Final Thesis Ready For Printing.docx

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION This chapter provides the background of the study, statement of the problem, significance of the study, and scope and limitation of the study.

BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY Parliamentary procedure is a set of well proven rules designed to move business along in a meeting while maintaining order and controlling the communications process. Its purpose is to help groups accomplish their tasks through an orderly, democratic process. Parliamentary procedure is not intended to inhibit a meeting with unnecessary rules or to prevent people from expressing their opinions. It is intended to facilitate the smooth functioning of the meeting and promote cooperation and harmony among members (Quinn; Riggs 1998). When you have legislators behaving badly, decorum goes out the window and politics is reduced to brawling. That’s why there’s such a thing as parliamentary procedure, think of it as traffic rules for senators and congressmen (Quezon III 2019). In A.Y. 2016-2017, the AB Political Science students had been given an opportunity to visit Barangay Bangon in Odiongan, Romblon to observe practices about parliamentary procedures of the Barangay Officials from three respective barangays together with selected students from College of Arts and Sciences and few teachers from the said college. It was observable that some Barangay Officials are confused and do not know what is being discussed. Sometimes, misunderstandings among the members occurred because some of the members 1

dominated the meeting and the voices of others were not heard. There were also times that some interruptions occurred during the proceedings. Based on the aforementioned observation, there were Barangay Officials who are not knowledgeable enough in parliamentary rules and procedures. But in order to prove that theory, the researchers decided to create proofs for much better conclusion. Also, the researchers want to know if those kinds of scenario during sessions are being experienced in some other Municipalities in the Province of Romblon.

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

This study assessed the determinants of knowledge about parliamentary rules and procedures of barangay officials among the selected barangays in Alcantara, Romblon. Specifically, it sought answers to the following questions: 1. What is the socio-demographic profile of the respondents in terms of: (a.) age; (b.) sex; (c.) civil status; (d.) educational attainment; and (e.) terms in service? 2. What is the extent of knowledge of Barangay Officials on Parliamentary Rules and Procedures in terms of: (a.) basic principles; (b.) order of business; (c.) handling motions; and (d.) precedence of motions? 3. Is there a significant difference of perception between the level of knowledge of the Barangay Officials towards Parliamentary Rules and Procedures and their socio-demographic profile?

2

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY This study could be beneficial to barangay officials of various barangays in Alcantara, Romblon because it would give them deeper knowledge, practices and compliance on parliamentary rules and procedures. Results of this study would provide barangay officials a better understanding about the nature of parliamentary rules and procedures. Moreover, they would be able to know the determinants of parliamentary rules and procedures and reconcile it with their work to inspire themselves to perform better. Additionally, once the barangay officials were equipped with proper knowledge regarding Parliamentary Rules and Procedures, it would be more beneficial to their constituents because they can enact resolutions more effectively. Findings of this study would serve as baseline information to the researchers who want to conduct study related to this undertaking.

SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS This study determines the extent of knowledge towards Parliamentary Rules and Procedures of the selected barangay officials of selected barangays in Alcantara, Romblon. This study will be conducted on A.Y. 2018-2019. Furthermore, this study was limited to the said variables and area due to researcher’s limited time and financial capabilities.

3

CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES

RELATED LITERATURE

In 1801 Thomas Jefferson published the first book on parliamentary law, Manual of Parliamentary Practice. Jefferson, in response to the publication of his guide, wrote, "The proceedings of Parliament in ancient times, and for a long while, were crude, multiform, and embarrassing". Luther

Cushing

(1844),

clerk

of

the

Massachusetts

House

of

Representatives, published the Manual of Parliamentary Practice: Rules of Proceeding and Debate in Deliberative Assemblies. The manual soon was known as "Cushing’s Manual." It was the first sourcebook on parliamentary law that spoke to the procedural needs of the many growing voluntary societies in the United States (Robert 1981). General Henry Martyn Robert eventually parliamentary law was being used at all levels of government, yet the rules for deliberative assemblies had not yet been modified for use by smaller organizations. Henry Martyn Robert, an army engineer, took about the task of making such a modification. Though originally conceiving of a work of less than twenty pages, General Robert’s "manual" eventually encompassed over two hundred pages and was published as Robert’s Rules of Order in 1876. By 1915 more than one half a million copies of the guide were in print and soon Robert’s manual would become a standard for deliberative assemblies everywhere. Today, there are over 4.5 million copies of Robert’s Rules of Order in print. 4

Parliamentary Law Parliamentary law "is a system of rules that are designed to protect the rights of those people attending and running a meeting" Procedurally, the "object of rules of order is to facilitate the smooth functioning of the assembly and to provide a firm basis for resolving questions of procedure that may arise". The procedural standards established by rules of order allow an assembly to focus on the specific issues to which it is charged. A deliberative assembly is "free to do whatever it must to ensure these protections to all members". Like the common law, parliamentary law is largely based upon the customary practices regulating procedure in group action as developed throughout the centuries. While the fundamental rules are applicable to all group action, a wide difference in detail must necessarily exist when the rules are applied to different groups" (Jones 1971). Parliamentary procedure was first systematized in the early English Parliament which takes its name. While history does not record with certainty the actual beginnings of parliamentary rules and usages, the journals of English Parliament indicate that the fundamental principles of parliamentary procedure have been codified since the reign of King Edward VI from 1547 to 1553. (Salirick Andres 2016). The primary purposes of using parliamentary or other formal procedure are to maintain order in a meeting and to assure that the meeting ends at an appropriate time.

Meetings without formalized procedures can extend well

beyond a reasonable time frame, often without important questions being resolved or necessary work getting accomplished. 5

A secondary reason for using parliamentary or other formal procedure is to control the direction of the meeting and/or the outcome of a particular matter being discussed.

While this might sounds devious, there are times when

controversial issues are better simply resolved than expanded—most often when resources that are needed and desired to attain a goal are just absolutely not available. Parliamentary procedures may be followed exactly as the full procedures indicate or can be adapted to the type of group.

Few organizations adhere

completely to the full procedures; however, some will revert to the full version when addressing controversial or difficult issues or when numerous visitors attend an open meeting. It is wise to vote on a change in procedures before adopting different-than-normal procedure requirements. It might be helpful to discuss a couple of common parliamentary procedural items that may need some clarification. One item is the practice of having a motion on the floor before “debate” or discussion takes place, or the opposite—having a discussion before a motion is constructed.

