Scribd
Upload
30 views

CRIM 2 Callanta Notes

The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of an order limiting applicants from taking a medical admission test more than three times if they failed it each time. The order was challenged by an applicant who had failed the test three times and was denied permission to retake it. The Court found that regulating medical education and admissions was within the valid exercise of the state's police power to protect public health and safety. While individuals have a right to pursue a medical education, they do not have a constitutional right to become a doctor if they fail to meet qualification standards. The three-fail limit was a reasonable method to ensure only qualified applicants could enter the medical profession.

Uploaded by

Andrea San Juan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
30 views

CRIM 2 Callanta Notes

The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of an order limiting applicants from taking a medical admission test more than three times if they failed it each time. The order was challenged by an applicant who had failed the test three times and was denied permission to retake it. The Court found that regulating medical education and admissions was within the valid exercise of the state's police power to protect public health and safety. While individuals have a right to pursue a medical education, they do not have a constitutional right to become a doctor if they fail to meet qualification standards. The three-fail limit was a reasonable method to ensure only qualified applicants could enter the medical profession.

Uploaded by

Andrea San Juan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

POLICE POWER

8. Department of Education, Culture and Sports v. San Diego


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

FACTS:

The private respondent is a graduate of the University of the East with a degree of Bachelor of Science in
Zoology. The petitioner claims that he took the National Medical Admission Test (NMAT) three times
and flunked it as many times.When he applied to take it again, petitioner Department of Education,
Culture and Sports (DECS) rejected his application on the basis of the three-flunk rule.

Private respondent then went to the Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela, Metro Manila , to compel his
admission to the test. In his original petition for mandamus, he first invoked his constitutional rights to
academic freedom and quality education. By agreement of the parties, the private respondent was allowed
to take the NMAT scheduled on April 16,1989, subject to the outcome of his petition. In an amended
petition filed with leave of court, he squarely challenged the constitutionality of MECS Order No. 12,
Series of 1972, containing the above-cited rule. The additional grounds raised were due process and equal
protection.

After hearing, the respondent judge rendered a decision on July 4,1989, declaring the challenged order
invalid and grating 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 the respondent had been deprived of his right to pursue a medical education through an
arbitrary exercise of the police power.

HELD:

No. The court held that the subject of the challenged regulation is certainly within the ambit of the police
power. In addition, 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.

Furthermore, 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.

The court emphasized that while every person is entitled to aspire to be a doctor, he does not have a
constitutional right to be a doctor.

To sum it up, the Court said that 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.

You might also like