The Committee started its clarificatory hearings on the August 23, 2010 Rizal Park Hostage-Taking incident on September 3, 2010. First to be called as resource persons were Undersecretary Rico Puno of the DILG, Director General Jesus Verzosa of PNP, Mayor Alfredo S. Lim of the City of Manila and Chairman of the Crisis Management Committee (CMC) for the Rizal Park hostage-taking incident, and PCSupt. (General) Rodolfo Y. Magtibay, formerly District Director of the Manila Police District (MPD) and ground (on-scene) commander for the Rizal Park Hostage-Taking incident and CMC member.
On the second day, September 4, 2010, the Committee heard the testimonies of Vice-Mayor Francisco “Isko Moreno” Domagoso of the City of Manila and Vice-Chairman of the CMC, PCInsp. (Major) Romeo Salvador, MPD Assistant Negotiator, Police Director (General) Leocadio Santiago Jr. of the National Capital Regional Police Office (NCRPO), SPO3 Alfonso G. Gameng, PO3 Edwin Simacon, and PO2 Francis Benette Ungco, all of MPD-Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT).
The third day of clarificatory hearings was on September 6, 2010 with PSupt. Orlando Yebra, Chief of MPD-Legal and Chief Negotiator in the hostage-taking, SPO2 Gregorio Mendoza, brother of the hostage-taker, PSInsp. Rolando D. Mendoza, Mr. Roberto Agojo, friend and adviser of Mendoza, and Ms. Lourdes Amansec, Assistant Manager of Direction Travel and Tours which managed the Hong Kong tour group hostaged by Mendoza.
On the fourth day, September 7, 2010, the Committee heard Alberto Lubang, driver of the hostaged Hong Thai tour bus, PCInsp. (Major) Santiago D. Pascual III, Over-all Leader of the MPD-SWAT that assaulted the tour bus, PO2 Leo Sabete and PO2 Alfredo Terrado Jr. of the MPD-SWAT Sniper Team, and Jake Maderazo and Michael Rogas of Radio Mo Network (RMN) which conducted a running live interview of the hostage-taker Mendoza at the height of the hostage crisis. At 4:00 p.m. of the same day, the Committee conducted an Ocular Inspection of Independence Ave. fronting the Quirino Grandstand, scene of the hostage-taking incident, and Police Community Precinct (PCP) 5 at the northern corner of Independence Ave. beside Manila Hotel. At 7:00 p.m., the Committee conducted an unannounced inspection visit of the
MPD-District Tactical Operation Center (DTOC) and the MPD-SWAT quarters.
On the fifth day, September 8, 2010, the Committee heard Susan Enriquez of GMA7, Erwin Tulfo of Radio Mo Network (RMN), Diana Chan, tour guide of the Hong Kong tour group, SPO1 Erwin Concepcion of MPD-SWAT, SPO2 Maris Cortes and SPO2 Andres Fernandez De Guzman of the MPD-DTOC, PSupt. (Lt. Col.) Remus Medina of NCRPO-Regional Police Intelligence Office Unit (RPIOU), and Melencia Gonzales, friend of Rolando Mendoza. General Magtibay was also recalled for additional questions that day. The PNP-SOCO also made a presentation on their findings. At 2:00 p.m., the Committee proceeded to Camp BagongDiwa, Bicutan, Taguig City for an ocular inspection of and crime scene re-enactment inside the Hong Thai tour bus.
On September 9, 2010, the Committee viewed the videos of broadcast coverage made by the major TV stations of the hostage-taking incident.
On September 13, 2010, the Committee witnessed another presentation of the NBI and PNP-SOCO. In the evening, PSupt. (Lt. Col.) Orlando Yebra accompanied PCInsp. (Major) Michael Dee for more clarificatory questions.
The Committee also held several executive sessions with some of the resource persons on various dates, usually held right after the main testimony is heard in the public clarificatory hearing. These sessions were held for purposes of hearing sensitive matters such as operational secrets on planning, equipment, procedure, etc. that, if revealed in public, could endanger the safety and the lives of the officials concerned and their men in future operations.
