THE UNITED METHODIST CHURCH
JUDICIAL COUNCIL
IN RE: CONSTITUTIONALITY, LEGALITY, MEANING, APPLICATION OR EFFECT OF THE ACTIONS OF THE COUNCIL OF BISHOPS AND COLLEGE OF BISHOPS OF THE PHILIPPINES CENTRAL CONFERENCE CONCERNING THE IMPOSITION OF SUSPENSION, TERMINATION OF MEMBERSHIP FROM THE UNITED METHODIST CHURCH AND THE FORFEITURE OF POSITION AS BISHOP OF MANILA EPISCOPAL AREA, PHILIPPINES CENTRAL CONFERENCE,
THE COUNCIL OF BISHOPS
The United Methodist Church
100 Maryland Avenue, NE, Suite 320
Washington DC, USA 20002
THE COLLEGE OF BISHOPS-
PHILIPPINES CENTRAL CONFERENCE
The UMC Headquarters, 900 U.N. Avenue,
Ermita, City of Manila, Metro-Manila, Philippines
THE COMMITTEE ON EPISCOPACY
PHILIPPINES CENTRAL CONFERENCE
The UMC Headquarters, 900 U.N. Avenue,
Ermita, City of Manila, Metro Manila, Philippines
BISHOP LITO CABACUNGAN TANGONAN,
Duly Elected Bishop of the Philippines Central
Conference (PCC)and was assigned as Resident
Bishop of the Manila Episcopal Area (MEA) of The
United Methodist Church (UMC).
x---------------------------------------------------------------------x
PETITION FOR DECLARATORY DECISION
Bishop LITO CABACUNGAN TANGONAN, by himself, respectfully, states:
1. On 20 July 2011, the Council of Bishops issued a letter which pertinently states:
“x x x x x x
“Bishops in the United Methodist Church, upon election, agree to uphold and abide by The Book of Discipline of the church in all matters. Your former bishop, Lito Tangonan, has continually violated the principles and expectations of a person who is elected to this office. While repeatedly claiming that actions taken by the Philippine College of Bishops were illegal, even thoughThe Book of Discipline and Judicial Council decisions confirmed their actions, he continued to attempt to function as a bishop in clear violation of his suspension. Efforts on the part of the whole Council of Bishops to mediate and achieve a resolution were met with resistance and noncooperation on the part of Lito Tangonan.
“The actions of your former bishop, Lito Tangonan, related to the formation of the Methodist Church of the Philippines have now led to a withdrawal of membership in and service in The United Methodist Church. We know that he was present at the May 7, 2011, gathering at Carmen United Methodist Church, in Zaragoza, Nueva Ecija, that established this independent church. We also know and have evidence that he has presided at a session of the Methodist Church of the Philippines, and has appointed pastors to these dissident churches. Therefore, his involvement with this schismatic church, in accordance with Judicial Council Decision 696, means that he can no longer be treated as a bishop of The United Methodist Church. His participation and leadership in this break-away church is tantamount to withdrawing without notice. In essence, he has forfeited his membership and position as a bishop.
“In response to this unfortunate sequence of events, the Executive Committee of the Council of Bishops, acting on behalf of the Council of Bishops, has declared that the position of Bishop of the Manila Area of the United Methodist Church has been vacated by Lito Tangonan’s actions. In accordance with Paragraph 407 of The Book of Discipline, Bishop Daniel Arichea has now been assigned to serve as interim bishop of the Manila Area until the election of a new bishop is held at the regular session of the Philippine Central Conference in 2012.” (Emphasis supplied)
A copy of the letter is hereto attached as Annex “A.”
The action of the Council of Bishops is constitutionally infirm; it is in breach of the provisions of the 2008 Book of Discipline and disregarded the time-honoured principle of due process.
FACTUAL AND HISTORICAL ANTECEDENTS
1. On 12-13 January 2010, the Executive Committee of the Council of Bishops met in Dallas, Texas, U.S.A. and affirmed the initial suspension of sixty (60) days imposed by the College of Bishops of the Philippines Central Conference (“College of Bishops-PCC” for brevity) against Bishop Lito C. Tangonan.
1.1 Bishop Tangonan did not receive the official notice of such written affirmation but this was included in the Resolution dated 26 January 2010 of the College of Bishops-PCC.
1.2 A copy of which is hereto attached as Annex “B.”
2. On 25 September 2010, Bishop Tangonan issued a protest letter concerning the Resolution dated 18 September 2010 of the College of Bishops-PCC, furnishing likewise the Council of Bishops a copy thereof.
2.1 A copy of the said letter is hereto attached hereto as Annex “C.”
3. On 10 November 2010, the Council of Bishops, thru its President, President-Designate and Executive Secretary, sent an e-mail letter to Bishop Tangonan demanding the latter’s commitments to the imposed conditions prior to taking their trip to the Philippines to meet with Bishop Tangonan.
3.1 A copy of the e-mail letter dated 10 November 2010 is hereto attached as Annex “D.”
4. In reply thereto, Bishop Tangonan issued a letter dated 29 November 2010, explaining the continuing violations being committed by the College of Bishops-PCC and the need for the reconciliation and healing through the intercession of the President of the Council of Bishops.
4.1 A copy of the letter is hereto attached as Annex “E.”
5. In the meantime, no meeting occurred with the officers of the Council of Bishops concerning its intended intercession in the Philippines.
6. As a consequence of series of suspensions being imposed by the College of Bishops-PCC, another protest letter was issued by Bishop Tangonan dated 26 January 2011.
6.1 A copy thereof is hereto attached as Annex “F.”
7. On 06 March 2011, the interim Bishop Daniel Arichea issued a letter indicating the interim action of the Executive Committee of the Council of Bishops upon the request of the College of Bishops-PCC suspending Bishop Tangonan for the period of January 20, 2011 until March 19, 2011.
7.1 A copy of the letter, inclusive of the e-mail message of the President of Council of Bishops, is hereto attached as Annex “G.”
8. On 15 March 2011, Bishop Tangonan issued a letter addressed to the President of the Council of Bishops, Larry Goodpaster, informing the latter of the dismissal of the complaints against him by the PCC-Committee on Investigations.
8.1 A copy of the letter is hereto attached as Annex “H.”
9. On 18 April 2011, Bishop Tangonan issued another letter addressed to the President of the Council of Bishops protesting again the illegal suspension and suggesting that any resolution to the issue should be discussed and ascertained in the Philippines and not elsewhere.
9.1 A copy of the letter is hereto attached as Annex “I.”
10. On 10 May 2011, in an e-mail letter to Bishop Tangonan, Bishop Goodpaster stated his concern on the alleged birth of Philippine Methodist Church.
10.1 A copy of the e-mail letter dated 10 May 2011 is hereto attached as Annex “J.”
11. On 16 May 2011, the College of Bishops-PCC issued the following letter of even date, to wit:
“A Pastoral Statement
“To : The UMC Community in the Philippines
“From : The College of Bishops
“Date : May 16, 2011
“There are some recent developments in our church about which we want to inform you and to suggest to you how we might regard and handle them.
“First, on May 7, 2011, some members and pastors of our church have decided to withdraw officially their membership in The United Methodist Church and organize themselves into a separate church which they name “The Philippines Methodist Church”. This was done in Carmen United Methodist Church in Zaragoza, Nueva Ecija and was attended by some 200 people – lay and pastors and Bishop Lito Tangonan.
“This is a sad event in the history of our church. This is the third time that there is schism in the Methodist community in the Philippines. We deeply wish that it should never have happened.
“However, for whatever reasons these people are formally breaking membership relation with us, we must acknowledge that they have the right to do so. Membership in our church is voluntary, and withdrawal of that membership is equally voluntary. Such a choice is an expression of the right to religious freedom.
“Should they wish to restore their membership with us later on, we must welcome them.
