TBL Staff

The following was reported to TheBlueLodge.org as another possible infraction by a Grand Master with the removal of Master Masons without due process.

------------------------------------------------------

REASONS WHY THE ANCOM SHOULD
NULLIFY EDICTS NO. 232, 232-A to D
(by Ben Apacible,PDDGM)

On September 7, 2006, MW Romeo A. Yu issued Edict No. 232 declaring twenty-nine (29) brethren of Pilar Lodge No. 15 as clandestine masons. This was later followed by Edicts 232-A, 232-B, 232-C, and 232-D, declaring more brethren as clandestine masons.

The aforesaid edicts have no factual and legal bases under Masonic law and therefore should be disapproved.

1. The brethren mentioned in the Edicts are not clandestine Masons. - Mackey’s Encyclopedia on Masonry defined “clandestine mason” as “one made in or affiliated with a clandestine Lodge”; on the other hand, a “clandestine lodge” is “a body of Freemasons or of those improperly claiming to be Freemasons, uniting in a Lodge without the consent of a Grand Lodge, or, although originally legally constituted, continuing to work after its Charter has been revoked.”

The concerned brethren were all initiated, passed, and raised in just and regularly constituted Lodges. Most of them belong to century-old Lodges whose Charters were issued by Gran Oriente Espanol or Grand Lodge of California and subsequently re-chartered by the Grand Lodge of the Philippines. Many of them became even officers of the Grand Lodge of the Philippines or of their respective Lodges.

Even Section 2-k, Article IV, Part II-Ordinances of the GLP Constitution, which states that “the words ‘clandestine lodge’ and ‘clandestine masons’ shall refer to a fraternity, organization or association and a member thereof, which is not recognized by the Grand Lodge” presupposes that a lodge must be first declared a “clandestine lodge” before its members can be called “clandestine masons”.

The charters of their Lodges have never been revoked. Hence, their Lodges are not clandestine Lodges and the members thereof cannot be called, much less declared, clandestine masons.

2. The ground for the issuance of the subject Edicts is erroneous. – In declaring the concerned brethren as clandestine Masons under Edict No. 232, MW Yu reasoned that “under section 2, paragraph c, article XVII of the ordinances, part II of the Constitution a mason’s membership in a lodge shall be terminated by voluntary withdrawal therefrom. Considering that (they) have signified in writing their withdrawal from the Grand Lodge of the Philippines, of which Pilar Lodge is one of the subordinate lodges, (said persons) have ceased to be members of Pilar Lodge No. 15 x x x”. The subsequent edicts were issued for the same reason.

Said ground is factually and legally baseless. The brethren did not withdraw their membership from their respective Lodges. It was their Lodges, together with its members, which left the GLP and joined in the formation of a new Grand Lodge. It should be pointed out that the personality of a subordinate Lodge is separate and distinct from that of its individual members. “Once a Mason, always a Mason”, we always say. When their respective Lodges left the GLP, they became unaffiliated masons of the GLP, with right to affiliate with any of its subordinate Lodges, if they still desire to continue their membership with said Grand Lodge. So, we know of many Masons who belong to several Grand Lodges.

Even if we admit for the sake of argument that the brethren withdrew from their Lodges, they did not thereby withdraw from Masonry. The GLP Constitution allows a Master Mason to demit from his Lodge, the result of which is only loss of membership in that Lodge but not in the Fraternity.

3. It is the inherent power of Lodges to form a Grand Lodge. – The IGLPI is not and cannot correctly be declared “irregular and clandestine”. The forming of a Grand Lodge is an inherent right of a Lodge and there is no need to consult anyone on this point. All the Grand Lodges in the civilized world have been formed by independent action. (Please see minutes of the proceedings on the formation of the Grand Lodge of South Australia.) Even the GLP invoked this time-honored principle when it was organized. This is apparent from the Joint Resolution of Manila Lodge 342, Cavite Lodge No. 350 and Corregidor Lodge No. 386 dated November 17, 1912, which reads in part that “ . . . it is the inherent prerogative of any three subordinate Masonic Lodges in a territory, like the Philippines, Masonically free, to organize through their representatives, a Grand Lodge”. Furthermore, the Basic Principles of Recognition, found on page 240 of the GLP Constitution, 2005 Edition, clearly provides that a Grand Lodge has regularity of origin when it is established either by a Grand Lodge or BY AT LEAST THREE SUBORDINATE LODGES. Considering that the IGLPI was established by seven (7) subordinate Lodges, it indisputably has regularity of origin.

