Practice makes perfect

Imagine a family of four: Mom, Dad, Johnny who wants to become a chef, and Ana who is taking up business management in college. They own a small pizzeria and are able to live a moderate but comfortable life. Wanting to gain experience and earn pocket money, the kids ask to work in the restaurant. Mom and dad agree, believing that this will teach their children the value of hard work and responsibility. Thus, Johnny is assigned as sous-chef and helps prepare the pizzas while Ana works the table and helps with the accounting. Although a few mistakes are made, mom and dad are happy that their children are learning.

Now suppose one day a few strangers walk in to apply for a job. At once it is apparent that these individuals are better equipped to handle the tasks assigned to their children. Mom and dad are now faced with a dilemma. Do they turn the strangers down to protect their children’s jobs? Or would that give their children a false sense of security and make them complacent? If they open the doors to outside applicants, there is the chance that strangers will embarrass their children by being more competent, but at the same time it may also promote healthy competition and push Johnny and Ana to improve their performances.

This example is an attempt to simplify and illustrate the conundrum surrounding the practice of professions by foreign nationals in the Philippines. The parents are our government and the children are the citizens. Under Article XII, Section 14 of our Constitution, the government seeks to protect its children by providing that, “the practice of all professions in the Philippines shall be limited to Filipino citizens…” Yet in the next breath qualifies it with “…save in cases prescribed by law.”

Republic Act No. 8981 (a.k.a. the PRC Modernization Act of 2000) is an example of the statutory permission referred to. Under the law, the Professional Regulation Commission has the power to approve the registration and authorize the issuance of a certificate of registration/license to a foreign professional who is registered under the laws of his country and whose registration issued therein has not been revoked.

Last year, PRC Resolution No. 2012-668 laid down the guidelines for implementing this statute and held that, pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 541, former Filipino professionals who have become naturalized foreigners are still allowed to practice their professions in the Philippines. Also, foreign nationals under the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) and other international agreements may opt to practice their professions in the Philippines subject to agreed terms and conditions.

One of the driving forces behind allowing foreigners to practice in the Philippines is the international law concept of reciprocity. Simply put, this encapsulates the policy of quid pro quo on an international level. Hence, R.A. 8981 also provides that in order for a foreigner to be granted a license to practice in the Philippines, the laws of his foreign state or country must allow the citizens of the Philippines to practice the profession on the same basis and grant the same privileges as those enjoyed by the subjects or citizens of such foreign state or country. Reciprocity is often used as a tool of negotiation.

However, the reality of the situation is that very few foreign nationals apply to the PRC other than for temporary permits. First of all, the administrative requirements are difficult to comply with. Second, few foreign professionals find the low-paying jobs here to be any kind of enticement.

Furthermore, some foreign professionals circumvent the procedure entirely because their undertakings are not strictly legal. For example, foreign doctors who have been performing illegal stem cell procedures in posh downtown hotels for millions of pesos have recently made headlines. The DOH has only approved — so far — the “Autologous Adult Stem Cells” which are taken from the patient’s own blood, bone marrow and fat, yet these are not the “purest” forms of stem cells. Some foreign doctors, however, have been performing illegal procedures using stem cells derived from human embryonic tissues and even alternative xenogenic (plant or animal) tissue cells. And although these are arguably more potent, the health risks are also much higher. Patients have already died as a result of complications. The fact that these sessions are conducted in hotel rooms without the benefit of a lab, staff, or medical equipment makes it all the more dangerous. The Philippine government therefore, through the Department of Health, the Board of Medicine and others, has been very active recently in taking up means to regulate the practice.

This is all well and good for trying to protect people from snake oil, medicine after all is a field of special responsibility. But in cases not as problematic as stem cell therapy, there may be excessive prudence. Last year, there was discussion of having licensing requirements extend past these new, untested treatments and into regular practice of medicine. The proposal involved having medical missions pay for permits to practice in the country. These types of barriers, both financial and logistical, may discourage aid to much needed areas from foreign bodies. Considering the universality of the science of medicine, one would imagine this is a little unnecessary for doctors who are licensed elsewhere.

Finally, certain professions remain closed to foreigners, usually on account of the great public interest in the practice (i.e. the practice of law); yet perhaps it is time to revisit this position again. Last January 16, speaking before members of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, Senator Angara insisted that the Philippines ought to open the practice of law to foreigners. He pointed out the need of our country to change with the rest of the world, explaining that the Philippines is the only country left in Asia which does not allow foreign lawyers to practice within its borders. It is a process of isolation which will invariably leave the Philippines out of the loop internationally. Indeed, between GATS and the imminence of the integration of the ASEAN Economic Community in 2015, it behoves us to check whether our paradigms need shifting.

*      *      *      *

“It has been said that arguing against globalization is like arguing against the laws of gravity.” – Kofi Annan

*      *      *      *

Email: [email protected]