“Second, it appears that these people have proclaimed officially that the first bishop of their schismatically organized group is Bishop Lito Tangonan. By all indications in terms of his participation in the preparation of the Carmen event, the proclamation of the schismatic group, and the structuring of the schismatic church, Bishop Tangonan appears to have accepted this offer. Given his active participation in establishing the schismatic group, he could not deny the offer, and he did not. The only reasonable conclusion is that he now heads the schismatic church. This means that Bishop Tangonan has renounced his membership in the United Methodist Church, has vacated the office of Bishop of the United Methodist Church, and terminated his membership in both the College of Bishops of the Philippines Central Conference and the Council of Bishops of the United Methodist Church.
“This is also a very sad event in the history of our church. We regret it very deeply.
“However, Bishop Tangonan has the right to make this choice. We must respect both the right and the choice in which it was exercised.
“It is only proper that in our respect of his right and of his choice, we shall no longer, from hereon, regard Bishop Tangonan as a bona fide member of our church and a bishop in our church.
“Thirdly, The pastors and district superintendents who have joined in organizing the “Philippines Methodist Church” in exercise of their right and by the choice they have made are to be treated officially as having formally terminated their membership and ministry in The United Methodist Church.
“The restoration of their membership and ministry – while welcome – may, however, depend on some conditions being met in accordance with the Discipline of The United Methodist Church.
“Fourthly, the organizing of the Philippines Methodist Church as a schismatic group may entail questions of claims to properties. These questions may become legal issues that may entail court litigation and action. We shall do our best in protecting the interests and properties of The United Methodist Church.
“Fifthly, we have no information that whole local churches or congregations are withdrawing from being a part of The United Methodist Church connection.
“It may be that only members of local churches are seceding, not whole local churches. If this is the case, then the local church from which some of its members are withdrawing their membership remains and continues to be a local church of the entire UMC connection. Moreover, local churches are parts of annual conferences which are legally incorporated. And so their legal status is unimpaired by some of their members terminating their membership. If a whole local church and its entire membership decide to terminate their connectional and incorporate status, this may require an action of approval by the annual conference of which it is a member.
“Finally, if a local church or some local churches decide to terminate their connectional and corporate status and the annual conference agrees, that does not impair the connectional and corporate status of the annual conference concerned. It retains legal authority over its properties, since properties of local churches are held in trust of The United Methodist Church – and are therefore connectionally held – and at the same time held corporately by the annual conference.
“In conclusion, schism in the church is always a sad and troublesome affair. They have immediate and long-term consequences. In view of this, let us not make the situation become any worse than it is. Let us refrain from hurting words and harmful deeds. Let us act in good faith always speaking the truth in love. And with every opportunity that comes, let us together work toward preserving and promoting the unity of the church.”
11.1 A copy of the pastoral statement is hereto attached as Annex “K.”
12. On 17 May 2011, the Council of Bishops issued another suspension against Bishop Tangonan supposedly upon the request of the College of Bishops-PCC for a period of sixty (60) days.
12.1 The said letter pertinently reads:
“x x x x x x
“This letter is to inform you that the Executive Committee of the Council of Bishops, acting on the request of the Philippine College of Bishops, has suspended you from your office, effective May 19, 2011, for a period of sixty days. You are in violation of The Book of Discipline of the United Methodist Church because you continue to function as a bishop, even while under suspension, and you have repeatedly done so. That is the essence of the complaint we have lodged against you.
“You have ignored our invitations to participate in a supervisory hearing to bring resolution to this, and all matters related to your serving in the office of bishop. You have failed to answer inquiries from me regarding the birthing of autonomous Philippine Methodist Church. And, you continue to defy the covenant that exists among your sisters and brothers of the Council of Bishop of the United Methodist Church.
“As President of the Council of Bishop, I am still ready to travel to the Philippines to meet with you to resolve these issues. However, as you have in the past, you refuse to accept our offer or to be in the same covenant in which every other bishop of the United Methodist Church stands. We regret the turmoil your defiance has created in the Philippines, but until you give some indication that you are willing to abide by The Book of Discipline we have no choice but to lodge this complaint and suspend you once again.
“x x x x x x” (Emphasis supplied)
12.2 A copy of the letter is hereto attached as Annex “L.”
13. In a letter dated 20 May 2011, Bishop Tangonan issued his reply to the above letter-suspension of Bishop Goodpaster questioning the authority and jurisdiction of the Council of Bishops to issue such suspension order.
13.1 Bishop Tangonan indicated that he is “still confident that you and the Executive Committee of the Council of Bishops will eventually and seriously address these pressing issues and concerns without prejudicial and partial conditions and biases” with the corresponding reiteration of his “invitation for you and some members of the Executive Committee of the Council of Bishops to visit the Philippines and sit down with us especially with those who are being too much affected” and “beseech(ing) you to please hear our lingering cries and sentiments.”
13.2 A copy of the letter is hereto attached as Annex “M.”
14. In an e-mail reply dated 20 May 2011 from Bishop Goodpaster, he stated:
“Thank you for your responses and letter which I am reading and praying about, and will do so over the next couple of days. I am more than willing to come to the Philippines to sit down with you and resolve these issues, but you were not willing to agree to such a meeting in December. Please assure me that if we make a trip, you will be willing to meet with me and a team of bishops at a time and place we determine, and help us bring healing to the churches in the Philippines. Your relationship with the autonomous movement (Philippine Methodist Church) is of deep concern. I assure you of our willingness to resolve all the issues around what you consider “illegal suspensions” and the divisions that have resulted.”
14.1 A copy of the email letter is hereto attached as Annex “N.”
15. On 23 May 2011, the General Council on Finance and Administration (GCFA) notified Bishop Tangonan that, according to the College of Bishops-PCC, he voluntarily withdrew his membership from the United Methodist Church and have united with another denomination. The said letter pertinently states:
“Dear Lito Tangonan:
We received notification today from the Philippine Central Conference College of Bishop, dated May 16, 2011, that you have voluntarily withdrawn from membership in the United Methodist Church and have united with another denomination.” (Emphasis supplied)
15.1 A copy of the letter dated 23 May 2011 is hereto attached as Annex “O.”
16. In a letter dated 27 May 2011, Bishop Tangonan categorically denied such statement made by the GCFA as the conclusion was made without verifying the facts given by the College of Bishops-PCC.
16.1 A copy of the letter is hereto attached as Annex “P.”
17. Meanwhile, on 13 June 2011, Bishop Tangonan sought reconsideration of the Judicial Council Memorandum 1183 dated 29 April 2011 in his letter to the Judicial Council.
17.1 A copy of the letter is hereto attached as Annex “Q.”
18. As Bishop Tangonan relied on the representations made by Larry Goodpaster, the President of the Council of Bishops, for the intended visit to the Philippines in order to help and mediate in resolving the numerous controversies in the Philippines Central Conference, Bishop Tangonan deemed it prudent to wait for such visit.
18.1 However, with the issuance of the assailed 20-July-2011 letter of the Council of Bishops, no meeting much less healing was convoked in accordance with the written assurances made by the President of the Council of Bishops.
19. Hence, this petition.
DISCUSSION OF JURISDICTIONAL GROUNDS
FOR THE ALLOWANCE OF THE PETITION
The Book of Discipline (“2008 Discipline”) provides:
“¶ 2610. Declaratory Decisions—1. The Judicial Council, on petition as hereinafter provided, shall have jurisdiction to make a ruling in the nature of a declaratory decision as to the constitutionality, meaning, application, or effect of the Discipline or any portion thereof x x x”
“2. The following bodies in The United Methodist Church are hereby authorized to make such petitions to the Judicial Council for declaratory decisions: x x x (i) any body authorized or created by a central conference on matters relating to or affecting the work of such body; x x x”
In the guidelines annexed to the Rules of Practice and Procedure, for the petition to be the subject of jurisdiction of the Judicial Council, it must meet two conditions: “(1) it must be a matter which affects the body filing the petition; and (2) it must involve the constitutionality, meaning, application, or effect of the 2008 Discipline or some portions thereof.”
