Skip Navigation

Judicial Council Decisions Search


Decision No. 241

Back to Search

November 08 1966
In Re: Appeal from the Action of the Philippines Central Conference in Abolishing the Position of Promotional Director of the Philippines Central Conference

Digest of Case

The Discipline is silent concerning the position of Promotional Director in a Central Conference. Since no law of the church was violated by the action of the Philippines Central Conference the appeal is denied.

Statement of Facts

The Secretary of the Philippines Central Conference, Meynardo R. Jose, has submitted in a letter dated October 20, 1966, to the Secretary of the Judicial Council an excerpt from the minutes of the Proceedings of the Philippines Central Conference for November 1, 1964, the Journal of the 1964 Philippines Central Conference not as yet being in print. The conference approved a report of its Board of Lay Activities which included, among other items: "(2) The office of the Promotional Director should be abolished and the functions and funds of said office should be transferred to the Board of Lay Activities." Gregorio R. Bailen thereupon moved: ". . . to appeal the decision of thePhilippines Central Conference which transferred the Office of the Promotional Director to the Board of Lay Activities, it being contrary to the action of the General Conference, to the Judicial Council on question of legality." The secretary of the conference declares in his letter that "the appeal was unanimously voted." The contention of Gregorio R. Bailen is that the Central Conference by its vote eliminated an office which is required by General Conference legislation and illegally placed the responsibility under the Board of Lay Activities. JURISDICTION The Judicial Council has jurisdiction under Paragraph 906. ANALYSIS The Co-ordinating Council, in its Report Number One to the 1964 General Conference, presented the "Anniversary Quadrennial Program" (Daily Christian Advocate, pages 18-20). With minor amendment it was adopted. The appellant is clearly in error on two points. The report was not adopted as part of the law of the church, and does not appear in the Discipline. Second, the office referred to in the appeal and brief is an office in the Commission on Promotion and Cultivation of the general church and not in a Central Conference; to wit: "The Commission [on Promotion and Cultivation] shall have the power to employ a director of the Quadrennial Program, with the understanding that such liaison services as may be needed overseas shall be provided by the Board of Missions."

Decision

The appeal is without merit and is denied.

Back to Search