DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, CULTURE AND SPORTS (DECS) v. SAN DIEGO (G.R. No. 89572) December 21, 1989

SECTION 13. The State recognizes the vital role of the youth in nation-building and shall promote and protect their physical, moral, spiritual, intellectual, and social well-being. It shall inculcate in the youth patriotism and nationalism, and encourage their involvement in public and civic affairs.

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, CULTURE AND SPORTS (DECS) v. SAN DIEGO (G.R. No. 89572)

December 21, 1989

Ponente: Cruz, J.

FACTS

Roberto Rey San Diego is a Zoology graduate of the University of the East who wanted to pursue medical studies. However, he had taken the NMAT for a total of three (3) times already and failed in each try. When he tried to take the NMAT the fourth time, his application was denied based on MECS Order No. 12, s. 1972, which institutionalized the three-flunk rule, or that any college graduate who has failed the NMAT for three times is no longer eligible to take it.

San Diego filed a petition before the RTC of Valenzuela to challenge the three-flunk rule, saying that the same was a violation of his academic freedom and his right to have quality education. In his amended petition, he said the rule was violative of due process and equal protection.

San Diego was allowed to take the NMAT a fourth time subject to the outcome of his petition.

Judge Teresita Dizon-Capulong of RTC Valenzuela granted his petition and declared the three-flunk rule invalid.

Hence, the instant petition by DECS.

RULING

• Whether the three-flunk rule is a legitimate exercise of police power. -- YES.
• Whether the three-flunk rule violates the constitutional guarantees of academic freedome, due process, and equal protection? -- NO.

The NMAT is a constitutionally sanctioned measure intended to limit the admission to medical schools only to those who have initially proved their competence and preparation for a medical education.

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 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:

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 insure 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.

On the right to education:

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.