Moreover, in Judicial Council Memorandum No. 1118, this Honourable Judicial Council states that “(a) request for a declaratory decision must be based upon some action taken or proposed to be taken by the annual conference, wherein under the specific facts in each case some doubt may have arisen over the legality of the action taken or proposed. The request for a declaratory decision must also make reference to a specific paragraph of the Discipline thought to have been violated.”
In this case, Bishop Tangonan is the duly elected bishop of the Philippines Central Conference of the United Methodist Church (“PCC-UMC”)[1] in 2008, and was assigned as the Resident Bishop of the Manila Episcopal Area (MEA) whose term is until 2012. He is a member of the College of Bishops of the Philippines Central Conference and his episcopal position as bishop and as the assigned Bishop of the area crafted and fixed by the Philippines Central Conference[2] is adversely affected and unnecessarily terminated by the unwarranted actions of the Council of Bishops of the United Methodist Church for having been issued without jurisdiction, contrary to the provisions of the 2008 Disciplineand in violation of basic tenets of fair process enshrined in the 2008 Discipline.
Further, considering the novelty and uniqueness of the issues involved herein as powers not granted are being exercised to the detriment and prejudice of Bishop Tangonan as bishop of the PCC-UMC, it is requested that the instant petition be taken cognizance by the Honourable Judicial Council in order to provide a clear and unmistakable delineation of the powers of the Council of Bishops in relation to the College of Bishops-PCC and such other provisions of the Discipline relative to processing of complaints, disciplinary powers, including the initial factual determination of allegations of withdrawal of membership from the United Methodist Church and/or ordained members uniting with another denomination.
As clearly stated in the grounds discussed below, the Council of Bishops as well as the College of Bishops-PCC violated several provisions of the Constitution and the 2008 Discipline and must be declared invalid, unconstitutional and illegal.
GROUNDS AND DISCUSSION
I.
THE COUNCIL OF BISHOPS HAS NO POWER AND AUTHORITY TO SUSPEND THE BISHOP OF THE PHILIPPINES CENTRAL CONFERENCE EITHER UNDER ¶ 47 ARTICLE III OF THE CONSTITUTION OR UNDER ¶427 OF THE DISCIPLINE.
1. The first suspension order imposed by the Council of Bishops thru its Executive Committee against Bishop Tangonan, commenced on 20 January 2011 until 19 March 2011. Said procedure was repeated in its letter dated 17 May 2011 suspending anew Bishop Tangonan for a period of sixty (60) days from 19 May 2011 until 18 July 2011.
2. Such power of suspension is outside the power of the Council of Bishops and should therefore be declared illegal, invalid and void ab initio.
3. The Constitution specifically granted authority and powers to the Council of Bishops under ¶ 47 of Article III in this wise:
“There shall be a Council of Bishops composed of all the bishops of The United Methodist Church. The council shall meet at least once a year and plan for the general oversight and promotion of the temporal and spiritual interests of the entire Church and for carrying into effect the rules, regulations, and responsibilities prescribed and enjoined by the General Conference and in accord with the provisions set forth in this Plan of Union.” (Emphasis supplied)
4. In ¶ 427 of the 2008 Discipline, the nature of the power and authority of the Council of Bishops has been identified as being “charged with the oversight of the spiritual and temporal affairs of the whole Church, to be executed in regularized consultation and cooperation and with other councils and service agencies of the Church.” Thus:
“¶ 427. Council of Bishops—1. Bishops, although elected by jurisdictional or central conferences, are elected general superintendents of the whole Church. As all ordained ministers are first elected into membership of an annual conference and subsequently appointed to pastoral charges, so bishops become through their election members first of the Council of Bishops before they are subsequently assigned to areas of service. By virtue of their election and consecration, bishops are members of the Council of Bishops and are bound in special covenant with all other bishops. In keeping with this covenant, bishops fulfil their servant leadership and express their mutual accountability. The Council of Bishops is a faith community of mutual trust and concern responsible for the faith development and continuing well-being of its members.
“2. The Council of Bishops is thus the collegial expression of episcopal leadership in the Church and through the Church into the world. The Church expects the Council of Bishops to speak to the Church and from the Church to the world and to give leadership in the quest for Christian unity and interreligious relationships.
“3. In order to exercise meaningful leadership, the Council of Bishops is to meet at stated intervals. The Council of Bishops is charged with the oversight of the spiritual and temporal affairs of the whole Church, to be executed in regularized consultation and cooperation with other councils and service agencies of the Church.
“4. The Council of Bishops may assign one of its members to visit another episcopal area or Methodist-related church. When so assigned, the bishop shall be recognized as the accredited representative of the Council of Bishops, and when requested by the resident bishop or president in that area or Church, may exercise therein the functions of episcopacy.” (Emphasis supplied)
5. It is evident from the foregoing provision of the Constitution as well as the 2008 Discipline that the power of the Council of Bishops refers to a collegial consultation and cooperation with the concerned agencies of the Church. It has no administrative control and supervision over the Manila Espiscopal Area of the Philippines Central Conference or disciplinary control over the acts of Bishop Tangonan.
6. The Council of Bishops or its Executive Committee does not possess disciplinary power to suspend Bishop Tangonan concerning the alleged violations of the 2008 Discipline.
7. A perusal of the Discipline reveals that there are five (5) interrelated disciplinary provisions, namely: (¶ 413; ¶ 2703; ¶ 2704; ¶ 2706; and ¶ 2712) covering the processing of complaint against a bishop, as enumerated and pertinently stated below:
8. Paragraph 413 of the Discipline reads:
“¶ 413. Complaints Against Bishops—1. Episcopal leadership in The United Methodist Church shares with all other ordained persons in the sacred trust of their ordination. The ministry of bishops as set forth in The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church also flows from the gospel as taught by Jesus the Christ and proclaimed by his apostles (¶ 402). Whenever a bishop violates this trust or is unable to fulfill appropriate responsibilities, continuation in the Episcopal office shall be subject to review. This review shall have as its primary purpose a just resolution of any violations of this sacred trust, in the hope that God’s work of justice, reconciliation, and healing may be realized.
“2. Any complaint concerning the effectiveness, competence, or one or more of the offenses listed in ¶ 2702 shall be submitted to the president of the College of Bishops in that jurisdictional or central conference. If the complaint concerns the president, it shall be submitted to the secretary of the College of Bishops. A complaint is a written statement claiming misconduct, unsatisfactory performance of ministerial duties, or one or more of the offenses listed in ¶ 2702.7
“3. After receiving a complaint as provided in ¶ 413.2, the president and the secretary of the College of Bishops, or the secretary and another member of the college if the complaint concerns the president (or the president and another member of the college if the complaint concerns the secretary), shall, within 10 days, consult the chair of the jurisdictional or central conference committee on episcopacy who shall appoint from the committee one professing member and one clergy member who are not from the same episcopal area; who are not from the episcopal area that the bishop under complaint was elected from or has been assigned to; and who are not of the same gender.
a) When deemed appropriate to protect the well-being of the complainant, the Church and/or bishop, the College of Bishops, in consultation with the jurisdictional or central conference committee on episcopacy, may suspend the bishop from all episcopal responsibilities for a period not to exceed sixty days. During the suspension, salary, housing and benefits will continue.
