You are on page 1of 9

EN BANC parties, the private respondent was allowed to take the NMAT scheduled

on April 16, 1989, subject to the outcome of his petition. 2 In an amended
G.R. No. 89572 December 21, 1989 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.
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, CULTURE AND SPORTS (DECS)
and DIRECTOR OF CENTER FOR EDUCATIONAL
MEASUREMENT, petitioners, After hearing, the respondent judge rendered a decision on July 4, 1989,
vs. declaring the challenged order invalid and granting the petition. Judge
ROBERTO REY C. SAN DIEGO and JUDGE TERESITA DIZON- Teresita Dizon-Capulong held that the petitioner had been deprived of his
CAPULONG, in her capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional right to pursue a medical education through an arbitrary exercise of the
Trial Court of Valenzuela, Metro Manila, Branch 172, respondents. police power. 3

Ramon M. Guevara for private respondent. We cannot sustain the respondent judge. Her decision must be reversed.

In Tablarin v. Gutierrez, 4 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
CRUZ, J.: medical education. Justice Florentino P. Feliciano declared for a unanimous
Court:
The issue before us is mediocrity. The question is whether a person who
has thrice failed the National Medical Admission Test (NMAT) is entitled Perhaps the only issue that needs some consideration is
to take it again. whether there is some reasonable relation between the
prescribing of passing the NMAT as a condition for
The petitioner contends he may not, under its rule that- admission to medical school on the one hand, and the
securing of the health and safety of the general
h) A student shall be allowed only three (3) chances to community, on the other hand. This question is perhaps
take the NMAT. After three (3) successive failures, a most usefully approached by recalling that the regulation
student shall not be allowed to take the NMAT for the of the pratice of medicine in all its branches has long
fourth time. been recognized as a reasonable method of protecting
the health and safety of the public. That the power to
The private respondent insists he can, on constitutional grounds. regulate and control the practice of medicine includes the
power to regulate admission to the ranks of those
But first the facts. authorized to practice medicine, is also well recognized.
Thus, legislation and administrative regulations requiring
those who wish to practice medicine first to take and pass
The private respondent is a graduate of the University of the East with a
medical board examinations have long ago been
degree of Bachelor of Science in Zoology. The petitioner claims that he
recognized as valid exercises of governmental power.
took the NMAT three times and flunked it as many times. 1 When he
applied to take it again, the petitioner rejected his application on the basis of
Similarly, the establishment of minimum medical
the aforesaid rule. He then went to the Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela, educational requirements-i.e., the completion of
Metro Manila, to compel his admission to the test. prescribed courses in a recognized medical school-for
admission to the medical profession, has also been
sustained as a legitimate exercise of the regulatory
In his original petition for mandamus, he first invoked his constitutional
authority of the state. What we have before us in the
rights to academic freedom and quality education. By agreement of the
instant case is closely related: the regulation of access to

in the current state of our social and economic development. That upgrading is sought by selectivity in public generally. This is true of any other calling in attempt to prove otherwise. however appropriate this career may be for others. stated objective of "upgrading the selection of applicants into [our] medical schools" and of "improv[ing] the quality The method employed by the challenged regulation is not irrelevant to of medical education in the country. The subject of the challenged regulation is certainly within the ambit of the police power. These resources must be applied in a manner from the potentially deadly effects of incompetence and that will best promote the common good while also giving the individual a ignorance in those who would undertake to treat our sense of satisfaction. we are entitled to hold that which the public interest is involved. case was not applicable. a student who has demonstrated promise as a pianist cannot be shunted aside to take a course in nursing. absolute." bar. high standards in our In other words. not used at all. medical schools. is the protection of the public less worse. by the three-flunk rule. That its human resources and to see to it that they are not dissipated or. are widely known. indeed with more reliability." Given the the purpose of the law nor is it arbitrary or oppressive. require the process of admission. (the Medical College Admission Test [MCAT] and quite probably. he does not have account the failure or inability of the petitioners to even a constitutional right to be a doctor. The need to maintain. Suffice it quality of those admitted to the student body of the to repeat that the power is validly exercised if (a) the interests of the medical schools. as noted The latter cannot be regarded any less valid than the former in the earlier. he may not be forced to requirement for the admission test and said nothing about the so-called be a plumber. of limiting admission to those who exhibit in necessary to the attainment of the object sought to be accomplished and the required degree the aptitude for medical studies and not unduly oppressive upon individuals. and taking into While every person is entitled to aspire to be a doctor. 