Parliamentary Procedures 101

by Chris Lao, Vice Chairperson - UP Diliman University Student Council

Rules of parliamentary law are based on underlying principles such that at the end of the day, deliberative assemblies such as the General Assembly of Student Councils (GASC) conduct business and make decisions according to the will of the majority but with due regard for the rights of the minority, of individual members, of absentees and all these components combined. It is the best method yet devised to enable assemblies to arrive at the general will on a maximum number of questions of varying complexity in a minimum amount of time and under all sorts of internal conditions ranging from complete harmony to impassioned division of opinion. It is the best method that balances the right of every member to speak and the right of the assembly not to be unduly delayed. More simply, since these rules of order were carefully framed to ensure always the will of majority, any action without recourse to these would be a blatant disrespect to the assembly and a subversion of its will - the real deal behind the GASC fiasco from its opening session on Oct. 22 to its resumption on Nov. 13.

Given this, how on earth can some others actually say that such rules suppress the members' right to speak and that such rules do not expedite the process and hence we drop the procedures? Given that the parliamentary procedures had no way to go but to the will of the majority, it makes sense why the minority, who apparently would do anything to keep the SR selection mechanism to its favor, hold such contempt for correct procedures that will not tolerate their delaying tactics and instead favor the will of the assembly. However, it makes no sense at all why UP students (student leaders at that!) who claim to abhor the Congress we see and hear everyday of our lives doing misdemeanors left and right, are willing to be its prototype betraying the utter lack of delicadeza and moral degeneracy just so it could get what it wants even if it means subverting the rules and
suppressing the will of the assembly.

As such, although much time was spent on lecturing the presiding officer on parliamentary procedures, the bulk of it was actually spent on making him and some others follow them. Given such refusal to follow the rules, a member of the minority said to the USC Manila Chairperson "You shouldn't lecture the presiding officer," to which the reply of the USC Manila Chairperson was apt in that he said "I yield to that. I shouldn't lecture the presiding officer because he is expected to know this." The label "Mr. Chair" turned out to be a misnomer of cosmic proportions when we had to lecture him from proper handling of motions, obtaining and assigning the floor, rules governing debate and debatability of motions and even to the simple rules surrounding adjournment.

To begin the decision-making process, members offer proposals by making motions which will be decided by the body. Because they are to be decided by the body, the refusal to let the process move is disrespecting the councils who are to make the decision. The failure to act on such motions that are supposed to be put before the assembly for decision is a subversion of the decision-makers' voice. There was a myriad of instances when the councils were not allowed and entrusted of such decisions. First, I made a motion to make changes in the draft agenda that requires a majority vote which is a right recognized by the parliamentary authority. Six hours have passed yet the councils weren't allowed to decide for themselves whether they agree to my motion to prioritize resolutions such as the amendment to the voting mechanism as these directly affect the December SR selection process. Second, the motion by the CSSPSC Chairperson to lay on the table Aricle 2 section 2, which is an undebatable motion that requires majority vote, was never given back to the councils to decide whether they want it laid down or not.

Third, when CSSPSC withdrew the motion to lay on the table, several motions duly seconded were made to divide the house - again to give it back to the assembly to decide because clearly the trend has been to delay in the guise that things have not been exhausted since the first GASC session in UP Cebu until its extension here in UP Diliman. But as usual, these motions weren't given back to the councils to decide. They say that it is because objections are still being raised. Since the time limit has been breached and we know that we can not be in GASC for the rest of our lives, I said that if they want to debate still, they should raise a motion to extend debate the decision of which whether to extend or not would come from the councils themselves. If the councils think they haven't heard enough, they'd vote in favor of the motion to extend debate. If the will of the assembly is that it has heard enough and it is time to vote, why not let them decide?

Again, it was echoed, "Is there any motion to extend debate?" and we heard none so it was time to hear to will of the assembly. The motion has been made and has been duly seconded. Instead of acting on the motion, what did the presiding officer do? After rejecting wave after wave of motions, he again committed misconduct by not acting on the pending question which prompted the SESC Chairperson to invoke the parliamentary authority that
safeguards the assembly by having the section "Remedies Against Misconduct or Dereliction of Duty in Office", allowing her to make the roll call herself standing in her place after the presiding officer ignored the motion duly seconded and neither stated the question nor listened to the Point of Order raised by the maker of the motion continually ignoring the motion to divide the house duly seconded.

Lastly, the will of the assembly was prevented from being heard as to whether or not it wishes to adjourn given the pending amendments. The presiding officer never put it to a vote as written in the house rules and parliamentary authority and instead decided for himself. This led to the minority following the breach of house rules by the presiding officer and considered the assembly adjourned while the majority stuck with the rules and carried on with the amendments with a new presiding officer in replacement of the censured one on the grounds of dereliction of duty and breach of house and universal rules of parliament.

My message to those who threatened and continue to threaten the democracy and impartiality of the GASC is this: Much of our problems today are brought about by simply not following the rules. People evade taxes, commit culpable violations of our Constitution, engage in illegal activities, suppress the truth through grave abuse of power, and many more. This is being complained about everyday yet here lies the disrespect given to the student councils duly elected by subverting the will of the majority by refusing to follow rules and putting words on their mouths. And as if this was not enough, distortion of truth is being sowed through preemptive statements.

Henry M. Robert of Robert's Rules of Order said, "In a land perhaps most persons are members of one or more societies, some knowledge of parliamentary [procedure] may be justly regarded as a necessary part of education of every man and woman..." Isn't it funny that the same student leaders who do not want a minimum academic requirement and tolerate delinquent student regent nominees are the ones who disregarded the rules? Let us remember that we are students first and foremost.

I echo the call of the UP School of Economics Student Council to the UP students. Your right to be heard is being threatened! Fight for democracy and impartiality within the GASC! Fight for the LEGITIMATE and DEMOCRATIC selection of the next student regent!