Psychologist, Counselling Psychologist, Industrial Psychologist and Migrant Psychologist. Based on the documents you submitted, you only started working with the title Psychologist [cum Psychometrician] at our Lady of Knock Medical Clinic Inc. from March 2004, which means you were employed as a Psychologist only for 6 years [reckoned from 2004 to June 1, 2010, the effectivity of the law], and not 10 years as prescribed. Your previous work experience may have included psychology-related functions but regrettably, you were not holding the position title of psychologist as stipulated under the law.

x x x x

Additionally, you failed to submit proof of "professional education in various psychology-related functions" within the period 2005 to 2010 as stipulated under Article V, Section 16-c of RA 10029 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations. Under Section 16 Rule 5 of the IRR, "Professional education in various psychology-related functions shall mean completion of at least 100 hours of updating workshops and training programs across various areas and specialties in psychology, conducted by duly established national or international organizations of psychologists, psychiatrists, and other allied mental health professionals in the last five years immediately preceding the effectivity of RA 10029."

In view of the foregoing, the Commission upholds the decision of the BOP to deny your application for registration as a Psychologist under the Grandfather Clause. (Emphases supplied.)^[5]

Unsuccessful at a reconsideration, Florentina elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals (CA) through a Petition for Review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 150841.^[6] Florentina alleged that she has been employed as a psychologist since 1980 which is more than enough to qualify her for the exemption. Also, Florentina averred that the requirement under Section 16(c) of the IRR of RA No. 10029 requiring "at least 100 hours of updating workshops and training programs" is unconstitutional because the law itself did not provide for such onerous and discriminatory provisions. On the other hand, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) maintained that Florentina's right to practice her chosen profession is subject to regulation pursuant to the police power of the State. Moreover, the registration as a psychologist without examination is an exemption to the law that must be strictly construed against the applicant.

On May 21, 2019, the CA upheld the validity of the administrative regulation and affirmed the PRC and the BOP's factual finding that Florentina is not qualified to avail the exemption,^[7] to wit:

In the case at bar, [the] petitioner failed to meet two (2) requirements as would qualify her to be registered as a psychologist without examination, and warrant the PRC's issuance of a certificate of registration and professional identification card under her name.

While in the instant case, the claims that petitioner is a holder of a bachelor's degree in psychology and that she is an employee who holds a position as a psychologist presently employed in various private agencies were not disputed, she was not able to establish thoroughly that she had complied with the other requisites for registration, i.e. that she had accumulated the minimum of ten (10) years work experience in the practice of psychology as a psychologist and had updated her professional education in various psychology-related functions by completing at least one hundred (100) hours of updating workshops and training programs across various areas and specialties in psychology in the last five (5) years immediately preceding the effectivity of RA 10029.

In her final appeal which she had submitted to the PRC, [the] petitioner summarized the details of her experience and functions as a school psychologist, counseling psychologist, industrial psychologist and human resource specialist, and migrant psychologist. Purportedly attached thereto are certain documents in support of such allegations. Furthermore, in her motion for reconsideration, [the] petitioner discussed in detail the nature of her work as a psychologist and alleged that she had accumulated more than ten (10) years of work experience as a psychologist, she having been employed as such since the year 1979, as allegedly shown by her "employment records/curriculum vitae" appended thereto. However, said supporting documents or employment records are nowhere to be found in the records of this case.

Then, too, [the] petitioner failed to prove that she had undergone one hundred (100) hours of updating workshops and training programs in the last five (5) years immediately preceding the effectivity of RA 10029, in accordance with Section 16, Rule V of be IRR. Her submission that her varied actual work experiences "would even surpass or encompass any updated professional education in various psychology-related functions," will not help her cause at all.

x x x x

Petitioner's contention, that Section 16 of the IRR of RA 10029 violates the equal protection clause of the 1987 Constitution, is untenable.

The equal protection clause is directed principally against undue favor and individual or class privilege. It does not require absolute equality, but merely that all persons be treated alike under like conditions both as to privileges conferred and liabilities imposed. It has been held, time and again, that the equal protection clause of the Constitution does not forbid classification for so long as such classification is based on real and substantial differences having a reasonable relation to the subject of the particular legislation; if classification is germane to the purpose of the law, concerns all members of the class, and applies equally to present and future conditions, the classification does not violate the equal protection guarantee.

Applying the said doctrine to the case at bar, We find that Section 16 of the IRR does not violate the equal protection clause. Such provision creates a substantial classification between those who took a license examination and those who are applicants who did not take such examination, [sic] and requires the latter to provide credentials which [sic] would justify the PRC's granting of their applications for registration. The provisions of RA 10029, in conjunction with its IRR, seek to classify the types of applicants and enforce more stringent rules against those who did not take the licensure examination, in view of their policy to recognize "the need to protect the public by preventing inexperienced or untrained individuals from offering psychological services. Hence, it shall nurture competent upright and assiduous psychologists whose standards of practice and service shall be excellent and globally competitive through the administration of inviolable, effective[,] and credible licensure examinations and the imposition and promotion of regulatory measures, programs and activities that enhance their professional growth and well-being." Thus petitioner's argument, that the provision of the IRR which further requires applicants to take one hundred (100) hours of updating workshops and training programs creates a classification beyond the ambit of RA 10029 and discriminates against applicants who are professionally based in the provinces, deserves scant consideration.

Administrative regulations enacted by administrative agencies to implement and interpret the law which they are entrusted to enforce have the force of law and are entitled to respect. The said rules and regulations, such as the IRR of RA 10029, partake of the nature of a statute and are just as binding as if they have been written in the statute itself. They have the force and effect of law and enjoy the presumption of constitutionality and legality until they are set aside with finality in an appropriate case by a competent court. xxx

x x x x

WHEREFORE, in light of all the foregoing, the instant [P]etition is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

Florentina sought reconsideration but was denied.^[8] Hence, this recourse, Florentina insists that she is qualified for the exemption and that Section 16(c) of the IRR of RA No. 10029 is unconstitutional.^[9] The completion of at least 100 hours of updating workshops and training programs is an additional condition not found in the law itself. The requirement is likewise unfair, unreasonable, and inequitable which results in a denial of due process and violation of the equal protection clause.

