Dear Atty. Gab,

Musta Atty! My name is Gregorio Panganiban, and I’m an active member of the Integrated Society of Structural Engineers – Panay Chapter (ISSPE-Panay). Our national organization, the ISSPE, has rules about rotating the National Executive Vice President (NEVP) position among the different regional chapters. We follow rules similar to other integrated professional organizations, often looking to principles applied by bodies like the Supreme Court for guidance.

Here’s my confusion: About six years ago, our chapter nominated Engr. Santos for NEVP. He was elected, but shortly before he was supposed to automatically become National President, he was unfortunately disqualified due to some internal policy violations unrelated to the election itself. Our chapter effectively lost its chance to hold the presidency that term.

Now, as the next election for NEVP approaches, our chapter wants to nominate another candidate. However, the Luzon Central Chapter is strongly arguing that it’s their turn. They claim that since Engr. Santos was already elected NEVP, ISSPE-Panay already had its ‘turn’ in the current rotation cycle, even though he never became president. They are citing past presidencies to support their claim, creating a lot of debate.

We feel this is unfair. Does an elected term that wasn’t fully served (especially the presidency part) count as completing a turn under the rotation system? What does ‘rotation by exclusion’ really mean in practice? We want to ensure our chapter gets a fair chance, just like every other region. Can you shed light on how rotation rules are typically interpreted, especially when past terms were controversial or incomplete?

Thank you for your guidance, Atty.

Respectfully,
Gregorio Panganiban

Dear Gregorio,

Thank you for reaching out. Your concern regarding the rotation rules within your professional organization, the ISSPE, and the feeling of potential unfairness given past events is completely understandable. These situations involving leadership succession and eligibility can indeed become complex, especially when interpreting rules in light of unique historical circumstances like disqualifications.

The core purpose of rotation systems in integrated professional bodies, particularly those under the oversight of bodies like the Supreme Court, is precisely to ensure fairness and equal opportunity for all constituent regions or chapters. It aims to prevent the concentration of leadership in only a few regions and mitigate the intense politicking that can sometimes arise during elections. The principle of ‘rotation by exclusion’ is key here, designed to systematically give each eligible unit its turn.

How Leadership Turns Work: Understanding Rotation in Your Professional Organization

Integrated professional organizations, much like the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), often have a structure involving regional representation leading to national governance. The national leadership typically includes key positions like a President and an Executive Vice President (EVP), with the Board of Governors comprising representatives from various regions. The Supreme Court, under its constitutional mandate, exercises supervisory powers over certain integrated bodies, ensuring their processes align with principles of fairness and order. This power extends to overseeing election rules and interpreting or even amending the organization’s by-laws when necessary to resolve controversies or clarify procedures.

“There is no dispute that the Constitution has empowered the Supreme Court to promulgate rules concerning ‘the integrated bar.’ Pursuant thereto, the Court wields a continuing power of supervision over the IBP and its affairs like the elections of its officers.”

The rotation principle is central to ensuring equitable representation. Its primary goal is to give every region or chapter a fair opportunity to hold key leadership positions over time. The specific position being rotated is crucial. Jurisprudence and evolving by-laws in organizations like the IBP have clarified that often, it is the Executive Vice President (EVP) position that is subject to strict rotation. The presidency then often follows through a rule of automatic succession, where the elected EVP assumes the presidency in the subsequent term. Therefore, the focus of the rotation mechanism is typically on the election of the EVP.

“The Executive Vice President shall be elected on a strict rotation basis by the Board of Governors from among themselves… The violation of the rotation rule in any election shall be penalized by annulment of the election and disqualification of the offender from election or appointment to any office in the IBP.”

The mechanism commonly adopted to implement this is ‘rotation by exclusion’. This means that once a chapter or region’s representative has been elected to the rotating position (e.g., EVP), that chapter or region is then excluded from vying for that same position in the subsequent elections within that specific rotational cycle. They only become eligible again once all other qualified chapters/regions have had their turn. When a full cycle is completed (meaning all eligible regions have had a representative serve), a new cycle begins. In the new cycle, all regions are generally eligible again, except possibly the one that served in the immediately preceding term, based on the ‘exclusion’ principle carrying over to the start of the next round.

