Thanks!

GOD BLESS.

RYAN B. CAPITULO, M.D., FPOGS

Specialist in Obstetrics and Gynecology
Expert in Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology
MATER CHRISTI OB-GYN CLINIC
Unit 203 MJDT Building #1715 G. Tuazon St.
corner V.G. Cruz St. Sampaloc, Manila
Open DAILY (except Sunday) 3:00pm – 7:00pm
Clinic #: +632 4875242 Mobile #: +63917 8045630

I only see the Feast of the Black Nazarene on TV, so this time, I decided to try and see the event for my own. I was happy that Lei decided to accompany me, as the prospect of getting swamped by thousands of people can be scary.

We arrived at the Quirino Grandstand at around 5:30 in the morning, and there were already a lot of people there. I had originally planned to shoot from the top of the grandstand, where my photojournalism professor was, but it was already too late. Besides, it wasn’t a guarantee anyway, since we didn’t have a permit. After scouting the area, Lei and I looked for a place to hang out while the mass was going on, and we talked about where we could go afterward. We needed a place that had a good vantage point of the event, but we weren’t sure where the procession would pass.

After about an hour or so, we approached a police officer who seemed to know what was going on, and sure enough, he pointed us to the right direction. We reached Padre Burgos Avenue, and we found an empty spot at a fence post. We climbed the fence and waited. There were people waiting for the procession, and there were replicas of the Black Nazarene all around. Barefooted devotees took the time to mingle with friends, have breakfast, or catch up on sleep. At around this time, it started to rain a bit. I was happy that there we were under some trees. We didn’t bring any umbrellas, and we were worried about the camera getting wet.

It was a good thing that it didn’t the rain wasn’t that bad, and that my baseball cap would suffice as a makeshift camera cover. The procession started with the different replicas being brought toward the Manila City hall. Even though they were only replicas, people still threw their towels towards the images. We saw some kids on beside the images wiping the towels and they would throw them back to the owners. It’s amazing how they could tell which towel belonged to whom. Then the street started to get jam-packed with people as the gilded carriage bearing the Nazarene waited its way to get through the street. There were some “casualties” already, such as a girl who fainted, and an old man who had a nasty cut in his eyebrow. At around this time, you could already feel the “air” coming from the mass of people. A warm, musky combination of sweat, smoke, and who knows what else. It was a good thing that we were on the fence, and we had some breathing room. I was half wishing that I should have sat beside Lei, who was sitting comfortably atop a fence column and was taking picture after picture.

It grew worse as the Nazarene reached us. The crowd was already pressing by the fence. I got scared when they pressed by my knees. The whole mass felt like it was pulsating. Another lady was brought near our area. She was close to fainting, and she couldn’t breath. An observer and I tried to bring her up our area, but by then, the fence was too crowded and she couldn’t use anything as a foothold. We tried lifting her up, but she was too heavy. In the end, she just turned her back to the procession so she could face the side of Rizal Park and get some air. I felt relieved when I saw some color return to her face.

I was happy when I saw a lady scramble up the shoulders and heads of the men pulling the rope of the carriage. By tradition, I don’t think women are allowed to pull on the rope, so seeing her make her way to the Nazarene was a welcome sight. She succeeded in touching the Nazarene, and other people soon followed her lead. It soon became chaotic when people started to do so. It was like a rock concert, only it was not. People were diving on top of other people. The musky smell became even more musky. I could only imagine how hot it would’ve been if there wasn’t a drizzle earlier in the day. We couldn’t see any police officers or ambulances nearby. I could already see some injured people.

Finally, at around 10:30, we found enough room to get down from the fence. The main body of the procession had already passed, and we had more than enough material. We were tired, and we decided that we wouldn’t go to the Quiapo area as we had originally planned. Besides, we didn’t want to risk getting sick. After all, we already had a miracle: we didn’t lose any valuables and we didn’t sustain any injuries.