RULING

At the outset, we stress that Florentina is not assailing the propriety of Section 16 of RA No. 10029 on registration without examination for psychologists. Florentina even wants to avail the exemption of the law on the pretext that she possessed the required educational attainment and work experience. Rather, Florentina questions the validity of Section 16(c) of the IRR of RA No. 10029. On this score it bears emphasis that the power of subordinate legislation allows administrative bodies to implement the broad policies laid down in a statute by filling in the details which the legislature may not have the opportunity or competence to provide.^[10] The Congress finds it impracticable, if not impossible, to anticipate situations that may be met in carrying the law into effect.^[11] In Calalang v. Williams,^[12] the Court noted that the legislature cannot delegate its power to make the law; but it can make a law to delegate a power to determine some fact or state of things upon which the law makes, or intends to make, its own action depend. To deny this would be to stop the wheels of government. There are many things upon which wise and useful legislation must depend which cannot be known to the law-making power, and, must, therefore, be a subject of inquiry and determination outside of the halls of legislation, thus:

x x x, this Court had occasion to observe that the principle of separation of powers has been made to adapt itself to the complexities of modern governments, giving rise to the adoption, within certain limits, of the principle of "subordinate legislation," not only in the United States and England but in practically all modern governments. Accordingly, with the growing complexity of modern life, the multiplication of the subjects of governmental regulations, and the increased difficulty of administering the laws, the rigidity of the theory of separation of governmental powers has, to a large extent, been relaxed by permitting the delegation of greater powers by the legislative and vesting a larger amount of discretion in administrative and executive officials, not only in the execution of the laws, but also in the promulgation of certain rules and regulations calculated to promote public interest.^[13] (Emphases supplied, citations omitted.)

In Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Philippine Overseas Employment Administration,^[14] the Court recognized that with the proliferation of specialized activities and their attendant peculiar problems, the legislature has found it more and more necessary to entrust to administrative agencies the authority to issue rules to carry out the general provisions of the statute, to wit:

The principle of non-delegation of powers is applicable to all the three major powers of the Government but is especially important in the case of the legislative power because of the many instances when its delegation is permitted. The occasions are rare when [the] executive or judicial powers have to be delegated by the authorities to which they legally certain. In the case of the legislative power, however, such occasions have become more and more frequent, if not necessary. This had led to the observation that the delegation of legislative power has become the rule and its non-delegation the exception.

The reason is the increasing complexity of the task of government and the growing inability of the legislature to cope directly with the myriad problems demanding its attention. The growth of society has ramified its activities and created peculiar and sophisticated problems that the legislature cannot be expected reasonably to comprehend. Specialization even in legislation has become necessary. To many of the problems [sic] attendant upon present-day undertakings, the legislature may not have the competence to provide the required direct and efficacious, not to say, specific solutions. These solutions may, however, be expected from its delegates who are supposed to be experts in the particular fields assigned to them. (Emphases supplied.)

Yet, the power of subordinate legislation does not mean the absolute transmission of legislative powers to administrative agencies. A valid delegation of legislative powers must comply with the completeness test and the sufficient standard test. The law is complete when it sets the policy to be executed leaving nothing to the delegate except to implement it. On the other hand, the law lays down a sufficient standard when it provides adequate guidelines or limitations to determine the boundaries of the delegate's authority and prevent the delegation from running riot.^[15] The tests are intended to prevent a total transfer of legislative authority to the delegate, who is not allowed to step into the shoes of the legislature and exercise a power essentially legislative.^[16] Also, the tests ensure that administrative agencies, in the exercise of their power of subordinate legislation create rules and regulations that are germane to the objects and purposes of the statute they implement; and are not in contradiction, but in full conformity with the standards prescribed in the law,^[17] thus:

It is a fundamental principle flowing from the doctrine of separation of powers that Congress may not delegate its legislative power to the two other branches of the government subject to the exception that local governments may over local affairs participate in its exercise. What cannot be delegated is the authority under the Constitution to make laws and to alter and repeal them; the test is the completeness of the statute in all its term and provisions when it leaves the hands of the legislature. To determine whether or not there is an undue delegation of legislative power, the inquiry must be directed to the scope and definiteness of the measure enacted. The legislature does not abdicate its functions when it describes what job must be done, who is to do it, and what is the scope of his [sic] authority. For a complex economy, that may indeed be the only way in which the legislative process can go forward. A distinction has rightfully been made between delegation of power to make the laws which necessarily involves a discretion as to what it shall be, which constitutionally may not be done, and delegation of authority or discretion as to its execution to be exercised under and in pursuance of the law, to which no valid objection can be made. The Constitution is thus not to be regarded as denying the legislature the necessary resources of flexibility and practicability.

To avoid the taint of unlawful delegation, there must be a standard, which implies at the very least that the legislature itself determines matters of principle and lays down fundamental policy. Otherwise, the charge of complete abdication may be hard to repel. A standard thus defines legislative policy, marks its limits, maps out its boundaries[,] and specifies the public agency to apply it. It indicates the circumstances under which the legislative command is to be effected [sic]. It is the criterion by which legislative purpose may be carried out. Thereafter, the executive or administrative office designated may in pursuance of the above guidelines promulgate supplemental rules and regulations.^[18] (Emphases supplied.)

Here, RA No. 10029 satisfied the completeness test and sufficient standard test. The law states the policy to guide the implementing agencies in carrying out its provisions. The clear legislative intent is to regulate the practice of psychology and to protect the public from incompetent individuals offering psychological services. As such, Congress now requires a licensure examination for psychologists, viz.:

SECTION 2. Statement of Policy. — The State recognizes that psychologists have an important role in nation-building and development. It also acknowledges the diverse specializations of psychologists and the diverse functions specific to the varied specialization. In particular, it recognizes the significance of the psychological services that practicing psychologists provide to diverse types of clients, but also recognizes the need to protect the public by preventing inexperienced or untrained individuals from offering psychological services. Hence, it shall nurture competent, upright and assiduous psychologists whose standards of practice and service shall be excellent and globally competitive through the administration of inviolable, effective[,] and credible licensure examinations and the imposition and promotion of regulatory measures, programs and activities that enhance their professional growth and well-being. (Emphases supplied.)

Before the enactment of the law, persons who studied and graduated from the academic discipline of psychology were not required to obtain a license to practice their profession. Corollarily, Section 16 of RA No. 10029 granted a window period for practitioners to register 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 psychologist" and "updated their professional education in various psychology-related functions." Contrary to Florentina's contention, the use of these phrases neither render the law incomplete nor grant the PRC and the BOP a wide latitude of discretion. The standards set for subordinate legislation in the exercise of the administrative bodies' rule making authority are necessarily broad and highly abstract. The standards may be either expressed or implied. The standards do not have to be spelled out specifically, and could be implied from the purpose of the act considered as a whole.^[19] This Court has recognized "public interest", "justice and equity", "public convenience and welfare" and "simplicity, economy, and welfare" as sufficient standards.^[20] In this case, the declared policy of the law and the body of the statute complied with the requirements of valid delegation of legislative power. The guidelines for persons seeking to practice psychology are infused with the public interest.

