G.R. No. 89572
December 21, 1989
Facts
A student challenged the constitutionality of the three-flunk-rule of the NMAT. The rule provides that a person who failed the NMAT three times can no longer take the NMAT. The trial court ordered that the three-flunk rule is unconstitutional. Hence, this petition.
Issue
Whether or not the three flunk rule does not contravene the constitution since it is a valid exercise of the police power of the State?
Held
Yes. A valid exercise of police power requires that there must be a lawful subject and a lawful method. Lawful subject entails that the interests of the public generally, as distinguished from those of a particular class, require the interference of the State. Lawful means provides that the means employed are reasonably necessary to the attainment of the object sought to be accomplished and not unduly oppressive upon individuals.
In the present case, there is a lawful subject since 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 medical profession directly affects the very lives of the people, unlike other careers which, for this reason, do not require more vigilant regulation.
Moreover, the method employed by the challenged regulation is not irrelevant to the purpose of the law nor is it arbitrary or oppressive. The three-flunk 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. A person cannot insist on being a physician if he will be a menace to his patients.
The private respondent has failed the NMAT five times. While his persistence is noteworthy, to say the least, it is certainly misplaced, like a hopeless love. :(
Hence, the three-flunk rule is constitutional since it is a valid exercise of police power.