Tablarin v.

Gutierrez

Facts: The petitioners sought admission into colleges or schools of medicine for the school year 1987-1988. However, the petitioners either did not take or did not successfully take the ational !edical "dmission Test # !"T$ re%uired &y the 'oard of !edical (ducation, one of the pu&lic respondents, and administered &y the private respondent, the )enter for (ducational !easurement #)(!$. *n + !arch 1987, the petitioners filed with the ,egional Trial )ourt, ational )apital -udicial ,egion, a .etition for /eclaratory -udgment and .rohi&ition with a prayer for Temporary ,estraining *rder and .reliminary 0n1unction. The petitioners sought to en1oin the 2ecretary of (ducation, )ulture and 2ports, the 'oard of !edical (ducation and the )enter for (ducational !easurement from enforcing 2ection + #a$ and #f$ of ,epu&lic "ct o. 3483, as amended, and !()2 *rder o. +3, series of 198+, dated 34 "ugust 198+ and from re%uiring the taking and passing of the !"T as a condition for securing certificates of eligi&ility for admission, from proceeding with accepting applications for taking the !"T and from administering the !"T as scheduled on 35 "pril 1987 and in the future. "fter hearing on the petition for issuance of preliminary in1unction, the trial court denied said petition. The !"T was conducted and administered as previously scheduled. Issue: whether 2ection + #a$ and #f$ of ,epu&lic "ct o. 3483, as amended, offend against the constitutional principle which for&ids the undue delegation of legislative power, &y failing to esta&lish the necessary standard to &e followed &y the delegate, the 'oard of !edical (ducation Held: The standards set for su&ordinate legislation in the e6ercise of rule making authority &y an administrative agency like the 'oard of !edical (ducation are necessarily &road and highly a&stract. The standard may &e either e6pressed or implied. 0f the former, the non-delegation o&1ection is easily met. The standard though does not have to be spelled out specifically. It could be implied from the policy and purpose of the act considered as a whole. In the Reflector Law, clearly the legislative objective is public safety.

0n this case, the necessary standards are set forth in 2ection 1 of the 19+9 !edical "ct7 8the standardi9ation and regulation of medical education: and in 2ection + #a$ and 7 of the same "ct, the &ody of the statute itself, and that these considered together are sufficient compliance with the re%uirements of the non-delegation principle.