Moreover, RA No. 10029 expressly authorized the BOP to promulgate the necessary IRR subject to PRC's review and approval.^[21] Accordingly, the BOP provided the details for registration without examination of applicants who have a Bachelor's Degree in Psychology. Under Section 16(c) of the IRR of RA No. 10029, the phrase "professional education in various psychology-related functions” shall mean "completion of at least 100 hours of updating workshops and training programs across various areas and specialties in psychology conducted by duly established national or international organizations of psychologists, psychiatrists and other allied mental health professionals, in the last five (5) years immediately preceding the effectivity of RA 10029." However, Florentina argued that the requirement is unfair, unreasonable and inequitable. We disagree.

This is not the first time that laws regulating the practice of professions granted registration without examination conditioned on educational attainment and work experience. Notably, some of these laws mandate other requirements such as relevant trainings, publications, and membership in professional organizations. There are parallel provisions found in RA No. 9646 or the Real Estate Service Act of the Philippines, RA No. 9484 or the Philippine Dental Act of 2007, RA No. 11398 or the Philippine Fisheries Profession Act, RA No. 10166 or the Geology Profession Act of 2012, and RA No. 11249 or the Speech Language Pathology Act.

For instance, R.A No. 9646 exempted "assessors and appraisers who, on the date of the effectivity of this Act, hold permanent appointments and have at least ten (10) years actual experience in real property appraisal or assessment and have completed at least one hundred twenty (120) hours of accredited training on real property appraisal conducted by national or international appraisal organizations or institutions/entities recognized by the Board and relevant CPE to the satisfaction of the Board."^[22] Similarly, RA No. 9484 exempted those who "had been practicing as a dental hygienist or dental technologist for at least five years in a licensed dental laboratory or clinic under the supervision of a dentist and had attended a training course given by an accredited school or institution accredited and certified by TESDA."^[23]

On the other hand, RA No. 11398 allowed the registration without examination if the "applicant is a graduate of at least a Bachelor's Degree in Fisheries from a school, college, or university, established or recognized by the Government: Provided, That the applicant has served the fisheries industry in the private sector for a total of five (5) years: Provided, further, That an applicant can show proof of achievements, awards, commendations, or promotions of deserving performance and has published at least one (1) technical paper in fisheries.”^[24] Also, RA No. 10166 provided that "[a] graduate of Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) in Geology or an equivalent degree in any of the specialized branch of Geology from a duly recognized university shall be exempted from taking the licensure examination upon evaluation of the Board."^[25] Recently, RA No. 11249 granted registration without examination as speech language pathologist upon "showing that the applicant before the effectivity of this Act holds a Bachelor's Degree in Speech Language Pathology from a college or university recognized by the CHED: Provided, further, that the applicant is a certified member of the AIPO of speech language pathologists."

Verily, the completion of at least 100 hours of updating workshops and training programs under Section 16(c) of the IRR of RA No. 10029 before an applicant can avail registration without examination as a psychologist can hardly be considered oppressive. The practice of psychology inherently entails the employment of current and effective approaches well-adaptive to the dynamic, evolving, and complex facets of human behavior. To consider the required updating workshops and training programs as onerous would condone a lackluster desire on the part of psychologists to harness their craft and develop their expertise. 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.^[26] Relevantly, psychologists must be equipped with the latest trends, research, and modalities of doing therapy because it could happen that their approach on a given problem may have already gone obsolete or outdated, which could potentially be harmful than helpful to the well-being of the patients.

Likewise, Section 16(c) of the IRR of RA No. 10029 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. The principle recognizes reasonable classification which: (1) must rest on real and substantial distinctions; (2) must be germane to the purpose of the law; (3) must not be limited to existing conditions only; and (4) must apply equally to all members of the same class. The confluence of these elements is present in the required "completion of at least 100 hours of updating workshops and training programs." There can be no dispute about the dissimilarities between those who have a Bachelor's Degree in Psychology and those who have graduated from advanced studies, Doctoral Degree and Master's Degree in Psychology. The distinction is also aligned to the policy of the law to regulate the practice of psychology and to protect the public from incompetent individuals offering psychological services. The classification is not limited to existing conditions only since its purpose is to nurture competent and assiduous psychologists who practices and services can sustainably achieve excellence and competitiveness in the future both in the domestic and global arena. Lastly, the requirement applies indiscriminately to all holders of Bachelor's Degree prior to the enactment of the law who intend to avail the exemption from licensure examinations.

More importantly, Section 16(c) of the IRR of RA No. 10029 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.^[27] This fundamental power is immense in relation to the principle of subordinate legislation. The exercise of police power should be given a wide latitude when delegated to administrative bodies with regulatory functions. The State through the implementing agencies should be able to exercise its police power with great flexibility, when the need arises.^[28] Indeed, the Court has held that persons who desire to engage in the learned professions requiring scientific or technical knowledge may be subjected to reasonable and fair admission requirements. The most concrete example of this would be in the field of medicine. The State has closely regulated the practice of all branches of medicine to protect the health and safety of the public from the potentially deadly effects of incompetence and ignorance among the practitioners.^[29] The same rationale applies in the regulation of the practice of psychology which consists of the delivery of psychological services that involve the application of psychological principles and procedures to describe, understand, predict and influence the behavior of individuals or groups, in order to assist in the attainment of optimal human growth and functioning.^[30] Thus, an applicant may be refused admission as a psychologist absent compliance with the conditions of the law and its IRR. As intimated earlier, the required updating workshops and training programs under Section 16(c) of the IRR of RA No. 10029 to qualify for registration without examination as a psychologist is not oppressive and discriminatory.