1985. If one who wants to be a lawyer may prove better as a plumber. the longer the NMAT is reasonably related to the securing of the the bridge to one's ambition. The Constitution also provides that "every citizen has the right . This may be gauged at least initially by the The right to quality education invoked by the private respondent is not admission test and. it is useful to recall. and (b) the means employed are reasonably other things. and medical schools in concurrence of a lawful subject and a lawful method. We see no reason why the rationale in the Tablarin case cannot apply to the case at bar. but on the other hand he may not force his entry into the "three-flunk rule. Of course. medical schools in the United States of America profession from the intrusion of those not qualified to be doctors. for rule is intended to insulate the medical schools and ultimately the medical instance. bodies and minds for disease or trauma. and the closer the link. among the interference of the State. and the difficulties of maintaining. s. as distinguished from those of a particular class. particular. in other countries with far more developed educational resources than our own. MECS Order No. the proper exercise of the police power requires the professional schools in general. The issue raised in both cases is the academic preparation of the applicant. the respondent judge agreed with the petitioner that the said patients. The State has the responsibility to harness ultimate end of legislation and regulation in this area. The three-flunk widespread use today of such admission tests in. By the same token. A person cannot insist on being a physician if he will be a menace to his However. no end. articulates the rationale of regulation of this type: regulation of the medical profession. 52. 5 eventually for medical practice. the improvement of the professional and technical quality of the graduates of medical schools. selectivity consisting. by upgrading the There is no need to redefine here the police power of the State. Her reason was that it upheld only the he should be so advised and adviced. It is the right and indeed the responsibility of the State We believe that the government is entitled to prescribe an to insure that the medical profession is not infiltrated by incompetents to admission test like the NMAT as a means of achieving its whom patients may unwarily entrust their lives and health.

the petition is GRANTED. with costs against the and the three-flunk rule. It is for the appropriate calling that he is entitled to quality education for the full 6 Footnote Nos. belonging to an equally respectable profession. unlike other careers which. not for the medical profession. on all persons or things to be conformable to Article III. have been tested and found wanting. In other words. misfits." in the words of Justice Holmes. like him. entitled to it because of his preparation and promise. to say the least. There would be unequal protection if some applicants who have passed the tests are admitted and others who have also qualified are denied Footnotes entrance. is more likely to succeed and may even be outstanding. . for this reason. It is stressed that a person who does not qualify in the NMAT is not an absolute incompetent unfit for any work or occupation. Gutierrez. pp. Intermediate Appellate Court. 85. like a hopeless love. 6 toward what may even be a brilliant future. 21 is that he is a probably better. lives of the people. does not hold the same Gancayco. The private respondent must yield to the challenged rule and give way to We cannot have a society of square pegs in round holes. concur.J. Medialdea delicate responsibility as that of the physician and so need not be and Regalado. 15 Phil. Sarmiento. Padilla. SCRA 659. 26-34. A law does not have to operate with equal force we may be "swamped with mediocrity. The accountant. it is certainly misplaced. It is so ordered. there is all banking and teachers who could be better as merchants. It is time indeed that the State took decisive steps to regulate and enrich our system of education by directing the student to the course for which The contention that the challenged rule violates the equal protection he is best suited as determined by initial tests and evaluations. The private respondent has failed the NMAT five times. Cortes. Section 5(3). Toribio.. for example. Fabie v. 1 A check with the Department of Education showed that the private respondent had actually taken and flunked The Court feels that it is not enough to simply invoke the right to quality four tests already and was applying to take a fifth education as a guarantee of the Constitution: one must show that he is examination. he 5 Article XIV. similarly treated. 486. noteworthy. Paras. Griño-Aquino. of dentists who those better prepared. There can be no question that a substantial distinction exists between WHEREFORE. The decision of the respondent medical students and other students who are not subjected to the NMAT court dated January 13. Otherwise. Feliciano. 2 He also failed this fifth test. Ynot v. The medical profession directly affects the very private respondent. JJ. while Fernan.to choose a profession or course of study. do not require more vigilant regulation. 7 While his persistence is 2 Rollo. In the former. Narvasa Melencio-Herrera. City of Manila. 1 & 2. No depreciation is intended or made against the private respondent. is REVERSED. 3 152 SCRA 730. what the equal protection requires is equality among equals. but for Phil. Bidin.. subject to fair. Section 1 of the not because we are lacking in intelligence but because we are a nation of Constitution. clause is not well-taken. Jr. reasonable and harnessing of his potentials and the sharpening of his latent talents equitable admission and academic requirements. the more reason to bar those who. C. The only inference 4 US vs.. Where even those who have qualified may still not should never have left the farm and engineers who should have studied be accommodated in our already crowded medical schools. 1989. in the latter. 148 another calling that has not excited his interest. he may be a bungler or at least lackluster.