The Committee also invited as resource persons Tanodbayan (Ombudsman) Merceditas Gutierrez and Deputy Ombudsman for the Military and Other Law Enforcement Agencies Emilio Gonzales III for purposes of shedding light on the root causes of the hostage crisis, viz., the perceived injustice and oppression on the part of the hostage-taker, a bemedaled police official for most of his professional life until he was dismissed in a three-page Decision of the Ombudsman and which also forfeited his retirement benefits. The hostage-taker’s dismissal was issued in a relatively short period of time but his motion for reconsideration remained unacted upon until after his death. The Committee also sought to clarify the hostage-taker’s supposed statement allegedly implicating Deputy Ombudsman Gonzales as the cause of all his sufferings and the hostage crisis itself when he told him that if anybody dies in the hostage-taking, it is all Gonzales’ fault, because he allegedly extorted P150,ooo from the hostage-taker for the favorable resolution of his case, which in turn pushed the hostage-taker to his fateful course of action.
Both the Tanodbayan (Ombudsman) and the Deputy Ombudsman declined the invitations of the Committee. The Committee in turn reiterated its invitation in a letter dated September 6, 2010, citing the following reasons:
- The matter under investigation has acquired international dimensions, and the repercussions of the results of the investigation being undertaken involve diplomatic repercussions in the foreign relations between the People’s Republic of China and the Republic of the Philippines;
- Although the independence of the Ombudsman from the Executive Department remains unquestioned in all matters pertaining to this Committee’s investigation, this consideration may not be clear to the Government of the People’s Republic of China as well as the Hongkong Special Administrative Region as to be explained why a crucial matter in the hostage-taking incident involving the Office of the Ombudsman was not covered in the investigation ordered by President Benigno Simeon C. Aquino III;
- The subject-matter under investigation has transcended certain domestic considerations, and the invocation of municipal law in the investigation of an incident involving the country’s international obligation to protect foreign nationals in Philippine territory might not sit well with the aggrieved foreign state in its request for a full investigation on the killing of their foreign nationals; and
- For a full investigation, the Committee would like to, as much as possible, be exhaustive in presenting the different sides of the stories, multi-faceted as they are, including the side of the Office of the Ombudsman regarding its role in resolving the administrative case of the hostage-taker Police Senior Inspector Rolando Del Rosario Mendoza and the discussions that transpired between Ombudsman officials and Vice-Mayor Francisco “Isko” Moreno Domagoso in the afternoon of August 23, 2010.
However, despite this second admonition and request, the Tanodbayan (Ombudsman) and the Deputy Ombudsman again denied the Committee’s invitation on the ground that the Office of the Ombudsman is an independent constitutional body.
2 Comments
The Rizal Park bloodbath that lasted for over 11 hours while dismayed television audience watch one Police officer make one stupid adventurism to the next managed to prolong its awful saga with Pres. Noynoy Aquino exonerating his favorites. The part where this administration made “invisible” alterations on the Incident Investigation and Review Committee (IIRC) report is one way or another a debilitating blow on P-Noy’s administration. The effect of such was felt all across the country as an incautious act of disrepute on DOJ Sec. Leila De Lima’s perspective over the case. Though this was expected as the President brushed cold shoulders over the issue of incriminating his old pals over the issue even before he left to the US, it still pose a “shock” to a few who hoped otherwise. This Palace Review Committee’s differing suggestions over who should shoulder the investigation’s development stirred the qualms over “favoritism” inside this “tot” administration.
ReplyDeleteMistakes are clearly not straightened-out by creating another one, especially when it is for the cause of a few who simply wanted to manipulate power on their behalf. DILG Usec. Rico Puno is by far enjoying the President’s overly-bended privileges. Unlike what this government guaranteed in terms of transparency and fair jurisprudence, the case of eight (8) Hong Kong nationals killed by a rogue PNP official is going nowhere but “rock bottom”. If the live tv streams are not that humiliating enough, Malacañang is extending the political agony by covering-up some of its “no-expense-spared” officials. Thus, this somehow gives the public a reason to mutter their uncertainties- enough to push P-Noy on re-evaluating his former actions. But this seemed too uncertain. The part where Aquino and De Lima are trying to jerk-off the part their political indifference on the case is by itself revolting; a picture of TRAPOs merely trying to get along.