“b) The supervisory response is pastoral and administrative and shall be directed toward a just resolution. It is not a part of any judicial process. The supervisory response should be carried out in a confidential manner and should be completed within 120 days. There may be an extension of 120 days if the supervising bishop and the two jurisdictional or central conference episcopacy committee members appointed to the supervisory process shall determine that an extension will be productive. There may be a second extension of 120 days by the mutual written consent of the supervisory bishop, members of the jurisdictional or central conference episcopacy committee appointed to the supervisory process, the complainant and the bishop under complaint.
“The supervising bishop shall regularly advise all parties of the status of the process and shall notify all parties within 7 days after a determination is made that the supervisory response will not lead to a resolution of the matter.
“No verbatim record shall be made and legal counsel shall not be present, although the bishop against whom the complaint was made and the complainant both may choose another person to accompany him or her, with the right to voice. At the determination of the president (secretary), persons with qualifications and experience in assessment, intervention, or healing may be selected to assist in the supervisory responses. Others may be consulted as well.
“c) The supervisory response may include a process seeking a just resolution in which the parties are assisted by a trained, impartial third party facilitator(s) or mediator(s) in reaching an agreement satisfactory to all parties. (See ¶ 361.1[b]). The appropriate persons, including the president of the College of Bishops, or the secretary if the complaint concerns the president, should enter into a written agreement outlining such process, including an agreement as to confidentiality. If resolution is achieved, a written statement of resolution, including terms and conditions, shall be signed by the parties and the parties shall agree on any matters to be disclosed to third parties. Such written statement of resolution shall be given to the person in charge of that stage of the process for further action consistent with the agreement.
“d) If the supervisory response results in the resolution of the matter, the bishop in charge of the supervisory response and the two episcopacy committee members appointed to the supervisory process (¶ 413.3) shall monitor the fulfilment of the terms of the resolution. If the supervisory response does not result in resolution of the matter, the president or secretary of the College of Bishops may refer the matter as an Administrative Complaint (¶ 413.3[e]) or a Judicial Complaint (¶ 2704.1).
“e) Administrative Complaint—If the complaint is based on allegations of incompetence, ineffectiveness, or unwillingness or inability to perform Episcopal duties, the president and secretary of the College of Bishops (or the two members of the college who are handling the complaint) shall refer the complaint to the jurisdictional or central conference committee on episcopacy. The committee may recommend involuntary retirement (¶ 408.3), disability leave (¶ 410.4), remedial measures (¶ 363.2), other appropriate action, or it may dismiss the complaint.
“When the jurisdictional or central conference committee on episcopacy deems the matter serious enough and when one or more offenses listed in ¶ 2702 are involved, the committee may refer the complaint back to the president and secretary of the College of Bishops (or the two members of the college who are handling the complaint) for referral as a judicial complaint to the jurisdictional or central conference committee on investigation. The provisions of ¶ 362.2 for fair process in administrative hearings shall apply to this administrative process.
“4. Any actions of the jurisdictional or central conference committee taken on a complaint shall be reported to the next session of the jurisdictional or central conference.
“5. Each jurisdiction shall develop a protocol for the caring of lay, clergy and staff determined to be affected by the processing of the complaint.” (Emphasis supplied)
9. Paragraph 2703 of the Discipline reads:
“¶ 2703. Composition of the Committee on Investigation 1. When respondent is a bishop—There shall be a committee on investigation elected by each jurisdictional or central conference. Nominations shall be made by the College of Bishops in consultation with the jurisdictional episcopacy committee. Further nominations may be offered from the floor of the jurisdictional or central conference. The committee shall consist of four clergy in full connection and three professing members (with not more than one person from each annual conference, if possible), and six alternate members, three of whom shall be clergypersons in full connection and three of whom shall be professing members. If additional members or alternates are needed, they may be named by the College of Bishops. Committee members shall be in good standing and should be deemed of good character. The committee should reflect racial, ethnic, and gender diversity. The committee shall elect a chairperson and organize at the jurisdictional or central conference. Seven members or alternates seated as members of the committee shall constitute a quorum.
10. Paragraph 2704 of the Discipline reads:
Ҧ 2704. Referral of Original Complaint to Counsel for the Church, Who Shall Prepare Judicial Complaint and Supporting Material for Consideration by Committee on Investigation
“1. When respondent is a bishop
“a) Judicial Complaint—A complaint based on allegations that a bishop has committed one or more of the offenses listed in ¶ 2702 shall initially be served on the president and secretary of the College of Bishops. Upon receipt of the complaint the president of the College of Bishops shall forthwith deliver a copy of the complaint to the respondent bishop, notify active bishops of the existence and nature of the complaint, and refer the complaint to an elder in full connection within the same jurisdictional or central conference, who shall serve as counsel for the Church. Counsel for the Church shall represent the interests of the Church in pressing the claims of the person making the complaint. Counsel for the Church shall have the right to choose one assistant counsel without voice who may be an attorney. The counsel for the Church shall draft and sign the complaint as a judicial complaint, forward it to the jurisdictional or central conference committee on investigation (¶ 2704), and represent the Church in the judicial process. The fair process provisions in ¶ 2701 shall apply to this judicial process. The statute of limitations in ¶ 2702.4 should be considered prior to the referral of a judicial complaint.
“b) If a written complaint is made against a bishop for any of the offenses in ¶ 2702.1, the counsel for the Church, as appointed under ¶ 2704.1a, shall prepare, sign, and forward the judicial complaint and all documentary evidence under consideration to the chairperson of the committee on investigation, the person making the original complaint, and the bishop being charged (respondent). The respondent shall be given an opportunity to submit to the committee on investigation a written response to the judicial complaint within thirty days of receipt of the judicial complaint. The chairperson shall convene the committee on investigation within sixty days of receiving the judicial complaint.
“c) If five or more members of the committee on investigation so recommend, the jurisdictional committee on the episcopacy may suspend the respondent pending the outcome of the judicial process.” (Emphasis supplied)
11. Paragraph 2706 of the Discipline provides:
“¶ 2706. Committee on Investigation—Procedures
“1. Introduction—The role of the committee on investigation is to conduct an investigation into the allegations made in the judicial complaint and to determine if reasonable grounds exist to bring a bill of charges and specifications to trial. If so, it shall prepare, sign and certify a bill of charges and specifications. The committee’s duty is only to determine whether reasonable grounds exist to support the charges. It is not the committee’s duty to determine guilt or innocence.
“2. Parties and Counsel—The parties are the respondent and the Church.
“a) Counsel for the Church—Counsel for the Church shall be appointed as provided in ¶ 2708.7. Counsel for the Church shall be entitled to choose one assistant counsel without voice who may be an attorney.
“b) Committee on Investigation—The committee on investigation may have legal counsel present, who shall not be the conference chancellor, for the sole purpose of providing advice to the committee.
“c) When respondent is a bishop, a clergy member of an annual conference, clergy on honorable or administrative location, a local pastor, a clergyperson, or a diaconal minister—A respondent who is a bishop, a clergyperson, or a diaconal minister shall be entitled to select a clergyperson in full connection to serve as respondent’s counsel. A respondent shall be entitled to choose one assistant counsel without voice who may be an attorney.
x x x x x x
“5. Bill of Charges and Specifications, Deliberations, Vote, and Referral—A vote on each charge and each specification shall be taken separately. It is incumbent on each member of the committee to base his or her vote solely on whether reasonable grounds exist to support the charges. If there are members who are unwilling to uphold the Discipline for reasons of conscience or otherwise, such members must step aside in this matter and either alternate members or others who are willing to uphold the Discipline must be appointed to the Committee to enable it to complete its responsibility.
“a) Bill of Charges and Specifications—A charge is one of the chargeable offenses listed in ¶ 2702. A charge shall not include more than one such chargeable offense. More than one charge against the same person may be presented and tried at the same time. Each charge must be written, with specifications that support the charge. Each charge must be accompanied by one or more specifications of fact. Each specification, standing alone, must allege a factual occurrence that, if found to be true, would support a finding of guilty on the related charge.
