EN BANC
[ A.M. No. 06-3-07-SC, September 10, 2009 ]RE: REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF REVISED QUALIFICATION STANDARD FOR CHIEF OF MISO. +
RE: REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF THE REVISED QUALIFICATION STANDARD FOR THE CHIEF OF MISO.
R E S O L U T I O N
RE: REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF REVISED QUALIFICATION STANDARD FOR CHIEF OF MISO. +
RE: REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF THE REVISED QUALIFICATION STANDARD FOR THE CHIEF OF MISO.
R E S O L U T I O N
NACHURA, J.:
For this Court's resolution is the request for revision of the Qualification Standards (QS) for the chiefs of the Management Information Systems Office (MISO) and the Program Management Office (PMO).
The following QS for the position of Chief, MISO, were approved by then Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. on October 14, 1999:
In a letter[5] to then Chief Justice Artemio V. Panganiban dated July 12, 2006, employees of the MISO pointed out that the revision of the QS under A.M. No. 06-3-07-SC had made the experience, training, and eligibility qualifications for Assistant Chief, MISO, higher than those for the Chief, MISO. Hence, they asked the Court to rectify the disparity.
On July 26, 2006, the Court approved the following amendments to the QS for the Assistant Chief of MISO:
In its Memorandum[7] to Chief Justice Puno dated July 3 0, 2008, the Office of Administrative Services (OAS) observed that the QS for the positions of Chief of MISO and JRPA of the PMO are not the same as those for the other chiefs of office in the Court, even though they have the same salary grade.
The OAS recommends that both positions should be given only to members of the Bar, since there are legal matters involved in the functions of both offices. In particular, OAS notes that the MISO Chief must know the basic legal and operational information technology (IT) needs of the Court, while the PMO Chief deals in large part with agreements, loans, and other contracts with various agencies and international funding institutions. In both cases, the specific need for IT knowledge, and project management and donor coordination, respectively, will be answered by the requirement for relevant studies and/or experience.
The OAS recommends the following QS, to wit:
The OAS also restudied the QS for the Assistant Chief of Office of MISO. It suggests that the Deputy Director title of the MISO Assistant Chief of Office be reverted back to its original title, "SC Assistant Chief of Office, MISO." It further recommends the following modifications to the QS of the Assistant Chief of Office, MISO, and of the Deputy Judicial Reform Program Administrator of the PMO:
In its Comment,[8] the MISO states that the Court has an ongoing ICT consultancy project with Indra Sistemas S.A., part of which specifically deals with the creation of a MISO Re-Engineering Development Plan (MRDP). Among the concerns studied by Indra was the staffing pattern of MiSO and the QS for each position in the office's plantilla. Indra's recommendation for the QS of the MISO Chief recognizes that lawyers or non-lawyers may apply for the position, with the recommended QS for lawyer-applicants bearing a strong similarity to those proposed by the OAS. Indra's recommendations are as follows:
On the other hand, the PMO, in its Comment,[9] maintains that the nature of the JRPA position is different from the adjudicatory and other legal functions of the other offices in the Court. It also says that the legal Issues confronted by the PMO in the performance of its tasks do not require the JRPA to be a lawyer. It points out that there are four (4) lawyer positions in the PMO's plantilla, and these lawyers can adequately meet the PMO's legal concerns. They assist and advise the JRPA on matters requiring legal knowledge and in drafting legal instruments or documents. The PMO also states that it does not enter into contracts and agreements on its own but first secures the approval of the Court even at the initial stages of discussion with the other contracting party/parties. Instead, it emphasizes the need for experience in donor coordination and development projects, considering the nature of the PMO's work.
Finally, the Fiscal Management and Budget Office (FMBO) also submitted its Comment.[10] The FMBO agrees with the OAS recommendation to make membership in the Bar a qualification for the positions of Chief, MISO and Chief (JRPA), PMO. It also suggests that the Bachelor of Laws degree be made a minimum requirement, and that the additional units and/or study be included in the training requirement. The FMBO says that there will be no significant change in the financial remuneration for both positions under the proposed QS. The only difference will be the grant of the Special Allowance for the Judiciary (SAJ). If the proposed QS will be approved, the holders of the two positions will be accorded judicial ranking and. consequently, given the monthly SAJ.