Interestingly enough, some professional parliamentarians have

opposing views.

Some feel it makes meetings go on too long to have the

discussion before a motion is made. Others indicate the discussion should take place before the motion can be made. It is suggested to try both methods, and use the one that works best. The other item is the chair voting to break a tie.

Interestingly, one

parliamentarian says there is no such thing as a tie vote. Joseph Dobrian says, “Most motions require a simple majority (more than half the votes cast) for 6

passage. If exactly half the votes cast were in favor of the motion, it fails for lack of a majority.” Therefore, Dobrian also says, “the chair votes whenever it will affect the outcome: to create or deny a majority or supermajority.” The order of precedence—one motion takes over another—is primarily used to maintain consistency in a meeting’s functions. Knowing the order and using it properly will keep the meeting flowing without interruptions in pace. Once meeting participants understand that there is an order of what can be done and when, this procedure limits frivolous attempts to prolong or disrupt a meeting. Most often, these are sincere attempts to gather more information or to clarify a point; however, use of Order of Precedence (again, once it is understood) allows discussion to move along at a smoother and timelier pace. Again, in controversial or extremely important matters, Order of Precedence allows the executive of a meeting to control what can be placed on the table (and how) and what cannot. It also affords participants and guests the right to be heard by using the rules of order.

It is wise to assure that all

participants and visitors have a copy of the Parliamentary Procedures Cheat Sheet. Also, when a larger group of visitors attends a meeting, a few moments before the meeting should be spent briefly going over the process rules and procedures. These levels the playing field for all involved. To hear a parliamentarian speak or watch a parliamentary procedure demonstration is interesting but sometimes sounds like mumbo-jumbo.

The

language is different from the way most of us speak. It will serve groups well to employ even the simplest, most basic form of parliamentary law to help meetings be as effective and efficient as possible. (Lingle and Feinberg 2005) 7

As the basic political unit, the barangay serves as the primary planning and implementing unit of government policies, plans, programs, projects, and activities in the community, and as a forum wherein the collective views of the people may be expressed, crystallized and considered, and where disputes may be amicably settled. A barangay may be created, divided, merged, abolished, or its boundary substantially altered, by law or by an ordinance of the sangguniang panlalawigan or sangguniang panlungsod, subject to approval by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite to be conducted by the Comelec in the local government unit or units directly affected within such period of time as may be determined by the law or ordinance creating said barangay. In the case of the creation of barangays by the sangguniang panlalawigan, the recommendation of the sangguniang bayan concerned shall be necessary. (Local Government Code of 1991) If one is a member or the presiding officer of a deliberative body of a national government agency, an LGU, a GOCC, he/she need to have mastery of parliamentary procedures for them to be really effective in deliberations, policy making, board and committee meetings. On parliamentary procedures can skillfully participate in, lead and even control the deliberations and outcome of all types of meetings and deliberations.Conduct Meetings and Sessions, Quorum, Order of Business, Debates, Voting, Committees and their Reports, Rules of Order and Standing Rules, the different kinds of Motions, and Resolutions. (cgbp.2017)

8

Basic Principles of Parliamentary Procedure Parliamentary procedure is simple in principle. It is based largely on common sense and courtesy. It just seems technical due to the special vocabulary used. If the vocabulary is understood, the rules are easy. The Basic Principles of Parliamentary Procedure: 1. Only one subject may claim the attention of the assembly at one time. 2. Each proposition presented for consideration is entitled to full and free debate. 3. Every member has rights that are equal to every other member. 4. The will of the majority must be carried out, and the rights of the minority must be preserved. 5. The personality and desires of each member should be merged into the organizational unit.

Order of Business The Standard Order of Business it is customary for every society having a permanent existence to adopt an order of business for its meetings. When no rule has been adopted, the following is the standard order of business: 1.Reading and Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting 2.Reports of Officers, Boards, and Standing Committees 3.Reports of Special (Select or Ad Hoc) Committees 4.Special Orders 5.Unfinished Business and General Orders 6.New Business .The fifth item includes, first, the business pending and undisposed of at the previous adjournment; and then the general orders that were on the calendar for the previous meeting and were not disposed of; and finally, matters postponed to this meeting that have not been disposed of the secretary should prepare, prior to each meeting, a memorandum of the order of business for the use of the 9

presiding officer, showing everything known in advance that is to come before the meeting. The chairman, as soon as one thing is disposed of, should announce the next business in order. (Jim Slaughter)

Motion A motion is a formal proposal by a member of a deliberative assembly that the assembly take certain action. Motions can bring new business before the assembly or consist of numerous other proposals to take procedural steps or carry out other actions relating to a pending proposal (such as postponing it to another time) or to the assembly itself (such as taking a recess). In a parliament, it may also be called a parliamentary motion and may include legislative motions, budgetary motions, supplementary budgetary motions, and petitionary motions. Handling of Motion When it comes to handling a main motion, Robert’s Rules streamlines the process and saves your group a lot of time. Using the following eight steps to consider ideas brought to the group in a systematic and orderly manner doesn’t guarantee that everybody gets their way, but it does guarantee that everybody has their say.1.The member rises and addresses the chair.Members have the right to make motions during a meeting almost any time no other business is pending. The chair’s responsibility is to know whether it is in order to entertain a particular main motion.2.The chair recognizes the member. The chair responds in a level tone and impartial manner by saying something along the lines of, “The chair recognizes the member from Elm Acres,” or even,

10

“The chair recognizes Delbert.” If the chair needs to determine why the member seeks recognition before recognizing the member, the chair says something like, “For what purpose does the member from Elm Acres rise?” In this case, the member responds, “I rise to offer a motion to. . . .” If the motion is in order, the chair proceeds by recognizing the member.3.The member states the motion.For all but the simplest original main motions, write out the motion ahead of time and be prepared to immediately submit the written motion to the chair or the secretary after making the motion.4.Another member seconds the motion.Main motions must be seconded, meaning that a second member expresses a desire to have the motion considered by the group. To do so, a member simply calls from her place, “Second!”If no second is forthcoming, the chair asks, “Is there a second to the motion?” If a second still doesn’t come, the motion is said to fall to the floorand simply does not come before the group. If this happens, the chair states that as the case and moves on to the next item of business. Contrary to popular belief, a second is not necessarily an endorsement of the idea. The procedure requires a second mainly to ensure that at least one other person thinks the motion should be discussed. A member who opposes the motion may want it to come before the meeting so it can be voted down.5.The chair states the motion. This step is simple. The chair says, “It is moved and seconded that . . .” and then reads the motion to the members. By then asking, “Is there any discussion?” the motion is put in the control of the group, and the member who made the motion needs the approval of the assembly to withdraw the motion or to make or

