Political Law

Professional Regulation Commission vs Arlene De Guzman

image_printPrint this!

G.R. No. 144681 –  476 Phil. 596 – 432 SCRA 505 – Political Law – Constitutional Law – Police Power; Public Welfare – Power to Regulate Professions

In 1993, the Professional Regulation Commission established that recently passed physicians (Arlene De Guzman et al.), who were all graduates of Fatima College of Medicine, cheated when they took the licensure examination. The PRC then withheld their oath taking. De Guzman et al. sued PRC on the ground that it is mandated to allow them to take their oath as they are board passers.

ISSUE: Whether or not the PRC may disallow passers with questionable ratings from taking their oath.

HELD: Yes. It is a valid exercise of police power. A license to practice medicine is a privilege or franchise granted by the government. Every citizen has the constitutional right to select a profession or course of study subject to a fair, reasonable, and equitable admission and academic requirements. But the exercise may be 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.

The State regulates the practice of medicine through RA 2382 or the Medical Act of 1959. This law requires that an examination must first be passed by a prospective physician. Should doubt taint or mar the compliance as being less than satisfactory, then the privilege will not issue. For said privilege is distinguishable from a matter of right, which may be demanded if denied. Thus, without a definite showing that the aforesaid requirements and conditions have been satisfactorily met, the courts may not grant the writ of mandamus to secure said privilege without thwarting the legislative will.

Read full text.

image_printPrint this!

Leave a Reply