The Court acknowledges that there is some merit in the OAS recommendation. Indeed, while the MISO and the PMO are not directly involved in the adjudicative functions of the Court, both offices operate to support the Court in its main function of deciding cases. As such, it is important that the persons who head these offices have adequate working knowledge of the Court's functions and the legal implications of their actions.
However, we must also recognize the technical nature of the positions of Chief, MISO and JRPA, PMO. The OAS itself admitted the technical character of the functions of the MISO and PMO when it said that the duties and responsibilities of Assistant Chief, MISO and Deputy JRPA; PMO: involve special technical skills in computer/information technology and project management and donor coordination, respectively.
The same specialized skills should likewise be required for the Chief of MISO and the JRPA of the PMO. As heads of these offices, the Chief of MISO and JRPA of the PMO must possess the requisite knowledge and expertise to lead their respective offices in the performance of their main tasks.
Accordingly, even as the Court sees the importance of maintaining uniformity of the QS for positions in the same level, the nature of the functions of each office must play a dominant role in determining who 'should head these offices. The technical or specialized skills needed for the positions of Chief of MISO and JRPA of the PMO should, therefore, be the foremost consideration in setting their respective QS. Thus, while a law degree and membership in the Bar is preferred, post-graduate studies in Computer Science (for MISO) and in public administration, finance, economics, or related fields (for JRPA of the PMO) would be adequate substitutes.
As regards the judicial ranking of the two positions, the Court reaffirms the Court's Resolution dated June 6, 2006, and applies the same to the PMO. Thus:
Relative to the QS for the Assistant Chief of Office of the MISO and Deputy JRPA of the PMO, the Court agrees with the OAS recommendation, subject to the modification of the educational requirement. Considering the higher education standard required of the Chief of MISO and JRPA of the PMO, which is a Master's degree, in the case of the Assistant Chief, this may be substituted with post-graduate units in computer science or ICT, and post-graduate units in Public Administration, Business Administration, Finance, Economics, Social Sciences or any related field, respectively.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Court APPROVES, with modification, the recommendations of the OAS on the Qualification Standards for Chief of Office, Management Information Systems Office and Judicial Reform Program Administrator, Program Management Office, as follows:
SO ORDERED.
Puno, C.J., Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Carpio, Corona, Carpio Morales, Chico-Nazario, Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro, Brion, Peralta, Bersamin, Del Castillo, and Abad, JJ., concur.
[1] Rollo, p-15.
[2] Id. at 4-5.
[3] Id. at 39.
[4] Id. at 18.
[5] Id. at 55-56.
[6] Id. at 71-72.
[7] Id. at 74-82.
[8] Id. at 125-127.
[9] Id. at 144-147.
[10] Id. al 128-132.
The following QS for the position of Chief, MISO, were approved by then Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. on October 14, 1999:
On March 14, 2006, the Court resolved to revise the said QS.[2] It was further amended on June 20, 2006, to wit:
On June 6, 2006, the Court issued a Resolution adopting the clarifications made by the Committee on Computerization and Library on the collatilla "Deputy Clerk of Court" and the judicial ranking attached to the position of Chief, MISO, as follows:
1. If the appointee for the Chief of MISO is a lawyer, he/she will be given the collatilla "Deputy Clerk of Court" and entitled to a judicial rank. He/She will be given the rank, salary and privileges of [an RTC] judge;
2. If the appointee for the Chief of MISO is not a lawyer, he/she will only be considered as a Chief of Office. He/She will not be given the collatilla "Deputy Clerk of Court" and will not be entitled to a judicial rank.[4]
In a letter[5] to then Chief Justice Artemio V. Panganiban dated July 12, 2006, employees of the MISO pointed out that the revision of the QS under A.M. No. 06-3-07-SC had made the experience, training, and eligibility qualifications for Assistant Chief, MISO, higher than those for the Chief, MISO. Hence, they asked the Court to rectify the disparity.