11

approve changes on his own.6.The members debate the motion. The chair recognizes the member who made the motion by saying, “The chair recognizes the member from Elm Acres.” The member now has the floor to explain his motion and the reasons behind its creation. Other members may then take the opportunity to seek recognition of the chair to speak for or against the motion. The member wishing to speak rises and addresses the chair by simply saying, “Mr./Madam Chairman/President” and waiting to be recognized.7.The chair puts the question and the members vote.8.The chair announces the result. It’s all over now, and one side or the other has prevailed. The chair’s duty is to make the declaration of fact and to announce the result. He either says, “The ayes have it and the motion carries (or ‘is adopted’)” or “The noes have it and the motion is lost (or ‘fails’).” The chair also needs to tell the assembly what will happen as a result of the vote — for example, buying or not buying a new copy machine. Precedence of Motion

1. To adjourn a motion to adjourn to a day certain fixes the next time of meeting. Under the Constitution, both Houses must agree to a concurrent resolution for either House to adjourn for more than three days. A session of Congress is not ended by adjournment to a day certain. A motion to adjourn sine die adjourns the House without fixing a day for reconvening; literally “adjournment without a day.” This is usually used to connote the final adjournment of a session of Congress. A session can continue until noon, January 3, of the following year, when, under the 12

20th Amendment to the Constitution, it automatically terminates. A motion to adjourn is in order only in the House.A motion to rise is a hybrid of the motion to adjourn but is in order only in the Committee of the Whole during the amendment stage. Adoption of the motion to rise has the effect of terminating or suspending debate on a pending matter in the Committee of the Whole. 2. To Lay on the Table A motion to "lay on the table," in order only in the House, prevents the further consideration of a measure, thus killing the measure, amendment or motion. This motion is not used to temporarily lay aside a measure but to adversely dispose of a pending proposition. A motion to table an amendment takes with it the underlying proposition. 3. For the Previous Question A motion, in order in the House, is offered to end debate and preclude further amendments from being offered. In effect it asks, “are we ready to vote on the issue before us?” If the previous question is ordered in the House, all debate ends and usually the House immediately votes on the pending bill or amendment. 4. To Postpone to a Day Certain A motion to postpone to a day certain, in order in the House and in the Committee of the Whole, is in order after the reading of the pending proposition but before the previous question has been ordered on that proposition. When the House adopts such a motion, consideration of the measure is suspended until the day specified in the motion. 5. To Refer A motion, in order only in the House, to assign a measure to a committee for consideration. A re-referral is an assignment by unanimous consent of a measure to a committee different from the committee to which the measure was initially referred. This is used to correct erroneous initial referrals.A 13

motion to recommit is in order in the House after the third reading of a bill, but before the Speaker orders the vote on final passage of the bill. Such a motion may contain instructions to the originating committee to amend the bill in some manner, hold hearings or achieve some other desired end. This is the last opportunity for the opponents of a measure to amend it. The motion’s only constraints are that it must comply with the applicable rules of the House such as germaneness and the Budget Act. A motion to recommit with instructions is debatable for 10 minutes, equally divided but not controlled (which means neither side may yield or reserve time) between the proponent and the opponent. If a motion to recommit is without instructions, the adoption of the motion has the practical impact of killing the bill without a final vote on its passage. The motion to recommit is usually reserved for the Minority Party. 6. To Amend A motion to alter the text of a bill or another amendment. It may be an actual legislative amendment or a pro-forma amendment such as “moving to strike the last word” in the Committee of the Whole. An amendment usually is voted on in the same manner as a bill. 7. To Postpone Indefinitely A motion to postpone indefinitely is in order in the House and in the Committee of the Whole. The adoption of this motion constitutes a final adverse disposition of that measure.

14

RELATED STUDIES Study was conducted by Maas (2016) .The Greeks set the foundation for parliamentary law and procedures, and provided many different countries and organizations with models to follow. Many years after the establishment and use of parliamentary law and procedure in Greece, “members of the British Parliament as early as the 13th century expanded and put to use the principles of parliamentary procedure” Fitzpatrick 2010. British parliament helped to set more of the modern rules and procedures defined under parliamentary law, such as “considering only one subject at a time, alternating between pro and con during debate, and confining debate to the merits of pending questions”. Once the colonies of in the United States were established, they implemented the parliamentary law that British parliament had been using Fitzpatrick 2010. Although the British parliament laid a great foundation for American parliamentary procedure, the laws that applied in Britain did not have the same implications in the United States. Thomas Jefferson sought to update American parliamentary procedure, in an effort to better reflect the rules of the newly founded nation. (Fitzpatrick 2010) In modern times, Americans follow the parliamentary laws and procedures established by Henry M. Robert, a West Point graduate. Robert’s interest in parliamentary procedure was sparked during the Civil War, when he presided over a meeting. Robert witnessed extreme chaos and disorganization, and noticed there was a need for updated parliamentary procedure Fitzpatrick 2010. Robert wrote a manual for the nation to abide by when 7 running meetings, entitled Pocket Manual of Rules of Order for Deliberative Assemblies, written in 15

