Ang Iglesia Metodista sa Pilipinas

PALAYAIN NA SI ATTY ZUNIGA

2012-07-02T14:58:00.001-07:00

Panalangin

Para sa:
Lahat ng DSEs, mga Manggagawang Pastor at Diakonesa at mga Kaanib ng AIMPilipinas

Tungkol sa:
Samasamang panalangin para sa kaligtasan ni Atty. Joe Frank Zuniga at sa kanyang buong pamilya

Mapagpalayang pagbati, mga kasama sa AIMPilipinas!

Isang napakalungkot at di inaasahang pangyayari ang nagaganap ngayon sa buhay ng ating mapanindigan, maprinsipyo at magiting na kasama natin sa AIMPilipinas na si Atty. Joe Frank Zuniga (AIMPilipinas BOT Chairman at President). Mula noong Miyerkules (Hunyo 20, 2012) ng hapon, pagkatapos ng kanyang appointment sa Ocean Adventure, SBMA, Olongapo City, Zambales ay nawawala na sya. Natagpuan ang kanyang red color Honda Civic car sa Lahar River Bank, Carael, Botolan, Zambales noong Huwebes (Hunyo 21, 2012) ng gabi pero wala siya sa kanyang sasakyan.

Di man natin maidetalye ang buong kaganapan, kaninang umaga (Hunyo 23, 2012) sa Capitol Methodist Church, Balanga City, Bataan ay nagkaroon ng malakihang pagtitipon at panalanginan para sa kaligtasan ni Atty. Joe Frank Zuniga. Bagaman maigting ang paghahanap kay Atty. Joe Frank ng mga autoridad, magpahanggang sa ngayon ay di pa alam kung nasaan siya.

Mga kasama sa AIMPilipinas, isama po natin sa ating mga panalangin kasama ng ating mga pamilya tuwing agahan, tanghalian at hapunan ang kaligtasan at maayos na kalagayan ni Atty. Joe Frank. Gayundin sa panahon ng pananambahan ng lahat ng ating mga mission at local churches ng AIMPilipinas. Ipanalangin natin na buhay na buhay si Atty. Joe Frank, matagpuan na at makasama muli ng kanyang minamahal na pamilya at gayundin tayo. Ipanalangin din natin ang kanyang pamilya para sa ibayong kaaliwan, kalakasan, kapayapaan at kaligtasan nila. Sa gitna ng pagkundina sa di makatao, di maka-Dios at di makatarungang gawa ng mga taong may kinalaman sa pagkawala ni Atty. Joe Frank, ipinapanalangin pa rin natin na magliwanag nawa ang kanilang mga puso at isipan upang huwag saktan si Atty. Joe Frank at agarang pakawalan.

Mga kasama, patuloy tayong magpanalanginan, magtulungan at magmalasakitan sa isa't isa. Kasama natin ang Dios at Siya'y tunay nga na sumasaatin lagi sa pamamagitan ni Kristo Hesus at ng kapangyarihan, presensya at mahimalang pagkilos ng Banal na Espiritu.

Sumaatin lagi ang kapayapaan ng Dios!

Lito Cabacungan Tangonan
AIMPilipinas National Bishop (Punong Lingkod)

Rev. Tangonan Becomes First Bishop of AIM Pilipinas

2012-03-17T16:15:00.002-07:00

Pictures originally posted by Sammy Tuazon Antonio and Jay-Jimlet Herrera from a facebook group: AIMP.

LUACAN, DINALUPIHAN, Bataan - The AIM Pilipinas Congregations has finally installed Rev. Lito Tangonan to become the first church's Bishop on the 17th day of March 2012. It is remembered that AIMP has decisively declared autonomy and independence and secured recognition from SEC Philippines.

It was attended by churches from all over the extent of AIM Pilipinas and by friends and visitors who supported the cause.

Sammy Tuazon Antonio said in a facebook group.

‎"I am a soldier in the army of my God. The Lord Jesus Christ is my commanding officer. The Holy Bible is my code of conduct. Faith, prayer, and the Word are my weapons of warfare. I have been taught by the Holy Spirit, trained by experience, tried by adversity and tested by fire. I am a volunteer in this army, and I am enlisted for eternity. I will either retire in this army at the Rapture or die in this army; but I will not get out, sell out, be talked out, or pushed out. I am faithful, reliable, capable and dependable. If my God needs me, I am there." — in Luakan, Bataan.