On July 26, 2006, the Court approved the following amendments to the QS for the Assistant Chief of MISO:
On March 5, 2008, Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno approved the recommendation of the OAS to restudy the QS for the positions of Chief, MISO and Judicial Reform Program Administrator (JRPA), PMO.
Bachelor's Degree in Computer Science or any equally comparable degree, with post-graduate level (at least 15 units) in Computer Science or Information Technology
In its Memorandum[7] to Chief Justice Puno dated July 3 0, 2008, the Office of Administrative Services (OAS) observed that the QS for the positions of Chief of MISO and JRPA of the PMO are not the same as those for the other chiefs of office in the Court, even though they have the same salary grade.
The OAS recommends that both positions should be given only to members of the Bar, since there are legal matters involved in the functions of both offices. In particular, OAS notes that the MISO Chief must know the basic legal and operational information technology (IT) needs of the Court, while the PMO Chief deals in large part with agreements, loans, and other contracts with various agencies and international funding institutions. In both cases, the specific need for IT knowledge, and project management and donor coordination, respectively, will be answered by the requirement for relevant studies and/or experience.
The OAS recommends the following QS, to wit:
Chief of Office
Judicial Reform
Program Administrator
The OAS also restudied the QS for the Assistant Chief of Office of MISO. It suggests that the Deputy Director title of the MISO Assistant Chief of Office be reverted back to its original title, "SC Assistant Chief of Office, MISO." It further recommends the following modifications to the QS of the Assistant Chief of Office, MISO, and of the Deputy Judicial Reform Program Administrator of the PMO:
The OAS explained that while all SC Assistant Chiefs of Offices are required to be lawyers in their QS, this requirement may be substituted with a master's degree in the case of MISO and PMO, considering that the duties and responsibilities of these two positions involve special technical skills in computer/information technology and project management and donor coordination, respectively.
Assistant Chief of Office
Program Administrator
In its Comment,[8] the MISO states that the Court has an ongoing ICT consultancy project with Indra Sistemas S.A., part of which specifically deals with the creation of a MISO Re-Engineering Development Plan (MRDP). Among the concerns studied by Indra was the staffing pattern of MiSO and the QS for each position in the office's plantilla. Indra's recommendation for the QS of the MISO Chief recognizes that lawyers or non-lawyers may apply for the position, with the recommended QS for lawyer-applicants bearing a strong similarity to those proposed by the OAS. Indra's recommendations are as follows:
Bachelor of Laws and 18 MA units in relevant ICT course, 3 years relevant ICT experience or 60 hours of ICT training or relevant ICT certification
* An additional project management certification is proposed for all managerial/supervisory positions to enable (hem to effectively manage IT projects
Bachelor's Degree in relevant ICT course and an MBA or Post Graduate Degree in a Management related course or Bachelor's Degree in a Management-related course and an MBA or Post-graduate Degree in a Management-related course and 18 MA units in relevant ICT course, 3 years relevant ICT experience or 60 hours of ICT training or relevant ICT certification
* An additional project management certification is proposed for all managerial/supervisory positions to enable them (o effectively manage IT projects
On the other hand, the PMO, in its Comment,[9] maintains that the nature of the JRPA position is different from the adjudicatory and other legal functions of the other offices in the Court. It also says that the legal Issues confronted by the PMO in the performance of its tasks do not require the JRPA to be a lawyer. It points out that there are four (4) lawyer positions in the PMO's plantilla, and these lawyers can adequately meet the PMO's legal concerns. They assist and advise the JRPA on matters requiring legal knowledge and in drafting legal instruments or documents. The PMO also states that it does not enter into contracts and agreements on its own but first secures the approval of the Court even at the initial stages of discussion with the other contracting party/parties. Instead, it emphasizes the need for experience in donor coordination and development projects, considering the nature of the PMO's work.