IIRC recommended harshest sanction on Lim

In recommending administrative and criminal proceedings, the IIRC held Lim liable for “assuming the authority of the on-scene commander in negotiations and tactical action… for negligence in his failure to organize and constitute the CMC (crisis management committee), for issuing an illegal order the arrest of Gregorio Mendoza, for abandoning and ordering the on-scene commander to abandon the Advance Command Post at the height of the hostage crisis and, in general, for failure to perform his duties as CMC Chairman… constituting dereliction of duty and gross negligence.”

“Dirty Harry” endeared himself to the audience by stomping on the inept bureaucracy, even taking the law in his hands, to give justice to the underprivileged.

Lim became a legend when he cleared known criminal havens of undesirable elements. For that, he was rewarded a political career after he retired from the police service. He was manila mayor from 1992 to 1998 and senator from 2004 to 2007. He returned as Manila mayor in 2007 and got re-elected last May.

One would think that with his long years as local chief executive, Lim would have handled the Aug. 23 hostage incident with competence and wisdom. What we saw was “utak pulbura” at work.

He has never admitted mistake for the debacle that claimed the lives of eight Hongkong tourists and strained relations with China and its prosperous administrative region, which hosts thousands of Filipino workers.

The IIRC , in fact, put the blame squarely on him. The committee, headed by Justice Secretary Leila de Lima, listed eight incidents that turned the crisis into a tragedy. Lim had a role in almost all of those incidents.

The first incident was the non-activation of the crisis management committee. “Mayor Alfredo Lim of the City of Manila was the person in authority charged with the duty of activating the CMC,” the committee said.

The committee criticized the attention given by authorities concerned to SPO2 Gregorio Mendoza, brother of hostage-taker,former Senior Inspector Rolando Mendoza as co-conspirator and accessory.

“Whether he was shouting or not is not really material. The fact is Col. Yebra (the negotiator) displayed his loss of focus on the task at hand. He was distracted by a peripheral matter,” the committee said.

“More important to addressing the actuations of Gregorio was re-building the confidence of Mendoza, re-establishing contact with him, and salvaging the negotiations that clearly broke down, by working on the offered alternative solution. Instead, Col. Yebra, Mayor Lim, Gen. Magtibay, and other police officers present focused on handling the peripheral matter involving Gregorio resulting to Mayor Lim’s order for Gregorio’s arrest, looking for handcuffs, and conferring on how to handle Gregorio. By attending to the peripheral matter, precious time to salvage the negotiations, already critical at this late hour of the crisis situation, was lost. The windows of opportunity were closing,” the report further said.

The committee noted that the arrest of SPO2 Gregorio Mendoza, upon orders of Mayor Lim, “s was the proximate cause of the chain of events that led to Mendoza’s shooting at the hostages.”

The report said:” The potential adverse reaction of Mendoza to an arrest of Gregorio was not lost to Mayor Lim. This is borne by his instruction to the escorting officers to use the back door of the Advance Command Post to avoid media. That Mendoza was viewing television at this time was already known at this point. The instruction to avoid media should be taken in this context.

“Given the tenuous situation, i.e., negotiations having broken down, adding a potential irritant to Mendoza with the arrest of his brother was a lack or absence of sound judgment.”

The committee also cited the departure of Mayor Lim and General Magtibay from the Advance Command Post at a crucial time.

“The absence of Mayor Lim and General Magtibay in the Advance Command Post created a vacuum in command or decision makers. This resulted in the inability of those present to handle crisis events as they unfolded. Everything that Mayor Lim and General Magtibay hoped to accomplish at Emerald Restaurant, including taking a meal, could have been accomplished at the Advance Command Post and even better because they would have been in a position to react to events promptly.

“The most significant of events that transpired after Mayor Lim and General Magtibay left the Advance Command Post were the coverage of Gregorio being arrested, the deadlines being given by Mendoza before he starts shooting the hostages and the actual shooting of hostages.”

When told last Monday about his inclusion among those to be sanctioned as recommended by the Incident Investigating and Review Committee that looked into the tragedy, Lim said he was “insulted.”

Lim is hopeless. It’s now up to Aquino to save the Filipino people from government officials like Lim.

Manila Mayor Alfredo Lim was driven to tears Tuesday while defending policemen even as he criticized his inclusion in the list of officials deemed responsible for the hostage mess.