The Grand Master’s view that since the territorial jurisdiction of the GLP “comprises the territory of the Philippines, South Korea, the Marianas Islands, the Marshall Islands, the Ryuku Islands, South Vietnam and its existing Lodges in Japan”, no other Grand Lodge could be formed therein and any Grand Lodge so created would thus be “an irregular grand lodge and its members irregular or clandestine masons”, is ERRONEOUS. The rule on this matter is:

"There can be no question about Exclusive Jurisdiction. It is a basic principle that a Grand Lodge must be autonomous and have sole and undisputed authority over its constituent Lodges. This cannot be shared with any other Masonic council or power. But the question of exclusive territorial jurisdiction is not so clear cut. In some European and Latin American countries, a geographical or politically self-contained unit may be served by two or more Grand Lodges. If these Grand Lodges and hence their constituent Lodges are working in amity, and both are worthy of recognition in all other respects, this joint occupation of a country, state or political subdivision should not bar them from recognition.”

“In other words, the Commission on Information for Recognition has said that the doctrine of exclusive territorial jurisdiction means that all the Lodges chartered by a particular Grand Lodge give their loyalty only to that Grand Lodge, but there can be lodges chartered by different Grand Lodges in the same territory. There can be several Grand Lodges in a single geographic territory, all with many lodges under them, so long as each lodge gives its loyalty to only one Grand Lodge, and the doctrine of exclusive territorial jurisdiction is not violated, according to the 1975 statement by the Commission on Information for Recognition as reported and accepted by the Conference of Grand Masters of Masons in North America.”

(Taken from The Doctrine of Exclusive Territorial Jurisdiction, Paul M. Bessel, December 28, 1998.)

Likewise, this principle is adopted in the Philippines way back in 1932, as provided in Basic Principles on Recognition, page 240, GLP Constitution, and 2005 Edition.

4. The Grand Master cannot issue an Edict declaring Masons under his jurisdiction as clandestine masons. – There is no dispute that, in between Annual Communications of the Grand Lodge, the Grand Master may exercise all its executive and judicial powers as well as legislative power as may provide legislation that shall be harmoniously complementary to the Constitution. The act of MW Yu in declaring certain Masons as clandestine is certainly not within his executive power (i.e, to see that the laws are faithfully executed), or legislative power (i.e., to make, alter or repeal laws or prescribe general rules of government). If at all, it is in the exercise of the Grand Lodge’s judicial power to resolve controversies and to enforce discipline upon all Masons and Lodges under its jurisdiction. This judicial power however is subject to the rules on charges and trial, as provided in Part II-Ordinances, Article XVIII, of the Constitution.

Despite the vast powers of the Grand Master, he cannot suspend or expel members or worse, expunge names from the rolls of the Grand Lodge, without due process. The powers of the Grand Master under Section 2 of the GLP Constitution is predicated on “ ancient general Masonic usage”, one of which is due process, i.e., the law which hears before it condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry, and renders judgment only after trial.

The concerned brethren were declared “clandestine masons” not because they were such, but to summarily expel them from the GLP without the benefit of charges and trial and due process. Edict No. 232 and its sub-Edicts may be considered bills of attainder - - a law which convicts and punishes a person without trial.

5. Edict No. 232 and its sub-Edicts are discriminatory. – On July 8, 2006, the brethren and Lodges in Eastern Visayas declared their independence from the GLP and formed the United Grand Lodge of the Philippines. The Grand Master however did not declare them “clandestine masons”, unlike what he did to the brethren of Cavite. This is contrary to the principles of justice and fairness.

6. The Grand Master has no authority to issue orders to appendant bodies. – Through Edicts 232 and its sub-Edicts, MW Yu ordered the appendant bodies to expunge the names of the concerned members from their records. This has no legal basis. The relationship between the GLP and its appendant bodies is one of comity and friendship. Each of the appendant bodies has their own rules and policies and their own set of officers. They are distinct organizations and not under the GLP. Hence, the Grand Master cannot order, but may only request these appendant bodies to adopt courses of action under the given circumstances.

In an effort to extricate himself, MW Yu issued Circular No. 17-Yu whereby he mentioned, among other things, that “when certain Philippine Lodges in Japan . . . wanted to form their own Grand Lodge, they gladly obtained the consent of our Grand Lodge and we graciously assisted them in their endeavors giving birth to the Most Worshipful Grand Lodge of Japan”. It is very sad that the Grand Master had to resort to lies. The records of the Grand Lodge of Japan reveal that the GLP strongly opposed the brethren’s move to form a new Grand Lodge. As a matter of fact, the GLP did not allow its representatives to vote in the Annual Communications although they were still then members thereof. The Grand Lodge of Japan then worked on its own and succeeded to get recognition from other foreign Grand Lodges. GLP was only the 25th Grand Lodge to recognize the Grand Lodge of Japan and subject to the condition that it would pay its past dues to the GLP and remit the GLP’s equity in the properties of the Lodges of Japan.

As one Mason wrote: “Freemasonry is not a dictatorial institution, therefore, no one has an absolute power and that includes the Grand Master. The day when a mere mortal start thinking of himself as a monarch of the Fraternity and the time when members accept that illusion – the organization they are in is no longer the Craft we knew. Only those with interior motives will allow that to happen and hoodwinked fools to continue to stay.”

