Scribd
Upload
37 views

Tablarin v. Gutierrez

The petitioners sought admission to medical schools but did not take or pass the required National Medical Admission Test (NMAT). They filed a petition to enjoin the test requirement. The issue was whether the law delegating authority to require the NMAT violated the constitutional principle against undue delegation of legislative power by failing to establish necessary standards. The court held that the law set sufficient standards by requiring the Board of Medical Education to standardize and regulate medical education, as stated in the law's objectives. Implied standards of public safety and education were also sufficient without being specifically spelled out.

Uploaded by

abethzkyyyy
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
37 views

Tablarin v. Gutierrez

The petitioners sought admission to medical schools but did not take or pass the required National Medical Admission Test (NMAT). They filed a petition to enjoin the test requirement. The issue was whether the law delegating authority to require the NMAT violated the constitutional principle against undue delegation of legislative power by failing to establish necessary standards. The court held that the law set sufficient standards by requiring the Board of Medical Education to standardize and regulate medical education, as stated in the law's objectives. Implied standards of public safety and education were also sufficient without being specifically spelled out.

Uploaded by

abethzkyyyy
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Tablarin v.

Gutierrez

Facts:
The petitioners sought admission into colleges or schools of medicine for the
school year 1987-1988. However, the petitioners either did not take or did not successfully
take the National Medical Admission Test (NMAT) required by the Board of Medical
Education, one of the public respondents, and administered by the private respondent, the
Center
for
Educational
Measurement
(CEM).
On 5 March 1987, the petitioners filed with the Regional Trial Court, National Capital
Judicial Region, a Petition for Declaratory Judgment and Prohibition with a prayer for
Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. The petitioners sought to enjoin the
Secretary of Education, Culture and Sports, the Board of Medical Education and the Center
for Educational Measurement from enforcing Section 5 (a) and (f) of Republic Act No. 2382,
as amended, and MECS Order No. 52, series of 1985, dated 23 August 1985 and from
requiring the taking and passing of the NMAT as a condition for securing certificates of
eligibility for admission, from proceeding with accepting applications for taking the NMAT and
from administering the NMAT as scheduled on 26 April 1987 and in the future. After hearing
on the petition for issuance of preliminary injunction, the trial court denied said petition. The
NMAT was conducted and administered as previously scheduled.
Issue:
whether Section 5 (a) and (f) of Republic Act No. 2382, as amended, offend
against the constitutional principle which forbids the undue delegation of legislative power, by
failing to establish the necessary standard to be followed by the delegate, the Board of
Medical
Education
Held:
The standards set for subordinate legislation in the exercise of rule making
authority by an administrative agency like the Board of Medical Education are necessarily
broad and highly abstract. The standard may be either expressed or implied. If the former,
the non-delegation objection is easily met. The standard though does not have to be spelled
out specifically. It could be implied from the policy and purpose of the act considered as a
whole. In the Reflector Law, clearly the legislative objective is public safety.

In this case, the necessary standards are set forth in Section 1 of the 1959 Medical
Act: the standardization and regulation of medical education and in Section 5 (a) and 7 of
the same Act, the body of the statute itself, and that these considered together are sufficient
compliance with the requirements of the non-delegation principle.

You might also like