Over all, 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. To doubt is to sustain.^[31] Finally, whether Florentina is qualified to avail registration without examination is a question of fact and is beyond the ambit of this Court’s jurisdiction in a petition for review on certiorari. It is not this Court’s task to go over the proofs presented below to ascertain if they were appreciated and weighed correctly, most especially when the CA and the administrative agencies speak as one in their findings and conclusions.^[32] While it is widely held that this rule of limited jurisdiction admits of exceptions, none exists in the instant case.^[33]

In any case, the Court agrees with the CA, the PRC, and the BOP, that Florentina is not qualified to avail of the exemption. Florentina does not have a Doctoral or Master’s Degree in Psychology, she does not fall under the coverage of Section 16(a) and (b) of R.A. No. 10029. Instead, Florentina is a holder of a Bachelor's Degree in Psychology and may be exempted from examination under Section 16(c) provided she had accumulated a minimum of ten (10) years of work experience in the practice of psychology as a psychologist and updated her professional education in various psychology-related functions. Nonetheless, Florentina's claim that she worked since 1980 as a school psychologist, counselling psychologist, industrial psychologist, and migrant psychologist was unsubstantiated. The documentary evidence submitted revealed that Florentina started working as a psychologist only in March 2004 or for a period of six (6) years and two (2) months from the effectivity of the law on June 2, 2010. On this ground alone, the BOP correctly denied Florentina's application for registration without examination. Too, Florentina is not exempted because she did not update her professional education in various psychology-related functions which the IRR defined as a completion of at least 100 hours of updating workshops and training programs across various areas and specialties in psychology in the last five (5) years reckoned from June 2, 2010. Florentina maintained that her varied actual work experience is more than sufficient but she did not submit proof of adequate updating of her professional education. The IRR of RA No. 10029 is explicit that an applicant must submit credentials that are satisfactory to the BOP.^[34] However, Florentina failed to discharge this burden. Florentina's bare assertion has no probative value and the mere allegation is not evidence.

We reiterate that an important component of public order is the health and well-being of the population.^[35] 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.^[36] No one can deny that the competent practice of psychology is a legitimate objective of governmental effort and regulation. Hence, "it's not okay not to be okay" when it comes to the professional qualifications of psychologists and the delivery of psychological services. As the World Health Organization said, "there is no health without mental health."

FOR THESE REASONS, the petition is DENIED. The Court of Appeal's Decision dated May 21, 2019 in CA-G.R. SP No. 150841 is AFFIRMED. The provisions of Section 16(c) of the IRR of RA No. 10029 are declared not unconstitutional.

SO ORDERED."

Gesmundo, C.J., Perlas-Bernabe, Caguioa, Carandang, Lazaro-Javier, Inting, Zalameda, Gaerlan, Rosario, J. Lopez, Dimaampao, and Marquez, JJ., concur.
Leonen, J., see separate opinion.
Hernando, J., on official leave but voted.

---

^[1] Rollo, pp. 3-14.

^[2] Id. at 18-31; penned by Associate Justice Sesinando E. Villon with the concurrence of Associate Justices Edwin D. Sorongon and Germano Francisco D. Legaspi.

^[3] Board Resolution No. 003-12, November 28, 2012.

^[4] Rollo, p. 6.

^[5] Id. at 19-20.

^[6] Id. at 3-17.

^[7] Id. at 26-30.

^[8] Id. at 35-36.

^[9] Id. at 3-17.

^[10] Sigre v. Court of Appeals, 435 Phil. 711, 719 (2002).

^[11] Conference of Maritime Manning Agencies, Inc. v. Philippine Overseas Employment Administration, 313 Phil. 592, 606 (1995).

^[12] 70 Phil. 726, 727-731 (1940).

^[13] Id. at 732-733.

^[14] 248 Phil. 762, 772-773 (1988).

^[15] Bureau of Customs Employees Association v. Teves, 677 Phil. 636, 656 (2011); and Solicitor General v. Metropolitan Manila Authority, 281 Phil. 925, 935 (1991).

^[16] Vivas v. The Monetary Board of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, 716 Phil. 132, 154 (2013).

^[17] Equi-Asia Placement, Inc. v. DFA, 533 Phil. 590, 607 (2006); citing Beltran v. Secretary of Health, 533 Phil. 560, 583 (2005).

^[18] Edu v. Ericta, 146 Phil. 469, 485-486 (1970).

^[19] Tablarin v. Gutierrez, 236 Phil. 768, 780 (1987).

^[20] Abakada Guro Party List v. Purisima, 586 Phil. 246, 275 (2008).

^[21] RA No. 10029, Sections 7 and 38.

^[22] RA No. 9646, Section 20(c).

^[23] RA No. 9484, Section 27(b).

^[24] RA No. 11398, Section 25(c).

^[25] RA No. 10166, Section 26.

^[26] Code of Ethics for Philippine Psychologists, retrieved from,
https://www.prc.gov.ph/sites/default/files/PSYCHOLOGY-CodeEthics-2017-11.pdf
Last accessed November 16, 2021.

^[27] Association of Medical Clinics for Overseas Workers, Inc. v. GCC Approved Medical Centers Association, Inc., 802 Phil. 116, 168 (2016).

^[28] Gerochi v. Department of Energy, 554 Phil. 563, 588 (2007); citing Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno’s Concurring and Dissenting Opinion in Freedom from Debt Coalition v. Energy Regulatory Commission, 476 Phil. 134, 239 (2004).

^[29] Professional Regulation Commission v. De Guzman, 476 Phil. 596, 618 (2004); citing Philippine Medical Association v. Board of Medical Examiners, 134 Phil. 30, 36-37 (1968); and Tablarin v. Judge Angelina S. Gutierrez, 236 Phil. 768, 783-784 (1987). See also St. Luke’s Medical Center Employees Association-AFW v. National Labor Relations Commission, 546 Phil. 503, 512-513 (2007).

^[30] RA No. 10029, Section 3(b).

^[31] Garcia vs. Executive Secretary, 281 Phil. 572, 579 (1991). See also Abakada Guro Party List v. Purisima, supra, citing Eslao v. Commission on Audit, 306 Phil. 178, 195-196 (1994), Sierra Madre Trust v. Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, 206 Phil. 310, 313 (1983), and People v. Maceren, 169 Phil. 437, 449 (1997).

^[32] Bacsasar v. Civil Service Commission, 596 Phil. 858, 867 (2009).

^[33] The recognized exceptions are: (a) When the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises, or conjectures; (b) When the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible; (c) When there is grave abuse of discretion; (d) When the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (e) When the findings of facts are conflicting; (f) When in making its findings the CA went beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the admissions of both the appellant and appellee; (g) When the CA's findings are contrary to those by the trial court; (h) When the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (i) When the facts set forth in the petition, as well as in the petitioner’s main and reply briefs, are not disputed by the respondent; (j) When the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record, or (k) When the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion. See Navajo v. De Castro, 761 Phil. 142, 155 (2015).

