Is the requirement of passing the NMAT before one can be admitted to medical school unconstitutional?

■ 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. This regulation takes particular pertinence in the field of medicine, to protect the public from the potentially deadly effects of incompetence and ignorance among those who would practice medicine. (Professional Regulation Commission vs. De Guzman, G.R. No. 144681. June 21, 2004)

■ Petitioners urge that the NMAT (National Medical Admission Test) is an "unfair, unreasonable and inequitable requirement," which results in a denial of due process. They appear to suggest that passing the NMAT is an unnecessary requirement when added on top of the admission requirements set out in Section 7 of the Medical Act of 1959, and other admission requirements established by internal regulations of the various medical schools, public or private. 

Petitioners arguments thus appear to relate to utility and wisdom or desirability of the NMAT requirement. But constitutionality is essentially a question of power or authority: this Court has neither commission or competence to pass upon questions of the desirability or wisdom or utility of legislation or administrative regulation. Those questions must be address to the political departments of the government not to the courts.

There is another reason why the petitioners' arguments must fail: the legislative and administrative provisions impugned by them constitute a valid exercise of the police power of the state. The police power, it is commonplace learning, is the pervasive and non-waivable power and authority of the sovereign to secure and promote an the important interests and needs — in a word, the public order — of the general community. An important component of that public order is the health and physical safety and well being of the population, the securing of which no one can deny is a legitimate objective of governmental effort and regulation.

The regulation of the practice of medicine in all its branches is a reasonable method of protecting the health and safety of the public. The power to regulate and control the practice of medicine includes the power to regulate admission to the ranks of those authorized to practice medicine. Thus, legislation and administrative regulations requiring those who wish to practice medicine first to take and pass medical board examinations have long ago been recognized as valid exercises of governmental power. (Tablarin v. Gutierrez, G.R. No. 78164, July 31, 1987)

Is the "three-flunk rule" which disallows students to take the NMAT for the fourth time unconstitutional?

The right to quality education is not absolute. The Constitution also 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." 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. A person cannot insist on being a physician if he will be a menace to his patients.

In Tablarin vs. Gutierrez, this 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. 

There is no need to redefine here the police power of the State. Suffice it to repeat that the power is validly exercised if (a) the interests of the public generally, as distinguished from those of a particular class, require the interference of the State, and (b) the means employed are reasonably necessary to the attainment of the object sought to be accomplished and not unduly oppressive upon individuals.

In other words, the proper exercise of the police power 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 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.

The Court feels that it is not enough to simply invoke the right to quality education as a guarantee of the Constitution: one must show that he is entitled to it because of his preparation and promise. The private respondent has failed the NMAT five times. 7 While his persistence is noteworthy, to say the least, it is certainly misplaced, like a hopeless love.

No depreciation is intended or made against the private respondent. It is stressed that a person who does not qualify in the NMAT is not an absolute incompetent unfit for any work or occupation. The only inference is that he is a probably better, not for the medical profession, but for another calling that has not excited his interest.

In the former, he may be a bungler or at least lackluster; in the latter, he is more likely to succeed and may even be outstanding. It is for the appropriate calling that he is entitled to quality education for the full harnessing of his potentials and the sharpening of his latent talents toward what may even be a brilliant future.

We cannot have a society of square pegs in round holes, of dentists who should never have left the farm and engineers who should have studied banking and teachers who could be better as merchants.

It is time indeed that the State took decisive steps to regulate and enrich our system of education by directing the student to the course for which he is best suited as determined by initial tests and evaluations. Otherwise, we may be "swamped with mediocrity," in the words of Justice Holmes, not because we are lacking in intelligence but because we are a nation of misfits. (DECS vs. San Diego, G.R. No. 89572, December 21, 1989)

Is the requirement that a school must first obtain government authorization before operating valid?

The educational operation of schools is subject to prior authorization of the government and is effected by recognition. In the case of government-operated schools, whether local, regional or national, recognition of educational programs and/or operations is deemed granted simultaneously with establishment. In all other cases the rules and regulations governing recognition are prescribed and enforced by the DECS, defining therein who are qualified to apply, providing for a permit system, stating the conditions for the grant of recognition and for its cancellation and withdrawal, and providing for related matters. The requirement on prior government authorization is pursuant to the State policy that educational programs and/or operations shall be of good quality and therefore shall at least satisfy minimum standards with respect to curricula, teaching staff, physical plant and facilities and of administrative or management viability.  (Philippine Merchant Marine School v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 112844, June 2, 1995)