AIMP Now in Wikipedia

2012-02-07T22:40:00.000-08:00

Under the main article METHODISM
Section PHILIPPINES
Philippines
Main article: United Methodist Church in the Philippines
The beginnings of Methodism in the Philippines islands grow from the American invasion of the Philippines following the Spanish-American War. On 21 June 1898, the American executives of the Mission Society of the Methodist Episcopal Church expressed their desire to join other Protestant denominations in starting mission work in the islands and to enter into any comity agreement that would facilitate the establishment of such mission. The first Protestant worship service was conducted on 28 August 1898 by an American military chaplain named Rev. George C. Stull. Rev. Stull was an ordained Methodist minister from the Montana Annual Conference of The Methodist Episcopal Church (Later became The United Methodist Church in 1968).
Methodist and Wesleyan traditions in the Philippines are shared by three of the largest mainline Protestant churches in the country – The United Methodist Church, Iglesia Evangelica Metodista En Las Islas Filipinas (IEMELIF) (Evangelical Methodist Church in the Philippine Islands), and The United Church of Christ in the Philippines.[55] There are also evangelical Protestant churches in the country with Methodist and Wesleyan tradition like The Wesleyan Church of the Philippines, Inc. Free Methodist Church of the Philippines,[56] and the Church of the Nazarene in the Philippines.[57] There are also the IEMELIF Reform Movement (IRM), The Wesleyan (Pilgrim Holiness) Church of the Philippines, the Philippine Bible Methodist Church, Inc., the Pentecostal Free Methodist Church, Inc., the Fundamental Christian Methodist Church, The Reformed Methodist Church, Inc., The Methodist Church of the Living Bread, Inc., and the Wesley Evangelical Methodist Church & Mission, Inc.
There are three Episcopal Areas of the United Methodist Church in the Philippines namely: Baguio Episcopal Area,[58] Davao Episcopal Area[59] and Manila Episcopal Area.[60]
A call for autonomy from The United Methodist Church by a certain group within it was discussed at many conferences. Only in 2010 did decisive action lead to the establishment of the Ang Iglesia Metodista sa Pilipinas, with groups in Palawan, Bataan, Zambales, Pangasinan, Bulacan, Metro Manila Area, some part of Pampanga, and Cavite. The group finally declared its full autonomy and incorporated legally with Securities and Exchange Commission of the Philippines and was approved on December 7, 2011. It is led by Bishop Lito C. Tangonan, Rev. George O. Buenaventura, Chita R. Millan and Atty. Joe Frank E. Zuñiga, and has 126 local churches all over the Philippines.

CACARONG DECLARATION

2012-01-24T05:20:00.001-08:00

Success of Bulakan Youth Assembly

2012-01-16T03:20:00.001-08:00

January 14, 2011 - The Youth of Bulacan of AIM Pilipinas has successfully held it's first assembly at Pandi Sports Complex, Pandi, Bulacan. More than 100 persons attended with their respective church workers including guests from Bataan. A meaning message was given by Brother Val Buenaventura. At the same time a meeting for the workers and lay leaders of 10 churches was held.

TO GOD BE THE GLORY!

Pictures by Bro. Sammy Antonio Tuazon (Bataan)

PANSOL DECLARES CHURCH FREEDOM

2012-01-08T04:14:00.000-08:00

January 7, 2011 - The congregation of Pansol, Quezon City has declared freedom and affiliation to the AIMP (Ang Iglesia Metodista sa Pilipinas) and broke away finally to the United Methodist Church. They added: "Ang kasarinlan ng Quezon City ay nagsimula na. It is remembered that Pansol delegates attended the just concluded Christmas Youth Assembly in Samal, Bataan.
TO GOD BE THE GLORY!

More pictures are found in this link: FACEBOOK: AIMP.

SPIRITUAL RETREAT NG MGA LAYKO AT MANGGAGAWA NG AIM PILIPINAS - BULAKAN GINANAP

2011-12-29T01:55:00.000-08:00

Lagman's Farm, Dangkol, Balanga, Bataan - Isang makabuluhang Spiritual Retreat na dinaluhan ng 16 katao - mga manggagawa at layko ng AIM-Pilipinas - Bulakan sa loob ng tatlong araw mula Dec 26-29, 2011 kasabay din ang CYA na ginanap sa Samal, Bataan.