as amended by Republic Acts Nos. and (c) the Judge of Branch XXXVII of the Regional Trial Court of the National supervision. (g) a representative of the Council required by the Board of Medical Education. (d) the Chairman of the The petitioners sought admission into colleges or schools of medicine for Medical Board or his duly authorized representative. 2382. and MECS Order No. University of the Philippines. (e) a representative the school year 1987-1988. respondents. the trial court denied said petition on 20 April 1987. National Capital Judicial Region. in their behalf and in behalf of applicants known as the "Medical Act of 1959" defines its basic objectives in the for admission into the Medical Colleges during the school year following manner: 1987-88 and future years who have not taken or successfully hurdled tile National Medical Admission Test (NMAT). the Board of Medical Education specified in Section 5 of the statute include the following: On 5 March 1987. (Underscoring supplied) SECRETARY LOURDES QUISUMBING. created a Board of Medical Education EDUCATIONAL MEASUREMENT (CEM). which is composed of (a) the Secretary of Education. operating and delivery rooms. 1987 for issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction. appliances. Republic Act 2382. (b) the Secretary of FELICIANO. (c) the Director of Higher Education or his duly authorized representative. J. After hearing on the petition for issuance of preliminary injunction. the Center for Association of Philippine Medical Colleges. as Chairman. Section 1. equipment and supplies. . a Petition for Declaratory Judgment and (a) To determine and prescribe equirements for admission into a Prohibition with a prayer for Temporary Restraining Order and recognized college of medicine. (f) the Dean of the College of or did not successfully take the National Medical Admission Test (NMAT) Medicine. MA. and others. LUZ CIRIACO. THE HONORABLE the Philippines. in her capacity as Chairman of the BOARD OF MEDICAL EDUCATION. apparatus. including student- teachers ratio. 4224 and 5946. Culture and Sports. minimum qualifications of teaching personnel. as amended.: Health or his duly authorized representative. and THE CENTER FOR The statute. from proceeding with accepting applications for taking the services. laboratories. Preliminary Injunction. of Republic Act No. control and regulation of the practice of medicine in Capital Judicial Region with seat at Manila. series including hospitals. Objectives. No. MA NIMFA B.R. dated 23 August 1985 and from requiring the taking and passing instruments. The petitioners sought to enjoin the Secretary of Education. the petitioners filed with the Regional Trial Court. bed capacity for instruction of the NMAT as a condition for securing certificates of eligibility for purposes. the Board of Medical Education and the (b) To determine and prescribe requirements for minimum Center for Educational Measurement from enforcing Section 5 (a) and (f) physical facilities of colleges of medicine. The functions of Educational Measurement (CEM). 78164 July 31. EN BANC Petitioners accordingly filed this Special Civil Action for certiorari with this Court to set aside the Order of the respondent judge denying the petition G. EVANGELINA S. — This Act provides for and shall govern vs. Presiding the examination for registration of physicians. and administered by the private respondent. as members. ROVIRA. The NMAT (c) To determine and prescribe the minimum number and was conducted and administered as previously scheduled. among other things. 52. and in the future.petitioners. TERESITA TABLARIN. one of the public of Deans of Philippine Medical Schools. facilities for outpatient admission. GUTIERREZ. However. Culture and Sports or his duly authorized representative. (a) the standardization and regulation of medical education (b) THE HONORABLE JUDGE ANGELINA S. to wit: buildings. used for didactic and practical instruction in NMAT and from administering the NMAT as scheduled on 26 April 1987 accordance with modern trends. of 1985. LABAO. the petitioners either did not take of the Philippine Medical Association. and (h) a representative of the respondents.