^[34] Board Resolution No. 003-12, November 28, 2012 provides that: xxx "To qualify, the applicant must submit credentials satisfactory to the Board that on or prior to June 2, 2010, the effectivity of RA 10029, he/she has fulfilled any of the following conditions: xxx."

^[35] Tablarin v. Gutierrez, supra note 19; citing E.G., Case v. Board of Health, 24 Phil. 256, 240 (1913); and Lorenzo v. Director of Health, 50 Phil. 595, 597 (1927).

^[36] RA No. 10029, Section 3(a).

---

CONCURRING OPINION

LEONEN, J.:

I concur with the finding that Section 16(c) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of Republic Act No. 10029 or the Philippine Psychology Act of 2009 has complied with the requirements of due process. I write this opinion to expand the discussion on why the requirement imposed by the IRR is not violative of the equal protection clause, and how it ensures that practicing psychologists are well-versed in the recent developments in the practice of psychology.

I

Individuals are free to choose the profession or industry of their interest. However, this is recognized as more of a privilege rather than a right that can be demanded from the government.^[1] Applicants must meet certain qualifications in order to practice their profession, such as completing an academic degree or passing a licensure exam. These requirements are imposed by laws and regulations and enforced by regulatory government agencies comprised of recognized experts in the profession.^[2] Even if the applicants appeared to have met the requirements, the regulatory agency may further investigate the truthfulness of each application's factual circumstances.

In Professional Regulation Commission v. De Guzman,^[3] the Board of Medicine questioned the suspiciously and unprecedented high ratings obtained by a certain group of examinees in the physician licensure exam. This group of examines all graduated from the same medical school. As a result, the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC) issued a resolution preventing this group of examinees from being registered. The examinees then filed for a petition for mandamus, demanding that the PRC allow them to take the physician's oath and register as physicians. The lower courts awarded the writ of mandamus, which this Court reversed:

It is true that this Court has upheld the constitutional right of every citizen to select a profession or course of study subject to a fair, reasonable, and equitable admission and academic requirements. But like all rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Charter, their exercise may be so regulated pursuant to the police power of the State to safeguard health, morals, peace, education, order, safety, and general welfare of the people. Thus, persons who desire to engage in the learned professions requiring scientific or technical knowledge may be required to take an examination as a prerequisite to engaging in their chosen careers. This regulation takes particular pertinence in the field of medicine, to protect the public from the potentially deadly effects of incompetence and ignorance among those who would practice medicine. . . .

. . . .

. . .Verily, to be granted the privilege to practice medicine, the applicant must show that [they] possess all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications. Furthermore, it must appear that [they have] fully complied with all the conditions and requirements imposed by the law and the licensing authority. Should doubt taint or mar the compliance as being less than satisfactory, then the privilege will not issue. For said privilege is distinguishable from a matter of right, which may be demanded if denied. Thus, without a definite showing that the aforesaid requirements and conditions have been satisfactorily met, the courts may not grant the writ of mandamus to secure said privilege without thwarting the legislative will.^[4] (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)

Indeed, applicants must show that they can carry out the duties and responsibilities that come with practicing a profession-especially one that caters to the public. In this regard, policymakers and the appropriate regulatory agencies have the discretion to impose conditions to assess each applicant's competency.^[5]

However, similar with any government action, a profession's regulation must still be exercised in a fair manner:

It must be stressed however that the power to regulate the exercise of a profession or pursuit of an occupation cannot be exercised by the State or its agents in an arbitrary, despotic, or oppressive manner. A political body which regulates the exercise of a particular privilege has the authority to both forbid and grant such privilege in accordance with certain conditions. As the legislature cannot validly bestow an arbitrary power to grant or refuse a license on a public agency or officer, courts will generally strike down license legislation that vests in public officials discretion to grant or refuse a license to carry on some ordinarily lawful business, profession, or activity without prescribing definite rules and conditions for the guidance of said officials in the exercise of their power.^[6] (Emphasis supplied, citation omitted)

Thus, the standards set forth in the Constitution and other applicable legislation should be followed when it comes to the laws and policies on admittance and practice of a profession. Among these standards is the constitutional guaranty of equal protection of laws.

II

The equal protection of laws prescribed by the Constitution^[7] is an essential part of due process because it guards against unfair discrimination. It ensures similar subjects are treated equally, and that "to do otherwise would be to confer an unwarranted favor to some at the expense of others who are similarly situated."^[8] However, the principle of the equal protection of laws does not prohibit lawmakers from making classifications based on certain societal facts, as long as these classifications are consistent with standards set by jurisprudence.

II (A)

A regulation that treats one class of citizens differently than another is not violative of the equal protection clause. As explained by this Court in Victoriano v. Elizalde Rope Workers' Union^[9]:

The guaranty of equal protection of the laws is not a guaranty of equality in the application of the laws upon all citizens of the state. It is not, therefore, a requirement, in order to avoid the constitutional prohibition against inequality, that every man, woman and child should be affected alike by a statute. Equality of operation of statutes does not mean indiscriminate operation on persons merely as such, but on persons according to the circumstances surrounding them. It guarantees equality, not identity of rights. The Constitution does not require that things which are different in fact be treated in law as though they were the same. The equal protection clause does not forbid discrimination as to things that are different. It does not prohibit legislation which is limited either in the object to which it is directed or by the territory within which it is to operate.

The equal protection of the laws clause of the Constitution allows classification. Classification in law, as in the other departments of knowledge or practice, is the grouping of things in speculation or practice because they agree with one another in certain particulars. A law is not invalid because of simple inequality. The very idea of classification is that of inequality, so that it goes without saying that the mere fact of inequality in no manner determines the matter of constitutionality. All that is required of a valid classification is that it be reasonable, which means that the classification should be based on substantial distinctions which make for real differences; that it must be germane to the purpose of the law; that it must not be limited to existing conditions only; and that it must apply equally to each member of the class. This Court has held that the standard is satisfied if the classification or distinction is based on a reasonable foundation or rational basis and is not palpably arbitrary.^[10] (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)

A valid classification recognizes the implications brought about by the differences in the circumstances of individuals who do not belong to the same class.^[11] Thus, it further ensures that the rights and responsibilities of similarly situated individuals are protected.

