WHETER THE SUPREME COURT ALLOW NON-BAR PASSER TO BE GIVEN NOTARIAL COMMISSION

-I am negating the proposition that the SC should allow non-bar passer to be given notarial commission.

Here, the word non-bar passer is very broad and is a little confusing, are we only talking about those
who took the bar and not make it? Or all non-lawyers.

However, the more important point here is, those who pass the bar are… lawyers, and lawyers are
knowledgeable of the law, lawyers are experts of the law. They should be the only ones to perform
notarial acts.

Let me present to you 2 significant points why non-bar passers should not be given notarial
commissions.

First, notarized documents are considered reliable evidence. Thus, notaries public should be well-versed
with rules on evidence. Who better do this than lawyers? Lawyers are considered to be more
knowledgeable about the gravity and significance of notarized documents.

We learned in our evidence subject that there is presumption of regularity in notarized documents. So,
why allow non-bar passer who did not take an oath to be given notarial commission?

I quoted some of the SC’s decision relevant to this argument:

“Generally, a notarized document carries the evidentiary weight conferred upon it with respect to its due
execution, and documents acknowledged before a notary public have in their favor the presumption of
regularity which may only be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence.”

”It is well-settled that a document acknowledged before a Notary Public is a public document that enjoys
the presumption of regularity. It is prima facie evidence of the truth of the facts stated therein and a
conclusive presumption of its existence and due execution. (Ocampo vs. Land Bank of the Philippines,
591 SCRA 562, 571).”

“Otherwise stated, public or notarial documents, or those instruments duly acknowledged or proved and
certified as provided by law, may be presented in evidence without further proof, the certificate of
acknowledgment being prima facie evidence of the execution of the instrument or document involved
(Alfacero vs. Sevilla, 411 SCRA 387, 393). In order to contradict the presumption of regularity of a public
document, evidence must be clear, convincing, and more than merely preponderant.”

Based on these jurisprudence, should we entrust notarial documents to non-bar passers who has limited
knowledge about the gravity and significance of notarized documents, who has limited knowledge on
the legal consequences of performing notarial acts?

Second, notarial commission is a privilege for lawyers, that those who passed the bar, took the oath, and
signed the roll of attorneys may perform it. Just like how lawyering or the practice of law is a privilege to
lawyers only.
It is not a natural right, nor a constitutional right, nor an absolute right granted to everyone who wants it
or demands it. Rather, it is a privilege limited to few. It is a privilege granted to those who posses the
qualifications required by law for the conferment of such privilege. First of which is, to be a lawyer, a bar-
passer.

Notarized documents are public document. It goes back to the first argument that it is presumed of
regularity. It involves trust and confidence between the client and the notary public so that person who
performs notarial acts should be a person expert in law, a lawyer.

In performing notarial acts, there is absolute commitment, there is continuing compliance. Would you
allow a non-bar passer who did not even take the oath to perform notarial acts?

Moreover, performing notarial acts demands wisdom and firmness. Risks are high. You can be suspended
because of an erroneous or a mistake. Will this be fair for lawyers? Will the suspension of a lawyer equal
to the suspension of a non-bar passer?

If a non-bar passer will be given notarial commission, it would be a defiance of the standards of the law.
It is no longer a privilege, but a right claimed by everybody else.