Such an experimental curriculum may school year 1986-1987. determine and approve hospitals or some existing rules. Culture and Sports and dated 23 August 1985. (b) hereof. Provided. and (d) birth certificate. This Order goes on to state that: prescribe admission and graduation requirements other than those prescribed in this Act. leading to the degree of Doctor of Medicine. successful applicants. and 3. is considered as an instrument students shall be enrolled in the experimental curriculum. established a uniform admission test called the National Medical Admission Test (NMAT) as an (e) To authorize the implementation of experimental medical additional requirement for issuance of a certificate of eligibility for curriculum in a medical school that has exceptional faculty and admission into medical schools of the Philippines. beginning the school year. s. shall and to collect from said applicants the amount of twenty-five be determined every year by the Board of Medical Education after pesos each which shall accrue to the operating fund of the Board consultation with the Association of Philippine Medical of Medical Education. respondent Center entrance requirements that may be deemed admissible. toward upgrading the selection of applicants for admission into the medical schools and its calculated to improve the quality of (f) To accept applications for certification for admission to a medical education in the country. 1985. — The medical college may admit any student who has not been convicted by any court of competent 8. (c) a under this Order. s. (Underscoring supplied) certificate of good moral character issued by two former professors in the college of liberal arts. Section 7 prescribes certain minimum requirements for applicants to medical schools: xxx xxx xxx Admission requirements. each medical college may give other tests for and regulations for the proper implementation of the foregoing applicants who have been issued a corresponding certificate of functions. 1avv phi1 xxx xxx x x x (Emphasis supplied) Petitioners raise the question of whether or not a writ of preliminary injunction may be issued to enjoin the enforcement of Section 5 (a) and (f) . the private respondent Center Nothing in this act shall be construed to inhibit any college of conducted NMATs for entrance to medical colleges during the school medicine from establishing. conducted the NMATs for admission to medical colleges during the school year 1987. 1985. in addition to the preceding. (d) To determine and prescribe the minimum required curriculum MECS Order No. That only exceptional 2. (b) a certificate of eligibility for entrance to a 1986-87. without the required NMAT qualification as called for medical school from the Board of Medical Education. The cutoff score for the medical school and keep a register of those issued said certificate. or admitted for enrollment as first presents (a) a record of completion of a bachelor's degree in year student in any medical college. beginning with the instrumental facilities. science or arts. an aptitude test. shall serve as a basis for the issuance of the departments of the hospitals for training which comply with the prescribed certificate of elegibility for admission into the medical minimum specific physical facilities as provided in subparagraph colleges.1988. (Emphasis supplied) eligibility for admission that will yield information on other aspects of the applicant's personality to complement the information derived from the NMAT. issued by the then Minister of Education. other year 1986-1987. Pursuant to MECS Order No. The NMAT. In December 1986 and in April 1987. together with the other admission requirements as presently called for under (g) To select. The NMAT rating of each applicant. No applicant shall be issued the requisite Certificate of jurisdiction of any offense involving moral turpitude and who Eligibility for Admission (CEA). 52. 52. based on the scores on the NMAT. Subject to the prior approval of the Board of Medical (h) To promulgate and prescribe and enforce the necessary rules Education. Colleges.

