Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 52 views

    DECS v. San Diego

    Uploaded by

    nelly casabuena
    1. The case involved Roberto Rey C. San Diego, who had failed the National Medical Admission Test (NMAT) five times and was denied permission to take it again based on a Department of Education order limiting students to three attempts. 2. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decision that found the order invalid, ruling that limiting attempts to the admission test is a valid exercise of police power to ensure only qualified students enter the medical profession. 3. The Court also found that the rule did not violate equal protection or the right to education, as medical students can be subject to more stringent admission requirements given the responsibility of the profession in safeguarding public health.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    DECS v. San Diego

    Uploaded by

    nelly casabuena
    52 views2 pages
    1. The case involved Roberto Rey C. San Diego, who had failed the National Medical Admission Test (NMAT) five times and was denied permission to take it again based on a Department of Education order limiting students to three attempts. 2. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decision that found the order invalid, ruling that limiting attempts to the admission test is a valid exercise of police power to ensure only qualified students enter the medical profession. 3. The Court also found that the rule did not violate equal protection or the right to education, as medical students can be subject to more stringent admission requirements given the responsibility of the profession in safeguarding public health.

    Original Title

    2. DECS v. San Diego

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1. The case involved Roberto Rey C. San Diego, who had failed the National Medical Admission Test (NMAT) five times and was denied permission to take it again based on a Department of Education order limiting students to three attempts. 2. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decision that found the order invalid, ruling that limiting attempts to the admission test is a valid exercise of police power to ensure only qualified students enter the medical profession. 3. The Court also found that the rule did not violate equal protection or the right to education, as medical students can be subject to more stringent admission requirements given the responsibility of the profession in safeguarding public health.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    52 views2 pages

    DECS v. San Diego

    Uploaded by

    nelly casabuena
    1. The case involved Roberto Rey C. San Diego, who had failed the National Medical Admission Test (NMAT) five times and was denied permission to take it again based on a Department of Education order limiting students to three attempts. 2. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decision that found the order invalid, ruling that limiting attempts to the admission test is a valid exercise of police power to ensure only qualified students enter the medical profession. 3. The Court also found that the rule did not violate equal protection or the right to education, as medical students can be subject to more stringent admission requirements given the responsibility of the profession in safeguarding public health.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Department of Education Culture and Sports (DECS), et al. v. San Diego, et al.

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


    Topic: Educational Requirement -- NMAT
    FULL TEXT
    FACTS:

    1. The private respondent ROBERTO REY C. SAN DIEGO is a graduate of the University of the East with a degree
    of Bachelor of Science in Zoology.
    2. The petitioner DECS claims that he took the NMAT three times and flunked it as many times. (Endnotes: A check
    with the Department of Education showed that the private respondent had actually taken and flunked four tests
    already and was applying to take a fifth examination. He also failed this fifth test.)
    3. When he applied to take it again, the DECS rejected San Diego’s application on the basis of MECS Order No. 12,
    Series of 1972.
    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.
    4. Petioner then went to the RTC of Valenzuela, Metro Manila, to compel his admission to the test. He insists he
    can, on constitutional grounds.
    5. He invoked constitutional rights to academic freedom and quality education. The additional grounds raised were
    due process and equal protection.
    6. The respondent judge rendered a decision declaring the challenged order invalid and granting the petition. Judge
    Teresita Dizon-Capulong held that the petitioner had been deprived of his right to pursue a medical education
    through an arbitrary exercise of the police power.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not a person who has thrice failed the National Medical Admission Test (NMAT) is entitled to take it again.
    - NO

    RATIO:

    The decision of the respondent court is REVERSED.

    In Tablarin v. Gutierrez, this Court upheld the constitutionality of the NMAT as a measure intended to limit the
    admission to medical schools only to those who have initially proved their competence and preparation for a medical
    education. In the case at bar, respondent judge agreed with the petitioner that the said case was not applicable. Her
    reason was that it upheld only the requirement for the admission test and said nothing about the so-called "three-flunk
    rule." The issue raised in both cases is the academic preparation of the applicant. This may be gauged at least initially
    by the admission test and, indeed with more reliability, by the three-flunk rule. The latter cannot be regarded any less
    valid than the former in the regulation of the medical profession.

    It is the right and indeed the responsibility of the State to ensure that the medical profession is not infiltrated by
    incompetents to whom patients may unwarily entrust their lives and health. 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.

    On police power, requisites:

    Police power is validly exercised if (a) the interests of the public generally, as distinguished from those of a particular
    class, require the interference of the State, and (b) the means employed are reasonably necessary to the attainment
    of the object sought to be accomplished and not unduly oppressive upon individuals.

    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 ensure that the medical profession is not infiltrated by incompetents to whom patients
    may unwarily entrust their lives and health.

    While every person is entitled to aspire to be a doctor, he does not have a constitutional right to be a doctor. This is
    true of any other calling in which the public interest is involved; and the closer the link, the longer the bridge to one's
    ambition. The State has the responsibility to harness its human resources and to see to it that they are not dissipated
    or, no less worse, not used at all. These resources must be applied in a manner that will best promote the common
    good while also giving the individual a sense of satisfaction.
    On 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 equals. The
    Court feels that 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. The private respondent has failed the
    NMAT five times. While his persistence is noteworthy, to say the least, it is certainly misplaced, like a hopeless love.

    On the right to education; academic freedom:

    The right to quality education 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 SC held that the three-flunk rule is a valid exercise of police power. The decision of Judge Dizon-Capulong is
    overturned. Having flunked it three times, San Diego is barred from taking the NMAT again.

    You might also like