Case Summary (G.R. No. 89572)
Facts
San Diego took and failed the National Medical Admission Test (NMAT) four times and applied for a fifth attempt. DECS denied his application pursuant to the “three-flunk rule.” He filed an original petition for mandamus in RTC Valenzuela, invoking his rights to academic freedom and quality education. By agreement, he was allowed to sit for the April 16, 1989 NMAT, which he also failed.
Procedural History
With leave of court, San Diego amended his petition to challenge the constitutionality of MECS Order No. 12 on grounds of due process, equal protection, and the constitutional right to choose a profession. On July 4, 1989, RTC Valenzuela declared the rule invalid as an arbitrary exercise of police power and granted the petition. DECS elevated the case to the Supreme Court.
Issue
Whether the “three-flunk rule” prohibiting a fourth NMAT attempt violates the Constitution’s guarantees of academic freedom, quality education, due process, and equal protection under the 1987 Philippine Constitution.
Applicable Law
1987 Philippine Constitution, Article XIV, Section 5(3): “Every citizen has the right to choose a profession or course of study, subject to fair, reasonable and equitable admission and academic requirements.”
Doctrine of Police Power: Regulations must (a) serve a genuine public interest distinct from any private class, and (b) employ means reasonably necessary and not unduly oppressive.
Analysis under Police Power
Admission to medical schools implicates public health and safety. The State’s authority to regulate medical practice extends to regulating entry into the profession. The “three-flunk rule” is a rational method to ensure that only those with demonstrated aptitude for rigorous medical training are admitted, thus safeguarding patients from potential harm due to unqualified practitioners. It is neither arbitrary nor unduly oppressive.
Application of Tablarin v. Gutierrez
In Tablarin v. Gutierrez (152 SCRA 730), this Court upheld the NMAT requirement as a legitimate exercise of police power. The rationale—that admission tests reasonably advance the State’s objective of protecting public health by screening candidates—applies equally to limiting repeat attempts. Both the NMAT and the three-flunk rule measure academic preparedness for medical education.
Due Process and Equal Protection
The rule accords with due process, as it bears a reasonable relation to its public
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 89572)
Procedural History
- Petition for mandamus filed by private respondent to compel DECS to admit him to the National Medical Admission Test (NMAT) after three successive failures
- By agreement, private respondent permitted to take the April 16, 1989 NMAT pending resolution of his petition
- Amended petition challenged constitutionality of MECS Order No. 12, Series of 1972 (the “three-flunk rule”), on grounds of academic freedom, quality education, due process, and equal protection
- RTC of Valenzuela, Branch 172 rendered decision (July 4, 1989) declaring the three-flunk rule invalid as an arbitrary exercise of police power and granted relief
Facts
- Private respondent holds a Bachelor of Science in Zoology from the University of the East
- He took the NMAT on four occasions and failed each time, then applied to take a fifth examination (and subsequently failed the fifth test)
- MECS Order No. 12, Series of 1972 provides that a student shall be allowed only three chances to take the NMAT, and after three successive failures shall not be allowed a fourth attempt
- Upon rejection of his application for a fourth attempt, private respondent sought judicial relief to vindicate his claimed constitutional rights
Issues
- Whether a person who has failed the NMAT three (or more) times has a constitutional right to a fourth attempt
- Whether the three-flunk rule violates:
• Academic freedom and the right to quality education under the Constitution
• Due process by depriving the private respondent of the opportunity to pursue medical education
• Equal protection by subjecting medical applicants to a