Ang naging paksa ng retreat ay ang "Group Dynamics" para sa Church Team Building na matagumpay na natutunan ng mga dumalo sa pamamagitan ng simpleng pasinaya ni Bro. Bayani at mga lektura ni Pastor George. Naging matunog din ang paksang KALAYAAN NG IGLESIYA. Sa huling gabi ay tinukoy ang mga mahahalagang pagpa-plano ng mga magaganap pang mga pagtitipon at ang pagtatatag ng pangkalahatang panukala na iniisip ang respeto, kalayaan at higit sa lahat ang pagsunod kay Kristo bilang pangunahing lider.

Pinag-usapan din sa grupo ang mga susunod na gawain kagaya ng mga pagtitipon ng mga kabataan at pagtuturo sa mga bata sa nalalapit na summer vacation at iba pa.

Ang lugar na pinagdausan ay napakatahimik, malamig at kaaya-aya sa pananatili ng kabanalan sa retreat. Ang farm ay pag-aari ni Pstor Rod Lagman na isa ring partisipante sa pagtitipon.

KALAYAAN

Lagman's Farm House
Dangkol, Balanga, Bataan

KAUNA-UNAHANG CYA NA GINANAP SA BATAAN

2011-12-29T01:37:00.000-08:00

SAMAL, BATAAN - Isang tagumpay ang naganap na CYA (Christmas Youth Assembly) na tumagal ng 3 araw mula Dec. 26 -29, 2011 na dinaluhan ng mahigit 400 kabataan mula sa iba't ibang lugar. Idinaos ang naturang pagtitipon sa John Wesley Center na isang matahimik na lugar na ngayon ay nasa kustodiya na ng Iglesia Metodista sa Pilipinas.

Naging mainit at masaya ang naging pagtitipon na mataimtim na nakatuon ang bawat isa sa adhikaing kalayaan ng Iglesia at sa batayang talata mula sa Biblia sa Gal 5:1 "Sa kalayaan ay pinalaya tayo ni Cristo: magsitibay nga kayo, at huwag na kayong pasakop na muli sa pamatok ng pagkaalipin". Kakaibang kaluwalhatian ang nadama ng mga kabataan at mga kasama nilang layko at manggagawa. Nakilahok din sa pagtitipon ang kagalang-galang na alkalde ng bayan, ang DSs at si Bishop Lito Tangonan.

Isang Summer Youth Assembly ang muling gaganapin sa pagtatapos ng School Year sa Abril 2012.

THE CENTER

The Planners

Groundbreaking at Caingal, Sn Carlos

2011-12-12T21:57:00.000-08:00

From the email sent by:

Chita Rebollido-Millan

President Emerita, World Federation of Methodist & Uniting Church Women

Dear Mga Kasama,

Good sabbath morning from Calasiao. Pray all is fine with you.

I am sure the latest updates about our movement reached you by now. Let us therefore lift up our praises and thanks to God Almighty from whom all blessings flow. How faithful God is to his promise that He will supply our needs and that he'll be with us through the end of the age!

Let us rejoice because finally we are now an official church under the Republic of the Philippines and among the Christian churches. How fast it happened. According to Pastor Aze all 15 incorporators were able to sign as of Dec 2, documents were submitted at SEC on Dec 6 and after evaluation and review, was approved/signed on Dec 7. It was released last Friday, Dec 9. Aren't these signs that God approves what we are doing? All the more that we remain faithful to Him and do His his mission in this part of the world - "Misyon ni Kristo, Tungkulin ko.".

The SEC release was so timely for the groundbreaking ceremony of the 1st ever AIMP church/school in the Philippines, that was in Brgy. Caingal, San Carlos held yesterday. The 2,000 sq. m. lot is donated by Atty & Dr Gloria Gatchalian [nee Gloria Castro is from Caingal] with an initial money of P200,000 for the church building. What big hearts the Gatchalians have. Very soon Pastor Bayani Tecson will no longer preach under the mango trees with his members seated on their 'kanya-kanyang bangko'.

