Re: Ampaso
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Samanodin L. Ampaso was appointed Jurisconsult in Islamic Law on March 26, 1991. He requested the upgrading of his position to Salary Grade 31, equivalent to an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, asserting his status as the highest Muslim Judicial Officer. He also proposed the creation of staff positions for his office. Procedural History: The Supreme Court, through the Office of the Court Administrator, discovered that Mr. Ampaso's declared birthdate of January 2, 1952, indicated he was only 39 years old when he took his oath on April 10, 1991, failing to meet the minimum age requirement of 40 years under Article 165 of P.D. 1083. The Court required him to show cause why he should not be removed. Mr. Ampaso claimed his true birthdate was January 2, 1948, attributing the discrepancy to his brother's error in filling out his Personal Data Sheet and GSIS information sheet. He submitted a passport and a late-registered birth certificate as proof. The Petition: The Court reviewed Mr. Ampaso's explanation and supporting documents. The Senior Deputy Court Administrator found his explanation unacceptable. The Court considered whether the appointment was valid given the alleged failure to meet the age requirement.
Issue(s)
Whether the appointment of Samanodin L. Ampaso as Jurisconsult in Islamic Law was legally valid from the beginning, considering his alleged failure to meet the age requirement at the time of his oath-taking. Whether Mr. Ampaso's explanation and submitted documents sufficiently proved his correct birthdate to cure the defect in his appointment.
Ruling
The Court resolved to declare NULL and VOID ab initio the appointment of Samanodin Ampaso as Jurisconsult.
Ratio Decidendi
On the validity of the appointment: The Court held that the validity of Mr. Ampaso's appointment as Jurisconsult must be resolved first. The resolution hinges on whether all requirements for the appointment were met. The Court found that Mr. Ampaso's declared birthdate of January 2, 1952, meant he was only 39 years old when he took his oath on April 10, 1991. This directly contravened Article 165 of P.D. 1083, which requires appointees to be at least forty years of age. Therefore, he failed to comply with a mandatory qualification for the position. On Mr. Ampaso's explanation and proof: The Court found Mr. Ampaso's claim that his brother mistakenly filled out his personal data sheets to be an unacceptable excuse and a mere afterthought. The Court reasoned that it is highly improbable for someone aspiring for such a high office to delegate the filling of personal data forms. Even if he did delegate it, he would have had to sign the forms, and it is incumbent upon him to read and verify the contents before signing. Signing without reading is not an excusable or credible defense. The subsequent submission of a late-registered birth certificate and a passport were deemed insufficient to cure the defect. The Court noted that the birth certificate was uncertified, and passports are not conclusive proof of birthdates as the data is supplied by the applicant. The affidavits of disinterested persons were considered hearsay and self-serving. Thus, these documents did not constitute adequate proof of his actual birthdate.
Main Doctrine
An appointment to the office of Jurisconsult in Islamic Law is void ab initio if the appointee failed to meet the mandatory age requirement at the time of taking the oath of office, and self-serving or unsubstantiated claims of corrected birthdates will not cure such defect.