DECS vs.

SAN DIEGO

J. Cruz

The basic issue of the case is whether or not a person who failed the National
Medical Admission Test (NMAT) thrice, in violation of the ‘three-flunk rule’,
is entitled to take it again.

FACTS:

Roberto Rey C. San Diego is a graduate of the University of the East with a
degree of Bachelor of Science in Zoology. He took the NMAT THREE times and
flunked all of them [Court found that he actually failed FOUR times – a
‘misplaced persistence’ like a ‘hopeless love’]. When he applied for the FIFTH
time, the DECS and the Director of Center for Educational Measurement
rejected his application on the basis of the ‘three-flunk rule’:

MECS [Minister of Education, Culture and Sports] Order No. 12, Series of
1972:

‘A student shall be allowed only three (3) chances to take the NMAT. After three
(3) consecutive failures, a student shall not be allowed to take the NMAT for the
fourth time.’

San Diego went to the RTC to compel his admission to the test. Through a
petition for mandamus, he invoked his rights to academic freedom and quality
education. He also raised the issues of due process and equal protection. By
agreement of the parties, he was allowed to take the NMAT.

RTC declared the Order invalid because it deprived San Diego’s of his right to
pursue a medical education through an arbitrary exercise of police power.

‘Angles’ of the Case :

1. MECS Order No. 12 creating the ‘three-flunk rule’ is a valid exercise of

police power.

- In Tablarin v. Gutierrez, which upheld the constitutionality of the NMAR in

limiting the admission to medical schools to those that initially proved their
competence and preparation for a medical school, Justice Florentino Feliciano
raised the following point:

- The test is the reasonable relation between the lawful method, which is
prescribing the passing of the NMAR as condition for admission to medical
schools, and the lawful subject – the securing of the health and safety of the
general community.
- The regulation of the practice of medicine in all its branches has long been
recognized as a reasonable method of protecting the health and safety of the
public.

- The power to regulate and control the practice of medicine includes also
covers the admission to the practice.

- For MECS Order No. 52, s. 1985, the lawful subject is the improvement of
the professional and technical quality of the graduates of medical schools by
upgrading through selectivity in the process of admission like limiting
admission to those who passed the NMAT (lawful method).

- Furthermore, the use of admission tests is widely used in the United States
(Medical College Admission Test) and in other countries with more educational
resources than that of the Philippines.

- Ultimately, the measure contributes to the protection of the public from the
potentially deadly effects of incompetence and ignorance that could infiltrate
the medical profession.

- Test for the valid exercise police power involves the concurrence between:

a. the interest of the of public generally, as distinguished from those of a

particular class, require the interference of the State;

b. the means employed are reasonably necessary to the attainment of the

object sought to be accomplished and not unduly oppressive upon individuals.

2. Right to quality education is not absolute

- While every person is entitled to aspire to be a doctor, he does not have a

constitutional right to be a doctor... A person cannot insist on being a
physician if he will be a menace to his patients. If one who want to be a lawyer

Batch 2008A. 42
may prove better a plumber, he should be so advised and advised.

- San Diego must yield to the rule and the fact that there are other people who
are more prepared than him, considering the crowded medical schools that we
have today.

3. The order does not violate the equal protection clause

- A law does not have to operate with equal force on all persons or things.
There are substantial distinctions between medical students and other
students who are not required to take the NMAT and not subjected to the
three-flunk rule. The medical profession have a delicate responsibility
towards society that warrants a different treatment towards them.

Holding: The three-flunk rule is a valid exercise of police power. Court said
that San Diego’s intellectual capacity is not ‘depreciated’, rather, he may be
meant for another calling. The rule is intended to avoid a nation of misfits –
square pegs trying to fit into round holds.

The decision of the RTC declaring MECS Order No. 12 invalid is reversed.