The specifications should be as specific as possible with information such as date, place, and specific events alleged to have occurred.
“b) Finding of reasonable grounds by committee and referral of bill of charges and specifications for trial
“(1) When respondent is a bishop—A vote to adopt any charge or specification shall require five votes. Any bill of charges and specifications adopted shall be sent to the bishop charged, to the secretary of the jurisdictional or central conference, to the president and secretary of the College of Bishops, to counsel for the Church, and to the chairperson of the jurisdictional committee on the episcopacy.”
12. Paragraph 2712 of the Discipline states:
Ҧ 2712. Trial of a Bishop
“1. The president of the College of Bishops of the jurisdictional or central conference—or in case the person charged is the president, the secretary of the college—shall proceed to convene the court under the provisions of ¶ 2709.
“2. The president of the College of Bishops (or in the case the person charged is the president, the secretary) may preside or designate another bishop to serve as presiding officer.
“3. The trial shall be convened as provided in ¶ 2709 with the pool of thirty five or more persons to consist of clergy in full connection named by the College of Bishops in approximately equal numbers from each episcopal area within the jurisdictional or central conference. Special consideration should be given so that the pool includes persons representative of racial, age, ethnic, and gender diversity.
“4. Counsel for the Church shall be a bishop or another clergy person in full connection.
“5. The secretary of the court shall at the conclusion of the proceedings send all trial documents to the secretary of the jurisdictional or central conference, who shall keep them in custody. If an appeal is taken, the secretary shall forward the materials forthwith to the secretary of the Judicial Council. After the appeal has been heard, the records shall be returned to the secretary of the jurisdictional or central conference.
“6. A bishop suspended from office shall have claim on the Episcopal Fund for salary, dwelling, pension, and other related benefits. A bishop removed from office shall have no claim upon the Episcopal Fund for salary, dwelling, pension and other related benefits from the date of such removal.”
13. From the foregoing provisions, there is no single mention of or reference to the Council of Bishops. There is no provision in the 2008 Discipline which grants the Council of Bishops the authority to process the complaint and later on suspend a respondent bishop. The Council of Bishops was not granted any authorized delegation of power from the College of Bishops in the processing of such complaint against a bishop under ¶ 413 of the 2008 Discipline. Delegatus non potest delagare.[3]
14. While it may be true that the Judicial Council ruled that “(t)he College of Bishops of the Philippines Central Conference has authority to handle a complaint against a bishop of that Central Conference under ¶ 413” of the 2008 Discipline in Judicial Council Decision No. 1149, it did not extend that power to the Council of Bishops nor to its Executive Committee. It therefore cannot arrogate unto itself the powers granted only to the College of Bishops-PCC.
15. Nonetheless, assuming that the Council of Bishops or its Executive Committee possesses such power and authority to suspend Bishop Tangonan, its actions are contrary to the “collegial expression” whereby its declaration or action must be supported by at least a majority of the bishop voting affirmatively to such action or declaration.
15.1 There is utter lack of proof that this matter was affirmatively voted upon by the majority of the members of the Council of Bishops, as Bishop Tangonan himself did not receive any notice at all regarding the agenda and voting results reached upon in such meeting called for that purpose, if there is any.
15.2 If at all, only the Executive Committee or its officers issued such letters in violation of the express mandate of ¶ 427.2 and 427.3 of the 2008 Discipline in relation to¶ 47, Article III of the Constitution calling for a “collegial” consultation and cooperation[4] with the concerned agencies of the Church.
16. Evidently, the only power that the Council of Bishops can exercise is to lodge the complaint and refer the matter to the College of Bishops-PCC for processing of such complaint. Nothing more, nothing less.
17. Finally, the Discipline distinctly and clearly provides instances when the respondent bishop can be suspended, i.e., a) under ¶ 413.3a by the College of Bishops subject to the condition that the suspension must be in consultation with the jurisdictional or central conference committee on episcopacy; and b) under ¶2704.1c by the jurisdictional or central conference committee on episcopacy upon the recommendation of five or more members of the committee on investigation.
17.1 Revealingly, the Council of Bishops is not authorized or vested with power under the 2008 Discipline to suspend Bishop Tangonan as the duly elected bishop of the Manila Episcopal Area of the Philippines Central Conference. This power of suspension is only vested and may only be exercised either by the College of Bishops-PCC or the committee on investigation, and only after strict compliance with the fair process requirements outlined in the 2008 Discipline.
18. Hence, without an express mandate from the Constitution as well as the Discipline, the issuance of the foregoing letters of suspension by the Council of Bishops, namely: (Annexes “G” and “L”) against Bishop Tangonan should be declared illegal, invalid, unconstitutional and void ab initio.
II.
THE COUNCIL OF BISHOPS EXCEEDED ITS JURISDICTION IN DECLARING AND RULING THAT BISHOP TANGONAN’S MEMBERSHIP IN THE UNITED METHODIST CHURCH IS CONSIDERED WITHDRAWN WITHOUT NOTICE IN VIOLATION OF ¶ 47 ARTICLE III OF THE CONSTITUTION AND ¶ 427 OF THE2008 DISCIPLINE IN RELATION TO ¶ 48 ARTICLE IV OF THE CONSTITUTION AND ¶ 241 OF THE 2008 DISCIPLINE.
19. The absence of the power to suspend necessarily includes the absence of greater power to remove and declare that a bishop is no longer a member of the United Methodist Church. The principle that the grant of power includes all incidental powers necessary to make the exercise thereof implies the exclusion of those which are greater than that conferred.
20. The questioned letter dated 20 July 2011 was issued with grave abuse of authority and in excess of the power granted by the Constitution and the 2008 Discipline to the Council of Bishops.
20.1 As discussed above, since it was very explicit that the exercise of power by the Council of Bishops is limited by regularized collegial “consultation and cooperation with other councils and service agencies of the Church,” it necessarily follows that it has no power to make any ruling or judgment on substantive issues relating to judicial or administrative matters. This has been made clear in Judicial Council Decision No. 799 whereby it specifically declared that “(t)he bishop has no authority to make substantive rulings on judicial or administrative matters.”
21. Moreover, by issuing such letter, the Council of Bishops arrogated upon itself the power to declare one’s membership with the United Methodist Church to be withdrawn without notice. This authority is vested in the proper committees of the Philippines Central Conference like the Committee on Investigation and after observance of the fair process requirements as spelled out in¶ 2701 to ¶ 2712 of the 2008 Discipline.
22. The letter dated 20 July 2011 partakes of a substantive ruling on administrative matters that is outside the power of the Council of Bishops. It overstepped the boundaries of its authority by issuing not only a declaratory judgment but a judgment of conviction against alleged violations of Bishop Tangonan of which the Council of Bishops is not privy to or even personally knowledgeable as to the exact and true information of the causes and personalities involved therein.
23. It is also violative of the rights of Bishop Tangonan assuming that he committed violations against the 2008 Discipline since there is a procedure that should be followed in order to reach a just resolution as provided under ¶ 413 as upheld and authorized by Judicial Council Decision 1149.
23.1 The Machiavellian mantra of “end justifies the means” is not part of Christian way of resolving conflict but unfortunately, the Council of Bishops have acted malevolently, in bad faith and beyond the authority granted by the 2008 Discipline.
24. The explicit declaration that Bishop Tangonan is considered to have withdrawn from the United Methodist Church without notice is also an exercise of power not vested in the Council of Bishops.
24.1 An examination of the 2008 Discipline would readily disclose that such phrase “withdrawal without notice” was only used in ¶ 241 of the 2008 Discipline, to wit:
“¶ 241. Withdrawal Without Notice - If a pastor is informed that a member has without notice united with a church of another denomination, the pastor shall make diligent inquiry and, if the report is confirmed, shall enter “Withdrawn” after the person’s name on the membership roll and shall report the same to the next charge conference.”
