29/03/2026
A MID-2025 POSITION OF THE ARCHITECTURE ADVOCACY INTERNATIONAL FOUNDATION (“AAIF”), INC., A PHILIPPINE (“PH”) NON-GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION (“NGO”):
“CONTRACTING IS A BUSINESS, AND MUST NEVER BE CONFUSED WITH THE LAWFUL PRACTICE OF ANY STATE-REGULATED PROFESSION (“SRP”)”
While there are common commercial offers from Philippine/“PH” Contractors Accreditation Board (“PCAB”)-licensed contractors to undertake BOTH the design and construction of infrastructure and/or building/grounds projects, there is definite need to officially distinguish “CONTRACTING” (i.e., a business or a commercial activity regulated by the PCAB, sometimes also referred to as the “business of building”), and “DESIGNING” (which is the lawful practice of a state-regulated profession/”SRP”, duly governed by various professional regulatory laws/”PRL” implemented by the Department of Labor and Employment/”DoLE” through the Professional Regulation Commission/”PRC”).
The construction-related PRLs (including their respective streams of regulation/”SoR”, NOT limited to their implementing rules and regulations/”IRR”, codes of ethical conduct/”CEC”, standards of professional practice/”SPP”, guidelines and procedural manuals/”GPM”, and similar executive issuances (”EI”), including Joint Memorandum Circulars/”JMC”, currently and collectively administered/indirectly implemented by the PRC through the concerned Professional Regulatory Boards/”PRB”.
In the mid-1970s, “CONTRACTING” was transferred from PRC to the then Ministry of Trade (now the Department of Trade and Industry/”DTI”) as it was then CORRECTLY classified as a BUSINESS and NOT the practice of a SRP, which is a PRIVILEGE officially granted by the state mainly to NATURAL persons and duly-qualified juridical entities, based on the pertinent PRL, as in R.A. No. 9266 (for Architecture) and R.A. No. 10587 (for Environmental Planning).
The PH Supreme Court in its General Resolution (“G.R.”) No. 217590, March 10, 2020, Philippine Contractors Accreditation Board (“PCAB”), Petitioner, V. Manila Water Company, Inc., Respondent (at link https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/66190), has reinforced that classification of CONTRACTING as a BUSINESS, states:
“x x x the supposed government interest in limiting the practice of a profession to Filipino citizens is inapplicable to construction considering that contracting for purposes of engaging in construction activities is not a profession, as it is not one regulated by the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC) and the term "professional" refers to an individual not a corporation or firm.” (emphases and underscoring supplied)
x x x
“x x x. Section 14, Article XII of the Constitution refers to the privilege of a natural person to exercise his profession in the Philippines. On the other hand, under Article IV of R.A. No. 4566, even partnerships, corporations and organizations can qualify for a contractor's license through its responsible officer. The "profession" under the aforesaid provision refers to the practice of natural persons of a certain field in which they are trained, certified, and licensed. Being a licensed contractor does not automatically qualify within the ambit of the Constitution as a "profession" per se.
A contractor under R.A. No. 4566 does not refer to a specific practice of profession, i.e., architecture, engineering, medicine, accountancy and the like. In fact, Section 9(a) and (b) of R.A. No. 4566 reads x x x
Suffice it to say that a corporation or juridical person, in this case a construction firm, cannot be considered a "professional" that is being exclusively restricted by the Constitution and our laws to Filipino citizens. The licensing of contractors is not to engage in the practice of a specific profession, but rather to engage in the business of contracting/construction.
The basis for petitioner's argument, that construction is considered a profession, is also out of context. x x x. It does not follow that just because a license is required under R.A. No. 4566, a licensed contractor is already considered a professional under the Constitution.
Professionalizing the construction business is different from the exercise of profession which the Constitution exclusively restricts to Filipino citizens. To reiterate, the license required under R.A. No. 4566 is for purposes of engaging in the business of contracting under the terms of the said act for a fiscal year or a certain period/project, and not for the purpose of practicing a particular profession. The responsible officer who secures a license for contracting, for his own business or for the company, may already be a professional in his own field (i.e., engineer, architect). Then again, the license acquired under R.A. No. 4566 does not make the licensed contractor a "professional" within the meaning contemplated under Section 14, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution.
More telling is the fact that applicants for contractor's licenses are not required to have Philippine citizenship unlike those who are considered as professionals in the country. x x x. The law merely requires at least two years of experience in the construction industry, and knowledge of building, safety, health and lien laws of the Republic of the Philippines and the rudimentary administrative principles of the contracting business. x x x. (emphases and underscoring supplied)
From a layman’s viewpoint, the foregoing can mainly be interpreted as follows:
1) that PCAB-registered contractors have NEVER been granted the privilege to practice state-regulated professions (“SRP”) under their contractor licenses; at most, they may probably render construction-related services as part of their business, i.e., construction management (“CM”) services, including fulltime construction supervision (“FCS”) services through their fulltime sustaining technical employees (“STE”);
2) to lawfully render SRP, the PCAB-registered contractors must do any of the following:
• formally associate with natural or juridical persons permitted by law to engage in SRP to prepare the design documents and to assume the mandated professional responsibilities and civil liability under law; or
• operate a subsidiary operation, separately registered with DTI or SEC, and mainly focused on the rendition of SRP; or
• utilize the STE as natural persons to render SRP in a separate private capacity covered by a professional service contract (“PSC”) detailing professional compensation per project and the manner of assumption of civil liability, e.g., professional liability insurance/”PLI”, and the like) once the STE is separated from service.
3) PCAB-licensed contractors who continue to perhaps unlawfully render SRP may be sued for violations of the pertinent PRL, i.e., for illegal practice of a SRP/willful violation of PRL/s. Thanks.
Nothing follows.