Like what Sen. Ponce Enrile said, De Lima could either quit or “shut up” over the Palace’s decision on Puno and Versoza. And with the two brushing their elbows over the issue as if there was no grudge held, the public cannot help but think of nothing but “pure” gimmick. It doesn’t need a genius to help figure out what these two are up to for the sake of protecting this administration. This kind of political adventurism had long been practiced, so why should P-Noy restrain himself from doing such? The answer of course is delicadeza. This was promised no less by the President himself when he campaigned for the last presidential election and is what keeping his family in the political arena. Thus, it is such a shame that P-Noy had forgotten self-restraint for the sake of his career’s ascendancy.
If the people were to be asked, these two are better without the other. De Lima should have stirred-away from politicking and that she should have remained true to her nature of not being easily bought. As her IIRC report got trashed with its recommendations selectively executed, De Lima should have taken the plunge and held this administration accountable for it. It was not fair for the members of the IIRC to have their reports reviewed by a two-man council comprised nonetheless by Executive Secretary Paquito Ochoa and Chief Presidential Council Eduardo de Mesa. More so, is it not dubious that the creation of such review team came soon as the IIRC was about to submit its final evaluation holding administration allies accountable? De Lima sniffed this treachery but she averted from doing something. Was it because she has already enjoyed the influence P-Noy had extended to her? Or was she promised of much more?
President Noynoy Aquino’s most recent blunder should now be considered unforgiveable and should be viewed for what it really is: a sign of worse things to come for the country and its 92 million inhabitants. Instead of approving the recommendations given by the Incident Investigation and Review Committee (IIRC), P-Noy ironically lessened the recommended charges against his three close allies, Manila Mayor Alfredo Lim, Interior and Local Government Secretary Rico Puno and PNP Director General Jesus Versoza, and agreed to filing suit against the other police officers named in the report without even batting an eyelash. Such an episode which transpired on September 17 between a meeting with IIRC members and P-Noy only showcased how the new president endearingly protects his mother’s former ally, his shooting buddy and even the ally of that shooting buddy.
ReplyDeleteThis is the now second time that P-Noy was able to prove that under his watch, friends do come first before the welfare of the country and his countrymen. However, what is highly irksome and nauseating to this unfolding situation is the fact that P-Noy merely gave us all a runaround when he promised that “heads will roll” and that someone will be held accountable but intentionally failed to reveal that his idea of those to be held accountable will not include the names of Lim, Puno and Versoza.
Another classic example of P-Noy’s expertly maneuvered runaround happened immediately after the hostage incident when he refused to fire Secretary Puno by claiming that the interior secretary is entitled to due process. And, that was what the IIRC was convened to do and exactly did. However, the IIRC’s final recommendation did not sit well with the new president as he was even heard blurting out ““Napatapang ‘ata masyado ah. Bakit kasama pa sila Puno, Lim, at Verzosa?”. Then in an effort to provide an escape for his “friends”, P-Noy dangled this political line: Palace lawyers will first review the IIRC report. After an excruciatingly long review, lo and behold, the IIRC recommendations were revised and the top three officials were effectively absolved of their crimes in the hostage incident. Mayor Lim was now only given administrative charges for misconduct and neglect, Secretary Puno was simply admonished in a private meeting by P-Noy – an episode that can never be proven, and General Versoza was absolved altogether of any culpability. There goes the doctrinal hierarchy of “command responsibility”.
One cannot help but wonder how P-Noy and his legal advisers came up with such recommendation to the IIRC recommendation. Even members of the IIRC were perplexed with the outcome of such a review. P-Noy should know better that even if we buy his political line of not seeing any laws violated by the trio, he should have done something more than mere admonishing given that he explicitly promised that he would be fair and vowed justice for all. So where is the justice for the killed tourists? Clearly, the term “whitewash” will now be on everyone’s mind.
Please note: Your comment may or may not appear immediately. Please do not submit it twice! Certain words may trigger a spam filtering delay. Please refrain from profanity; inappropriate comments may be deleted by the author's sole discretion.