25. The justification therefore for such term to be applicable must precede a diligent inquiry by the pastor which is absolutely lacking in the present case.
25.1 Assuming arguendo that there was diligent inquiry, the Council of Bishops has no residual power to assume such authority specifically granted to local pastor or in the case of bishop, the Philippines Central Conference Committee on Episcopacy(“PCC-COE”), which violation shall be lengthily discussed in the subsequent paragraphs.
26. By categorically stating the applicability of the Judicial Council Decision No. 696, it constituted an unjustified encroachment on the function of the PCC-COE as the agency responsible for the initial determination of such issue. The Council of Bishops as well as the College of Bishops-PCC never consulted much less discussed this matter with the PCC-COE despite the fact that such jurisdiction over the affairs of bishop lies with such agency.
27. Verily, the letter dated 20 July 2011(attached hereto as Annex “A”) issued by the Council of Bishops must be declared illegal, unconstitutional, invalid and void ab initio on this ground.
III.
THE COLLEGE OF BISHOPS-PCC CANNOT ELEVATE NOR APPEAL TO THE COUNCIL OF BISHOPS THE PROCESSING OF COMPLAINT AGAINST BISHOP TANGONAN NOR DELEGATE SUCH ACTION TO THE SAID BODY IN VIOLATION OF ¶ 48. ARTICLE IV IN RELATION TO ¶ 413; ¶ 427 ¶2704; AND ¶ 2706 OF THE 2008 DISCIPLINE.
28. There is no mechanism or provision in the 2008 Discipline allowing the College of Bishops-PCC to elevate or appeal to the Council of Bishops the issue concerning the processing of a complaint against a bishop. The decision of Judicial Council in 1149 is explicit that any complaint against the bishop in the Philippines Central Conference shall be handled in accordance with ¶ 413.
29. However, in the interim action by the Council of Bishops No. 11E-293 which reads:
“11E-293 In an interim action, the Executive Committee upon the request of the Philippine College of Bishops has approved the suspension of Bishop Lito C. Tangonan for the period of January 20, 2011 through March 19, 2011. In the interim, Bishop Daniel Arichea shall fully assume the duties of the Bishop of the Manila Area.” (Emphasis supplied)
30. Also, in the letter dated 17 May 2011 of the Council of Bishops, it was particularly and pertinently stated that:
“This letter is to inform you that the Executive Committee of the Council of Bishops, acting on the request of the Philippine College of Bishops, has suspended you from your office, effective May 19, 2011, for a period of sixty days. x x x” (Emphasis supplied)
31. This is a direct violation of ¶ 48. Article IV of the Constitution which provides:
“The bishops of each jurisdictional and central conference shall constitute a College of Bishops, and such College of Bishops shall arrange the plan of episcopal supervision of the annual conferences, missionary conferences, and missions within their respective territories.” (Emphasis supplied)
32. Being the church agency mandated to handle the complaint under ¶ 413 previously quoted above, the College of Bishops is vested with power until the conclusion of the processing of such complaint.
33. The action of the College of Bishops-PCC in requesting for an action from the Council of Bishops for a suspension order where no power or authority is granted to the latter in the first place amounted to abdication of duty on the part of the College of Bishops-PCC while at the same time an exercise of arrogance or excess of power on the part of the Council of Bishops.
34. ¶ 427 did not vest the Council of Bishops any authority to encroach upon the express power of the College of Bishops under ¶ 413, ¶ 2704, and ¶ 2706 in terms of suspending a bishop under complaint. By doing so, the Council of Bishops not only curtailed what should be exclusively vested in the College of Bishops-PCC but also perpetrated an act against a fellow bishop without the corresponding majority affirmative vote from the entire membership of the Council of Bishops.
34.1 Please note that with the glaring violations committed, it undermines not only the integrity of the procedures but also casts serious doubt on the impartiality of the institutions called upon to implement the provisions of the 2008 Discipline.
34.2 Firstly, by issuing such letters of suspension, the Council of Bishops trampled upon ¶ 413.3a which explicitly provides:
“When deemed appropriate to protect the well-being of the complainant, the Church and/or bishop, the College of Bishops, in consultation with the jurisdictional or central conference committee on episcopacy, may suspend the bishop from all episcopal responsibilities for a period not to exceed sixty days.” (Emphasis supplied)
34.3 Obviously, there was no consultation by the Council of Bishops with the Philippines Central Conference Committee on Episcopacy.
34.4 Secondly, such letters of suspension are in direct contravention of the express directive in Judicial Council No. 1149 that “(a)ny complaint against a bishop of the Philippines Central Conference shall be handled under the remaining provisions of ¶ 413.2 of the 2008 Discipline.” At the risk of being repetitious, such action constitutes a clear abdication of duty on the part of the College of Bishops-PCC and display of arrogance of power on the part of the Council of Bishops.
35. Verily, such letters of suspension (Annexes “G” and “L”) must be declared illegal, unconstitutional, invalid and void ab initio on this ground.
IV.
THE COLLEGE OF BISHOPS-PCC HAS NO POWER AND AUTHORITY TO DECLARE MOTU PROPIO THAT MEMBERSHIP OF BISHOP TANGONAN IS ALREADY FORFEITED AS SUCH ACTION IS TANTAMOUNT NOT ONLY TO SUBSTANTIVE INTERPRETATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE 2008 DISCIPLINE IN VIOLATION OF ¶ 48. ARTICLE IV BUT ALSO AN ENCROACHMENT OF JUDICIAL PREROGATIVE ENUNCIATED IN THE DECISIONS OF THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL.
36. Preliminarily, this Honorable Judicial Council can take judicial notice of the fact that as early as 25 October 2010, Bishop Tangonan has been keeping the Judicial Council informed of the illegal actions being undertaken against him by the College of Bishops-PCC that undermined not only the 2008 Discipline but more importantly, the integrity and credibility of the institutions which should uphold impartiality, transparency and fair process.[5]
36.1 These letters are contrary proofs to the claim of the College of Bishops-PCC that Bishop Tangonan joined another denomination. Nonetheless, considering that the Judicial Council is not a fact-finding body,[6] Bishop Tangonan will stick to the illegality in issuing such pastoral statement.
37. In its pastoral statement dated 16 May 2011, the College of Bishops-PCC pertinently declares:
“x x x x x x
“First, on May 7, 2011, some members and pastors of our church have decided to withdraw officially their membership in The United Methodist Church and organize themselves into a separate church which they name “The Philippines Methodist Church”. This was done in Carmen United Methodist Church in Zaragoza, Nueva Ecija and was attended by some 200 people – lay and pastors and Bishop Lito Tangonan.
“This is a sad event in the history of our church. This is the third time that there is schism in the Methodist community in the Philippines. We deeply wish that it should never have happened.
“However, for whatever reasons these people are formally breaking membership relation with us, we must acknowledge that they have the right to do so. Membership in our church is voluntary, and withdrawal of that membership is equally voluntary. Such a choice is an expression of the right to religious freedom.
“Should they wish to restore their membership with us later on, we must welcome them.