1876. Today, this manual is known as Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (RONR). Merkle (2017) in her study Parliamentary procedure is still practical and relevant because most groups need some sort of structure to run efficiently, and parliamentary procedure is based on common group decision-making principles. Parliamentary procedure provides a “ready-made” set of rules for groups to follow. Sure, some of the rules in Robert’s Rules or other parliamentary authorities are less applicable to groups of a certain type or size, but they can be tweaked to meet specific needs. In the general sense that “guidelines help,” parliamentary procedure helps meetings happen – smoothly. According to Kenkel (2011) there’s a common errors in Parliamentary rules and Procedure. Prolonged discussion without a motion. This tends to violate the principle of “one thing at a time.” It is the main reason the chair gets in trouble conducting meetings. Discussion without a motion can become rambling argument rather than constructive discussion; the chair may stop this rambling by requesting the business be placed before the group in the form of a motion. Failure to confine discussion to the motion before the house. It is the chair’s job to keep the meeting on track. The chair can rule a discussion out of order. Failure to know and follow the essential steps in the presentation and disposition of a motion. The prevalent belief that one individual’s calling “question” forces an immediate vote. This obviously is not true since it would violate the principles of majority rule, rights of the minority and courtesy. There is a procedure for forcing an immediate vote, but it requires a motion of “previous question” and a twothirds majority vote. Closing nominations too quickly when conducting elections. 16

Voting on candidates in the reverse order from which they were nominated. Robert’s Rules of Order states that candidates should be voted on in the order they were nominated primarily because the most competent candidates are usually nominated first. Not calling for additional nominations when a nominating committee is used. The nominating committee selects the candidates that it feels are most competent; however, this does not mean that they must be accepted by acclimation. The floor must always be opened up for additional nominations. The main functions of Parliament are law-making, control over executive, having discussion on matters of public importance, ventilation of public grievances so as to seek redressal for the same and to be the watch-dog of the nation. Parliament being the highest representative body also ensures the accountability of the Government towards it. In order to be effective the deliberations in Parliament should be constructive, purposeful and within the parameters of the rules of procedure. Parliament as said by Edmund Burke is not a congress of ambassadors from different and hostile interests, which interests each must maintain, as an agent and advocate, against other agents and advocates, but Parliament is a deliberative assembly of one nation, with one interest, that of the whole - where not local purposes, not local prejudices, ought to guide, but the general good, resulting from the general reason of the whole. Procedures prescribed in the rule book for raising issues that agitate the minds of the members in the House have to be dynamic, should be in line with the changing needs and desires of the people and should enable members to get their concerns articulated in the Houses of Parliament effectively.

17

The review is made up of different literatures and studies, which give the researchers’ awareness and understandings about the problem of the study, it also provided anchor to the preceding conceptual paradigm.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK: Figure 1 shows the variables of the study. This indicates the correlation between the independent and dependent variables. On the independent variable box includes Socio-demographic profile of Barangay Officials in terms of age, sex, civil status, educational attainment, and number of terms in service. On the dependent variable box are the Knowledge about Parliamentary Rules and Procedures of the Barangay Officials.

Figure1. Research Paradigm

18

INPUT PROCESS OUTPUT

HYPOTHESES The hypothesis of this study is that there is no significant difference in the level of knowledge of the respondents when grouped as to categories.

DEFINITION OF TERMS The variables used in the study are defined conceptually and operationally in order to provide clarity and reference to this research. Parliamentary Rules and Procedure - refers to that body of generally accepted rules, precedents, and practices commonly employed to regulate the proceedings of deliberative assemblies.

Term – the tenure of office of a barangay official.

19

CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHOLOGY This chapter presents the research procedure. It includes the description of the research design, research locale, population and sampling. Research Instrument data Gathering Procedure and Method of Data Processing and Analysis.

RESEARCH DESIGN This study uses the descriptive correlation research that attempts to describe the variables of the study and explain the possible factors related to the problem. It is an explanatory type of study that investigates relationships between factors or variables. This research described the extent of knowledge about Parliamentary Rules and Procedures among the Barangay Officials from the Municipality of Alcantara. It also aimed determining relationship between the knowledge on Parliamentary Rules and Procedures and Socio-demographic profile of the Barangay Officials in the Municipality of Alcantara.

RESEARCH LOCALE The study was conducted at selected barangays in the Municipality of Alcantara, Romblon namely: San Isidro, Poblacion, Gui-ob, Madalag, Tugdan, San Roque, and Lawan. Alcantara lies in the southeast portion of Tablas Island. It is bounded to the north of the Municipality of Santa Maria, and to the east of the Sibuyan Sea. Most places in Alcantara lies in plains along the coast with

20

mountain in the interior to the west. According to the 2015 census, it has a population of 16, 351 people comparing 12 barangays.

Figure 2: Map of Alcantara, Romblon

POPULATION AND SAMPLING DESIGN The respondents of the study covered seven (7) Punong Barangays, forty nine (49) Sanguniang Barangays, and seven (7) Sangguniang Kabataan Chairpersons. This study used a complete enumeration in determining the number of barangay officials in the selected barangays that were determined randomly.

Table 1. Distribution of respondents per Barangay. Barangay

Barangay Officials

Total

San Isidro

9

9 21

Madalag

9

9

Gui-ob

9

9

Poblacion

9

9

San Roque

9

9

Lawan

9

9

Tugdan

9

9

Total

63

63

RESEARCH INSTRUMENT USED The research instrument used in this study was the researchers’ made questionnaire. Nature and Purpose. The researcher prepared a questionnaire for the barangay officials. The questionnaire consisted of two parts. The first part described the respondent’s socio-demographic profiles. Then, it was followed by the evaluation of the extent of knowledge of barangay officials in Parliamentary Rules and Procedure in terms of: Basic principles, order of business, precedence of motion, and handling motions. Construction of the Questionnaire. The questionnaires were formulated based on Parliamentary Rules and Procedure and various literature informal views of Barangay Officials and researcher’s actual observations to substantiate the content of the questionnaire. The researchers drafted a tentative questionnaire and submitted it to their adviser for further revisions. Validation of Instrument. The validity of questionnaire was done through content validation of research experts. The research experts of Romblon State University were consulted to analyze the suitability of the items. Language level, 22

relevance, grammar, choice of words, and some related factors whether it is relevant, irrelevant, or needs revisions. Reliability Testing of Instrument. To determine the reliability of the questionnaire, a pretest was conducted to barangay officials of Odiongan, Romblon who were not included in the final distribution of questionnaires. Upon the consultation to the adviser, the response in the questionnaire were checked before it is finally distributed to the respondents of Municipality of Alcantara. Result of the pretest was statistically analyzed using the SPSS.

Data Collection Procedure The researchers formally asked the approval of the Dean, Adviser, and the Barangay

Officials

to

administer

the

questionnaires.

The

researchers

administered the questionnaires to respondents of every barangay. After the administration, the researchers personally collected the instruments. Result was then tallied and analyzed.