Thank you for faithful friends who graced yesterday's historic and momentous event. First on the list are our Pangasinense 'Senior' church workers/leaders [Kuya Romy Sison, Pastor Castillo, Manangs Aluida kasiguran, Panching Lucas and Perla Bautista, together with Manang Glo from Antipolo]. They arrived a day before [had dinner with us and slept at Pastor Tecson's mansion]. Special tasks were assigned to the men: Pastor Castillo as driver of his own Revo and Kuya Romy as documentor and writer for local publication of the event. Nueva Ecija friends led by Pastor Aze Bote were kind enough to be in Caingal, too. And last but not the least, 3 loaded cars from Calasiao AIMP attended to draw inspiration from the once in a lifetime event, as well as give inspiration to others.

We rejoice with Pastor Tecson, his loving wife Pacing, the Gatchalians, and members from Caingal and Calobaoan. May they continue to be witnesses of Christ's overflowing love to those who remain faithful to Him.

Attached with this email are some pictures taken by Art but the more official shots will be submitted [?] by our documentor, Kuya Romy [hahaha, bagong assignment].

Mga kasama, 'go, tell it on the mountains, over the hills and everywhere' that ANG IGLESIA METODISTA SA PILIPINAS is officially born! God bless us all.

Sisterly,

Chita

EMAIL OF ROMY SISON (Your Insights Needed)

2011-12-08T17:06:00.001-08:00

Blessings to All!

I had a rare opportunity to have a conversation with former SEC CommissionerPerfecto Yasay last Tuesday, Dec 6 while we were in court waiting for the session to open. We were both to give our testimonies to a mutual client. He is the son of a UCCP pastor in Mindanao. He shared me the following:

Organization. The AIMP should be registered as a "sole corporation" rather than a non-stock corporation being a religious entity. If you are registering it as non-stock corporation withdrew it and apply as "sole". You can come up with a "covenant" in lieu of "bylaws".

Choice of bishop. The corporations in the Philippines are patterned on the U.S. democratic principle of "rule of the majority." The election of the bishop through voting in a central conference will be prone to campaigning which is not good. Bishops should be chosen by a council whose membership will be chosen during the central conference. The council will get from the floor the nominations and the council will check their qualifications.Their term can be set in covenant.

Appointment of local pastors. Pastor should be called not sent. There should be a list of qualified pastors duly checked by the bishops or a council. From this list the local congregation can ask for their pastors. In this way, pastor are chosen not sent. This will encourage the pastors to continue developing themselves. The rule of "pastors are sent" tends to allow pastors to just wait for an appointment and they dont care if the lcoal church will be happy with them or not. Appointment can be fixed depending on the rule to be set.

Missions. Local churches have a parochial view of setting up mission churches. They tend to go only to the nearby locality, close to them and where they can themselves handle. Seldom do they choose to go beyond their annual conferences. For example, a church in Luzon can set up or support a church in Mindanao. They either help the church develop there or merely give financial support to the workers, etc.

Church property. The central conference of the sole corporation should own all church properties. These are however, kept in trust by the local congregation for their use. The use will be designated or restricted to ensure that it will not be used for other than religious purposes, etc.

Church based schools. The Board of Trustees should be appointed by the church council or church administration during the charge conference. A term will be set. Although they are supposed to be a corporation separate from the local church the BOT should be aware that they are representatives of the local church that created it. This will minimize school BOTs from dictating to the local church simply because they have more funds than the local church.

Inclusiveness. the sole corporation should be inclusive. It accepts all sinners who profess to accept Jesus as their Lord and Saviour and are moving on to perfection.

Wesleyan tradition. The AIMP members should be Wesleyan Methodist at heart.

Perhaps the above insights are worth thinking about by the members of the AIMP now that we are in initial stages of our birth.

I shall appreciate your comments on this. Let us share them with others.

Romy

"People don't know how much they mean, until they know how much you care."

"Pastors are called. Lay persons are sent."

Kahulugan ng AIMP Logo

2011-12-07T00:31:00.000-08:00

Posted by Roland Javier from Jesus' Knights

Ang Krus na kawayan - simbolo na anumang problema ang dumating ay yuyuko lamang subalit muling tatayo at hindi mabubunot

Kalapati na lumilipad - simbolo ng banal na espiritu na mula sa Panginoong Hesu Kristo na nagdadala ng salita at pag-ibig ng ating Panginoon

Tila bandila ng Pilipinas - simbolo na ang grupong ito ay mula sa bansang malayang Pilipinas at kabilang sa Metodista sa buong mundo.

