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 two-

thirds 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 Range Descriptive Interpretation

4 3.976 - 5.000 VK-Very Knowledgeable
3 2.951 - 3.975 SK-Somewhat Knowledgeable
2 1.926 - 2.950 NTK-Not too Knowledgeable
1 1.000 - 1.925 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 11 17.5
Middle Ager 43 68.3
Old 9 14.3
Total 63 100.0
Sex
Male 44 69.8
Female 19 30.2
Total 63 100.0
Civil Status
Single 17 27.0
Married 40 63.5
Widow 6 9.5
Total 63 100.0

25
Educational Attainment

No Formal Education 1 1.6

Elementary Graduate 3 4.8
High School Level 7 11.1
High School Graduate 10 15.9
Vocational Graduate 11 17.5
College Level 13 20.6
College Graduate 16 25.4
Post College Level 1 1.6
Post College Graduate 1 1.6
Total 63 100.0
Terms of Service
1 30 47.6
2 6 9.5
3 7 11.1
4 & above 20 31.7
Total 63 100.0

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 Middle ager Old
Category [15-33 years old] [34-59] [60 and up]
x̅ SD Des. x̅ SD Des. x̅ SD Des.
Basic Principles 4.17 0.60 VK 4.00 0.55 VK 4.37 0.37 VK
Order of Business 4.23 0.59 VK 3.96 0.60 SK 4.25 0.45 VK
Handling Motion 4.17 0.58 VK 3.92 0.63 SK 4.13 0.56 VK
Precedence of Motion 4.24 0.59 VK 3.94 0.60 SK 4.04 0.61 VK
Knowledge 4.20 0.58 VK 3.96 0.56 SK 4.20 0.46 VK
Legend:
3.976 - 5.000 VK-Very Knowledgeable
2.951 - 3.975 SK-Somewhat Knowledgeable
1.926 - 2.950 NTK-Not too Knowledgeable
1.000 - 1.925 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 rules and procedures (

x̅ = 4.17, 4.23, 4.17, and, 4.24). 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
Male Female
Category
x̅ SD Des. x̅ SD Des.
Basic Principles 4.11 0.57 VK 4.02 0.50 VK
Order of Business 4.08 0.59 VK 3.97 0.57 SK
Handling Motion 4.04 0.64 VK 3.89 0.54 SK
Precedence of Motion 4.06 0.59 VK 3.89 0.62 SK
Knowledge 4.07 0.58 VK 3.94 0.50 SK
Legend:
3.976 - 5.000 VK-Very Knowledgeable

28
 2.951 - 3.975 SK-Somewhat Knowledgeable
1.926 - 2.950 NTK-Not too Knowledgeable
1.000 - 1.925 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
Single Married Widow
Category
SD Des. SD Des. SD Des.
Basic Principles 4.06 0.61 VK 4.08 0.55 VK 4.17 0.43 VK
Order of Business 4.08 0.63 VK 4.05 0.57 VK 3.94 0.63 SK
Handling Motion 4.06 0.59 VK 3.99 0.64 VK 3.83 0.55 SK
Precedence of Motion 4.05 0.62 VK 4.01 0.62 VK 3.88 0.52 SK
Knowledge 4.06 0.59 VK 4.03 0.56 VK 3.95 0.44 SK
Legend:
3.976 - 5.000 VK-Very Knowledgeable
2.951 - 3.975 SK-Somewhat Knowledgeable
1.926 - 2.950 NTK-Not too Knowledgeable
1.000 - 1.925 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 graduate were 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 High School High School Vocational Post College Post College
Elem Graduate College Level College Graduate
Category Education Level Graduate Graduate Level Graduate
x̅ SD Des. x̅ SD Des. x̅ SD Des. x̅ SD Des. x̅ SD Des. x̅ SD Des. x̅ SD Des. x̅ SD Des. x̅ SD Des.
Basic
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
Principles
Order of
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
Business
Handling
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
Motion
Precedence
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
of Motion
Knowledge 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 VK-Very Knowledgeable
2.951 - 3.975 SK-Somewhat Knowledgeable
1.926 - 2.950 NTK-Not too Knowledgeable
1.000 - 1.925 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
1 2 3 4 & above
Category
x̅ SD Des. x̅ SD Des. x̅ SD Des. x̅ SD Des.
Basic Principles 4.03 0.59 VK 4.15 0.49 VK 4.21 0.47 VK 4.10 0.55 VK
Order of Business 3.99 0.68 VK 4.17 0.31 VK 4.17 0.52 VK 4.06 0.52 VK
Handling Motion 3.93 0.71 SK 4.11 0.56 VK 4.17 0.51 VK 3.99 0.53 VK
Precedence of Motion 4.01 0.62 VK 4.02 0.72 VK 4.09 0.50 VK 3.97 0.62 SK
Knowledge 3.99 0.61 VK 4.11 0.50 VK 4.16 0.49 VK 4.03 0.52 VK
Legend:
3.976 - 5.000 VK-Very Knowledgeable
2.951 - 3.975 SK-Somewhat Knowledgeable
1.926 - 2.950 NTK-Not too Knowledgeable
1.000 - 1.925 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 H-