Scoring of Insturment The scale value used in evaluating the respondent’s responses has the following rating, range and descriptive interpretation. Knowledge on Parliamentary Rules and Procedures Scale Value 4 3 2 1

Range 3.976 - 5.000 2.951 - 3.975 1.926 - 2.950 1.000 - 1.925

Descriptive Interpretation VK-Very Knowledgeable SK-Somewhat Knowledgeable NTK-Not too Knowledgeable NAK-Not at all Knowledgeable

23

Methods of Data Processing and Analysis The data was tallied, tabulated and analyzed using the appropriate statistical tools which are: 1. Frequency Count. This was used to determine the number respondents as a whole and every category of each variable. 2. Mean. This was used to determine the central tendency of the level of knowledge of the respondents in every category of the parliamentary rules and procedure. 3. Percentage. This was used to compare the frequency count of each category to the total number of respondents. 4. Standard Deviation. This was used to measure the spread of the level of knowledge of the respondents in every category of the parliamentary rules and procedure. 5. Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test. It was used to determine the normality of the data and avoid the presumptions of normality. 6. Kruskal-Wallis H test. This was used to determine if there is an existing significant difference in the level of knowledge of the respondents when grouped as to age, civil status, educational attainment, and number of years of terms served. 7. Mann-Whitney U Test. This was used to determine if there is an existing significant difference in the level of knowledge of the respondents when grouped as to sex.

24

8. Shapiro Wilk Test. It was used to determine the normality of the data and avoid the presumptions of normality.

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION This chapter presents, analyzes, and interprets data relative to the study. It discusses the socio-demographic profile of respondents, assessment on the knowledge about parliamentary rules and procedures and the analysis whether there is a significant difference when the respondents were group as to their socio-demographic profile.

A. Profile of the Respondents Table 2. Socio-demographic Profile of the Respondents Category

Frequency

Percentage

Age Youth Middle Ager Old Total

11 43 9 63

17.5 68.3 14.3 100.0

Sex Male Female Total

44 19 63

69.8 30.2 100.0

Civil Status Single Married Widow Total

17 40 6 63

27.0 63.5 9.5 100.0

25

Educational Attainment No Formal Education Elementary Graduate High School Level High School Graduate Vocational Graduate College Level College Graduate Post College Level Post College Graduate Total

1 3 7 10 11 13 16 1 1 63

1.6 4.8 11.1 15.9 17.5 20.6 25.4 1.6 1.6 100.0

Terms of Service 1 2 3 4 & above Total

30 6 7 20 63

47.6 9.5 11.1 31.7 100.0

Table 2 presents the socio-demographic profile of the respondents. The data reveals that most of the respondents were Middle Ager (34-59) with 43 respondents or 68.3%. To be followed by, Youth (15-33) with 11 or 17.5% of the respondents and the Old category (60 and up) has 9 or 14.3% of the respondents. In terms of profile of the respondents as to sex, it shows that majority of the respondents were male with 44 or 69.8% respondents while the female were 19 or 30.2% respondents. Married respondents were the dominant status of the respondents with forty (40) or 63.5% of the respondents. Then, that single status has seventeen (17) or 27.0% respondents; while, six (6) or 9.5% of the respondents as presented in the table pertains to the widow category.

26

For educational attainment as presented in the table, most of the respondents are college graduate with a frequency count of 16 or 25.4% and only 1 or 1.6% has no formal education, while 1 or 1.6% are post college level, and 1 or 1.6% are post college graduate. In terms of Barangay Officials’ terms in service, most of the respondents are serving the office for 1 term (first term) with a frequency count of 30 or 47.6% while 6 or 9.55% (least frequency count) were currently on their second term of service. B. Level of Knowledge of the Respondents Table 7. Level of Knowledge as to Age Youth [15-33 years old] SD Des. x̅ Basic Principles 4.17 0.60 VK Order of Business 4.23 0.59 VK Handling Motion 4.17 0.58 VK Precedence of Motion 4.24 0.59 VK Knowledge 4.20 0.58 VK Category

Middle ager [34-59] SD Des. x̅ 4.00 0.55 VK 3.96 0.60 SK 3.92 0.63 SK 3.94 0.60 SK 3.96 0.56 SK

Old [60 and up] SD Des. x̅ 4.37 0.37 VK 4.25 0.45 VK 4.13 0.56 VK 4.04 0.61 VK 4.20 0.46 VK

Legend: 3.976 - 5.000 2.951 - 3.975 1.926 - 2.950 1.000 - 1.925

VK-Very Knowledgeable SK-Somewhat Knowledgeable NTK-Not too Knowledgeable NAK-Not at all Knowledgeable

Level of Knowledge as to Age Table 3 presents the level of knowledge as to age of the respondents. The data reveals that youth and old respondents are at “Very Knowledgeable” level in all

categories

of

parliamentary

x̅ = 4.17, 4.23, 4.17, and, 4.24).

rules

and

procedures

(

While middle ager respondents are only at

“Somewhat Knowledgeable” level in the categories of Order of Business,

27

Handling Motion, and Precedence of Motion ( x̅ = but, at the “Very Knowledgeable” level in the category of Basic Principles. Level of Knowledge as to Sex Table 8 shows the level of knowledge of the respondents as to sex. The data reveals that all males were at “Very Knowledgeable” level as a whole with a mean of 4.07 (x̅ = 4.07), and across all category of parliamentary procedure namely Basic Principles, order of business, Handling Motion and Precedence of motion with a mean of 4.11, 4.08, 4.04, and 4.06 (x̅= 4.11, 4.08, 4.04, and 4.06); respectively. On

the

other

hand,

female

respondents

were

at

“Somewhat

Knowledgeable” level as a whole with a mean of 3.94 (x̅ = 3.94); “Very Knowledgeable” level for the category of Basic Principle with a mean of 4.02 (x̅ = 4.02), and “Somewhat Knowledgeable” for the category of Order of Business, Handling Motion, and Precedence of Motion with a mean of 4.08, 4.04, and 4.06 (x̅ = 4.08, 4.04, and 4.06); respectively. The standard deviations ranging from 0.50 to 0.64 shows a narrow dispersion of scores about the mean. Table 8. Level of Knowledge as to Sex Category Basic Principles Order of Business Handling Motion Precedence of Motion Knowledge

