IN RESPONSE TO THE REPORT OF THE GRAND MASTER
( Series Number 2 )
This is a continuation of the query, “ What was the report of the Grand Master?, and “ What was really approved at ANCOM ?”.
1. The Suspensions of WMs of GLP Lodges Nr 15, 17 and 269.. The WMs were suspended from office for NOT allowing admission into or refusing visitation to the lodges of the District Officers. The basis were: Article III Section 2(o) Part II Ordinances of the GLP Constitution on “Duties of a Lodge” which states , “ To RECEIVE the Grand Master or his representative, Past Grand Master, all elective officers of the Grand Lodge, District Deputy Grand Master, Grand Lecturers or Grand Lodge Inspectors, with Grand Honors on official visits”; Article XI Section 2(h) of a duty of the WM “ to guard against any infraction of its By-laws, the Constitution, Edicts, Ordinances and General Rules and Regulations of the Grand Lodge or the General Regulations of Masonry”, Article XI Section 3 that “ there shall be no appeal to the Lodge from the decision of the Master. Appeal from such decision may be presented to the Grand Master”; Article IX Section 2(i) Part I that the GM has the power “ to suspend the Master, or any officer of a Lodge, from office until the expiration of his term or until the next Annual Communication” Further , the report states “ suspension of the Master or any Lodge officer from office as provided by our laws and regulations does NOT require a Masonic Trial”.
COMMENTS:
2. The WM has the RIGHT to REFUSE ADMISSION as provided for in Article XI Section 1 ( c ) , 1 (d), 1 (e). There was a VALID OBJECTION for the hugh entourage to enter the lodge as there will be trouble that will DISTURB the peace and harmony in the Lodge if they insist to enter despite the objections for them to enter. The WM has a duty to preside at all meetings; and part of the meeting is to allow or refuse admission of any visitor. The TYLER has the power and duty to REFUSE admission and to seek approval of the WM for any visitor to enter the Lodge. It is the duty of the WM to preserve order in the Lodge. The entourage FORCED their way inside the lodge, DISTURBING the meeting, and so, the WM RECESSED the Lodge.
3. When the dignitary is ADMITTED into the Lodge, it becomes a DUTY to RECEIVE him with Grand Honors and customarily offer him the Gavel. In this regard, the WM DID NOT VIOLATE Article III Section 2 ( o ).
4. The provision of Article XI Section 3 applies to the decision of a WM that can be questioned or protested through an appeal by members to the GM. It is correct that the WM is answerable and accountable to the GM for all his acts and hence, it is the GM that refer the charge, create a Trial Commission and make diligent due process where the person charge could still make his appeal to the GM. But when the GM becomes the ACCUSER, PROSECUTOR AND JUDGE ALL at the same time, thence there is NO DUE PROCESS. Furthermore the DDGM has NO judicial power over the WM. So who can validate that the explanation of the WM was UNSATISFACTORY?
5. There is NO provision in the Constitution that Masonic Trial is NOT required. Article XI Section 4 states “ for the neglect or violation of any duty imposed by this Constitution, By-Laws, Edicts, Ordinances, Rules and Regulations, the Master shall be SUBJECT to DEPRIVATION OF OFFICE, SUSPENSION or EXPULSION BY THE grand Master”. The WMs were DEPRIVED of their office, of the exercise of their position WITHOUT DUE PROCESS. If there was a Trial, the verdict could be CASE DISMISSED, SUSPENDED FROM OFFICE, SUSPENDED FROM MASONRY OR FOR A TERM, EXPELLED. So what was the basis for a verdict of suspended from office?.
6. Article XVIII provides for CHARGES, TRIALS, AND PROCEDURES RELATIVE TO WM where Section 17 provides that “ charges may be preferred against the Master of a Lodge for violation of the Ancient Landmarks of the Order, the Constitution, Edicts, Rules and Regulations of the Grand Lodge, or of the By-Laws of his Lodge”. If so, why was there NO TRIAL? Of course, the GM can exercise his powers to suspend or expel or deprive the office ONLY after DUE PROCESS.
7. NO document was enclosed for members to validly and intelligently VOTE on the issue of suspension or of due process.
8. In the case of the WMs of Lodge 17 and 238, the TYLER did NOT ANNOUNCE any visitor. Therefore, there was NO visitation. Why was the WMs punished?
9. In Lodge 238, the Lodge Secretary VWB Efren Barcelona questioned the DGL on how he will install the GLI and who or where is his MC. The DGL left in disgust but did NOT complain and became inactive. VWB Barcelona was declared a “clandestine mason” later by Edict 232 s but RESTORED in an irregular process. Why was the Lodge WM NOT sanctioned.?
10. In Lodge 300, the Lodge member OBJECTED to the admission of the DDGM. The WM divided the house. The majority won and the DDGM was admitted. Why was the WM not sanctioned?
11. In other Lodges, the members LEAVE before or after the DDGM enters the Lodge. So why was the WM not sanctioned?
12. It was during those troubled months of June and July, that I replied to a text message of whisper from then RW Jimmy Gonzales. My reply of strongly worded whisper on the suspension of the WMs was disliked by GM Yu and he spent time at ANCOM against my text messages “not to mishandle the Cavite situation…”
CONCLUSION:
13. What was approved at ANCOM and is now a LAW is that “ the GM can PUNISH the WM WITHOUT DUE PROCESS “
June 7, 2006
Bro Jim Bantolo
( Series Number 2 )
This is a continuation of the query, “ What was the report of the Grand Master?, and “ What was really approved at ANCOM ?”.