II (B)

Aside from the enshrined qualifications of a valid classification, this Court has also enumerated three kinds of tests to determine the reasonableness of the classification. The application of the tests is dependent on the type and nature of the rights involved in the classification:

The strict scrutiny test applies when a classification either (i) interferes with the exercise of fundamental rights, including the basic liberties guaranteed under the Constitution, or (ii) burdens suspect classes. The intermediate scrutiny test applies when a classification does not involve suspect classes or fundamental rights, but requires heightened scrutiny, such as in classifications based on gender and legitimacy. Lastly, the rational basis test applies to all other subjects not covered by the first two tests.^[12]

In his concurring opinion in Ang Ladlad LGBT Party v. Commission on Elections,^[13] Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno further clarifies the application of the tests:

If a legislative classification disadvantages a "suspect class" or impinges upon the exercise of a "fundamental right," then the courts will employ strict scrutiny and the statute must fall unless the government can demonstrate that the classification has been precisely tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest. Over the years, the United States Supreme Court has determined that suspect classes for equal protection purposes include classifications based on race, religion, alienage, national origin, and ancestry. The underlying rationale of this theory is that where legislation affects discrete and insular minorities, the presumption of constitutionality fades because traditional political processes may have broken down. In such a case, the State bears a heavy burden of justification, and the government action will be closely scrutinized in light of its asserted purpose.

On the other hand, if the classification, while not facially invidious, nonetheless gives rise to recurring constitutional difficulties, or if a classification disadvantages a "quasi-suspect class," it will be treated under intermediate or heightened review. To survive intermediate scrutiny, the law must not only further an important governmental interest and be substantially related to that interest, but the justification for the classification must be genuine and must not depend on broad generalizations.

If neither strict nor intermediate scrutiny is appropriate, then the statute will be tested for mere rationality. This is a relatively relaxed standard reflecting the Court's awareness that the drawing of lines which creates distinctions is peculiarly a legislative task and an unavoidable one. The presumption is in favor of the classification, of the reasonableness and fairness of state action, and of legitimate grounds of distinction, if any such grounds exist, on which the State acted.^[14] (Citations omitted)

In relation to determining whether the use of the strict scrutiny test is appropriate, a "suspect class" has been characterized as "a class saddled with such disabilities, or subjected to such a history of purposeful unequal treatment, or relegated to such a position of political powerlessness as to command extraordinary protection from the majoritarian political process."^[15] Thus, when the classification involving a "suspect class" is questioned, the State must clearly present the need for such classification in order to avoid further oppressing the exercise of the fundamental and basic rights of those who are already at a disadvantage.

Meanwhile, all that is required in the application of a rational basis test is for there to be a "legitimate government interest" and a "reasonable connection between it" and the methods used to achieve it.^[16]

III

From the foregoing, I submit that it is proper to apply the rational basis test in determining whether the assailed provision in the IRR of Republic Act No. 10029 complies with the equal protection clause. In using this test, it can be concluded that the assailed provision is consistent with the equal protection clause.

Petitioner Florentina Caoyong Sobrejuanite-Flores challenged the constitutionality of Section 16(c) of the IRR of Republic Act No. 10029, where the relevant portion reads:

SECTION 16. Registration Without Examination for Psychologists. — A person who possesses the qualifications required to take the licensure examination as a psychologist pursuant to the provisions of [Republic Act No.] 10029 may be registered without examination; Provided, that the applicant files with the Board within three (3) years after its creation, or until May 21, 2015, an application for registration and issuance of a certificate of registration and a professional identification card.

To qualify, the applicant must submit credentials satisfactory to the Board that on or prior to June 2, 2010, the effectivity of, he/she has fulfilled any of the following conditions:

(a) Obtained a doctoral degree in psychology conferred by a university, college or school in the Philippines or abroad, duly recognized/accredited by the [Commission on Higher Education]; and has accumulated a minimum of three (3) years work experience in the practice of psychology;

(b) Obtained a master's degree in psychology conferred by a university, college or school in the Philippines or abroad recognized/accredited by the [Commission on Higher Education]; and must have accumulated a minimum of five (5) years work experience in the practice of psychology;

(c) Psychologists or employees holding positions as Psychologists presently employed in various government and private agencies, who have a bachelor's degree in psychology, accumulated a minimum of ten (10) years work experience in the practice of psychology as a psychologist, and have updated their professional education in various psychology-related functions.

"Professional education in various psychology-related functions'' shall mean completion of at least 100 hours of updating workshops and training programs across various areas and specialties in psychology conducted by duly established national or international organizations of psychologists, psychiatrists and other allied mental health professionals, in the last five (5) years immediately preceding the effectivity [Republic Act No.] 10029.

In particular, petitioner claims that Section 16(c)'s imposed completion of "at least 100 hours of updating workshops and training programs" is an additional burden which is not prescribed in the law itself.^[17]

There is then a distinction created between those who belong in Section 16(a) and (b) who are holders of a doctoral or master's degree in psychology, and those who belong in Section 16(c) who are holders of a bachelor's degree in psychology and have worked either as psychologists or have been in the practice of psychology for at least 10 years.

III (A)

As discussed, the practice of a profession is deemed more as a privilege rather than a right. It is an individual's choice that is subject to the conditions placed by the laws and policies that govern the practice of such a profession.^[18]

The nature of the rights and responsibilities imposed by the classification found in regulations concerning the practice of a profession cannot be compared to "suspect class" individuals. Those who belong in a "suspect class" have experienced a "history of invidious discrimination[,]"^[19] and that their distinguishing characteristics are usually "beyond [their] control."^[20]

Individuals are considered to have control over their decision to enter a certain profession and to pursue further related studies.^[21] There is no basic or fundamental right, or a right that is similar to gender or legitimacy, involved in the exercise of such choice. As such, those who intend to register as psychologists without taking the licensure exams are neither a "suspect class" nor a "quasi-suspect class."

Furthermore, it must be noted that passing the licensure exam is the general requirement imposed by Republic Act No. 10029 for one to practice psychology in the Philippines. As the ponencia pointed out, Section 16 is an exemption and an accommodation provided to those who do not wish to take the licensure exam.^[22] Even those who qualify to claim such an accommodation must still present proof of their qualifications and credentials.^[23] This is further proof that the process of registering as a psychologist cannot be considered as a right that would trigger the application of either the strict scrutiny test or intermediate scrutiny test.

In this regard, the rational basis test is the appropriate test to analyze the classification present in Section 16(c) of the IRR of Republic Act No. 10029. In using this test, there is a presumption that the classification made by the policymakers is valid and reasonable.

Guided by these principles, I agree with the ponencia that the distinctions implied in Section 16(c) of the IRR of Republic Act No. 10029 does not violate the equal protection clause.

