A resignation ordinarily ends a tenure. Three resignations may begin a reckoning. The leadership dispute within the Knights of Rizal’s Eastern USA Region has widened following the resignation of Regional Commander Dr. Emmanuel Malasig, KGOR, LM, amid allegations involving the unauthorized use of his digital signature in connection with a promotion recommendation.
Information subsequently provided to this writer indicates that Vicente Gesmundo, KCR, the Eastern Regional Deputy Pursuivant and younger brother of Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo, and Mariano F. Aquino Jr., KGOR, LM, have likewise resigned from their regional posts. If so, the issue can no longer comfortably be regarded as an isolated disagreement among members abroad.
The resignations raise a more fundamental question: What has happened inside an organization devoted to the ideals of Jose Rizal when some of its own officers conclude that resignation is preferable to remaining in positions of leadership?
Malasig’s case is particularly disturbing because his allegations concern something more basic than rank or protocol. He alleges that his digital signature was placed on a recommendation for promotion without his authorization and that the recommendation proceeded without his endorsement as Regional Commander. He further alleges that, after questioning what happened, he came under pressure to allow the matter to pass.
Questions have previously been raised by members over the Order’s finances, trust funds, real-property tax obligations, accounting practices and contributions originating from overseas members. Complaints have likewise been made regarding the creation and admission of numerous chapters and their effect on elections within the organization.
Those allegations should be independently examined. The Knights of Rizal arose from an act of Congress, which gave the organization a legislative charter through Republic Act No. 646. The law converted the Order into a body corporate and politic and stated its purposes with unusual moral clarity: to study and propagate the teachings of Rizal, encourage Filipinos by words and deeds to emulate his example, promote patriotism and Rizalian chivalry, and develop unity among Filipinos in revering his memory.
That creates an extraordinary standard against which the Order must measure itself. An organization carrying Rizal’s name cannot credibly teach integrity outside its walls while leaving serious questions about integrity unanswered within them. It cannot preach courage while treating uncomfortable questions as disloyalty.
When one officer resigns, there may be a personal disagreement. When several responsible officers leave positions surrounding the same institutional controversy, the organization owes its membership an explanation of what produced the rupture. That does not establish guilt. It establishes the need for inquiry.
And perhaps this is where the controversy ceases to belong solely inside the Knights of Rizal. For the Order did not acquire its public character merely from tradition. Congress gave it one through Republic Act No. 646. That fact creates a legitimate legislative question without requiring senators to decide who should govern the organization or which faction is right.
Congress can ask whether the charter it enacted 75 years ago still contains sufficient safeguards for the institution it created. Does Republic Act No. 646 provide adequate mechanisms for transparency, financial accountability, democratic governance, protection of members’ rights and responsible stewardship of an organization carrying the name of Jose Rizal? That is where a Senate inquiry in aid of legislation acquires both purpose and restraint.
It would not begin by asking, ‘Who is guilty?’ It would begin with a more statesmanlike question: ‘What, if anything, in the law allowed these controversies to reach this point-and what must Congress change so they do not recur?’ That distinction could determine whether a Senate proceeding becomes political theater or institutional repair.
The inquiry should therefore begin with documents rather than accusations. Bring the audited financial statements, the trust-fund records, contributions and disbursements, chapter applications and approvals. Invite the present leadership. Invite the complaining members. Invite the resigned officers. And invite independent auditors, governance specialists and legal experts who have no stake in which group prevails.
Our national hero Jose Rizal spent much of his life exposing institutions that demanded reverence while resisting accountability. There would therefore be a terrible irony if an organization established to perpetuate his teachings were to respond to questions about itself by demanding silence instead of examination.
The resignations from America should consequently be read not merely as departures. They should be treated as an alarm. And the proper response to an alarm is not to punish the person ringing the bell. It is to find out why the bell had to be rung.