Case Summary (G.R. No. 89572)
Issue Presented
Whether MECS Order No. 12’s “three-flunk rule” — barring a student from taking the NMAT after three successive failures — is a valid exercise of state regulatory authority and consistent with constitutional protections (academic freedom, right to choose a profession subject to fair admission requirements, due process, and equal protection).
Court’s Reliance on Precedent and Regulatory Purpose
The Court applied the rationale articulated in Tablarin v. Gutierrez, which upheld the NMAT requirement as a means reasonably related to protecting public health and improving the professional and technical quality of medical school entrants. The Court viewed regulation of admission to the medical profession as a permissible method of ensuring that those authorized to practice medicine are competent, observing that admission standards are integral to protecting the public from dangerous incompetence.
Police Power Analysis and Standard of Review
The Court framed the issue under the police power rubric: regulation is valid if (a) it addresses interests of the public generally (not a particular class), and (b) the means employed are reasonably necessary and not unduly oppressive. The Court emphasized the dual requirements of a lawful subject and a lawful method. The subject — regulation of medical school admissions to protect patients’ health and safety — falls squarely within legitimate police power objectives.
Application to the Three‑Flunk Rule
The Court found the three-flunk rule to be a lawful and reasonable method related to the State’s stated objective of upgrading medical school entrants and preserving public health. The rule serves to insulate medical schools and the profession from repeated attempts by applicants who have demonstrated poor performance on the admission test. The Court rejected the notion that persistence alone creates a constitutional right to repeated attempts; while a person may aspire to the medical profession, there is no constitutional right to become a physician irrespective of demonstrated competence.
Right to Quality Education and Academic Freedom
The Court recognized that the right to quality education and the right to choose a profession are not absolute; they are subject to fair, reasonable, and equitable admission and academic requirements (as stated in Article XIV, Section 5(3)). The Court held that the private respondent could not claim an unfettered constitutional right to repeated admission testing once he had repeatedly failed an objective qualifying examination; qualification for access to medical education must be shown by adequate preparation and promise.
Equal Protection and Due Process Considerations
On equal protection, the Court observed that distinctions drawn by the rule (between medical applicants subject to NMAT and other students not regulated in the same way) are substantial and justifiable because the medical profession uniquely implicates public health and safety. The Court clarified that equal protection requires equality among equals; it does not demand identical treatment of materially different groups. The Court found no violation of equal protection nor an arbitrary deprivation under due process principles because the rule is rationally related to the governmental objective and not unduly oppressive.
Treatment of the Private Respondent’s Record
The Court noted factual records (footnotes) indicating the private respondent had actually taken and failed the NMAT multiple times (four or five times as per the Department’s check and subsequent events). While acknowledging the respondent’s persistence, the Court emphasized that repeated failures supported the reasonableness of the re
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 89572)
Citation and Composition of the Court
- Reported at 259 Phil. 1016, En Banc.
- G.R. No. 89572.
- Decision rendered December 21, 1989.
- Decision authored by Justice Cruz.
- Justices Fernan, C.J., Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez, Jr., Paras, Feliciano, Gancayco, Padilla, Bidin, Sarmiento, Cortes, Grino-Aquino, Medialdea, and Regalado, JJ., concurred.
Parties
- Petitioners: Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS) and Director of Center for Educational Measurement.
- Private Respondent: Roberto Rey C. San Diego.
- Judicial Respondent: Judge Teresita Dizon-Capulong, in her capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela, Metro Manila, Branch 172.
Central Issue Presented
- Whether a person who has thrice failed the National Medical Admission Test (NMAT) is entitled to take the NMAT again, i.e., whether the MECS rule limiting a student to three (3) chances to take the NMAT and barring a fourth attempt after three successive failures is valid and constitutional.
Relevant Regulatory Provision (Petitioner's Rule)
- The contested rule provides: "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."
- The rule is contained in MECS Order No. 12, Series of 1972 (as challenged) and is contextualized by MECS Order No. 52, s. 1985 in the Court's discussion of rationale.
Factual Background
- The private respondent, Roberto Rey C. San Diego, is a graduate of the University of the East with a Bachelor of Science degree in Zoology.
- The petitioner asserted that the private respondent had taken the NMAT three times and failed three times.
- Footnote clarification in the decision indicates that a check with the Department of Education showed the private respondent had actually taken and flunked four tests already and was applying to take a fifth examination (Footnote 1).
- 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 (original petition for mandamus) (Footnote 2).
- The private respondent also failed this fifth test (Footnote 2).
- The decision notes explicitly that the private respondent had failed the NMAT five times (text and Footnotes 1 & 2, summarized in Footnote 7).
Procedural History
- The private respondent filed an original petition for mandamus invoking constitutional rights to academic freedom and quality education.
- By agreement, he was permitted to take the April 16, 1989 NMAT pending the petition's resolution.
- With leave of court, an amended petition was filed, directly challenging the constitutionality of MECS Order No. 12, s. 1972 (the three-flunk rule), and adding grounds of due process and equal protection.
- The Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela, presided by Judge Teresita Dizon-Capulong, rendered a decision on July 4, 1989, declaring the challenged order invalid and granting the petition, on the ground that the petitioner had been deprived of his right to pursue a medical education through an arbitrary exercise of the police power.
- The Supreme Court reviewed the case en banc.
Lower Court Ruling (Respondent Judge)
- The respondent judge declared MECS Order No. 12, s. 1972 invalid and granted the petition for mandamus.
- The judge's ruling was based on a finding that the private respondent had been deprived of his right to pursue a medical education through an arbitrary exercise of the police power.
- The Supreme Court later notes the decision of the respondent court dated January 13, 1989, as the judgment being reversed (text contains both July 4, 1989 and January 13, 1989 references to the respondent court's disposition).
Supreme Court Disposition
- The petition for certiorari/mandamus (or related relief) is GRANTED.
- The decision of the respondent court is REVERSED, with costs against the private respondent.
- The Supreme Court ordered accordingly: "It is so ordered."
Controlling Legal Authorities Cited
- Tablarin v. Gutierrez, 152 SCRA 730: the Court relied on and applied the rationale in this case, which upheld the constitutionality of the NMAT as a measure to limit admission to medical schools to those who have demonstrated competence and preparation for medical education.
- Article XIV, Section 5(3)