Scribd
Upload
189 views1 page

DECS vs. San Diego (G.R. No. 89572 December 21, 1989)

The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the "three-flunk rule" which allows medical schools to reject applicants who have failed the National Medical Admission Test three times. The respondent had failed the exam three times and was denied admission under this rule. The Court found that ensuring only competent students enter the medical profession is valid, and rejecting those who repeatedly fail the entrance exam is a reasonable method to achieve this. While citizens have a right to choose their profession, this right is not absolute and schools may impose fair academic standards to protect the quality of education.

Uploaded by

Ei Bin
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
189 views1 page

DECS vs. San Diego (G.R. No. 89572 December 21, 1989)

The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the "three-flunk rule" which allows medical schools to reject applicants who have failed the National Medical Admission Test three times. The respondent had failed the exam three times and was denied admission under this rule. The Court found that ensuring only competent students enter the medical profession is valid, and rejecting those who repeatedly fail the entrance exam is a reasonable method to achieve this. While citizens have a right to choose their profession, this right is not absolute and schools may impose fair academic standards to protect the quality of education.

Uploaded by

Ei Bin
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

DECS vs. San Diego [G.R. No.

89572 December 21, 1989]

FACTS: Respondent San Diego has flunked the NMAT (National Medical
Admission Test) three times. When he applied to take again, petitioner
rejected his application based on the three-flunk-rule. He then filed a
petition before the RTC on the ground of due process and equal protection
and challenging the constitutionality of the order. The petition was granted
by the RTC therefore this petition.

ISSUE: Whether or not the NMAT three-flunk-rule order is valid and


constitutional.

HELD: Yes. It is the right and 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 right to quality education is not absolute. The
Constitution 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. It is not enough to simply invoke
the right to quality education as a guarantee of the Constitution but one
must show that he is entitled to it because of his preparation and promise.
Petition was granted and the RTC ruling was reversed.

You might also like