x̅ 4.11 4.08 4.04 4.06 4.07

Male SD 0.57 0.59 0.64 0.59 0.58

Des. VK VK VK VK VK

x̅ 4.02 3.97 3.89 3.89 3.94

Female SD 0.50 0.57 0.54 0.62 0.50

Des. VK SK SK SK SK

Legend: 3.976 - 5.000

VK-Very Knowledgeable 28

2.951 - 3.975 1.926 - 2.950 1.000 - 1.925

SK-Somewhat Knowledgeable NTK-Not too Knowledgeable NAK-Not at all Knowledgeable

Level of Knowledge as to Civil Status Table 9 shows the level of knowledge of the respondents as to civil status. The data reveals that single and married respondents were at the “Very Knowledgeable” level as a whole with respective mean of 4.06 and 4.03 (x̅ = 4.06, 4.03), and across all category of parliamentary procedure namely Basic Principles, Order of Business, Handling Motion and Precedence of Motion with a mean of (x̅ = 4.06, 4.08, 4.06, 4.05) for single respondents and (x̅ = 4.08, 4.05, 3.99, 4.01) for married respondents. While on the other hand, widow respondents were at the “Somewhat Knowledgeable” level as a whole with respective mean of 3.95 (x̅ = 3.95) but at “Very Knowledgeable” level in the category of basic principles. Table 9. Level of Knowledge as to Civil Status Category Basic Principles Order of Business Handling Motion Precedence of Motion Knowledge

4.06 4.08 4.06 4.05 4.06

Single SD Des. 0.61 VK 0.63 VK 0.59 VK 0.62 VK 0.59 VK

Married SD 4.08 0.55 4.05 0.57 3.99 0.64 4.01 0.62 4.03 0.56

Des. VK VK VK VK VK

4.17 3.94 3.83 3.88 3.95

Widow SD 0.43 0.63 0.55 0.52 0.44

Des. VK SK SK SK SK

Legend: 3.976 - 5.000 2.951 - 3.975 1.926 - 2.950 1.000 - 1.925

VK-Very Knowledgeable SK-Somewhat Knowledgeable NTK-Not too Knowledgeable NAK-Not at all Knowledgeable

Level of Knowledge as to Educational Attainment Table 10 shows the level of knowledge of the respondents as to educational attainment. The data reveals that respondents with no formal 29

education, elementary graduate, high school level, high school graduate, vocational

graduate,

and

post

college

were

graduate

at

the

“Very

Knowledgeable” as a whole with respective mean of 4.10, 4.37, 4.31, 4.09, 4.05, and 4.05 (x̅ =4.10, 4.37, 4.31, 4.09, 4.05, 4.05) but, respondents with no formal education were only at “Somewhat Knowledgeable” level in the category of precedence of motion. Moreover, respondents who were college level, college graduate, and post college graduate were at the “Somewhat Knowledgeable” level in all categories namely Basic Principles, Order of Business, Handling Motion, and Precedence of Motion with respective mean of 3.92, 3.91, and 3.74 (x̅ =3.92, 3.91, 3.74).

Table 10. Level of Knowledge as to Educational Attainment No Formal Education SD Des. x̅

Category Basic Principles Order of Business Handling Motion Precedence of Motion Knowledge

Elem Graduate x̅

SD

Des.

High School Level SD Des.

x̅

High School Graduate SD Des.

x̅

x̅

Vocational Graduate SD Des.

College Level x̅

SD

Des.

College Graduate x̅

SD

Des.

Post College Level SD Des. x̅

Post College Graduate SD Des.

x̅

4.56

VK

4.37 0.42

VK

4.35 0.45

VK

4.23 0.59

VK

4.09 0.59

VK

4.00 0.60

VK

3.88 0.50

SK

3.67

SK

3.89

SK

4.22

VK

4.56 0.29

VK

4.17 0.58

VK

4.13 0.62

VK

4.11 0.54

VK

3.91 0.76

SK

3.93 0.52

SK

3.67

SK

4.11

VK

4.00

VK

4.36 0.54

VK

4.29 0.55

VK

3.94 0.88

SK

4.03 0.58

VK

3.86 0.70

SK

3.93 0.47

SK

3.75

SK

4.08

VK

3.63

SK

4.21 0.72

VK

4.41 0.48

VK

4.05 0.78

VK

3.95 0.55

SK

3.92 0.65

SK

3.90 0.56

SK

3.88

SK

4.13

VK

4.10

VK

4.37 0.49

VK

4.31 0.49

VK

4.09 0.68

VK

4.05 0.55

VK

3.92 0.66

SK

3.91 0.47

SK

3.74

SK

4.05

VK

Legend: 3.976 - 5.000 2.951 - 3.975 1.926 - 2.950 1.000 - 1.925

VK-Very Knowledgeable SK-Somewhat Knowledgeable NTK-Not too Knowledgeable NAK-Not at all Knowledgeable

Level of Knowledge as to Number of Terms in Service Table 11 shows the level of knowledge of the respondents as to number of terms in service. The data reveals that the respondent’s level of knowledge were at “Very Knowledgeable across all categories of parliamentary procedure except 30

respondents who are serving their first term on the category namely handling motion with respective mean of 3.93 (x̅=3.93), and respondents with 4 years and above terms on the category of precedence of motion with respective mean of 3.97 (x̅ =3.97). Table 11. Level of Knowledge as to Number of Terms in Service Category Basic Principles Order of Business Handling Motion Precedence of Motion Knowledge

x̅ 4.03 3.99 3.93 4.01 3.99

1 2 3 4 & above SD Des. SD Des. SD Des. SD Des. x̅ x̅ x̅ 0.59 VK 4.15 0.49 VK 4.21 0.47 VK 4.10 0.55 VK 0.68 VK 4.17 0.31 VK 4.17 0.52 VK 4.06 0.52 VK 0.71 SK 4.11 0.56 VK 4.17 0.51 VK 3.99 0.53 VK 0.62 VK 4.02 0.72 VK 4.09 0.50 VK 3.97 0.62 SK 0.61 VK 4.11 0.50 VK 4.16 0.49 VK 4.03 0.52 VK