III (B)

To recall, a reasonable and valid classification must be:

[F]irst, based on "substantial distinctions which make real differences"; second, it must be "germane to the purposes of the law"; third, it must "not be limited to existing conditions only"; and fourth, it must apply to each member of the class.^[24] (Citations omitted)

All of these are present in the classification under Section 16(c) of the IRR of Republic Act No. 10029 and thus, the imposition of additional requirement of "completion of at least 100 hours of updating and training programs" is valid.

There is a significant difference between holders of a bachelor's degree in psychology and those who have obtained either a master's or doctoral degree in psychology.

Republic Act No. 10029 requires that those who intend to claim the exception provided in Section 16 must have a psychology degree from an institution recognized or accredited by the Commission on Higher Education (CHED).^[25]

The policies and standards for undergraduate and graduate programs in psychology can be found in the CHED regulations. These regulations enumerate the competency standards for graduates of psychology degree programs. These also identify the curriculum and the equivalent minimum number of units that an institution must offer in order to confer psychology degrees to its students.

When Republic Act No. 10029 was enacted, CHED Memorandum Order (CMO) No. 38, series of 2010 prescribed the policies and standards for undergraduate programs such as: (1) Bachelor of Arts in Psychology (AB Psychology); and (2) Bachelor of Science in Psychology (BS Psychology),^[26] while CMO No. 38, series of 2010 served as guidance for graduate programs such as: (1) Non-Thesis Master's Program (MP in Psychology); (2) Thesis Master's Program in Psychology (M.A/M.S in Psychology); and (3) Doctoral Program in Psychology (Ph.D. in Psychology).^[27]

On one hand, the undergraduate curriculum for AB Psychology and BS Psychology is comprised of: (1) general education courses; (2) basic courses (e.g. General Psychology, Psychological Statistics); (3) required courses (e.g. Developmental Psychology, Social Psychology); and (4) psychology elective subjects, among others.^[28] In total, AB Psychology and BS Psychology students must complete at least 65 units.^[29]

On the other hand, graduate programs for psychology require additional subjects focused on research and fieldwork. In addition to the units they have earned in their undergraduate programs, students of MP in Psychology or M.A/M.S. in Psychology must complete at least 30 more units.^[30] Moreover, those enrolled in a Ph.D. program in psychology must further complete at least 45 more units if they already have a master's degree in psychology, and an additional 66 units if they do not have a master's degree.^[31]

Aside from the stark differences between the number of subjects and units required of undergraduate and graduate students, as well as the number of years involved in completing the respective program, the nature and extent of studies pursued by the students are also vastly distinct.

AB Psychology and BS Psychology programs intend to provide a "solid basic foundation on the major areas of psychology which may also be used as preparation for further studies and training[;]"^[32] whereas a master's program in psychology is aimed to offer a "high level training in teaching, research, and professional practice in psychology[;]"^[33] and a doctoral program is further designed "with emphasis on a high level of specialization in a field within psychology."^[34]

A master's or doctoral degree in psychology is also described as a practitioner's degree, a research degree, or a teaching degree, as the case may be.^[35] This explains why students of MP in Psychology are further required to complete fieldwork, while those enrolled in M.A./M.S. in Psychology are expected to complete a thesis. Meanwhile, Ph.D. students must both undergo an internship program and write a dissertation.^[36]

The foregoing clearly demonstrates the substantial distinctions that exist between a holder of bachelor's degree in psychology and holder of either a master's degree or doctoral degree in psychology. As evidenced through years of rigorous research and training undertaken by the latter group, i.e. those who have graduated from advanced studies in psychology, the level of knowledge and skills between these categories of degree holders is unmatched.

This distinction is also consistent with the policy of Republic Act No. 10029, which states:

SECTION 2. Statement of Policy. - The State recognizes that psychologists have an important role in nation-building and development. It also acknowledges the diverse specializations of psychologists and the diverse functions specific to the varied specialization. In particular, it recognizes the significance of the psychological services that practicing psychologists provide to diverse types of clients, but also recognizes the need to protect the public by preventing inexperienced or untrained individuals from offering psychological services. Hence, it shall nurture competent, upright and assiduous psychologists whose standards of practice and service shall be excellent and globally competitive through the administration of inviolable, effective and credible licensure examinations and the imposition and promotion of regulatory measures, programs and activities that enhance their professional growth and well-being. (Emphasis supplied)

Given that degree holders of MP, M.S./M.A. or Ph.D. in psychology have spent more time in studying the principles of psychology and have firsthand experience with the practical application of these concepts, they are expected to have the competence and expertise to engage in the "practice of psychology." The "practice of psychology" is defined in law as:

[D]elivery of psychological services that involve application of psychological principles and procedures for the purpose of describing, understanding, predicting and influencing the behavior of individuals or groups, in order to assist in the attainment of optimal human growth and functioning. The delivery of psychological services includes, but is not limited to: (1) psychological interventions: psychological counseling, psychotherapy, psychosocial support, coaching, psychological debriefing, group processes and all other psychological interventions that involve the application of psychological principles to improve psychological functioning of individuals, families, groups and organizations; (2) psychological assessment: gathering and integration of psychology-related data for the purpose of making a psychological evaluation, accomplished through a variety of tools, including individual tests, projective tests, clinical interviews and other psychological assessment tools, for the purpose of assessing diverse psychological functions including cognitive abilities, aptitudes, personality characteristics, attitudes, values, interests, emotions and motivations, among others, in support of psychological counseling, psychotherapy and other psychological interventions; and (3) psychological programs: development, planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of psychological treatment programs and other psychological intervention programs for individuals and/or groups.^[37]

It can be gleaned that the research and practicum objectives of a master's program or doctoral program in psychology are more aligned with the definition of "practice of psychology" than the "basic foundation" designed for a bachelor's program in psychology. As discussed above, holders of bachelor's degree in psychology have not taken the additional subjects and training that graduates of advanced studies have accomplished.

This is why Section 16 of Republic Act No. 10029 requires proof of work experience and training, which varies depending on the applicant's level of study. The IRR's additional requirement that bachelor's degree holders must have also completed "at least 100 hours of updating workshops and training programs across various areas and specialties in psychology"^[38] is imposed in order to address the possibility that they may be unaware of the recent developments in the practice of psychology. In sum, these conditions are required to prevent "inexperienced or untrained individuals" from practicing psychology and causing irreparable harm to the public.