1. The Suspensions of WMs of GLP Lodges Nr 15, 17 and 269.. The WMs were suspended from office for NOT allowing admission into or refusing visitation to the lodges of the District Officers. The basis were: Article III Section 2(o) Part II Ordinances of the GLP Constitution on “Duties of a Lodge” which states , “ To RECEIVE the Grand Master or his representative, Past Grand Master, all elective officers of the Grand Lodge, District Deputy Grand Master, Grand Lecturers or Grand Lodge Inspectors, with Grand Honors on official visits”; Article XI Section 2(h) of a duty of the WM “ to guard against any infraction of its By-laws, the Constitution, Edicts, Ordinances and General Rules and Regulations of the Grand Lodge or the General Regulations of Masonry”, Article XI Section 3 that “ there shall be no appeal to the Lodge from the decision of the Master. Appeal from such decision may be presented to the Grand Master”; Article IX Section 2(i) Part I that the GM has the power “ to suspend the Master, or any officer of a Lodge, from office until the expiration of his term or until the next Annual Communication” Further , the report states “ suspension of the Master or any Lodge officer from office as provided by our laws and regulations does NOT require a Masonic Trial”.
COMMENTS:
2. The WM has the RIGHT to REFUSE ADMISSION as provided for in Article XI Section 1 ( c ) , 1 (d), 1 (e). There was a VALID OBJECTION for the hugh entourage to enter the lodge as there will be trouble that will DISTURB the peace and harmony in the Lodge if they insist to enter despite the objections for them to enter. The WM has a duty to preside at all meetings; and part of the meeting is to allow or refuse admission of any visitor. The TYLER has the power and duty to REFUSE admission and to seek approval of the WM for any visitor to enter the Lodge. It is the duty of the WM to preserve order in the Lodge. The entourage FORCED their way inside the lodge, DISTURBING the meeting, and so, the WM RECESSED the Lodge.
3. When the dignitary is ADMITTED into the Lodge, it becomes a DUTY to RECEIVE him with Grand Honors and customarily offer him the Gavel. In this regard, the WM DID NOT VIOLATE Article III Section 2 ( o ).
4. The provision of Article XI Section 3 applies to the decision of a WM that can be questioned or protested through an appeal by members to the GM. It is correct that the WM is answerable and accountable to the GM for all his acts and hence, it is the GM that refer the charge, create a Trial Commission and make diligent due process where the person charge could still make his appeal to the GM. But when the GM becomes the ACCUSER, PROSECUTOR AND JUDGE ALL at the same time, thence there is NO DUE PROCESS. Furthermore the DDGM has NO judicial power over the WM. So who can validate that the explanation of the WM was UNSATISFACTORY?
5. There is NO provision in the Constitution that Masonic Trial is NOT required. Article XI Section 4 states “ for the neglect or violation of any duty imposed by this Constitution, By-Laws, Edicts, Ordinances, Rules and Regulations, the Master shall be SUBJECT to DEPRIVATION OF OFFICE, SUSPENSION or EXPULSION BY THE grand Master”. The WMs were DEPRIVED of their office, of the exercise of their position WITHOUT DUE PROCESS. If there was a Trial, the verdict could be CASE DISMISSED, SUSPENDED FROM OFFICE, SUSPENDED FROM MASONRY OR FOR A TERM, EXPELLED. So what was the basis for a verdict of suspended from office?.
6. Article XVIII provides for CHARGES, TRIALS, AND PROCEDURES RELATIVE TO WM where Section 17 provides that “ charges may be preferred against the Master of a Lodge for violation of the Ancient Landmarks of the Order, the Constitution, Edicts, Rules and Regulations of the Grand Lodge, or of the By-Laws of his Lodge”. If so, why was there NO TRIAL? Of course, the GM can exercise his powers to suspend or expel or deprive the office ONLY after DUE PROCESS.
7. NO document was enclosed for members to validly and intelligently VOTE on the issue of suspension or of due process.
8. In the case of the WMs of Lodge 17 and 238, the TYLER did NOT ANNOUNCE any visitor. Therefore, there was NO visitation. Why was the WMs punished?
9. In Lodge 238, the Lodge Secretary VWB Efren Barcelona questioned the DGL on how he will install the GLI and who or where is his MC. The DGL left in disgust but did NOT complain and became inactive. VWB Barcelona was declared a “clandestine mason” later by Edict 232 s but RESTORED in an irregular process. Why was the Lodge WM NOT sanctioned.?
10. In Lodge 300, the Lodge member OBJECTED to the admission of the DDGM. The WM divided the house. The majority won and the DDGM was admitted. Why was the WM not sanctioned?
11. In other Lodges, the members LEAVE before or after the DDGM enters the Lodge. So why was the WM not sanctioned?
12. It was during those troubled months of June and July, that I replied to a text message of whisper from then RW Jimmy Gonzales. My reply of strongly worded whisper on the suspension of the WMs was disliked by GM Yu and he spent time at ANCOM against my text messages “not to mishandle the Cavite situation…”
CONCLUSION:
13. What was approved at ANCOM and is now a LAW is that “ the GM can PUNISH the WM WITHOUT DUE PROCESS “
June 7, 2006
Bro Jim Bantolo
No comments:
Post a Comment