Legend: 3.976 - 5.000 2.951 - 3.975 1.926 - 2.950 1.000 - 1.925

VK-Very Knowledgeable SK-Somewhat Knowledgeable NTK-Not too Knowledgeable NAK-Not at all Knowledgeable

C. Difference in the Level of Knowledge of the Respondents Difference in the Level of Knowledge as to Age In table 12 it shows the Kruskal-Wallis test on the difference on the level of knowledge as to age. The data reveals that there were no significant difference exist in the level of knowledge of the respondents as a whole with H-value of 2.864 and ρ-value of .239 [H(2)=2.864; ρ=.239]. Likewise, no significant difference were found in test of difference in the level of knowledge of the respondents in the category of basic principles, order of business, handling business and precedence of motion with the respective Hvalue of 4.150, 2.414, 1.892, and 2.370 with the respective ρ-value of .126, .299, .388, and .306 [H(2)=4.150, 2.414, 1.892, and 2.370; ρ=.126, .299, .388, and .306]. Hence, the entire null hypothesis is accepted. 31

Table 12. Kruskal-Wallis test on the difference on the Level of Knowledge as to Age Category Basic Principles

Order of Business

Handling Motion

Precedence of Motion

Knowledge

Youth Middle Ager Old Total Youth Middle Ager Old Total Youth Middle Ager Old Total Youth Middle Ager Old Total Youth Middle Ager Old Total

n 11 43 9 63 11 43 9 63 11 43 9 63 11 43 9 63 11 43 9 63

Mean Rank 35.05 29.10 42.11 36.73 29.57 37.83 37.09 29.85 36.06 39.41 29.94 32.78 38.00 29.34 37.39

KW H Test

df

ρ

Intrptn

Dec

4.150

2

.126

NS

Accept Ho

2.414

2

.299

NS

Accept Ho

1.892

2

.388

NS

Accept Ho

2.370

2

.306

NS

Accept Ho

2.864

2

.239

NS

Accept Ho

ρ>0.05

Difference in the Level of Knowledge as to Sex Table 13 presents the Mann-Whitney U test on the difference on the level of knowledge as to sex. The test reveals that there is existing significant difference in the level of knowledge as to sex with a U-value of 352.500 with ρvalue of .327 [U(44,19)=352.500; ρ=.327]. Same thing with the Mann-Whitney U test on the difference on the level of knowledge as to sex when categorized as to basic principle, order of business, handling motions, precedence of motion with respective U-value of 376.000, 367.000, 346.000, and 349.500 and with corresponding respective ρ-value of .528, .444, .279 and.303 [U(44,19)= 376.000, 367.000, 346.000, and 349.500; ρ=.528, .444, .279 and.303]. Hence, the entire null hypothesis is accepted. Table 13. Mann-Whitney U test on the difference on the Level of Knowledge as to Sex 32

Category Basic Principles

Order of Business

Handling Motion

Precedence of Motion

Knowledge

Mean Sum of MannRank Ranks Whitney U 44 32.95 1450.00 19 29.79 566.00 376.000 63 44 33.16 1459.00 19 29.32 557.00 367.000 63 44 33.64 1480.00 19 28.21 536.00 346.000 63 44 33.56 1476.50 19 28.39 539.50 349.500 63 44 33.49 1473.50 19 28.55 542.50 352.500 63

n Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total

ρ

Intrpt

Dec

.528

NS

Accept Ho

.444

NS

Accept Ho

.279

NS

Accept Ho

.303

NS

Accept Ho

.327

NS

Accept Ho

ρ>0.05

Difference in the Level of Knowledge as to Civil Status Table 14 shows the Kruskal-Wallis H test result for the level of knowledge of all the respondents when grouped as to civil status. The data revealed that the H-value of .093 with corresponding ρ-value of .760 [H(1)=.093, p=.760] shows no significant difference between the two categories of civil status. Hence, the entire null hypothesis is accepted.

Table 14. Kruskal-Wallis test on the difference on the Level of Knowledge as to Civil Status Category Basic Principles

Order of Business Handling Motion

n Single Married Total Single Married Total Single

17 40 57 17 40 57 17

Mean Rank 28.47 29.23

KW H Test

df

ρ

Intrptn

Dec

.025

1

.875

NS

Accept Ho

29.29 28.88

.008

1

.930

NS

Accept Ho

29.32

.009

1

.923

NS

Accept

33

Precedence of Motion

Knowledge

Married Total Single Married Total Single Married Total

40 57 17 40 57 17 40 57

28.86

Ho

29.62 28.74

.034

1

.854

NS

Accept Ho

30.03 28.56

.093

1

.760

NS

Accept Ho

ρ>0.05 Difference in the Level of Knowledge as to Educational Attainment Table 15 shows the Kruskal-Wallis H test result for the level of knowledge of the respondents when grouped as to educational attainment. The data revealed that the H-value of 5.130 with corresponding p-value of .744 [H(8)=5.130, p=.744] shows no significant difference between all category of educational attainment. Hence, the entire null hypothesis is accepted Table 15. Kruskal-Wallis H test on the difference on the Level of Knowledge as to Educational Attainment Category Basic Principles

Order of Business

Handling Motion

No Formal Education Elementary Graduate High School Level High School Graduate Vocational Graduate College Level College Graduate Post College Level Post College Graduate Total No Formal Education Elementary Graduate High School Level High School Graduate Vocational Graduate College Level College Graduate Post College Level Post College Graduate Total No Formal Education Elementary Graduate High School Level High School Graduate Vocational Graduate College Level College Graduate Post College Level Post College Graduate

n 1 3 7 10 11 13 16 1 1 63 1 3 7 10 11 13 16 1 1 63 1 3 7 10 11 13 16 1 1

Mean Rank 45.00 41.17 42.07 37.90 32.23 29.23 24.72 18.50 25.50 34.50 50.17 36.50 34.05 33.86 28.65 27.59 16.00 32.50 32.50 44.17 40.50 33.05 32.91 27.77 28.28 26.00 35.50

KW H Test

df

ρ

Intrptn

Dec

7.961

8

0.437

NS

Accept Ho

5.784

8

0.671

NS

Accept Ho

4.408

8

0.819

NS

Accept Ho

34

Total No Formal Education Elementary Graduate High School Level High School Graduate Vocational Graduate College Level College Graduate Post College Level Post College Graduate Total No Formal Education Elementary Graduate High School Level High School Graduate Vocational Graduate College Level College Graduate Post College Level Post College Graduate Total