Finally, the Fiscal Management and Budget Office (FMBO) also submitted its Comment.[10] The FMBO agrees with the OAS recommendation to make membership in the Bar a qualification for the positions of Chief, MISO and Chief (JRPA), PMO. It also suggests that the Bachelor of Laws degree be made a minimum requirement, and that the additional units and/or study be included in the training requirement. The FMBO says that there will be no significant change in the financial remuneration for both positions under the proposed QS. The only difference will be the grant of the Special Allowance for the Judiciary (SAJ). If the proposed QS will be approved, the holders of the two positions will be accorded judicial ranking and. consequently, given the monthly SAJ.
The Court acknowledges that there is some merit in the OAS recommendation. Indeed, while the MISO and the PMO are not directly involved in the adjudicative functions of the Court, both offices operate to support the Court in its main function of deciding cases. As such, it is important that the persons who head these offices have adequate working knowledge of the Court's functions and the legal implications of their actions.
However, we must also recognize the technical nature of the positions of Chief, MISO and JRPA, PMO. The OAS itself admitted the technical character of the functions of the MISO and PMO when it said that the duties and responsibilities of Assistant Chief, MISO and Deputy JRPA; PMO: involve special technical skills in computer/information technology and project management and donor coordination, respectively.
The same specialized skills should likewise be required for the Chief of MISO and the JRPA of the PMO. As heads of these offices, the Chief of MISO and JRPA of the PMO must possess the requisite knowledge and expertise to lead their respective offices in the performance of their main tasks.
Accordingly, even as the Court sees the importance of maintaining uniformity of the QS for positions in the same level, the nature of the functions of each office must play a dominant role in determining who 'should head these offices. The technical or specialized skills needed for the positions of Chief of MISO and JRPA of the PMO should, therefore, be the foremost consideration in setting their respective QS. Thus, while a law degree and membership in the Bar is preferred, post-graduate studies in Computer Science (for MISO) and in public administration, finance, economics, or related fields (for JRPA of the PMO) would be adequate substitutes.
As regards the judicial ranking of the two positions, the Court reaffirms the Court's Resolution dated June 6, 2006, and applies the same to the PMO. Thus:
- If the appointee for Chief, MISO/JRPA is a lawyer, he/she will be given the collatilla ''Deputy Clerk of Court" and entitled to judicial rank. He/She will be given the rank, salary and privileges of [an RTC] judge;
- If the appointee for the Chief, MISO/JRPA is not a lawyer, he/she will only be considered as a Chief of Office. He/She will not be given the collatilla "Deputy Clerk of Court" and will not be entitled to judicial rank.
Relative to the QS for the Assistant Chief of Office of the MISO and Deputy JRPA of the PMO, the Court agrees with the OAS recommendation, subject to the modification of the educational requirement. Considering the higher education standard required of the Chief of MISO and JRPA of the PMO, which is a Master's degree, in the case of the Assistant Chief, this may be substituted with post-graduate units in computer science or ICT, and post-graduate units in Public Administration, Business Administration, Finance, Economics, Social Sciences or any related field, respectively.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Court APPROVES, with modification, the recommendations of the OAS on the Qualification Standards for Chief of Office, Management Information Systems Office and Judicial Reform Program Administrator, Program Management Office, as follows:
and the Qualification Standards for Assistant Chief of Office, MISO and Deputy Judicial Reform Program Administrator, PMO:
Chief of Office
Judicial Reform
Program AdministratorBachelor of Laws with al east 18 units in public administration, business administration, finance, economics, social sciences or any related field or Bachelor's degree and post-graduate degree in public administration, finance, economics, social sciences or any related field
Assistant Chief of Office
Deputy Judicial Reform
Program Administrator
SO ORDERED.
Puno, C.J., Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Carpio, Corona, Carpio Morales, Chico-Nazario, Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro, Brion, Peralta, Bersamin, Del Castillo, and Abad, JJ., concur.
[1] Rollo, p-15.
[2] Id. at 4-5.
[3] Id. at 39.
[4] Id. at 18.
[5] Id. at 55-56.
[6] Id. at 71-72.
[7] Id. at 74-82.
[8] Id. at 125-127.
[9] Id. at 144-147.
[10] Id. al 128-132.