1.

PRC v. DE GUZMAN

FACTS: The respondents are all graduates of the Fatima College of Medicine, Valenzuela City, Metro Manila. They passed the Physician Licensure Examination conducted in February 1993 by the Board of Medicine (Board). Petitioner Professional Regulation Commission (PRC) then released their names as successful examinees in the medical licensure examination. Shortly thereafter, the Board observed that the grades of the seventy-nine successful examinees from Fatima College in the two most difficult subjects in the medical licensure exam, Biochemistry (Bio-Chem) and Obstetrics and Gynecology (OB-Gyne), were unusually and exceptionally high. Eleven Fatima examinees scored 100% in Bio-Chem and ten got 100% in OB-Gyne, another eleven got 99% in Bio-Chem, and twentyone scored 99% in OB-Gyne. For its part, the NBI found that the questionable passing rate of Fatima examinees in the [1993] Physician Examination leads to the conclusion that the Fatima examinees gained early access to the test questions. ISSUE: Was the act pursuant to R.A. 2382 a valid exercise of police power RULING: Yes, it is true that this Court has upheld the constitutional right of every citizen to select a profession or course of study subject to a fair, reasonable, and equitable admission and academic requirements. But like all rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Charter, their exercise may be so regulated pursuant to the police power of the State to safeguard health, morals, peace, education, order, safety, and general welfare of the people. Thus, persons who desire to engage in the learned professions requiring scientific or technical knowledge may be required to take an examination as a prerequisite to engaging in their chosen careers 2. DECS v. SAN DIEGO, 180 SCRA 533

FACTS: 1. Private respondent Roberto Rey San Diego graduated from the University of the East with a BS degree in Zoology. 2. He took the NMAT three times and flunked it as many times. 3. When he applied again petitioner rejected him because it contend ed that under the NMAT rule: a student shall be allowed to take 3 chances to take the NMAT. After three successive failures, a student shall not be allowed to take the NMAT for the fourth tim e. 4. Private respondent went to the RTC for a petition mandamus invoking his right to academic freedom and quality education. 5. Respondent Judge Teresita Dizon-Capulong declared the challenged order unconstitutional. 6. Respondent Judge held that San Diego has been deprived of his right to pursue a medical education through an arbitrary exercise of police power. ISSUE: WON a person who has failed the NMAT 3 times entitled to take it again. HELD: No. The 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 medical education. The proper exercise of the police power of the State requires the concurrence of a lawful subject and a lawful method. 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. The method employed by the challenged regulation is not irrelevant to the purpose of the law nor is it arbitrary or oppressive. The theeflunk rule is intended to insulate the medical schools and ultimately the medical profession from the intrusion of those not qualified to be doctors. 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 line, 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.

The right to quality education is not absolute. The Constitution also provides that "every citizen has a right to choose a profession or course of study, subject to fair, reasonable and equitable admission and academic requirements. {Art. XIV, Sec. 5 (3)} 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 Art. III, Sec. 1 of the Constitution. 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.