“Election through ‘rotation by exclusion’ is the more established rule… The rule prescribes that once a member of the chapter is elected as Governor [or EVP], his chapter would be excluded in the next turn until all have taken their turns in the rotation cycle. Once a full rotation cycle ends and a fresh cycle commences, all the chapters in the region are once again entitled to vie but subject again to the rule on rotation by exclusion.”

Confusion like what your chapter is experiencing often arises from how past events, like disqualifications or incomplete terms, are interpreted within this framework. Did Engr. Santos’s election as NEVP, despite his later disqualification and inability to assume the presidency, constitute ISSPE-Panay’s ‘turn’ for that cycle? This often depends on the specific wording of your organization’s by-laws and any clarifications issued by the governing board or supervising body. Jurisprudence suggests that the focus is on the opportunity provided and the election to the rotating post (NEVP). However, the ultimate aim is fairness. Supervisory bodies like the Court recognize that disputes over interpretations can arise and are prepared to clarify rules or even amend by-laws to prevent endless controversies and ensure the rotation system achieves its equitable purpose. It’s important to remember that matters concerning the internal governance and elections of such bodies are often treated as administrative matters, where strict technical rules might be relaxed in the interest of justice and ensuring the proper functioning of the organization.

“It should be noted that this is merely an administrative matter… where technical rules are not strictly applied. In fact, in administrative cases, there is no rule regarding entry of judgment. Where there is no entry of judgment, finality and immutability do not come into play.”

Therefore, while the Luzon Central Chapter might argue based on the fact of election, your chapter has a valid point regarding the incompletion of the intended leadership term (presidency) due to disqualification. The resolution likely lies in a clear interpretation or clarification based on your specific by-laws and the overarching principle of equitable opportunity inherent in the rotation system.

Practical Advice for Your Situation

• Review Your By-Laws Closely: Obtain the most current version of the ISSPE By-Laws and carefully examine the specific sections detailing the election of the NEVP, the rotation system, rules on succession, and handling of vacancies or disqualifications.
• Determine the Current Cycle: Ascertain definitively which rotational cycle the ISSPE is currently operating under and which regions/chapters have already served as NEVP within this specific cycle.
• Document Past NEVPs: Create a clear timeline documenting which chapter’s representative held the NEVP position in each term of the current rotation cycle.
• Clarify the ‘Turn’ Definition: Does merely being elected NEVP count as a full ‘turn’ under your rules, even if the subsequent presidency was not assumed due to disqualification? This is a critical point needing clarification based on your specific organizational rules or precedent.
• Apply ‘Rotation by Exclusion’: Based on your documentation and clarified definition of a ‘turn’, determine if every other eligible chapter, besides ISSPE-Panay, has indeed served as NEVP in the current cycle. If others have not yet served, the rotation is likely not yet complete, and the position should be open to those who haven’t served.
• Seek Formal Clarification: If ambiguity remains, formally request a written clarification from the ISSPE National Board or election committee regarding the application of the rotation rule to your chapter’s situation, citing the past disqualification.
• Propose By-Law Amendments if Needed: If the current rules are unclear on handling such situations, consider proposing amendments for future clarity, especially regarding succession and the precise mechanics of rotation after incomplete terms.
• Emphasize Fairness: In discussions, consistently frame your chapter’s position around the core principle of the rotation system – ensuring fair and equal opportunity for all regions to participate fully in national leadership.

Gregorio, navigating organizational rules, especially after past controversies, requires careful attention to the specific by-laws and the fundamental principles they aim to uphold. The goal of rotation is fairness, and ensuring that interpretation reflects this spirit is key. I hope this analysis helps clarify the principles involved.

Hope this helps!

Sincerely,
Atty. Gabriel Ablola

For more specific legal assistance related to your situation, please contact me through gaboogle.com or via email at connect@gaboogle.com.

Disclaimer: This correspondence is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please schedule a formal consultation.