Precedence of Motion

Knowledge

63 1 3 7 10 11 13 16 1 1 63 1 3 7 10 11 13 16 1 1 63

22.00 38.00 44.07 33.25 30.09 29.50 28.81 27.00 36.50 34.50 44.17 41.29 34.35 32.50 28.31 27.19 24.00 32.00

4.780

8

0.788

NS

Accept Ho

5.130

8

0.744

NS

Accept Ho

ρ>0.05 Difference in the Level of Knowledge as to Number of Terms in Service Table 16 shows the Kruskal-Wallis H test result for the level of knowledge of the respondents when grouped as to the number of terms in service. The data revealed that the H-value of .370 with corresponding ρ-value of .946 [H(3)=.370, p=.946] shows no significant difference between all category of number of years of terms served. Hence, the entire null hypothesis is accepted.

Table 16. Kruskal-Wallis test on the difference on the Level of Knowledge as to Number of terms in service Category Basic Principles

Order of Business

n 1 2 3 4 & above Total 1 2

30 6 7 20 63 30 6

Mean Rank 30.10 33.17 36.71 32.85 30.72 33.33

K-W H Test

ρ

df

Intrptn

Dec.

.860

3

.835

NS

Accept Ho

.605

3

.895

NS

Accept Ho

35

Handling Motion

Precedence of Motion

Knowledge

3 4 & above Total 1 2 3 4 & above Total 1 2 3 4 & above Total 1 2 3 4 & above Total

7 20 63 30 6 7 20 63 30 6 7 20 63 30 6 7 20 63

36.50 31.95 30.93 34.25 37.71 30.93 32.28 32.25 34.29 30.70 31.10 33.00 35.64 31.78

.947

3

.814

NS

Accept Ho

.219

3

.974

NS

Accept Ho

.370

3

.946

NS

Accept Ho

ρ>0.05

CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS This study was conducted to determine the level of knowledge selected barangay officials in Alcantara Romblon. Specifically this study attempted to answer the following questions: 1. What is the socio-demographic profile of the respondents in terms of: (a.) Age; (b.) Sex; (c.) Civil status; (d.) Educational attainment; and (e.) Number of terms in service? 2. What is the extent of knowledge of Barangay Officials on Parliamentary Rules and Procedures? 3. Is there a significant difference between the level of knowledge of the Barangay Officials towards Parliamentary Rules and Procedures and their sociodemographic profile?

36

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Based on the forgoing results, the following were the findings: 1. The respondents were dominated by middle ager (34-59); male; married; college graduate; and first termer. 2. Very knowledgeable is a prevailing level of knowledge towards parliamentary rules and procedure of the respondents with profile of youth, old, male, single, married, no formal education, elementary graduate, high school level, post college graduate, and all of those under all category of number of years. While the level of somewhat knowledgeable pertains to those respondents under the profile of middle ager, female, widow, college level, college graduate, and post college level. 3. There are no significant differences found in the level of knowledge towards parliamentary rules and procedure across all categories of the respondents profile namely: age, sex, civil status, educational attainment, and number of terms in service. CONCLUSIONS

On the basis of the forgoing findings, the following conclusions were drawn: 1. Since respondents were dominated by middle ager (34-59); male; married; college graduate; and first termer; it conforms to the 2015 census for Alcantara that the population was dominated by middle ager, and male. The conformity of the collected data to the 2015 th Census is proof that the acquired

37

respondents were somehow comparable to the entire population of Alcantara, Romblon. 2. Since the level of knowledge towards parliamentary rules and procedures was ranging from somewhat knowledgeable to very knowledgeable from different category across every variables, this follows that the barangay officials as the respondents of this study have prior knowledge towards the aforementioned rules and procedures. It is also safe to conclude that even though the level of knowledge were already at somewhat to very knowledgeable, still it was not at the point of perfection that all of them were at a very knowledgeable level. 3. Since there is no significant differences existed in the level of knowledge towards parliamentary rules and procedures across all categories of each variables; this implies that even though the two prevailing level of knowledge which are somewhat and very knowledgeable to the barangay officials it show that the level of knowledge across all variables were of somehow of the same level. RECOMMENDATIONS In view of the findings and conclusions, the following recommendations are hereby presented: The barangay officials should strengthen their knowledge towards parliamentary rules and procedure by attending in any seminars and workshops for parliamentary rules and procedure to attain perfection towards the knowledge on the aforementioned rules and procedure.

38

Future researcher should conduct related study on parliamentary rules and procedure by focusing on the skills of the barangay officials and even to the quantitative conversion to the transformation of the knowledge and skills into the quantity and identity of barangay ordinances passed. The researcher should undergo validation by conducting interviews and observation to the actual flows of respondents towards parliamentary rules and procedures. The faculty of the AB Political Science Department with coordination to the College of Arts and Science, Extension Office of the university, and The Local Government of Alcantara may create proposal to extend the service of the academe for the transfer knowledge towards the parliamentary rules and procedure.

39

REFERENCES World Wide Web Resources Tom Quinn and Norm Riggs,(1998) Simplified Parliamentary Procedure. Iowa State University https://prepareiowa.trainingsource.org/sites/default/files/boh/doc uments/PM1781.pdf Manuel L. Quezon III, (2019) The Explainer: Parliamentary Procedure http://www.quezon.ph/2008/12/15/the -explainer-parliamentaryprocedure/ Parliamentary Procedure Guidelines for Local Senates Prepared by Scott A. Lukas http://www.lamission.edu/das/ParliamentaryProcedure.html Local Government Code of 1991 http://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/1991/11/12/proclamation -no-833-s1991/ Samantha Maas & Kayla Manning, February 2016, Parliamentary Procedure CDE Workshop , California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1136&context=agedsp Phil Kenkel and Bill Fitzwater, 2011, Common Errors in Parliamentary Procedure, Oklahoma State University https://articles.extension.org/pages/30143/common -errors-inparliamentary-procedure Parliamentary Control and Government Accou ntability in Sri Lanka: The Role of Parliamentary Committees by Taiabur Rahman http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/apcity/unpan034 367.pdf https://www.communicationtheory.org/argumentation-theory/

40