This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2011-02-14 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Freedom of expression enjoys an exalted place in the hierarchy of constitutional rights. Free expression however, "is not absolute for it may be so regulated that [its exercise shall neither] be injurious to the equal enjoyment of others having equal rights, nor injurious to the rights of the community or society."[1] Libel stands as an exception to the enjoyment of that most guarded constitutional right. | |||||
|
2004-06-21 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| It is true that this Court has upheld the constitutional right[35] of every citizen to select a profession or course of study subject to a fair, reasonable, and equitable admission and academic requirements.[36] 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.[37] 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. In a previous case, it may be recalled, this Court has ordered the Board of Medical Examiners to annul both its resolution and certificate authorizing a Spanish subject, with the degree of Licentiate in Medicine and Surgery from the University of Barcelona, Spain, to practice medicine in the Philippines, without first passing the examination required by the Philippine Medical Act.[38] In another case worth noting, we upheld the power of the State to upgrade the selection of applicants into medical schools through admission tests.[39] | |||||