The classification is also not limited to the existing conditions upon its enactment into law. There is nothing in the law or in the IRR that could have changed the requirements asked from each category. Moreover, claimants for exemption under Section 16 of Republic Act No. 10029 only had until May 21, 2015 to avail of the exemption and present the requirements.^[39]

Finally, the classification does not treat similarly-situated members of the same class differently.

Petitioner claims that bachelor's degree holders in psychology who live in provinces are at a disadvantage since "availability of updating workshops and training programs are scant."^[40] However, the IRR only requires that these workshops and trainings be "conducted by duly established national or international organizations of psychologists, psychiatrists[,] and other allied mental health professionals[,]"^[41] and that these be attended within the "last five. . . years immediately preceding the effectivity of Republic Act No. 10029."^[42] There are no other extra locational or requirements imposed, and neither are there any further classifications made within the same group of people who have a bachelor's degree in psychology.

IV

Much like any other discipline, the study of psychology is continuously evolving. With the recent emphasis on the importance on preserving mental health, psychologists are expected to keep abreast of all the latest developments in order to provide the best psychological services to the public. Accordingly, the licensure exam for psychologists serves as an equalizer to ensure that all practicing psychologists are properly competent.

However, Republic Act No. 10029 offers an accommodation to those who have been engaged in the practice of psychology prior to its enactment, in which they do not need to take the licensure exam. In the alternative, they must demonstrate their competence by showing proof of their work experience and training.

As discussed, there are clear differences between undergraduates and postgraduates, especially as postgraduates underwent a more comprehensive research and training program in the field of psychology. In this regard, there exists a valid classification in Section 16 of Republic Act No. 10029 and its corresponding text in the IRR. The additional requirement placed on bachelor's degree holders is aligned with the law's purpose to ensure that only those who are knowledgeable and skilled may engage in the practice of psychology.

Thus, I agree with the ponencia that the provisions of Section 16(c) of the IRR of Republic Act No. 10029 are constitutional.

ACCORDINGLY, I vote to DENY the Petition.

---

^[1] Professional Regulation Commission v. De Guzman, 476 Phil. 596 (2004) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division].

^[2] Tablarin v. Gutierrez, 236 Phil. 768 (1987) [Per J. Feliciano, En Banc].

^[3] Professional Regulation Commission v. De Guzman, 476 Phil. 596 (2004) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division].

^[4] Id. at 617-619.

^[5] Id.

^[6] Board of Medicine v. Ota, 580 Phil. 213, 221-222 (2008) [Per J. Austria-Martinez, Third Division].

^[7] CONST., art. III, sec. 1.

^[8] J. Leonen, Concurring Opinion in Inmates of the New Bilibid Prison v. De Lima, G.R. Nos. 212719 & 214637, June 25, 2019 <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/65257> [Per J. Peralta, En Banc].

^[9] 158 Phil. 60 (1974) [Per J. Zaldivar, En Banc].

^[10] Id. at 86-87.

^[11] People v. Dela Piedra, 403 Phil. 31 (2001) (Per J. Kapunan, First Division].

^[12] Samahan ng mga Progresibong Kabataan v. Quezon City, 815 Phil. 1067 (2017) [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, En Banc].

^[13] J. Puno, Concurring Opinion in Ang Ladlad LGBT Party v. Commission on Elections, 632 Phil. 32 (2010) [Per J. Del Castillo, En Banc].

^[14] Id. at 105-107.

^[15] J. Carpio Morales, Dissenting Opinion in Central Bank Employees Association, Inc. v. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, 487 Phil. 531, 694 (2004) [Per J. Puno, En Banc], citing San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1; 93 S. Ct. 1278; 36 L. Ed. 2d 16 (1973).

^[16] Zomer Development Co., Inc. v. Special Twentieth Division of the Court of Appeals, Cebu City, G.R. No. 194461, January 7, 2020 <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/66131> [Per J. Leonen, En Banc], citing J. Leonen, Separate Opinion in Samahan ng Progresihong Kabataan v. Quezon City, 815 Phil. 1067, 1147 (2017) [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, En Banc].

^[17] Draft ponencia, p. 6.

^[18] Professional Regulation Commission v. De Guzman, 476 Phil. 596 (2004) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division].

^[19] J. Puno, Concurring Opinion in Ang Ladlad LGBT Party v. Commission on Elections, 632 Phil. 32 (2010) [Per J. Del Castillo, En Banc].

^[20] Id.

^[21] Professional Regulation Commission v. De Guzman, 476 Phil. 596 (2004) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division].

^[22] Draft ponencia, p. 12.

^[23] Republic Act No. 10029 (2009), sec. 16.

^[24] Provincial Bus Operators Association of the Philippines v. Department of Labor and Employment, 836 Phil. 205 (2018) [Per J. Leonen, En Banc].

^[25] Republic Act No. 10029 (2009), sec. 16.

^[26] CHED Memorandum Order No. 38 (2010), sec. 3.

^[27] CHED Memorandum Order No. 39 (2010), sec. 4.

^[28] CHED Memorandum Order No. 38 (2010), sec. 7.

^[29] CHED Memorandum Order No. 38 (2010), sec. 7. BS Psychology students are further required to take additional 20 units of natural science electives.

^[30] CHED Memorandum Order No. 39 (2010), sec. 9.

^[31] CHED Memorandum Order No. 39 (2010), sec. 9.

^[32] CHED Memorandum Order No. 38 (2010), sec. 3.

^[33] CHED Memorandum Order No. 39 (2010), sec. 5(1)(a).

^[34] CHED Memorandum Order No. 39 (2010), sec. 5(1)(b).

^[35] CHED Memorandum Order No. 39 (2010), sec. 10.

^[36] CHED Memorandum Order No. 39 (2010), sec. 9.

^[37] Republic Act No. 10029 (2009), sec. 3(b).

^[38] Republic Act No. 10029 (2009), Implementing Rules and Regulations, sec. 16(c).

^[39] Republic Act No. 10029 (2009), Implementing Rules and Regulations, sec. 16(c).

^[40] Court of Appeals Decision, p. 5. The May 21, 2019 Decision was penned by Associate Justice Sesinando E. Villon and concurred in by Associate Justice Edwin D. Sorongon and Associate Justice Germano Francisco D. Legaspi of the Seventh Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.

^[41] Republic Act No. 10029 (2009), Implementing Rules and Regulations, sec. 16(c).

^[42] Republic Act No. 10029 (2009), Implementing Rules and Regulations, sec. 16(c).