reasonable and equitable admission and academic requirements. and MECS Order No. in the mind of the judge. The State is not really enjoined to take appropriate inculcate in the youth patriotism and nationalism. and encourage steps to make quality education " accessible to all who might for any their involvement in public and civic affairs. Justice Laurel stressed this point 47 years ago in Pangasinan Article II of the 1987 Constitution sets forth in its second half certain Transportation Co. Mr. intellectual and social well being.of Republic Act No. The fundamental issue is of course the constitutionality of the have not made their case. the presumption of descriptive of basic policies. 1985. Section 17: "The State shall give priority to education. Section 5 (3): "Every citizen has a right to select a circumspection in respect of statutes which like the Medical Act of 1959. petitioners had made the argument that Section 5 (a) promote total human liberation and development. Section l3: "The State recognizes the vital role of the Section 1 in relation to Section 5 (3) of Article XIV as one must one youth in nation building and shall promote and protect their cannot but note that the latter phrase of Section 1 is not to be read with physical. They have not. " the more fundamental rule of the separation and allocation of powers among the three great departments of government. spiritual. is apparent in the development of the what extent or in what manner the statute and the administrative order principle of separation of powers and that is that the maxim they assail collide with the State policies embodied in Sections 11. and 17. as amended. This burden is heavy enough where the and administrative order. Section l: "The State shall protect and promote the the delegate. The petitioners sought. subject to fair. as the second portion of Article II is cast. profession or course of study. which are. of the 1987 Constitution. It scarcely needs documentation that a court would issue a writ of in character and cast in behavioral or operational terms. even a prima facie case. however.. 2382. 13 of delegatus non potest delegare or delegate potestas non potest . The provisions invoked read as follows: once more petitioners have failed to demonstrate that the statute and regulation they assail in fact clash with that provision. in other words. s. " and (f) of Republic Act No. violated by the continued implementation of Section 5 (a) and (f) of Republic Act 2381. 2382. nature. The Public Service Commission:2 "State policies" which the government is enjoined to pursue and promote. Inc. by failing to establish the necessary standard to be followed by (d) Article XIV. as amended. rather than abstract. which both flows from the reinforces appropriate steps to make such education accessible to all. 52. we note that Order No. " (c) Article II. moral. of basic objectives of constitutionality. culture and sports to foster patriotism and nationalism. The general principle of right of all citizens to quality education at all levels and take non-delegation of legislative power. When one reads (b) ArticleII." number of reasons wish to enroll in a professional school but rather merely to make such education accessible to all who qualify under "fair. Section 1. The petitioners invoke a number of provisions of the 1987 Constitution provisions pointed to by the petitioners. " regulation which petitioners attack are in fact designed to promote "quality education" at the level of professional schools. In the trial court. and MECS Turning to Article XIV. aside from showing a clear legal right to the remedy State policy and therefore highly generalized in tenor. arts. That burden of preliminary injunction only when the petitioner assailing a statute or proof becomes of necessity heavier where the constitutional provision administrative order has made out a case of unconstitutionality strong invoked is cast. offend against the constitutional principle which forbids the undue delegation of legislative power. reasonable and deal with subjects as obviously complex and technical as medical equitable admission and academic requirements.1must be applied with (e) Article XIV. and we are not statute or order assailed. The petitioners here have not seriously undertaken to demonstrate to One thing. accelerate social progress and to 2. in their assertion. On the contrary we (a) Article 11. the Board of Medical Education. or more precisely. science and technology. 52." education and the practice of medicine in our present day world. 1985. It shall absolute literalness. We regard this issue as entirely peripheral in constitutional provision invoked is relatively specific. as amended. s. compelled to speculate and to imagine how the legislation and regulation impugned as unconstitutional could possibly offend the constitutional 1. in language enough to overcome. Section 11: "The state values the dignity of every may note-in anticipation of discussion infra — that the statute and the human person and guarantees full respect of human rights. vs. discharged the burden of proof pending resolution of the issue of constitutionality of the assailed statute which lies upon them.

