G.R. No. 89572 | December 21, 1989 - DECS vs. SAN DIEGO

on
Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS) and Director of Center for Educational Measurement v. Roberto Rey C. San Diego and Judge Teresita Dizon-Capulong

G.R. No. 89572| December 21,1989

The issue before us is mediocrity. The question is whether a person who has thrice failed the National Medical Admission Test (NMAT) is entitled to take it again.


FACTS
  • Roberto San Diego is a graduate of the University of the East with a degree of Bachelor of Science in Zoology. He took the NMAT three times and flunked it as many times. 
  • When San Diego applied to take it again, DECS rejected his application on the basis of its “three-flunk rule” under MECS Order No. 12, Series of 1972, which states that: “h) A student shall be allowed only three (3) chances to take the NMAT. After three (3) successive failures, a student shall not be allowed to take the NMAT for the fourth time.”
  • San Diego then, filed a mandamus petition with the Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela to compel his admission to the test.
  • In his original petition, he first invoked his constitutional rights to academic freedom and quality education.
  • In an amended petition filed with leave of court, San Diego challenged the constitutionality of MECS Order No. 12, s. 1972. The additional grounds raised were due process and equal protection.
  • After hearing, RTC Judge Teresita Dizon-Capulong held that San Diego had been deprived of his right to pursue a medical education through an arbitrary exercise of the police power. 
  • RTC then rendered a decision declaring MECS Order No. 12, s. 1972 invalid and granting San Diego's petition. 
  • Hence, this petition by DECS. 


ISSUE/S
  • (1) WON the "three-flunk" rule/ admission test rule is an arbitrary exercise of the police power. 
  • (2) WON San Diego had been deprived of his constitutional rights to academic freedom and quality education
  • (3) WON San Diego had been deprived of due process and equal protection


RULING

1. Police Power
  • NO. 
  • Admission tests as a measure to limit admission to medical school is a legitimate exercise of police power.
  • The "three-flunk" rule is a valid exercise of police power. 
  • Police Power is validly exercise if:
(a) the interests of the public generally, as distinguished from those of a particular class, require the interference of the State
(b) the means employed are reasonably necessary to the attainment of the object sought to be accomplished and not unduly oppressive upon individuals 

  • The proper exercise of the police power requires the concurrence of a lawful subject and a lawful method.
  • The subject of the challenged regulation is certainly within the ambit of the police power. It is the right and indeed the responsibility of the State to insure that the medical profession is not infiltrated by incompetents to whom patients may unwarily entrust their lives and health.
  • The method employed by the challenged regulation is not irrelevant to the purpose of the law nor is it arbitrary or oppressive. The three-flunk rule is intended to insulate the medical schools and ultimately the medical profession from the intrusion of those not qualified to be doctors.
2. Quality Education
  • NO.
  • San Diego had not been deprived of his constitutional rights to academic freedom and quality education.
  • The right to quality education invoked by the private respondent is not absolute. The Constitution also provides that "every citizen has the right to choose a profession or course of study, subject to fair, reasonable and equitable admission and academic requirements." 
  • The private respondent must yield to the challenged rule and give way to those better prepared. Where even those who have qualified may still not be accommodated in our already crowded medical schools, there is all the more reason to bar those who, like him, have been tested and found wanting.
  • It is not enough to simply invoke the right to quality education as a guarantee of the Constitution. One must show that he is entitled to it because of his preparation and promise. With respect to respondent San Diego, he has failed the NMAT five times.
3. Equal Protection
  • NO.
  • San Diego had not been deprived of due process and equal protection.
  • The contention that the challenged rule violates the equal protection clause is not well-taken. A law does not have to operate with equal force on all persons or things to be conformable to Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution.
  • A substantial distinction exists between medical students and other students who are not subjected to the NMAT and the three-flunk rule. The medical profession directly affects the very lives of the people, unlike other careers which, for this reason, do not require more vigilant regulation. The accountant, for example, while belonging to an equally respectable profession, does not hold the same delicate responsibility as that of the physician and so need not be similarly treated.
  • There would be unequal protection if some applicants who have passed the tests are admitted and others who have also qualified are denied entrance. In other words, what the equal protection requires is equality among equal. 

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The decision of the respondent court dated January 13, 1989, is REVERSED, with costs against the private respondent. It is so ordered.






References/Citations:


Comments

Post a Comment