[CASE DIGEST] 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.
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, CULTURE AND SPORTS (DECS) and DIRECTOR OF CENTER
FOR EDUCATIONAL MEASUREMENT vs ROBERTO REY C. SAN DIEGO and JUDGE TERESITA
DIZON-CAPULONG, in her capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of
Valenzuela, Metro Manila, Branch 172 Ponente: CRUZ, J.
FACTS:
 Private respondent Roberto San Diego is a graduate of University of the East and is an aspiring
medical student. He is said to take the NMAT or the National Medical Assessment Test which is
a nationwide competency test required to enter medical school.

 He took the said examination thrice and unfortunately failed as much.

 According to the provisions guiding the said examination, the examiner is only allowed to take
the examination thrice and would not be allowed to ever take the test again.

 After failing multiple times, he tried to contest his case so that the board would let him take
the test again arguing that it would be a violation of the three take rule.

 He took matters to court at the RTC of Valenzuela challenging that the said three-flunk rule is
a clear violation of his rights to due process and equal protection of his said rights.

 The case was ruled in favour of the respondent on the July 4, 1989 decision of the said court
with Judge Teresita Dizon-Capulong stating that the respondent had been deprived of his right
to pursue a medical education through an arbitrary exercise of the police power.

ISSUES:
1. Whether the three-flunk rule of the NMAT is a valid exercise of police power.

2. Whether prescribing the passing of NMAT as a condition for admission to medical school, as
a valid exercise of police power, violates the equal protection clause.

RULING
1. YES.

-The court had explained that in order for Police power could be validly exercise, it must satisfy
the following: (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.
-Furthermore, 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 which is the primary purpose of the national examination.

2. NO.

-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.

-Equal protection requires is equality among equals.

-The court had decided upon that it is not enough to simply invoke the right to quality
education as a guarantee of the Constitution: one must show that he is entitled to it because of
his preparation and promise. The private respondent has failed the NMAT five times. 7 While
his persistence is noteworthy, to say the least, it is certainly misplaced, like a hopeless love.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The decision of the respondent court dated January
13, 1989, is REVERSED, with costs against the private respondent.