DECS v San Diego FACTS: Roberto Rey San Diego, the private respondent is a graduate of the University of the East with a degree of Bachelor of Science in Zoology. The petitioner claims that he took the NMAT three times and flunked it as many times. ISSUE: Petition whether the private respondent who has thrice failed the National Medical Admission Test (NMAT) is entitled to take it again as it is a requirement for admission to any Medical School in the Philippines. He invoked of his constitutional rights to academic freedom and quality education, squarely challenging the constitutionality of MECS Order No. 12, Series of 1972. HELD: The private respondent cannot take the NMAT again and pursue his medical profession because of the following grounds: 1. For the purpose of gauging at least initially by the admission test and by the three-flunk rule, a student shall not be allowed to take the NMAT again after three successive failures. 2. The State ensures that medical profession is not permeated by incompetents to whom patients may unwarily hand over their lives and health. 3. It is not enough to simply invoke the right to quality education as a guarantee of the Constitution, while one has the right to aspire to be a doctor, he does not have the constitutional right to be a doctor; one must show that he is entitled to it because of his preparation and promise. 4. The conflict that the challenged rule violates the equal protection clause is not well-taken. Conformable to Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution, a law does not have to operate with equal force on all person or things.

DECS v San Diego

Download DOC Report

Upload
lilisha
View
586
Download
2

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

DECS v San Diego

FACTS: Roberto Rey San Diego, the private respondent is a graduate of the University of the East with a degree of Bachelor of Science in Zoology. The petitioner claims that he took the NMAT three times and flunked it as many times.

ISSUE:Petition whether the private respondent who has thrice failed the National Medical Admission Test (NMAT) is entitled to take it again as it is a requirement for admission to any Medical School in the Philippines. He invoked of his constitutional rights to academic freedom and quality education, squarely challenging the constitutionality of MECS Order No. 12, Series of 1972.

HELD: The private respondent cannot take the NMAT again and pursue his medical profession because of the following grounds:

1. For the purpose of gauging at least initially by the admission test and by the three-flunk rule, a student shall not be allowed to take the NMAT again after three successive failures.

2. The State ensures that medical profession is not permeated by incompetents to whom patients may unwarily hand over their lives and health.

3. It is not enough to simply invoke the right to quality education as a guarantee of the Constitution, while one has the right to aspire to be a doctor, he does not have the constitutional right to be a doctor; one must show that he is entitled to it because of his preparation and promise.

4. The conflict that the challenged rule violates the equal protection clause is not well-taken. Conformable to Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution, a law does not have to operate with equal force on all person or things.