Not Just Legal — It’s Constitutional!

NOT JUST LEGAL — IT’S CONSTITUTIONAL: WHY ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS CAN PRACTICE WITHOUT A PCAB LICENSE WHEN NOT CONTRACTING “FOR A PRICE”

Can a licensed architect or civil engineer supervise construction without a PCAB license?

YES — and this position is not only grounded in RA 9266 and RA 1582, but also in the 1987 Philippine Constitution.

The distinction is simple but often misunderstood: what RA 4566 prohibits is not technical execution or project management, but commercial contracting “for a price” — where the party assumes full risk for materials, labor, and delivery. When professionals act within their licensed scope and do not assume this commercial risk, they are operating lawfully.

But beyond legal interpretation lies a deeper truth: this is also a matter of constitutional rights.

1. THE RIGHT TO PRACTICE A PROFESSION IS CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED

Article II, Section 18 of the Constitution declares that the State shall protect the rights of workers and promote their welfare. Article XIII, Section 3 affirms every citizen’s right to engage in lawful and gainful employment.

Architects and engineers who have passed board exams and obtained PRC licenses are authorized to engage in professional practice. Denying them the right to manage or supervise construction—when they are not acting as contractors—undermines the constitutional right to pursue their profession without unjust restriction.

2. EQUAL PROTECTION REQUIRES RATIONAL AND NON-DISCRIMINATORY ENFORCEMENT

The Equal Protection Clause (Article III, Section 1) provides that no person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws.

If licensed professionals are restricted from lawful practice—while others, including non-licensed or differently licensed entities, are allowed to operate with fewer constraints—then enforcement is discriminatory. Lawful distinctions must be based on clear risk categories: technical (professionals) versus commercial (contractors), and natural persons versus juridical entities.

3. SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS DEMANDS CLARITY AND FAIRNESS

Due process is not only procedural—it is also substantive. Laws must not be vague or arbitrarily applied.

When “for a price” is interpreted inconsistently across agencies and jurisdictions, professionals face uncertainty and possible harassment for actions well within their legal scope. This undermines predictability and fairness—the very aims of the rule of law.

THE WAY FORWARD

• Affirm that professionals may practice within their licensed scope, including construction supervision and project management, as long as they do not engage in risk-bearing commercial contracting.
• Interpret “for a price” narrowly, consistent with legislative intent and legal clarity.
• Promote and protect Build by Administration and similar models that respect professional practice while ensuring public protection.

This is not a legal opinion—but a public position, grounded in law and the Constitution.

Professional rights are not merely regulatory matters. They are part of the fabric of constitutional freedom, justice, and fairness.

Let’s honor that.

This article is part of Build Quotient’s advocacy to uphold lawful and ethical professional practice in the construction industry. For related reading:
📌 Before this: Licensed Professional Practice vs Contracting
📌 Next: Building for a Fee, Not for a Price

About the Author
Ar. Brian Ernest L. Regalado, ACIArb, EDPM, CIPM is a certified ISO 17024:2012 Project Management Professional and holds an Advanced Professional Award in Construction Contract Management from The CCM UK. As the Lead Educator and Principal of Build Quotient+, he leads one of the few independently CMDF-Authorized Training Partners in the Philippines. He also represents the Philippines and Southeast Asia in the International Institute of Project and Program Management (I2P2M).

He is both a private practitioner and a government-recognized expert. This position paper is written not to advocate for one party or profession, but to promote the common good of all stakeholders across the industry—through lawful interpretation, fair regulation, and professional integrity.

Disclaimer: This paper is for educational and advocacy purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice. For specific cases, consult appropriate regulatory authorities or legal counsel.