Nine out of every ten who attempted it walked away unqualified
In the early months of 2021, the Supreme Court of the Philippines revealed that only 71 of 654 candidates had passed the 2020 Shariah Bar Examinations — a passage rate of 10.86 percent, the second lowest since these specialized exams began in 1983. The result places a quiet but significant weight on the shoulders of Islamic legal practice in the Philippines, where Shariah courts serve Muslim communities in matters of family, inheritance, and personal law. That nine in ten aspirants were turned away invites a deeper reckoning with how a society prepares those entrusted to interpret sacred law.
- Only 71 of 654 examinees cleared the 2020 Shariah Bar — a 10.86% pass rate that shocked the legal community and etched itself into the record books as the second worst in history.
- The sole grimmer precedent dates to 1983, when just 14 of 182 candidates passed, a haunting benchmark that the 2020 cohort came uncomfortably close to matching.
- Court of Appeals Justice Japar Dimaampao, who chairs the examining committee, openly acknowledged the gravity of the outcome, signaling institutional awareness of a systemic problem rather than a statistical anomaly.
- The ten top scorers — led by Mohammad Hisham Mocsir at 87.075% — now represent a thin new layer of qualified practitioners for courts that serve Muslim communities across the country.
- Whether the exam grew harder, preparation standards declined, or qualification thresholds shifted remains unanswered, leaving the Shariah court system with few new practitioners and the legal community with pressing questions.
On a Wednesday in early 2021, the Supreme Court of the Philippines released results that would mark a somber chapter in the history of Islamic legal practice in the country. Of 654 candidates who sat for the January 2020 Shariah Bar Examinations, only 71 passed — a rate of 10.86 percent, the second lowest ever recorded. The only darker moment came in 1983, when a mere 14 of 182 examinees qualified, setting a floor that the 2020 cohort nearly reached.
Justice Japar Dimaampao of the Court of Appeals, who chairs the committee overseeing the exams, acknowledged the historic weight of the outcome. The examination had been held over two days at the Court of Appeals building in Manila's Ermita district, with four examiners covering subjects ranging from family relations and property to Shariah court procedure and the settlement of estates.
Among those who passed, Mohammad Hisham Mocsir led with 87.075 percent, followed by Ramayana Saidamen and Mohammad Mojib Marangit. Seven others rounded out the successful cohort, their scores clustered between 80 and 85 percent. These eleven individuals are now qualified to practice before the Shariah courts — the bodies that adjudicate personal law, family matters, and inheritance within Muslim communities across the Philippines.
The 583 who did not pass leave behind a question the official announcement does not resolve: whether the examination was unusually demanding that year, whether preparation had weakened, or whether the standards for entry had quietly risen. What remains clear is that the 2020 Shariah Bar produced a strikingly small cohort of new practitioners, and that the gap between those who attempted the exam and those who cleared it demands a serious conversation about the pipeline into Islamic legal service.
The Supreme Court released results on a Wednesday in early 2020 that would become a cautionary marker in the history of Islamic legal practice in the Philippines. Of the 654 people who sat for the special bar examinations for the Shariah courts that January, only 71 passed. The number translates to 10.86 percent—a passage rate so low it ranks as the second-worst on record.
Court of Appeals Associate Justice Japar Dimaampao, who chairs the committee overseeing these examinations, acknowledged the severity of the outcome. The results, he said, would be remembered as a historic low point. The only worse performance came nearly four decades earlier, in 1983, when just 14 examinees cleared the bar out of a field of 182 test-takers—a passage rate of 7.69 percent. That 1983 exam remains the floor against which all subsequent attempts are measured.
The ten candidates who succeeded carried scores that ranged from the mid-80s to just above 80 percent. Mohammad Hisham Mocsir topped the group with 87.075 percent, followed by Ramayana Saidamen at 86.975 percent and Mohammad Mojib Marangit at 85.075 percent. The remaining seven—Julamin Paglala, Ainah Pumbaya, Sittie Ainah Ali, Nasihah Mamarungas, Johari Abubacar, Raima Panandigan, and Nornisah Taha—clustered between 80.95 and 84.625 percent. These were the individuals deemed qualified to practice before the Shariah courts, the judicial bodies that handle matters of personal law, family relations, and inheritance within Muslim communities across the country.
The examination itself had been administered across two days in January at the Court of Appeals building in Manila's Ermita district. Four examiners had overseen different subject areas: lawyer Melchor Rey Sadain covered persons, family relations, and property; Dr. Asnawil Ronsing examined jurisprudence and customary law; Dean Norhabib Bin Suod Barodi tested procedure within Shariah courts; and Dr. Jamel Cayamodin assessed succession, wills, and estate settlement. Each examiner had been responsible for evaluating whether candidates possessed the knowledge and reasoning necessary to adjudicate matters of Islamic law.
The scale of failure—583 people walking away without qualification—raises questions that the announcement itself does not answer. Whether the examination had been unusually difficult that year, whether preparation standards had shifted, or whether the bar for entry into Shariah court practice had been raised remains unclear from the official record. What is certain is that the 2020 cohort faced a test that rejected nine out of every ten who attempted it, leaving the Shariah court system with a small pool of newly qualified practitioners and the broader legal community with a puzzle about what had changed.
Notable Quotes
The results will go down in history as the second lowest passing percentage— Court of Appeals Associate Justice Japar Dimaampao, chair of the Shariah Bar Examinations committee
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why would a passage rate drop so dramatically? What made 2020 different from other years?
The announcement doesn't say. We know the exam happened, we know who passed, but the reasons behind the failure rate—whether the test was harder, whether fewer people were prepared, whether standards shifted—that's not in the official record.
Is a 10.86% pass rate actually unusual for a specialized bar exam, or is this genuinely alarming?
It's alarming enough that it ranks second-worst in nearly forty years of history. The only worse year was 1983. So either something went wrong in 2020, or the Shariah bar has always been brutally selective.
What happens to the 583 people who failed? Can they try again?
The announcement doesn't address that. They're simply not qualified to practice. Whether they can retake the exam, whether there's a waiting period, whether they move into other legal work—none of that is explained.
Who benefits from such a high failure rate?
That's the real question, isn't it. A small pool of qualified practitioners might mean less competition, higher fees, more gatekeeping. Or it might mean the Shariah courts struggle to find enough judges and lawyers to handle cases.
Do the names of the ten who passed tell us anything?
They're all Muslim names, which makes sense for a Shariah court bar. But beyond that, no—we don't know where they trained, what their backgrounds were, whether they were repeat test-takers or first-timers.