CYA OFFICAL POSTER

2011-12-07T00:17:00.001-08:00

Youth Camp New Poster

2011-12-05T17:09:00.001-08:00

RETREAT

2011-12-02T17:09:00.000-08:00

KABATAAN GO!

2011-12-02T17:08:00.000-08:00

ONE LOGO

2011-12-02T17:03:00.000-08:00

Resolution Page of Balanga Court Decision on Bataan UMC

2011-08-28T04:23:00.000-07:00

Click the image for better viewing.

Bishop Lito Tangonan's Petition to the Judicial Council

2011-08-20T04:06:00.000-07:00

From Freddie Roxas document in Metodistang Pilipino at Facebook.

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

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:

“¶ 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:

“¶ 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

“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.

“Should they wish to restore their membership with us later on, we must welcome them.

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.

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)

“¶ 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.”

JUDICIAL COUNCIL DECISION NO. 696

2011-07-23T16:39:00.001-07:00

Decision No. 696 In Re: The Legality of Holding Membership in Two Denominations Simultaneously.

DIGEST OF CASE
There is no disciplinary provision authorizing an ordained United Methodist minister to hold membership simultaneously in another denomination. Upon joining another denomination, membership in The United Methodist Church is terminated.
STATEMENT OF FACTS

While there is a lengthy chronology relating to this matter, the essential facts are as follows:

William Farmer, a member in full connection with the North Texas Annual Conference and serving under due assignment to St. Luke Community United Methodist Church, entered full communion with the Roman Catholic Church at Holy Cross Catholic Church on January 26, 1990, as a lay member.
This matter was the subject of consideration by Bishop Bruce Blake, the Conference Relations Committee of the Board of Ordained Ministry, the Joint Review Committee, the Annual Conference Board of Ordained Ministry, and the Clergy Session of the North Texas Conference, all of which took various actions and all of which made various recommendations. In any event, the matter came before the 1993 Session of the North Texas Annual Conference on a motion by the 1992 Clergy Session that William Farmer's membership be terminated. Bishop Blake ruled that the motion to terminate would be acted on at the next Clergy Session of the North Texas Conference.
At the opening of the 1993 Clergy Session of the North Texas Annual Conference, Bishop Blake ruled a substitute motion in order, which motion reversed the previous action of the 1992 Executive Session terminating William Farmer's membership and embraced the dual witness.
Subsequently, the positive answer to the disciplinary question, "Are all members of the Conference blameless in their life and official administration?" including William Farmer was approved by the Clergy Session. This action precipitated submission of a written question to the bishop. The response was Bishop Blake's decision that such an answer relating to William Farmer was illegal inasmuch as he was in disobedience to the Order and Discipline of The United Methodist Church by joining the Roman Catholic Church and being in full communion therewith.
Zan Holmes recused himself and did not participate in any of the proceedings related to this decision.
JURISDICTION
The Judicial Council has jurisdiction under Par. 2613 of the 1992 Discipline.
ANALYSIS
While there has been considerable discussion of due process and rights under ordination, this matter is one of membership. The General Conference is vested with the authority to set forth the terms and conditions of membership in The United Methodist Church. The United Methodist Church in some instances has sanctioned a member in full connection serving in a position requiring Word, Sacrament and Order in other denominations, e.g. Par. 443.1(d). These instances are carefully authorized by disciplinary provisions and are well defined.
There is no disciplinary provision authorizing an ordained member of The United Methodist Church to hold membership in another denomination as a lay person. The Discipline speaks directly on the subject of lay persons who join another denomination and who fail to follow the procedures of transfer of membership. Par. 241 of the Discipline states that "upon receiving confirmation of a member's reception into another congregation ... the membership shall thereby be terminated." Par. 242 of the Discipline further provides that if a person joins another church the word "withdrawn" shall be entered after the person's name on the membership roll and be reported to the next Charge Conference.
In the case of ordained ministers, provisions in Par. 453.2, under the heading "Withdrawal to Unite with Another Denomination," and under Par. 453.5 entitled "Withdrawal Between Conferences," clearly lead one to the conclusion that joining another denomination constitutes a voluntary WITHDRAWAL by the clergy member from the denomination. These two paragraphs, coupled with the language of Par. 241, constitute the fact that a person cannot belong to another denomination and remain a member of The United Methodist Church. To hold otherwise would create a situation wherein ministers could hold dual membership with other denominations and lay persons could not.
Bishop Blake's decision that one cannot hold dual membership is correct. However, we deem irrelevant and immaterial that portion of his decision that William Farmer's "joining the Catholic Church constitutes a disobedience to the Order and Discipline of The United Methodist Church." We further find immaterial and irrelevant his decision "that the action of the North Texas Conference in Clergy Session that William Farmer is blameless in his life and official administration is illegal." Additionally, a bishop does not have authority to make such decisions.
The admitted action of William Farmer in entering full communion with the Roman Catholic Church at Holy Cross Catholic Church on January 25, 1990, as a lay member constitutes William Farmer's withdrawal from The United Methodist Church and thereby terminates his membership therein. Decision
Bishop Blake's decision that William Farmer cannot hold dual membership as modified herein is affirmed.
Saturday, October 30, 1993.

