Category: aquino admin

no laws broken, no heads rolling

heard national anti-poverty commission chief joel rocamora in a bbc interview saying that no laws were broken by top officials in the august 23 bus hostages bloodbath.

eight hong kong chinese died needlessly violently in the hands of a mentally unstable discharged policeman yet no laws were broken?

nato reyes points out that in the end what (not who) gets blamed is the government’s crisis manual:

Malacanang has kept accountability for the August 23 incident at the lower levels of government. It has invoked the vague provisions of a government crisis manual as a convenient excuse for the shortcomings and incompetence of the national leadership. The section of the IIRC report on National or Local Crisis says:

It appeared that at no point was the elevation to the status as a national crisis considered even while practically all the hostages were foreign nationals and even while representatives from foreign embassies or consular offices were already involved.

The Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) on Crisis Situations does not have clear parameters on when, or under what circumstances, should a crisis be elevated to national status.

Aquino’s repeated reference to the vague provisions of the government manual has served as a firewall for the national leadership. Malacanang insists that since there are no guidelines which will allow them to assume command of a particular crisis, they cannot be blamed for anything. It’s like saying that it is the manual’s fault, not theirs.

as for command responsibility, here’s what malacanang’s review of the iirc report says under III. Applicable laws, rules and regulations, and jurisprudence:

2. A person may be held criminally liable only for his own actions or omissions. However, he may be held administratively or civilly liable for the consequences of the actions or omission of his subordinates or wards when the principle of command responsibility and the rules/laws on subsidiary, solidary and vicarious liability under the Revised Penal Code and the Civil Code are applicable.

3. In Rubrico v. Arroyo (G.R. No. 183871, February 18, 2010), the Supreme Court defines Command Responsibility as “the responsibility of commanders for crimes committed by subordinate members of the armed forces or other person subject to their control in international wars or domestic conflict.” While there are several bills on command responsibility, there is still no law that provides for criminal liability under that doctrine.

there we go.   no law that provides for criminal liability for command irresponsibility.

so the president is not liable (even if he took responsibility for the fiasco some 10 days later) , nor usec puno, nor then pnp chief versoza.   if we took them to court, their lawyers would get them off easily.   waste of time and money, ika nga ni presidente.

yesterday the president also again explained why neither he nor his bff dilg usec puno showed up and took charge: the hostage-taker might have escalated his demands if faced with such high officials.   i wonder where they got that notion.    has it ever happened before?   meron bang precedent to justify such a fear?   i wonder who he was listening to, who was advising, what was influencing, him that long long afternoon and evening.   i wonder what they were all up to after the oathtaking of, among others, gina lopez and conrado de quiros’ brother…   to surface only deep in the night when the shooting was over.

also i don’t understand why tulfo and rogas got off scot-free, even if vergel santos of the center for media freedom and responsibility is actually happy about it.   i heard an unapologetic maderazo saying again that if they hadn’t done what they did, then we the public would not have known what was going on.   heh.   if they hadn’t done what they did, then mendoza wouldn’t have snapped they way he did and possibly nothing so bloody terrible would have gone down.

at the very least i hoped to see four heads rolling: puno’s, because he was incompetent and unqualified, versoza’s because he didn’t care enough to stay around and stay on top of things, and rogas’s and tulfo’s for agitating mendoza and driving him off the edge.   unfortunately the president loves puno and versoza, and coddles media, to a fault.

update:

From Day 1, P-Noy wanted
to save Lim, Puno, Verzosa
by Malou Mangahas

face off

At last!  A president takes on the church, puts nation over religion, reason over dogma.  Noy stands tall.  Finally, Rizal’s battle is joined! Bernardo breaks free! — Satur Sulit

media & national interest

in the senate inquiry into media’s role in the aug. 23 hostage-taking, senate president juan ponce enrile was critical of maria ressa’s wall street journal article, Noynoy Flunks His First Test.

What prompted you to write such a critique … put on the line the quality of leadership of the newly elected president of the country? (and) At bottom issue is the collision of two interests: there’s the obligation to your audience and faithfulness to your calling, at the same time we are Filipinos with a country to serve.  What if national interests are damaged by the performance of your duties?  Where do you draw the line between serving your country’s national interest and serving your ethical and professional obligations as journalists? … need a certain amount of caution in the manner of disseminating information …  in carefully calibrated language… (or something to this effect)

ressa’s response:

Freedom of speech is universal.  There is no conflict of interest for journalists in or out of the Philippines.  We do not write with intent of bringing anything down…  hoping for better action from government…. (and) I merely laid out the facts … the way events played out … there really was failure of the chain of command… intention was to constructively criticize … facts unassailable… rescue attempt botched… levels of incompetence… political factionalism… negative light? …  the farthest thing on my mind… (and) We have to make a distinction between the job of a public relations person vs the job of a journalist… (or something to this effect)

but but but even if it were true that ressa merely laid out facts, still she was selective about the facts she laid out — she said nothing on how media flunked, too, bakit nagmamalinis.   and in fact, she went beyond laying out facts when she issued that judgment, the opinion, that the president flunked his first test, AND used it as TITLE, setting the unmistakably negative tone of the article. kasi pala, the solicited article was not for the news but for the opinion page.   mary kissel, editorial board member of the wall street journal, said in a phone interview tuesday:

… what Ressa wrote “wasn’t a news story,” but was an article for the paper’s opinion pages where “you’re expected to have an opinion.”

and even if ressa were right, that noynoy flunked his first test, why why why rub it in for all the world to read and to recall, and, of all places, in the world’s most prestigious business paper where the trustworthiness of a country is assessed, ika nga ni enrile, starting with the quality of the leadership.   why why why further shake global confidence in our country when that confidence is so badly shaken na.   like c_at commented in ressa, media, flunk test:

Wallstreet Journal, the newspaper read by investment and hedge fund managers, pension administrators, venture capitalists and mutual funds managers.

And these are the people Aquino would like to invite for investments in the Philippines during his US visit one week from now. Very timely indeed.

i’m not saying ressa shouldn’t have written an article for the wall street journal when she did.   i’m just saying she was selective and one-sided; she could have critiqued everyone involved, including the media that she’s part of.   also, she could have gone for a less judgmental and sensational title and so helped mitigate rather than exacerbate the damage.   puwede naman to give the president the benefit of the doubt muna, kahit pa grudgingly.   nothing “PR” about that.

i liked abc 5’s luchi cruz valdez‘ response to: where do you draw the line (between national interests and media interests) :

We draw the line where human lives are at stake, number 1. Number 2 we draw the line where the life of a legitimate government is at stake.

neat sideswipe, that ;))   as for the question i raised earlier, as to whether ressa’s judgment is a reflection of that of her bosses the lopezes, say ni  armida siguion-reyna in her tribune column “Honeymoon is over?”

The chismis is Ressa’s boss Gabby Lopez isn’t happy about it, but this stays scuttlebutt until confirmed.

cocktales’ vic agustin confirms:

ABS-CBN chairman Eugenio “Gabby” Lopez III is already in the United States, a de-facto advance party of the business delegation that was invited to accompany P.Noy in his first foreign trip.

His dilemma: Damage control ensuing from the Wall Street Journal opinion piece written by Maria Ressa, his own network’s news and current affairs chief.

oh well.   maybe we shouldn’t be counting on foreigners too much anyway?   instead, tap rich filipinos with secret bank accounts abroad to invest in their own country for a change?   heh.   fat chance.

at least there’s still leila de lima’s report, and the prospect of heads rolling, to look forward to.   that should help, kahit paano.

ressa, media, flunk test

wazzup, maria ressa?  nagulat, hindi, nagulumihanan, naman ako sa iyong Noynoy Flunks His First Test, published monday sept 6 sa the wall street journal online, then a couple or so days later sa abs-cbn website.   parang at this point in time, ika nga, when we are all, including the bereaved and traumatized chinese, waiting patiently for the results of the DOJ investigation, parang wrong lang yung timing.   why couldn’t it wait until you had something more to say, even if, yeah, some of it may have been new to the international community (and then again maybe not).

nakakapagpaisip tuloy kung bakit mo binanatan si noynoy nang gayon just then, in such a conclusive manner, when really palpak din naman, and even more conclusively, ang media.   sabi nga ni doy santos aka the cusp sa propinoy.net:

“He who is without sin should cast the first stone.” What is conveniently left out here is how the media contributed to the bungled operation. Are they now trying to deflect attention on to the administration because of their own mistakes. A little introspection and reticence would do them some good. –  9 September 2010 at 9:23 am

Maria Ressa’s assessment of PNoy is unwarranted given her own involvement as news director of a station. She has gone from merely reporting to editorializing. You don’t trip someone and then turn around and tell that person that he’s not well-coordinated. Or that it was his fault for not restraining you in the first place. It is a little disingenuous. – 9 September 2010 at 6:25 pm

we all know that ressa’s bosses the lopezes campaigned big time for noynoy, as well as her anchor ricky carandang, now one of the three-headed six-legged communications group.   so i wonder, what’s the subtext of the article?   that the lopezes, the network, are distancing themselves from the president and don’t care if he goes down?   there’s always binay?   ano kayang say ni kris diyan?   or is this just ressa, declaring her editorial independence via a lame last-ditch attempt to “deflect attention” from media?   she wrote it days before tuesday sept 7 when we first heard the damning RMN tapes at the DOJ hearing, so maybe she knew about those tapes, so maybe she was on defensive mode, blame the president na lang, una-unahan na lang?