167) but which is also recognized in principle in the Roman questions of the desirability or wisdom or utility of legislation or Law (d." not only in the United States and England but in practically all There is another reason why the petitioners' arguments must fail: the modern governments." 3 health and physical safety and well being of the population. public or private. safety of the public. s. authority of the state.e. by upgrading the quality of those admitted NMAT is an unnecessary requirement when added on top of the to the student body of the medical schools. with the growing complexity of the mind of the Court. the establishment of minimum medical educational of the statute itself.3) has been made to adapt itself to the administrative regulation.7 making authority by an administrative agency like the Board of Medical Education are necessarily broad and highly abstract." They appear to suggest that passing the graduates of medical schools. articulates the rationale of regulation of specify just what factors or features of the NMAT render it "unfair" and this type: the improvement of the professional and technical quality of the "unreasonable" or "inequitable. and the The standard may be either expressed or implied. This question is perhaps most usefully approached by recalling does not have to be spelled out specifically. If the former. 52.9 Similarly. The petitioners also urge that the NMAT prescribed in MECS Order No. But constitutionality is essentially a question of power or Anglia edited by G. among other and other admission requirements established by internal regulations of things.E. Woodbine. Again. 17. recognized medical school — for admission to the medical profession. authority: this Court has neither commission or competence to pass upon 2. Yale University Press.18. The appear to relate to utility and wisdom or desirability of the NMAT need to maintain. petitioners have failed to No. as noted earlier. p. In been recognized as a reasonable method of protecting the health and the Reflector Law. selectivity consisting. The standard though hand. Ericta4 — some reasonable relation between the prescribing of passing the NMAT as a condition for admission to medical school on the one hand. it is commonplace learning. 1939]. the body power. That upgrading is sought by admission requirements set out in Section 7 of the Medical Act of 1959. is also well recognized.6 An important component of that public order is the the practice by the courts. waivable power and authority of the sovereign to secure and promote an there is a constantly growing tendency toward the delegation of the important interests and needs — in a word. 1922. has also been sustained as a legitimate exercise of the regulatory 3. As explained by Perhaps the only issue that needs some consideration is whether there is then Mr. Those questions must be address to the complexities of modern government. thus. is an "unfair. selectivity in the process of admission. (People vs. securing of the health and safety of the general community. modern life. is the pervasive and non- regulation and the increased difficulty of administering the laws. of limiting admission to those who exhibit in the required degree the various medical schools.8 That the power to regulate and control the practice What is sought to be attained as in Calalang v. and the difficulties of maintaining. high standards in our . and toward the approval of general community. Justice Fernando in Edu v.10What we have before us in the instant case is 52. MECS Order which results in a denial of due process. s. to Phil. Accordingly. on the other the non-delegation objection is easily met. legislation and administrative regulations requiring those who wish to We believe and so hold that the necessary standards are set forth in practice medicine first to take and pass medical board examinations have Section 1 of the 1959 Medical Act: "the standardization and regulation of long ago been recognized as valid exercises of governmental medical education" and in Section 5 (a) and 7 of the same Act. political departments of the government not to the courts. a valid exercise of the police power of the state. the public order — of the greater power by the legislature. delegare. adopted this practice (Delegibus et Consuetudiniis requirement. giving rise to the adoption." closely related: the regulation of access to medical schools. Williams is "safe of medicine includes the power to regulate admission to the ranks of transit upon the roads. 1985. 318. the securing of which no one can deny is a legitimate objective of governmental effort The standards set for subordinate legislation in the exercise of rule and regulation. It could be implied that the regulation of the practice of medicine in all its branches has long from the policy and purpose of the act considered as a whole. Vol. unreasonable and inequitable requirement.. and that these considered together are sufficient requirements — i. 5 those authorized to practice medicine. 1985. Rosenthal and Osmena [68 legislative and administrative provisions impugned by them constitute. the completion of prescribed courses in a compliance with the requirements of the non-delegation principle. the multiplication of the subjects of governmental The police power. Petitioners arguments thus the aptitude for medical studies and eventually for medical practice. clearly the legislative objective is public safety. within certain limits of the principle of "subordinate legislation.