An Open Letter from the COB of the UMC in MEA dated 07/20/2011

2011-07-23T16:23:00.000-07:00

Please click the documents for clear viewing.

Palawan Rose for Autonomy

2011-07-21T23:06:00.000-07:00

PICTURES taken from

Lay & Workers Forum

uploaded by Jennifer Gabinete Castillo

Posted by Thommy Reyes for METODISTANG PILIPINO Group in Facebook

People of Palawan rose in faith declaring independence!

Palawan Declaring Independence!

wounded healers with Palawan workers! (BLT,Atty JFZ,Art Millan,Ace Bote)

Philippine Church Groups Made Alliance Towards an Autonomous Church

2011-07-18T02:44:00.000-07:00

JESUS' KNIGHTS

On July 14 to 16 while the attempt to take over Capitol UMC at Puerto Princesa was brewing, the members of the Wounded Healers headed by Chita Millan, the president of the World Federation of Uniting and Methodist Women and Atty. Joe Frank Zuniga, the conference lay leader of the West Middle Philippines Annual Conference, held a working session with the galant leaders of the so called "Red Group" of Davao Area as well as the members of the autonomous movement of Bukidnon.

Said session was held at Waig Crystal Spring resort at Maramag,Bukidnon. They were able to forge alliance and came up with various courses of action.

They had shared their own ideas on how to establish the indigenous autonomous Methodist church in the Philippines. The autonomous movement is growing fast and in the next coming months a national conference of the autonomous conferences will be held to draft its constitution and by laws as well as the Tagalog version of the Book of Discipline called Aklat ng Batas Kaayusan.

By the way we really admire these groups in their clamor for autonomy of the Methodist church in the Philippines, a truly reformed and patriotic church free from American meddlings. We likewise acknowledge the galant stand and faith of the members of the Capitol UMC in Puerto Princesa.

May the Good Lord bless our cause.

Philippine UMC Bishops' Pastoral Statement (May 16, 2011)

2011-07-08T17:38:00.000-07:00

(ref. Rev George Buenaventura's Email)

THE UNITED METHODIST CHURCH
Philippines Central Conference
College of Bishops
UMC Headquarters, 900 U.N. Avenue
Ermita, Manila, 1000 Philippines

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 bonafide 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.

God bless you all!

(Sgd.) Bishop Rodolfo A. Juan
(Sgd.) Bishop Leo A. Soriano
(Sgd.) Bishop Emerito P. Nacpil
(Sgd.) Bishop Jose A. Gamboa, Jr.
(Sgd.) Bishop Daniel C. Arichea, Jr.
(Sgd.) Bishop Benjamin A. Justo

METHODIST for TRUTH and JUSTICE!!!