it’s a pity that ressa couldn’t wouldn’t take the higher ground when she was is in the perfect position to do so.   at least dzmm wasn’t caught interviewing the hostage-taker at any time, even if anthony taberna and gerry baja interviewed, and delayed, isko moreno on his way back from the ombudsman.   at least no abscbn anchor/reporter was seen making gapang, stooping down to the level of, the struggling brother a la gma’s susan enriquez.

seeing now how badly media affected the proceedings and the outcome, i can’t believe that ressa refuses to promise a blackout next time unless all the other networks promise the same.   here’s manuel buencamino (in a comment to an earlier post) on ressa and media:

Maria Ressa’s tweet shows the kind of mentality prevalent in media: “If only one network does it, you would just switch to another. Needed gov’t to ask for blackout from all. We would’ve cooperated.”

Sinisi pa ang gobyerno. Has she ever heard of the term “self-restraint”?

And this is what she said during a forum at the College of Mass Communication of the University of the Philippines last August 28, Friday : “We would have been criticized by the viewers or what viewers would have done is switch stations.”

Ayun mas mahalaga ang ratings kaysa sa buhay ng tao.

Iisa ang takbo ng utak ni Maria Ressa, Erwin Tulfo, at RMN. Ratings is the end all and be all of modern journalists so news is whatever is sensational. Today’s editors use Nielsen ratings rather than substance to evaluate what can be aired or published.

talaga naman, ano?   it certainly doesn’t speak well of the media that they can’t come together like mature adults and speak as one on self-regulation without government sitting in.   i’m surprised that for someone so high-profile, ressa doesn’t have the chutzpah to dare lead the way, promise to not cover or air anything live in a hostage situation without the go-signal of authorities.    i would expect that other networks would at the very least be shamed into following suit.   if not, well, we know who to charge for criminal broadcasting next time around (god forbid).

no-holds-barred?

flunk na flunk din ang media in that panel discussion with the president.   can’t find a complete transcript yet, only a partial one from ellen tordesillas but i’ve watched/listened to the entire thing at least twice and i’m sure not tiangco not failon not bediones asked about the failed attempts to resolve the situation without bloodshed, i.e., by giving the hostage-taker what he was asking for.  the president did volunteer this early on:

Buong araw, mataas ang kumpiyansa na mare-resolba iyong isyung ito na walang pagdadanak ng dugo dahil kakaiba sa normal na—iyong hostage taking situation. Nagkaroon ng pagre-release ng mga hostages bago pa nag-umpisa iyong negotiation.

i would have asked if such optimism — that mendoza would just continue to release hostages even if his demands were not taken seriously — was shared by psychologists familiar with hostage-taker personalities.   were any psychologists consulted?   any psychologist worth his salt would have cautioned against taking anything for granted, especially where so many lives were still on the line.

At some point in the day, I talked to Sec. Soliman, vice chair of the NDCC, kasi I noticed there was only one ambulance. She said that there were several ambulances ready. I asked if doctors familiar with treating gunshot and blast wounds were also available; blood supplies, etc. She told me that it would be Sec. Ona who would be in a better position. She called him up, and they called me back afterwards na these had already been taken care of.

i would have asked why he was already thinking ambulances and doctors, gunshot and blast wounds, even before thinking how to resolve the situation without bloodshed.   i would have asked what he was doing all afternoon after the swearing in of gina lopez and others.   did he ever ask how the negotiations were going?   was he happy enough to hear that isko had a letter from the ombudsman without him having to intervene?    did he regret at all not intervening when the ombudsman’s letter did not do the job?

the promise of a complete transcript on the palace’s website is still that, a promise.   but i’ve listened to that harapan twice and much later into the hour-and-a-half the president vaguely referred to thinking of ordering the ombudsman… i suppose to come up with a document, no matter if bogus… and pinag-isipan daw kung paano bolahin si mendoza … pero paano kung hindi maniwala … and anong epekto later on … it would complicate negotiations in future hostage-taking situations, the credibility of negotiators would be put at risk….

i would have asked: but why should future hostage-takings be more important than saving lives in THIS hostage-taking???   besides, negotiations did not have to be made public.   the public would not have protested being kept out of the loop as long as the hostages were rescued unharmed.   the irony is, all that concern and alalay for future hostage-taking situations brought about exactly what they were afraid of, and more: the loss of credibility all around, not to speak of the loss of precious lives.