Scribd Logo
Cargar

¡Te damos la bienvenida a Scribd!

  • Department of Education vs. San Diego 180 SCRA 533 (December 21, 1989)

    Cargado por

    Jan Alexander Tolentino
    3K vistas1 página
    The Department of Education denied a student admission to retake the National Medical Admission Test for a fourth time based on its rule limiting students to three attempts. The student argued this violated his right to academic freedom and quality education. A lower court ruled in the student's favor, finding the rule an arbitrary use of police power. The higher court reversed, holding that the rule was a valid exercise of police power, as it furthered the public interest in ensuring only qualified students become doctors. Limiting attempts to three was a reasonable method to achieve this goal and was not unduly oppressive.

    Descripción original:

    Department of Education vs. San Diego Digest

    Derechos de autor

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Formatos disponibles

    DOC, PDF, TXT o lea en línea desde Scribd

    ¿Le pareció útil este documento?

    ¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

    Denunciar este documento
    The Department of Education denied a student admission to retake the National Medical Admission Test for a fourth time based on its rule limiting students to three attempts. The student argued this violated his right to academic freedom and quality education. A lower court ruled in the student's favor, finding the rule an arbitrary use of police power. The higher court reversed, holding that the rule was a valid exercise of police power, as it furthered the public interest in ensuring only qualified students become doctors. Limiting attempts to three was a reasonable method to achieve this goal and was not unduly oppressive.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Descargue como DOC, PDF, TXT o lea en línea desde Scribd
    Marcar por contenido inapropiado
    3K vistas1 página

    Department of Education vs. San Diego 180 SCRA 533 (December 21, 1989)

    Cargado por

    Jan Alexander Tolentino
    The Department of Education denied a student admission to retake the National Medical Admission Test for a fourth time based on its rule limiting students to three attempts. The student argued this violated his right to academic freedom and quality education. A lower court ruled in the student's favor, finding the rule an arbitrary use of police power. The higher court reversed, holding that the rule was a valid exercise of police power, as it furthered the public interest in ensuring only qualified students become doctors. Limiting attempts to three was a reasonable method to achieve this goal and was not unduly oppressive.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Descargue como DOC, PDF, TXT o lea en línea desde Scribd
    Marcar por contenido inapropiado
    de 1

    Department of education vs.

    San Diego

    180 SCRA 533 (December 21 1!8!"

    #acts$ %&e respondent fai'ed to pass t&e (ationa' )edica' Admission %est (()A%" 3 times and &e *as denied admission to ta+e t&e test for anot&er time b, t&e petitioner under its ru'e t&at a student is a''o*ed on', to ta+e t&e ()A% 3 times and after 3 consecutive fai'ures a student s&a'' not be a''o*ed to ta+e ()A% t&e -t& time. Respondent invo+e &is constitutiona' rig&ts on academic freedom and .ua'it, education in &is petition for mandamus before t&e court. Respondent /udge rendered decision citing t&e admission ru'e of t&e petitioner as an arbitrar, e0ercise of po'ice po*er depriving respondent of &is rig&t to pursue medica' education t&us t&is petition for revie* before t&e &ig&er court. 1ssue$ 2&et&er or not t&e admission ru'e imp'emented b, petitioner an arbitrar, e0ercise of po'ice po*er. 3e'd$ %&e court &e'd t&at po'ice po*er is va'id', e0ercised if (a" t&e interests of t&e pub'ic genera'', as distinguis&ed from t&ose of a particu'ar c'ass re.uire t&e interference of t&e State and (b" t&e means emp'o,ed are reasonab', necessar, to t&e attainment of t&e ob/ect soug&t to be accomp'is&ed and not undu', oppressive upon individua's. %&e proper e0ercise of t&e po'ice po*er re.uires t&e concurrence of a 'a*fu' sub/ect and a 'a*fu' met&od. %&e sub/ect of t&e c&a''enged regu'ation is certain', *it&in t&e ambit of t&e po'ice po*er. 1t is t&e rig&t and indeed t&e responsibi'it, of t&e State to insure t&at t&e medica' profession is not infi'trated b, incompetents to *&om patients ma, un*ari', entrust t&eir 'ives and &ea't&. %&e met&od emp'o,ed b, t&e c&a''enged regu'ation is not irre'evant to t&e purpose of t&e 'a* nor is it arbitrar, or oppressive. %&e t&ree4f'un+ ru'e is intended to insu'ate t&e medica' sc&oo's and u'timate', t&e medica' profession from t&e intrusion of t&ose not .ua'ified to be doctors. %&e State needs to imp'ement decisive steps to regu'ate s,stem of education b, directing students to t&e course *&ere &e is best suited t&roug& initia' tests and eva'uation. %&e decision of t&e respondent /udge *as reversed.

    También podría gustarte