AM 06 3 07 SC; (November, 2009) (Digest)
A.M. No. 06-3-07-SC November 25, 2009
RE: REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF THE REVISED QUALIFICATION STANDARD FOR THE CHIEF OF MISO
FACTS
The Supreme Court, in a Resolution dated September 10, 2009, approved the Qualification Standards (QS) for the Chief of the Management Information Systems Office (MISO) and other positions. The QS for the MISO Chief required, among other things, “32 hours of relevant experience in management and supervision” under the Training category. Subsequently, Deputy Clerk of Court and Chief Administrative Officer Atty. Eden T. Candelaria brought to the Court’s attention that the use of the word “experience” in the Training requirement appeared to be a clerical error, as it was incompatible with the category heading. She requested a correction.
Furthermore, the Court noted that its prior QS might have overlooked a key component of the MISO Re-engineering Development Plan (MRDP), which the Court had approved on August 11, 2009. This plan, developed with consultancy firm Indra Sistemas S.A. (INDRA), included a detailed study and specific recommendations for the staffing pattern and QS for MISO positions. INDRA’s proposed QS for the MISO Chief offered distinct educational pathways for lawyers and non-lawyers, emphasizing relevant ICT credentials and increasing the required management training hours.
ISSUE
Whether the Supreme Court should amend its September 10, 2009 Resolution to correct a clerical error and to align the Qualification Standards for the MISO Chief of Office with the approved MISO Re-engineering Development Plan.
RULING
Yes. The Court granted the request for correction and amended the QS. The legal logic rests on the Court’s inherent power to correct clerical errors to make its resolutions conform to its true intention, and on its administrative authority to ensure its internal qualification standards are rationally aligned with operational plans it has formally approved.
First, the correction of “experience” to “training” under the Training category is a ministerial act to rectify an obvious inadvertence, ensuring the resolution accurately reflects the intended requirement. Second, and more substantively, the adoption of INDRA’s recommended QS is a logical and necessary step for effective implementation. The MRDP was a comprehensive study approved by the Court; to disregard its specific staffing recommendations would undermine the plan’s integrity and the Court’s own approval of it. The revised QS, which provides alternative combinations of education, experience, and certification for lawyers and non-lawyers, is tailored to attract candidates with the precise blend of legal, managerial, and technical expertise required for the specialized role of leading the judiciary’s ICT office. This ensures the standards are directly responsive to the operational needs identified in the Court-sanctioned re-engineering plan.