Let us therefore move to have Edicts No. 232, 232-A to D disapproved during the Annual Communications in Angeles City.

observingcraftsman

I would like to inform you brethren that the 91st Annual Communications unanimously approved all edicts issued by the Immediate Past Grand Master Yu (including edicts appertaining to the posted issues).

In the spirit of fairness, let me share you an excerpt in one of the posts in our e-group, informing the less informed what really transpired during those rough and rugged times...

Please allow me to me enumerate the history of events.

First Hand Information also!

a. Edict 232 was issued in response to the declaration of
independence by certain brethren from Cavite, particularly those
belonging to Pilar Lodge No. 15. Note that the Lodge was NOT UNANIMOUS
in their votation. 16 brethren present voted for the independence
move, while 14 brethren present voted to stay loyal with the GLP. It
was a case of simple majority.

b. Edict 232 DID NOT DECLARE these 16 brethren as clandestine masons.
What made them clandestine was their act of signing a document of
independence. Edict 232 merely stated what they had done, that is TO
SIGN AN ACT OF INDEPENDENCE. Edict 232 may be defeated in an Ancom
(unlikely) but in the unlikely event that this will happen, it is not
automatic that these 16 brethren will become regular masons again.
That is not the stand of the Grand Lodge as what made them clandestine
was their affixing their signature on the independence document.

c. Edict 232A was issued in response to the declaration of
independence and the formation of the IGLPI by certain members of
Cavite Lodges. 6 lodges signified their intention to join the IGLPI.
AGAIN, I WISH TO POINT OUT THAT the decision of those lodges WERE NOT
UNANIMOUS. Thus, those 6 lodges, particularly those brethren who did
not sign up with the IGLPI, are still with the GLP. In like manner,
they have held their respective lodge elections for new officers, to
serve the remaining term of those officers that resigned to move to
IGLPI. As in above, they signed the charter of their own IGLPI and it
is this act of signing that they got included in the list under Edict
232A. Needless to say, a defeat of Edict 232A will not make them
regular masons.

d. Edict 232B was issued in response to the reports of attendance and
active participation in the formation of IGLPI. Those who PARTICIPATED
IN THE formation either by attending, wearing aprons during the
activity (note there were observers who only observed and did not wear
aprons) and showing support to the IGLPI were declared clandestine.
The conditions set forth above are applicable to Edict 232B.

e. Pilar Lodge is now Pilar Lodge No. 1 of IGLPI while Pilar Lodge No.
15 is still under the GLP. As I said, 14 of 30 present when the
resolution was passed, along with many others who were absent are
still known as Pilar Lodge No. 15. The Circular of the Grand Master of
the Grand Lodge of California declared those in Pilar Lodge No. 1 as
clandestine. Even your GM considered them as such. Those under Pilar
Lodge No. 15 are considered by your GM as regular masons.

f. It is true that in our constitution, a regional grand lodge is
allowed. This was a verbatim copy of the Constitution of the Grand
Lodge of the Grand Lodge of California. This was lifted from there.
Even California, which has this in the Constitution has never seen a
move like this. What they have not told you is that they must do this
in CONSONANCE with the GLP, NOT INDEPEDENTLY. And also, what they have
not told you is this was reserved for those lodges in foreign lands,
like the lodges in Japan and Taiwan, before the formation of the Grand
Lodge of Japan and the Grand Ldoge of China. Again what I wish to
emphasize here is that moves like this must be in consonance with the
GLP, and NOT IN REACTION TO THE ISSUANCE OF EDICTS 232, 232A and 232B.

g. What is not being said also is the same Edicts, provide for a way
for those clandestine masons to become regular masons, again. The GM
has seen it fit to put in a provision there for those who wish to come
back to the fold.

h. They are limiting their definition of clandestine to that of
Mackey. The GM in the Edict has already confirmed them to be
clandestine, even if they were regularly made a mason. They belie the
fact that they themselves made themselves clandestine and the Edict
merely confirmed their action. So they are clandestine by GLP
definition.

i. Now they are limiting what they signed to be intention for
acceptance in the IGLPI. Shouldn't they have worked with the GM so
that the GM can endorse it to the new GLP. Remember, as powerful as
the GM is, the formation of a Regional Grand Lodge is of such an
important matter that he will have to form a committee to study this
and if found to be meritorious, the committee will then report to the
GM, who will either approve or disapprove, but whatever action he
does, he then presents this to the Ancom.

How did this rift come about? As they claim, the GM did not appoint a
person whom they wanted to be DDGM. The question to ask is, the DDGM,
whose DDGM is he? Is he the DDGM of the district with the GLP or is he
the DDGM of the GM to the district? I leave that question for you to
answer.

It is true that he did not appoint the person the district wanted. But
the appointment of DDGM and any position for that matter, is clearly
the prerogative of the GM. On legal count, this is what it is.