“Second, it appears that these people have proclaimed officially that the first bishop of their schismatically organized group is Bishop Lito Tangonan. By all indications in terms of his participation in the preparation of the Carmen event, the proclamation of the schismatic group, and the structuring of the schismatic church, Bishop Tangonan appears to have accepted this offer. Given his active participation in establishing the schismatic group, he could not deny the offer, and he did not. The only reasonable conclusion is that he now heads the schismatic church. This means that Bishop Tangonan has renounced his membership in the United Methodist Church, has vacated the office of Bishop of the United Methodist Church, and terminated his membership in both the College of Bishops of the Philippines Central Conference and the Council of Bishops of the United Methodist Church.” (Emphasis supplied)
38. Such pastoral letter is tainted with illegality, and as such must be considered as unconstitutional and void.
39. ¶ 48. Article IV of the 2008 Discipline establishes the Office of the College of Bishops, to wit:
“The bishops of each jurisdictional and central conference shall constitute a College of Bishops, and such College of Bishops shall arrange the plan of episcopal supervision of the annual conferences, missionary conferences, and missions within their respective territories.” (Emphasis supplied)
40. Initially, it is the College of Bishop of the Philippine Central Conference which has authority to take cognizance of such matter. However, it cannot, on its own, make such substantive ruling. As can be seen from the ruling of this Honorable Judicial Council in Decision No. 696, the matter subject of the ruling of law was deliberated upon by the Conference Relations Committee of the Board of Ordained Ministry, Review Committee and the Clergy Session, which show that due process was observed before the recommendations were made. Applying then the ruling of this Honorable Judicial Council in Decision 696, it is required that due process should have been observed by giving Bishop Tangonan the right to refute the charges against him before the proper agencies of the Church, like the Committee on Episcopacy and the Committee on Investigation. Neither the Council of Bishops nor the College of Bishops-PCC is vested which the authority to make such ruling.
41. Considering that the pastoral statement partakes of the nature of a ruling or decision that adversely affects Bishop Tangonan and the Manila Episcopal Area that he is representing, the College of Bishops-PCC gravely abused its authority by intruding into what is properly vested in the other agencies o the Church.
41.1 Please note that the provisions of the 2008 Discipline have been very explicit whenever the College of Bishops is called upon to do its duty. The following provisions of the 2008 Discipline will attest to this: ¶ 406; ¶ 407 ¶ 408.2b and e; ¶ 408.3b; ¶ 409; ¶ 410; ¶ 412; ¶ 413; ¶ 586; ¶ 712; ¶ 805; ¶ 817; ¶ 906; ¶ 1121; ¶ 1704; ¶ 1906; ¶ 2703; ¶ 2704; ¶ 2706; ¶ 2712; ¶ 2713; and ¶ 2716.Expressio unius est exclusion alterius.[7]
42. Not one in the aforementioned provisions is the College of Bishops-PCC allowed to issue such ruling or decision at its own behest. Neither is there any residual power that might even be inferred from the aforementioned provisions granting powers to the College of Bishops-PCC.
43. Therefore, without any grant of power to do so, such issuance by the College of Bishops-PCC, which adversely affected both Bishop Tangonan and the Manila Episcopal Area, is an illegal exercise of prerogative not granted to it.
44. Such letter dated 16 May 2011 amounted to usurpation of judicial determination of administrative matters and supervisory processes which are outside the domain of the College of Bishops-PCC.
44.1 Please note that by stating Bishop Tangonan renounced his membership from the United Methodist Church without any power to do so under the 2008 Discipline, the College of Bishops-PCC assumed the power of executive, legislative and judiciary at the same time.
44.2 Firstly, they made findings of facts as opposed to the actions being taken against them by Bishop Tangonan.
44.3 Secondly, the College of Bishops-PCC legislated, or more precisely, “conceived” a ploy, mechanism and manner by which Bishop Tangonan would be removed as Bishop in order to preclude or stop Bishop Tangonan from the investigation of the multi-million US dollar anomalies and corruption in the church and church-related activities and properties.
44.4 Thirdly, the College of Bishops-PCC issued a substantive ruling on administrative and judicial matters as well as supervisory processes in violations of and contrary to Judicial Council Decision Nos. 799, 1064 and 1130.
44.5 Fourthly, the College of Bishops-PCC deliberately refused to recognize the decision of the committee on investigations, the body which handled the complaints for immorality and disobedience, which already dismissed said charges against Bishop Tangonan.[8]
45. Evidently, said actions and pastoral statement (Annex “K”) should be declared illegal and void.
V.
THE PHILIPPINES CENTRAL CONFERENCE COMMITTEE ON EPISCOPACY AND THE CENTRAL CONFERENCE COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, NOT THE COLLEGE OF BISHOPS-PCC, HAS THE MANDATE AND AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE WHETHER THERE IS WITHDRAWAL BY BISHOP TANGONAN TO JOIN ANOTHER DENOMINATION BEING THE GERMANE AND LOGICAL INTERPRETATION OF ¶ 406, ¶ 412 ¶ 637 IN RELATION TO ¶ 360 OF THE 2008 DISCIPLINE AS INFERRED FROM JUDICIAL COUNCIL DECISION 696.
46. With the serious dispute being raised by Bishop Tangonan on the illegal actions of the College of Bishops-PCC directed against him, the resulting pronouncement made by the College of Bishops-PCC is a tell-tale sign that a ploy was in the making.
47. Nonetheless, it is not the office of the College of Bishops-PCC which has the requisite personality to make such initial assessment but the Philippines Central Conference – Committee on Episcopacy (“PCC-COE”) and the Philippines Central Conference – Committee on Investigation (“PCC-COI”).
48. Please note that the powers of the PCC-COE specifically pertain as check and balance to the powers of the bishop as spelled out in ¶ 406.2, ¶ 412 and ¶637.3 of the 2008 Discipline. Said provisions are quoted below:
¶ 406.2 . “Central Conference Committee on Episcopacy—The central conference committee on episcopacy, after consultation with the College of Bishops, shall recommend the assignment of the bishops to their respective residences for final action by the central conference.” (Emphasis supplied)
“¶ 412. Review and Evaluation of Bishops— In its review of the work, character and official administration of the bishops under ¶ 524.3.a, the Jurisdictional or Central Conference Committee on Episcopacy shall establish and implement processes that provide, at least once each quadrennium, for each active bishop, a full and formal evaluation which will include self-evaluation, assessment by episcopal peers, and comment by persons affected by his/her superintendency (such as cabinets, lay leaders, directors of agencies served). Such processes shall include the participation of the Conference or Area Committee on Episcopacy. It shall be the duty of each jurisdiction’s College of Bishops/central conference’s College of Bishops, under the leadership of its president, to consult with and to cooperate with the committee in order to schedule and facilitate such reviews and evaluations as well as to address issues that may arise in the course of that work.” (Emphasis supplied)
Ҧ 637. 3. The functions of the conference committee on episcopacy shall be:
a) To support the bishop of the area in the oversight of the spiritual and temporal affairs of the Church, with special reference to the area where the bishop has presidential responsibility.
b) To be available to the bishop for counsel.
c) To assist in the determination of the episcopal needs of the area and to make recommendations to appropriate bodies.
d) To keep the bishop advised concerning conditions within the area as they affect relationships between the bishop and the people of the conference agencies.
e) To interpret to the people of the area and to conference agencies the nature and function of the episcopal office.
f ) To engage in annual consultation and appraisal of the balance of the bishop’s relationship and responsibilities to the area and annual conferences, the jurisdiction, general Church boards and agencies, and other areas of specialized ministry, including, at all levels, concern for the inclusiveness of the Church and its ministry with respect to sex, race, and national origin, and understanding and implementation of the consultation process in appointment-making.
g) To report needs for episcopal leadership to the jurisdictional committee on episcopacy through the duly elected conference members of that committee. (Emphasis supplied)
49. From the foregoing, it is evident that any action against the bishop must be with the appropriate consultation with the central conference committee on episcopacy being the “conscience” of the bishop. Being the body in charge of the evaluation of the actions of the bishop, it necessarily and logically follows that any change in the position of the concerned bishop must be initially determined by the PCC-COE. Additionally, since the declaration affects the right of the Bishop Tangonan, not only as a member of the episcopacy, but also his right as ordained elder of the Church, and his connection therewith, such determination or declaration can only be made after investigation and trial.
