G.R. No. 89572 December 21, 1989 DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, CULTURE DEPARTMENT CULTURE AND SPORTS DECS! "#$ petitioners,, OF CENTER FOR EDUCATIONAL MEASUREMENT, petitioners DIRECTOR vs. RO%ERTO RE& C. SAN DIEGO "#$ 'UDGE TERESITA DI(ON) CAPULONG, *# +er '$0e o -+e Re0*o#"3 Tr*"3 Cor- o 4"3e#e3", Me-ro c""c* "/ Pre/*$*#0 M"#*3", %r"#c+ 172, r espondents.
Ramon M. Guevara Guevara for private res respondent. pondent.
CRU(,
J.:
The private respondent is a graduate of the University of the East with a degree of Bachelor Science inof Zoology. The petitioner claims that he took the N!T three times and flunked it as y times. many man times. 1 "hen he he applied applied to to take it it again, again, the peti petition tioner er re#ecte re#ected d his applic applicatio ation n on the the $asis of the the aforesaid rule. %e then then went to to the &egional &egional Trial Trial 'ourt 'ourt of (a (alen)uela len)uela,, etro anila, to compel his admission to the test. !fter hearing, the respondent #udge rendered a decision on *uly +, --, declaring the challenged order invalid and granting the petition. *udge Teresita /i)on0'apulong held that the er had $een petitioner petition $een deprived of his right right to pursue pursue a medical medical education education through through an ar$itrary e1ercise of the police power. &U23N45
There is no need to redefine here the police power of the State. Suffice it to repeat thatpower is validly e1ercised if 6a7 the interests of the pu$lic generally, as the distinguished from those of a particular class, re8uire the interference of the State, and 6$7 the employed are reasona$ly necessary to the attainment of the o$#ect sought to $e means 5 accomplished and not unduly oppressive upon individuals. 3n other words, the pr oper oper e1ercise of the police police power re8uires the concurrence concurrence of a su$#ect and a lawful method. lawful profession Thelaw the su$#ect method norisis of employed nitot not the ar$itrary infiltra infiltrated challenged $y ted orthe $y oppressive. challenged regulation incompete incompetents The is nts regulation certainly three0flunk to whom is within p patients not atients rule irrelevant the is may intended am$it unw unwarily toofthe arily the to purpose insulate police 3t is the entrust lives of the and their right health. and indeed the responsi$ility of the State to insure that the medical
medical schools and ultimately the medical profession from the intrusion to of $e those not 8ualified doctors. "hile every per son is entitled to aspire to $e a doctor, he does not have right to $e a doctor. This is true of any other calling in which the pu$lic a constitutional interest is and the closer the link, the longer the $ridge to one:s am$ition. involved9 Theresponsi$ility State has the 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 $e applied in a will $est promote the common good while also giving the manner that of satisfaction. individual a sense ! person cannot insist on $eing a physician if he will $e a menace to his patients. The 'ourt feels that it is not enough to simply invoke the right to 8uality education as a guarantee of the 'onstitution5 one must show that he is entitled to it $ecause of his preparation and promise. The private respondent has failed the N!T times. five 7 "hile his persistence is noteworthy, to say the least, it is certainly misplaced, like a hopeless love. No depreciation is intended or mad
/E'3S3;N "%E&E<;&E, the petition is 4&!NTE/. The decision of the respondent court dated =, --, is *anuary &E(E&SE/, with costs against the private respondent. 3t is so ordered.
