G.R. No. 251816 , November 23, 2021
FLORENTINA CAOYONG SOBREJUANITE-FLORES, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSIONERS TEOFILO S. PILANDO, JR., YOLANDA D. REYES, MIRIAM P. CUE, ALEXA P. ABRENICA, AND IMELDA G. VILLAR, ALL OF THE PROFESSIONAL REGULATION COMMISSION, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

This case involves a Concurring Opinion by Justice Leonen in a petition concerning the validity of Section 16(c) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of Republic Act No. 10029 (the Philippine Psychology Act of 2009). The petitioner challenged the provision, arguing it violated due process and equal protection. The main opinion found the IRR provision compliant with due process. Justice Leonen concurs and writes separately to expand on why the requirement is not violative of the equal protection clause and how it ensures practicing psychologists are updated on recent developments in their field.

ISSUE

Whether Section 16(c) of the IRR of the Philippine Psychology Act of 2009 violates the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the laws.

RULING

No, Section 16(c) of the IRR does not violate the equal protection clause. The regulation creates a valid classification that satisfies the requirements of reasonableness.
1. Regulation of Professions: The practice of a profession is a privilege, not a right, and is subject to the state’s police power to safeguard public welfare. Regulatory agencies have the discretion to impose conditions to assess an applicant’s competency, provided such regulation is not exercised in an arbitrary, despotic, or oppressive manner.
2. Equal Protection and Valid Classification: The equal protection clause permits legal classifications provided they are reasonable. A classification is reasonable if it is: (1) based on substantial distinctions which make for real differences; (2) germane to the purpose of the law; (3) not limited to existing conditions only; and (4) applies equally to each member of the class.
3. Application to the Case: The classification created by the IRR—between those who completed their degrees within a certain timeframe and those who did not—is reasonable. It is based on the substantial distinction of being abreast with recent developments in the psychology curriculum and practice, which is germane to the law’s purpose of ensuring public protection through competent and updated professionals. The classification applies equally to all who fall within the same category (e.g., all those who graduated more than five years before the law’s effectivity are subject to the same requirement).
4. Rational Basis Test: The regulation is subject to the rational basis test, as it involves the privilege of professional practice and does not burden a suspect class or a fundamental right. The requirement for additional coursework for those who graduated long before the law’s effectivity is rationally related to the legitimate state interest of ensuring that licensed psychologists possess current and relevant knowledge, thereby protecting the public.