places available in medical schools during the current year. That end." International Hardwood v. Bidin. Yap. The above language in MECS Order No.. Costs against petitioners." The force of Justice Fernando dropped a useful footnote of the following tenor: this argument is more apparent than real. at 229.. More specifically. and taking into account the failure or inability of the petitioners to even attempt to prove otherwise. the quality of medical education in the country. Fernan." Rubi v. Thus. do not constitute an unconstitutional imposition. Jr. underscoring supplied. are discriminated against and 535 SCRA. the Petition for certiorari is DISMISSED and the Order of United States of America (the Medical College Admission Test the respondent trial court denying the petition for a writ of preliminary [MCAT]11 and quite probably in other countries with far more developed injunction is AFFIRMED.. 15 SCRA 569 (1965). the appropriate cutoff score for a given year "public welfare. circumstances as they change. 65 Phil. scores on the NMAT." Given the widespread use today of such admission tests in.. may be a function of such factors as the number of students who have 36 Phil. 328 (1939). that students seeking admission during a given school year. 1985. the level of difficulty of the test and "justice and equity and substantial merits of the given during the current year. Auditor the cutoff score for the successful applicants. the average "public interest. underscoring supplied.g. Vera.J.. " to year. e.g. Different cutoff scores for different school years may be dictated by differing conditions obtaining "This Court has considered as sufficient standards. Petitioners have contended. (Emphasis supplied) 3 70 Phil. Pangil Federation of immutable cutoff score regardless of changes in circumstances from year Labor. medical schools in the WHEREFORE. Padilla. entitled to hold that the NMAT is reasonably related to the securing of the ultimate end of legislation and regulation in this area. infringes the requirements of equal protection. in other words. the number of order. at 497. 1987-1988. Mr. 68 Phil. we are SO ORDERED. and so forth. We believe that the government is entitled to prescribe an admission test We conclude that prescribing the NMAT and requiring certain minimum like the NMAT as a means for achieving its stated objective of "upgrading scores therein as a condition for admission to medical schools in the the selection of applicants into [our] medical schools" and of "improv[ing] Philippines. finally. that this renders the MECS Order "arbitrary and capricious. when subjected to a different cutoff score than that established for an. score attained during the current year. Melencio-Herrera. useful to recall. petitioners assert that that portion of the MECS Order which Footnotes provides that 1See People v. Gancayco. Rosenthal. shall be determined every-year by the Board of Medical 11 Education after consultation with the 2 70 Phil. 39 Phil. effects of incompetence and ignorance in those who would undertake to treat our bodies and minds for disease or trauma. is in conflict with the equal protection clause of the Constitution.professional schools in general. Paras. concur. 602 (1940). 52. Narvasa. Provincial Board. They assert. Association of Philippine Medical Colleges. s. in the Board of Medical Education with the measure of flexibility needed to meet current stage of our social and economic development." People v. 52. 221 (1940). Binangonan. 70 Phil." Municipality of Cardona v. is the protection of the public from the potentially deadly Cruz. educational resources than our own. 4. for instance. 56 (1937) and Pelaez v. Sarmiento and Cortes. based on the general. JJ. earlier school year. Gutierrez.. 660 (1919). leaves the . C. during those years. and medical schools in particular. far from being arbitrary or capricious. are widely known. that MECS Order No. e. To establish a permanent and case. At this point. 4 35 SCRA 481 (1970). "necessary in the interest of law and reached the cutoff score established the preceding year. may wen result in an unreasonable rigidity. it is Teehankee. 547 (I 917).

829. Witte. 431. 50 Phil.Ed. 112 Jowa 466. Texas. 347 US 442. McDonald v. while the making of laws is a non-delegable activity that corresponds exclusively to Congress." (101 Phil. 439. 9 SCt. West Virginia. 101 Phil. Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners v. Inc. 256 (1913). 399 A2d 1160 (1979). v. 9Dent v. 707 (1979). 223 US 288. 623. 129 US 114.Ed. 11See. U. 32 L.G. Case v.. All that is required is that the regulation should be germane to the objects and purposes of the law. 74 SCT.84 NW 532 (1900).B. et al. 2d. for the reason that the legislature often finds it imprac ticable (if not impossible) to anticipate and provide for the multifarious and complex situations that may be met in carrying the law into effect. et al.. 85 (1910). 1125 (1957). 1.. 24 Phil. Bair. nevertheless. 650 (1954). Toribio. Beatty. Mr.G. People vs.Ed. 7E. 146 NE 178 (1925) and Lorenzo v. 98 L. 761 (1951) and Reisinger v.. Mutuc.S. 595 (1927)." that the regulation be not in contradiction with it. People v. 20 SCRA 849 (1967) and Morfe v. 10 Collins v. 6E. 286 (1912). L. 131 NE 809. the latter may constitutionally delegate authority and promulgate rules and regulations to implement a given legislation and effectuate its policies. Board of Regents. Love. Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Association. . 92 Wash. 55 So2d. Justice J.. Com.g. 298 Ill 304. Reyes said: "It is well established in this jurisdiction that. but conform to the standards that the law prescribes-. Hogness. Mayor of Manila. v. 598 P. Director of Health. underscoring supplied). 32 SCt. 16 ALR 703 (1921). e. 231 (1889). State Board of Medical Education and Licensure. 22 SCRA 424 (1968). Exconde. In People v. 220 La. 56 L. 8Barsky v. at 1129. Board of Health.. State v. 15 Phil.