50. On the other hand, the withdrawal to unite with another denomination is governed by the following:
“¶ 360. Withdrawal—-1. Withdrawal to Unite with Another Denomination—When ordained members in good standing withdraw to unite with another denomination or to terminate their membership in the denomination, their certification of conference membership, and their written request to withdraw shall be deposited with the conference secretary.
4. Withdrawal Between Conferences—In the event that withdrawal by surrender of the ministerial office, to unite with another denomination, or under complaints or charges, should occur in the interval between sessions of an annual conference, the clergy member’s credentials, under the provisions of ¶ 360.1 and .3, shall be surrendered to the bishop or district superintendent along with a letter of withdrawal from the ordained ministry. Both the credentials and the letter of withdrawal shall be deposited with the secretary of the conference. This action shall be reported by the Board of Ordained Ministry to the annual conference at its next session. The effective date of withdrawal shall be the date of the letter of withdrawal. (Emphasis supplied)
51. In the instant case, the College of Bishops-PCC, despite clear and unmistakable absence of any authority to make such declaration, and considering the prior hostilities it has shown towards Bishop Tangonan, made illegal conclusions of law without any reference to support such findings from the PCC-COE and PCC-COI, being the bodies in charge of the evaluation of the actions of appointed bishops in the Philippines Central Conference. This may be inferred from Judicial Council Decision No. 696 concerning an ordained minister, who made a communion vow with the Roman Catholic Church but whose action was evaluated first by the Board of Ordained Ministry.
52. Nonetheless, a scrutiny of the letter itself issued by the College of Bishops-PCC would readily preclude an issue of schism and that the same was a ploy utilized by the College of Bishops-PCC to finally “get rid” of Bishop Tangonan as bishop of the Manila Episcopal Area of the Philippines Central Conference.
53. Firstly, there was no indication that a request in writing was made for such letter to be issued for there to be a valid bishop’s decision of law, assuming it can be morphed into one.
53.1 Secondly, the perennial campaign for autonomy has been used by the College of Bishops-PCC as a cunning ploy to transform it as “establishing another Methodist church” when numerous cases involving questions on the petitions of autonomy involving Philippines Central Conference have already been decided, albeit denied, by this Honorable Judicial Council.[9]
53.2 Thirdly, the statements are mere conclusions and did not even provide for the justifiable cause for joining a schismatic group. It may well be noted that Bishop Tangonan immediately registered his objection to the action taken against him by the College of Bishops as well as by the of the General Council on Finance and Administration as they are entirely untrue, baseless and pure falsehood on the part of the College of Bishops-PCC. Needless to state, the allegation that Bishop Tangonan joined a “schismatic group” is a factual issue that only the PCC-COI is properly vested with authority to determine. To reiterate, neither the Council of Bishops nor the PCC-COB is vested with adjudicatory powers.
53.3 Bishop Tangonan is adamant that an appropriate fact-finding body be constituted to investigate the corruption in the levels of the bishops. Sadly, Bishop Tangonan became the “pawn” or a “sacrificial lamb” in this high-profile drama which the members of the College of Bishops-PCC wanted to merely sweep under the rag, so to speak.
54.4 Fifthly, those who witnessed the event made a contrary statement[10] to the finding of the College of Bishops-PCC who were not even present there and who contrived this ploy to divert the attention of the members of the UMC Philippines who are very much interested in the outcome of Bishop Tangonan’s cry for transparency, investigation and justice.
54.5 Sixth, there was no consultation much less participation on the part of the PCC-COE concerning the initial verification or determination of such purported act of Bishop Tangonan, being a disputed fact that must undergo the rigors of trial and fair process procedures outlined in the 2008 Discipline. Unlike the facts of Judicial Council No. 696 where there is no factual dispute in the act of joining another denomination, the present case shows overwhelmingly contrary evidence and opposing proofs that Bishop Tangonan did not join any other denomination but merely campaigned to expose the corruption and multi-million dollar anomalies which are being swept under the rags, so to speak, by the current leadership of the College of Bishops-PCC.
54.6 Seventh, Bishop Tangonan is being precluded from questioning such declaration at the first instance where no actual joining of another denomination transpired. In other words, the presumption of being in continued membership with the United Methodist Church is being rebutted by mere conclusion on the part of the College of Bishop-PCC and Council of Bishops without offering concrete and factual proof to rebut such presumption. Bishop Tangonan is thus similarly being forced to prove his innocence rather than being presumed one at the first instance or in this case being forced to prove something contrary to his being presumed member of the United Methodist Church.
55. Other than generalizations about schism and establishment of a Philippine Methodist Church, the College of Bishops-PCC failed to present clear and convincing proof that indeed Bishop Tangonan voluntarily joined another denomination.
55.1 The question therefore is whether there is another denomination. Unlike in Decision No. 696, it has been established that the ordained minister involved therein joined the Roman Catholic Church. Here, there is a question of fact the determination of which would involve substantive ruling on the rights and objections made by Bishop Tangonan and would not be a proper issue for determination by the bishop. Thus, it becomes imperative that the PCC-COE and PCC-COI be allowed to make an initial determination and not the College of Bishops-PCC in accordance with ¶ 406, ¶412 , ¶637, ¶ 2702 to ¶ 2712 in relation to ¶ 360 of the 2008 Discipline.
56. All told, it is imperative that such pastoral statement be declared illegal and invalid.
RELIEFS
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that after due notice and hearing, this Honorable Judicial Council will give due course to this petition and thereafter declare that:
1. The letters of suspension marked as Annexes “G” and “L” issued by the Council of Bishops upon the request of the College of Bishops-PCC against Bishop Tangonan be DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL, ILLEGAL, INVALID AND VOID AB INITIO.
2. The letter dated 20 July 2011 marked as Annex “A” be DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL, ILLEGAL, INVALID AND VOID AB INITIO.
3. The Pastoral Statement issued by the College of Bishops-PCC dated 16 May 2011 marked as Annex “K” be DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL, ILLEGAL, INVALID AND VOID AB INITIO.
12 August 2011.
BISHOP LITO CABACUNGAN TANGONAN
Duly Elected Bishop of the Philippines Central Conference (PCC)and was assigned as Resident Bishop of the Manila Episcopal Area (MEA) of The United Methodist Church (UMC)
[1] Discipline¶ 540.3 (f) Philippine Central Conference; Philippines;
[2] Discipline¶ 543.5. A central conference, in consultation with the bishops of that central conference, shall fix the episcopal areas and residences and make assignments to them of the bishops who are to reside in that central conference. The bishops of a central conference shall arrange the plan of episcopal visitation within its bounds.
[3] A delegate cannot delegate; the person to whom an office or duty is delegated cannot lawfully devolve the duty to another, unless he be expressly authorized to do so. Black’s Law Dictionary (1968) 513.
[4] Please see the factual milieu of Judicial Council Decision No. 961 concerning the voting requirements by the Council of Bishop.
[5] Copies of Bishop Tangonan’s letter-protest dated 25 October 2010 is hereto attached as Annex “R;” letter dated 26 January 2011 letter is hereto attached as Annex “S;” letter dated 13 June 2011 is already attached and marked as Annex “Q;” and letter dated 14 July 2011 is hereto attached asAnnex “T.”
[6] Judicial Council Decision No. 820.
[7] Expression of one thing is the exclusion of another; When certain persons or things are specified in a law, contract or will, an intention to exclude all others from its operation may be inferred. Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Ed. (1968) 692.
[8] A copy of the decision of the Committee on Investigation dated 16 July 2010 and 04 February 2011 is hereto attached as Annexes “U” and “V,” respectively.
[9] Judicial Council Decision Nos. 381; 548;793 and 805.
[10] A copy of the statement of Revs. Lasco, Benedicto Dulay; Manuel Buenaventura, Jr.; and Apolinario Cunanan is hereto attached as Annex “W.”
No comments:
Post a Comment