Body of evidence
There is evidence against him.” This was what his young teacher-colleague told him. And, of course, he agreed. But after the conversation, the thought would not exit his mind.
Indeed, there is evidence. Taken in isolation, every piece of evidence tells a particular damning story. But it is not the same story as would be told if we took all the evidence together as one body, one mass of information to clue us about the whole true picture. In the case against UP Cebu Dean Enrique Avila, what story is the body of evidence saying?
Current methods of understanding literature instruct us to go beyond the text and look for the blank spaces. What is said is easy enough to understand. But one has to ask, What is not being said? The body of evidence against Dean Avila reads like literature. On the one hand, the documented accusations against him are there. On the other hand, there is his own documented defense. And then there is the final decision. But what is the text not saying?
The text does not describe the general environment inside which a dean of a satellite UP college such as UP Cebu operates. You have layers of bureaucracy to deal with. The whole UP system is a mass of policy, rules, manuals, directives and guidelines that are oftentimes contradicting and always difficult to understand. They are a minefield. And every administrator knows their proper interpretation comes close to being subjective. They will change through the years and with every new administration. UP is an entity separate from the rest of government but there are areas that overlap. These overlaps are always dangerous ground.
How can a dean work effectively given this environment? He or she can choose to sit out the term basking in its consequent power and prestige. He can gather a clique around him endowing these with positions and special treatment, his own protective shield. This is the norm for deans who take the safe route and who play politics the way it is often played. This is the reason nothing much seems to happen. On the other hand, any dean who seeks to achieve anything at all must start from the premise that an amount of risk is always involved with every official act. One must find ways to navigate into and around the rules, the policies and guidelines to achieve anything at all. Dean Avila did this work well. And he did not have a clique around him.
The Maker of this story recalls how at one point he had to use his own money to rent the official UP booth for Cebu X, the yearly international show of Cebu furniture, in his stint as chairman of the Humanities Division of UP Cebu. In applying for reimbursement he was informed that he might not be able to get reimbursed because he did not go through proper bidding for the booth rental. Which was, of course, absurd since a bidding in this case was impossible. Still, it took him almost a year to get his money back. Until now, he cannot fully understand how they finally “fixed” the paperwork. For all he knows, someone might come along and use it as evidence against him. In this system, there will always be evidence against you if evidence against you is what people look for. It they cannot get you on one rule, they can get you on another. As what finally came to pass with Dean Avila.
Is there evidence that he took risks? There most certainly are. It is all over the body of evidence. He moved to phase out the high school program (upon the prodding of his superiors). He did allow a company to use the soccer field as “temporary” dumping ground for free (and possibly saving for the school P5.5 million in filling material). He did make unusual appointments and other risky acts like paying a centennial bonus for his constituents in time with the other colleges of the UP system. He went beyond himself to do this. There is individual evidence of all these. But what is not said in evidence is why. Why would a dean take all these risks knowing fully well his enemies could use these against him? What personal benefit did he receive for the risks he took?
This question of motive is elemental here. It is the most important question of all. Yet curiously enough, it was the one question that was not asked in the whole proceedings. It was the one question that was never answered in the final decision for his dismissal. And so it is the question that must now be answered by us in the sense of interpretative reading. Did he do all these for what he thought was the good of the college? Did he think they were part of his regular duties as dean? Did he want simply to be a good and effective dean? Or was he merely crazy? Corrupt? Why is there nothing in evidence to even suggest this?
How we finally answer these questions complete the true picture of this curious tale. This reading must finally stand against what would be the ultimate penalty to be imposed upon this man, whom we must say is “one of us.” He could be anyone of us if we work for government but most especially if we work in UP. For all these evidence against him, he will not merely lose his position as dean. He is to be dismissed not only as administrator and faculty member but even as an employee of government. The whole caboodle, the whole book, the whole nine yards or whatever distance that was. Does this story make sense to you?