2011-07-07T22:33:00.001-07:00

The United Methodist Church West Middle Philippines Annual Conference Inc. Magsaysay St., San Jose, Balanga City, Bataan PAHAYAG NG LIDER NG LAYKO NG KUMPERENSYA PARA SA LAHAT NG METODISTA: Isang pagbati po sa ngalan ng ating Panginoong HesuKristo, Noon p...ong Hulyo 1, 2011 isang retiradong Obispo na nagngangalang DANIEL C. ARICHEA ang nagpalabas ng isang Pastoral Letter na diumano ang mga dumalo sa kumperensya ng Luacan UMC noong Mayo 29-31, 2011 ay hindi na kaanib ng United Methodist Church, samakatuwid ay wala ng karapatang gumamit ng mga ari-arian ng nasabing iglesia. Ito po ay isang malaking kasinungalingan. UNA: Ano po ang karapatan ng isang retiradong Obispo na magsabi nito sa mga tunay at lehitimong Metodista na hindi umaasa sa mga AMERIKANO para sa SWELDO? IKALAWA: Sa pahayag niya na ito ay isang maliwanag na paglabag sa Book of Discipline na sila diumano ang nagpapatupad. Ayon po sa par.2714 (6) ng Book of Disciplie "If the trial court finds that the charges are proven by clear and convincing evidence, then it may impose such penalties as it may determine, including that the professing membership of the charged layperson in the United Methodist Church be terminated, provided that the trial court shall first consider other remedies that would fulfill the _________" Ibig pong sabihin ay kailangang dumaan sa proseso ng katarungan bago magdesisyon ang hukuman ng iglesia na itiwalag na ang mga miembro. Ganito din po ang proseso para sa mga pastor at dyakonesa. Hindi po OBISPO ANG NAGDEDEKLARA nito.. Samakatuwid ay maliwanag na naman ang paglabag ng nasabing Obispo sa Book of Discipline gaya ng ginagawa nila, kalakip po dito ang desisyon ng Committee on Investigation kaugnay sa mga paglabag ng mga OBISPO sa disiplina ng iglesia bilang ANNEX "A". IKATLO: Bakit sasabihin na ng nasabing OBISPO na hindi na magagamit ang ating iglesia na diumano ay pag-aari ng UMC? Siya po ba ang bumili nito? Ano po ang kapangyarihan niya para magsabi ng ganito at gawin ito? Tayo po na mga layko katulong ang mga manggagawa ng iglesia ang bumibili ng mga lote at nagpapatayo ng mga gusaling sambahan hindi po ang mga OBISPO ni ang mga amerikano. Hindi po sila tumutulong sa pagpapagawa ng mga gusali. Tayo po ng mga miembro ang nagpapakasakit sa mga itinatayo nating mga gusali at sa maaming pagkakataon kabalikat natin ang mga Koreanong Metodista, na ''autonomous churches'' at hindi sila na mga OBISPO. IKAAPAT: Ang ordinasyon po ng mga pastor at commissioning ng mga dyakonesa ay magagawa natin sa pamamagitan ng ating TUNAY NA HALAL AT LEHITIMONG OBISPO na si OBISPO LITO C. TANGONAN, kaya wala pong dapat ipangamba ang mga pastor at dyakonesa at ito ay magagawa natin sa mga iglesia local. IKALIMA: Maliwanag na ayaw ng mga OBISPO na ariin na ng mga iglesia local ang ari- ariang dapat sana ay sa atin, subalit hindi na nila tayo mapipigilan sapagkat ito ay isang magandang prinsipyo ng METODISTA ang pagiging mabuting katiwala ( CHRISTIAN STEWARDSHIP). Dinadaan ng liderato ng iglesia sa pamamagitan ng pananakot, pagsuhol at panlilinlang upang sila ay suportahan ng mga manggagawa at layko. Wag na tayong matakot sa kanila labanan natin ang mga katiwalian sa iglesia at tumayo sa prinsipyo ng katarungan batay sa Banal na kasulatan. Manindigan tayo sa kasarinlan ng ating minamahal na iglesia. Ako po ay nananawagan sa malawakang '' civil disobedience'' o hindi pagsunod sa mga OBISPO bilang protesta sa mga kawalan ng KATARUNGAN at KATIWALIAN . Ito po ay karapatan natin batay sa SALIGANG BATAS o 1987 Constitution of the Philippines.

Kay Kristo,

Ito po ang inyong Lingkod

Atty. JOE FRANK E. ZUNIGA Conference Lay Leader

FACEBOOK/PINOY METODISTA: Start of Witch Hunting in the Church Workers of the UMC

2011-07-07T07:26:00.000-07:00

Post by Atty. Freddie Roxas 07/072011
Please click the files to download for easy reading.