value 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
Mean KW
Category n df ρ Intrptn Dec
Rank H Test
Basic Principles Youth 11 35.05
Middle Ager 43 29.10 Accept
4.150 2 .126 NS
Old 9 42.11 Ho
Total 63
Order of Business Youth 11 36.73
Middle Ager 43 29.57 Accept
2.414 2 .299 NS
Old 9 37.83 Ho
Total 63
Handling Motion Youth 11 37.09
Middle Ager 43 29.85 Accept
1.892 2 .388 NS
Old 9 36.06 Ho
Total 63
Precedence of Youth 11 39.41
Motion Middle Ager 43 29.94 Accept
2.370 2 .306 NS
Old 9 32.78 Ho
Total 63
Knowledge Youth 11 38.00
Middle Ager 43 29.34 Accept
2.864 2 .239 NS
Old 9 37.39 Ho
Total 63
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 ρ-

value 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
 Mean Sum of Mann-
Category n ρ Intrpt Dec
Rank Ranks Whitney U
Basic Principles Male 44 32.95 1450.00
Accept
Female 19 29.79 566.00 376.000 .528 NS
Ho
Total 63
Order of Business Male 44 33.16 1459.00
Accept
Female 19 29.32 557.00 367.000 .444 NS
Ho
Total 63
Handling Motion Male 44 33.64 1480.00
Accept
Female 19 28.21 536.00 346.000 .279 NS
Ho
Total 63
Precedence of Motion Male 44 33.56 1476.50
Accept
Female 19 28.39 539.50 349.500 .303 NS
Ho
Total 63
Knowledge Male 44 33.49 1473.50
Accept
Female 19 28.55 542.50 352.500 .327 NS
Ho
Total 63
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
Mean KW
Category n df ρ Intrptn Dec
Rank H Test
Single 17 28.47
Accept
Basic Principles Married 40 29.23 .025 1 .875 NS
Ho
Total 57
Single 17 29.29
Accept
Order of Business Married 40 28.88 .008 1 .930 NS
Ho
Total 57
Handling Motion Single 17 29.32 .009 1 .923 NS Accept

33
 Married 40 28.86 Ho
Total 57
Single 17 29.62
Accept
Precedence of Motion Married 40 28.74 .034 1 .854 NS
Ho
Total 57
Single 17 30.03
Accept
Knowledge Married 40 28.56 .093 1 .760 NS
Ho
Total 57
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
Mean KW
Category n df ρ Intrptn Dec
Rank H Test
Basic Principles No Formal Education 1 45.00
Elementary Graduate 3 41.17
High School Level 7 42.07
High School Graduate 10 37.90
Vocational Graduate 11 32.23 Accept
7.961 8 0.437 NS
College Level 13 29.23 Ho
College Graduate 16 24.72
Post College Level 1 18.50
Post College Graduate 1 25.50
Total 63
Order of Business No Formal Education 1 34.50
Elementary Graduate 3 50.17
High School Level 7 36.50
High School Graduate 10 34.05
Vocational Graduate 11 33.86 Accept
5.784 8 0.671 NS
College Level 13 28.65 Ho
College Graduate 16 27.59
Post College Level 1 16.00
Post College Graduate 1 32.50
Total 63
Handling Motion No Formal Education 1 32.50
Elementary Graduate 3 44.17
High School Level 7 40.50
High School Graduate 10 33.05
Accept
Vocational Graduate 11 32.91 4.408 8 0.819 NS
Ho
College Level 13 27.77
College Graduate 16 28.28
Post College Level 1 26.00
Post College Graduate 1 35.50

34
 Total 63
Precedence of No Formal Education 1 22.00
Motion Elementary Graduate 3 38.00
High School Level 7 44.07
High School Graduate 10 33.25
Vocational Graduate 11 30.09 Accept
4.780 8 0.788 NS
College Level 13 29.50 Ho
College Graduate 16 28.81
Post College Level 1 27.00
Post College Graduate 1 36.50
Total 63
Knowledge No Formal Education 1 34.50
Elementary Graduate 3 44.17
High School Level 7 41.29
High School Graduate 10 34.35
Vocational Graduate 11 32.50 Accept
5.130 8 0.744 NS
College Level 13 28.31 Ho
College Graduate 16 27.19
Post College Level 1 24.00
Post College Graduate 1 32.00
Total 63

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
Mean K-W
Category n df ρ Intrptn Dec.
Rank H Test
Basic Principles 1 30 30.10
2 6 33.17
Accept
3 7 36.71 .860 3 .835 NS
Ho
4 & above 20 32.85
Total 63
Order of Business 1 30 30.72 Accept
.605 3 .895 NS
2 6 33.33 Ho

35
 3 7 36.50
4 & above 20 31.95
Total 63
Handling Motion 1 30 30.93
2 6 34.25
Accept
3 7 37.71 .947 3 .814 NS
Ho
4 & above 20 30.93
Total 63
Precedence of Motion 1 30 32.28
2 6 32.25
Accept
3 7 34.29 .219 3 .974 NS
Ho
4 & above 20 30.70
Total 63
Knowledge 1 30 31.10
2 6 33.00
Accept
3 7 35.64 .370 3 .946 NS
Ho
4 & above 20 31.78
Total 63
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 socio-

demographic 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.training-
source.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-parliamentary-
procedure/

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-s-
1991/

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-in-
parliamentary-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