Promise or Friend, Mr. President?

The Philippines promised heads would roll. What respect is there to gain from the international community if the President could not keep his promise, because he would rather keep his friends?

I'll give the now-infamous Manila hostage-taking incident a rest, at least for the meantime. 

But before I do, a parting dig:

The contents of the "First Report of the INCIDENT INVESTIGATION and REVIEW COMMITTEE on the August 23, 2010 Rizal Park Hostage-taking Incident" has already been made public. More precisely, everything else in the report but the actual list of of personalities, against whom the committee recommends the filing of criminal and administrative charges.

While it is true that in a press conference, President Aquino cited individuals and news organizations whom the IIRC has found "liable" for the botched hostage rescue, Aquino also said that on top of IIRC and its recommendations, a "legal panel," composed of Executive Secretary Paquito Ochoa Jr. and Chief Presidential Legal Counsel Eduardo de Mesa, has been constituted to assess the "degree of culpability" of each individual cited in the report.

The President said he wanted to be "fair that the degree of culpability is established" so only "appropriate cases," which will (most likely) "prosper" are filed. Supposedly, so as not to "ruin the lives" of the concerned individuals. In the same breath however, he identified them as follows: 

• Former Philippine National Police (PNP) Chief JESUS VERZOSA;
• Manila Police District Chief RODOLFO MAGTIBAY, ground commander;
• National Capital Region police office Chief LEOCADIO SANTIAGO;
• Police Supt. ORLANDO YEBRA, chief hostage negotiator;
• DILG Undersecretary ("in-charge of police matters) RICO PUNO;
• Chief Insp. SANTIAGO PASCUAL, SWAT team leader;
• Ombudsman MERCEDITAS GUTIERREZ;
• Deputy Ombudsman EMILIO GONZALEZ III;
• RMN / TV 5 anchor ERWIN TULFO;
• RMN anchor MICHAEL ROGAS;
• Manila Mayor ALFREDO LIM, Chairman of the Manila Crisis Management Committee; 
• Manila Vice Mayor ISKO MORENO; and
• 3 broadcast networks: ABS-CBN 2, GMA 7, and TV 5

First, it is considerate of His Excellency not to release the full content of the report until a "thorough review" has been undertaken by his legal team. But why mention names on the list separately from the IIRC's findings? Are not these findings the bases for their inclusion on the list? 

If the intention is not to ruin lives and reputation, would it not have been better to release the grounds for their alleged culpability alongside the mention of their names so they may defend themselves intelligently? Does not this piecemeal broadcast of otherwise public information unnecessarily expand the platform for speculation?

Second, this is not the only instance when the President himself has caused the diminishment of the IIRC's credibility. The first was when, DILG Sec. Jesse Robredo, whose department commands the PNP, was made a member of the committee thereby insulating him from being investigated with regards the events of August 23.

Now, Aquino unconsciously and unmindfully raises questions on to the ability, intelligence, and credibility of his own Justice Secretary, Leila de Lima, and the IIRC as a whole, in recommending the filing of charges against supposedly (ir)responsible individuals.

If Ochoa and de Mesa are to determine "level of culpability" vis a vis  "likelihood of conviction," what bases then were used by the IIRC and the Secretary of the Department of Justice in their recommendations? Hearsay? Like myself, inspired guesswork?

Third, this raises the possibility of a "whitewash," specifically on the case of the President's buddy, DILG Undersecretary in-charge of police concerns, Rico Puno.

It is bad enough that Puno has admitted before the IIRC that he is incompetent in managing hostage / crisis situations - clearly a police matter - when Aquino has put him in-charge of the PNP. Now, the burden (more like the power) of determining whom to charge and whom not to charge rests on Ochoa, among others - when he and Puno, allegedly belong to the "Samar faction" of the Aquino administration (reportedly out to get Robredo's head).

How many times will the findings of the "review committee" be re-reviewed before it becomes worthy of public scrutiny? 

More importantly, what pride is there in giving the Chinese government a report, the facts within which we are fairly certain, but the accountabilities for which, we are not?

The Philippines promised heads would roll. What respect is there to gain from the international community if the President could not keep his promise, because he would rather keep his friends?

-----

Wait for this: 

In the next few days, a survey group will release the results of its nationwide survey, conducted two weeks after the hostage-taking incident. Part of it will say that the hostage-crisis DID NOT, in any way, affect the President's popularity.

In fact, there was a marked upward surge in Aquino's approval, performance, and trust ratings.

The results however said that an overwhelming majority of Filipinos believe that the Manila hostage-taking incident was a "national crisis."

Majority of Filipinos identified poverty and corruption as the most pressing national concerns. On the average, they are willing to give Aquino two years to address these.

-----

The President should not be complacent.

Aquino's popularity ratings are comparable to that of the first 100 days in office of former President Joseph Estrada. Erap was kicked out of office less than two years later.

When expectations are high, the price for failure is also steep.

-----

The feud between Aquino's "Balay" and "Samar" groups will have to stop.

Rome fell not because of enemies from outside its gates; it fell because of fighting from within its walls.

The Aquino administration is not even Rome, much less is Aquino a Caesar.

-----

Even the recent "jueteng expose" has been reported to have been caused by the quarrel between the "Balay" and "Samar" factions. 

I guess we'll have to talk about that later. (DPG)