IT IS not clear whether the takeover of St. John’s Institute was deliberately planned or it was like a ripe papaya about to fall and the informal trustees simply plucked it, excluded the unwary owners and claimed it to be their own. No matter the circumstances, although some things are now clear, we are concerned with what happened and the outcome – loss of SJI to a group of trustees whose legal right to their positions has so far not been proven. They have not shown documentary evidence of their lawful occupancy.
It is highly possible that the “informal” trustees were invited and began to exercise influence within the board in acknowledgment of their “contributions”. By then their unofficial status became blurred, legality fretted away, everything assumed and soon they were treated by the succeeding, unaware other informal trustees, as truly legitimate. The original trustees or incorporators had passed away and none to insure compliance with the Articles of Incorporation and By-laws. The new ones became one big family. The camel has taken over the tent.
Succeeding events show that Msgr. Noly Que was ousted by making his stay untenable and then Bishop Navarra was simply not informed of their meetings. In effect the unqualified trustees took over SJI but nobody among them questioned the move for, as our Informant claims, “fear of reprisal”. Or maybe, just maybe, they agreed to the travesty for their own interests.
When asked why the bishop was no longer in the board, the anti-diocese presented two conflicting “reasons.” The conflict shows their falsity.
When two contrary facts collide, either one is true and the other is false or both are lies; they cannot be both true.
The first reason given to the public was that the bishop submitted a letter of resignation and the other was that he told the board he would resign and so was no longer invited.
Nothing beats a document so I asked for a copy of the letter of resignation but until now nobody can show that letter. Worse, when asked, Bishop Navarra said he never wrote that kind of letter. He should know and I don’t think he would lie on this matter that can easily be checked. In fact nobody did.
The second explanation is that he told the board he’d quit. Considering the importance of this allegation, I asked for a copy of the transcript of the board meeting where he allegedly informed the board he was quitting. That transcript will tell us why he decided to leave and allow those who were reportedly not legally elected to take over.
These two “reasons” are made to appear that he, as head representing the diocese, abandoned SJI, in effect relinquishing the proprietary rights of the diocese.
So far there is no transcript despite the value of this document. The bishop could deny he resigned but the only way to check is for the board to present that transcript. There is also a claim that the panel that Bishop Patricio Buzon created to attend to the SJI controversy has a copy of two transcripts signed by Bishop Navarra.
I have not met or conferred with any of this panel so if indeed there is, may I ask the diocesan panel to release these transcripts to help untangle this web lest they too will be accused of covering up the facts – that the diocese abandoned its rights and therefore could not complain when the BOT exercised proprietary rights in the school and the church. We are here to seek the truth in the midst of verbal diarrhea.
An insider in SJI said there was no such meeting. Again, to disprove this claim I ask for the transcript from whichever party. Of course, I can understand if nobody furnished me a copy because probably there was no such meeting and the defenders are engaged in obfuscation to hide the truth. Silence or absence of proof can be evaluated several ways but doubt is created as to the integrity of the words of the claimant.
The Informant said that the public confrontation that led to the withdrawal of Msgr. Que from the SJI and the parish began when Msgr Que asked Bishop Navarra for a 25-year agreement for the Lorenzo Ruiz Missionary Society to remain in the Queen of Peace Parish. Did that request threaten the plan to take over?
Let’s continue tomorrow.