“You cannot rely on anybody except policemen and soldiers who are paid to die. No other professional will offer to sacrifice their lives for you … Every time they step out of their homes, one foot is buried in the ground,” an emotional Lim said, pounding a closed fist on his table at the Manila City Hall.

Lim likened the IIRC report to a “shotgun blast.”

“Everyone who was there was hit.”

“Who of you here will willingly die in the performance of your duty? No one. Only the police. And yet what are we getting into? Blame and keep blaming the police. Let’s place things in its proper perspective. What do we stand to get from keeping up the blame game?” Lim said in a news conference.

The mayor denied responsibility for the bloodbath, insisting that he performed his role “to the letter and to the best of his ability under the circumstances.”

Lim defended his decision to leave the command post at the height of crucial negotiations to eat at Emerald Garden restaurant and denied that it constituted abandonment of his duties as the chair of the crisis management committee.

***

Lim bears brunt of recommended sanctions in hostage crisis
Malaya

The Incident Investigation and Review Committee has recommended that administrative and criminal proceedings be opened against Manila Mayor Alfredo Lim, the harshest directed at 12 persons tagged as having responsibility for the bungled hostage rescue attempt that resulted in the death of eight Hong Kong tourists and the hostage taker on August 23.

It said his actions during the hostage crisis constitute dereliction of duty and gross negligence under the Local Government Code (RA 7160.

The specific recommendations of the IIRC have not been publicly released.

It said administrative proceedings should be opened against five senior police officials and Interior Secretary Rico Puno. It recommended that a preliminary investigation be conducted on their possible criminal liability.

It held Manila Vice Mayor Francisco “Isko Moreno” Domogoso administratively liable but was silent on his possible criminal liability.

It said further investigation should be conducted against Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez to determine whether her offenses qualify as grounds for impeachment.

On Deputy Ombudsman Emilion Gonzales, the IIRC said the Office of the President should determine possible administrative offenses.

The panel said it is referring the results of the investigation of broadcasters Michael Rogas and Erwin Tulfo to the Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster ng Pilipinas for their possible sanctions for violations of the Code of Ethics.

The IIRC said that against ABC 5, ABS-CBN and GMA7, the results should be endorsed to the KBP, or appropriate media “watchdog” organizations, for possible violations of their Code of Ethics.

In recommending administrative and criminal proceedings, the IIRC held Lim liable for “assuming the authority of the on-scene commander in negotiations and tactical action… for negligence in his failure to organize and constitute the CMC (crisis management committee), for issuing an illegal order the arrest of Gregorio Mendoza, for abandoning and ordering the on-scene commander to abandon the Advance Command Post at the height of the hostage crisis and, in general, for failure to perform his duties as CMC Chairman… constituting dereliction of duty and gross negligence.”

On the reference to the arrest of Mendoza, brother of hostage taker Rolando Mendoza, the “Highlights” of the IIRC report said: “There is evidence to support the finding that what Mayor Lim actually ordered was the summary execution of Gregorio Mendoza when, in conjunction with the order to arrest… he also instructed the MPD officials present… that Gregorio be ‘brought to Tondo,’ a euphemism for summary execution…”

The grounds cited by IIRC against Chief Supt. Rodolfo Magtibay, ground commander and relieved Manila police chief, were serious irregularities in the performance of duties and gross incompetence; Director Leocadio Santiago Jr., former National Capital Region chief, “less grave” neglect of duty; PNP chief Jesus Verzosa, “less grave” neglect of duty; Puno, gross negligence; negotiator Supt. Orlando Yerba, negligence, and; Insp. Santiago Pascual III, assault team leader, gross incompetence.

Malacanang allayed fears of a whitewash in the investigation of the August 23 hostage crisis following President Aquino’s decision not to release as yet the recommendations of the Incident Investigation and Review Committee (IIRC) and to have them reviewed by his own legal panel.

Aquino said Monday a review by Executive Secretary Paquito Ochoa Jr. and chief presidential legal counsel Eduardo de Mesa is necessary because the IIRC report did not make specific recommendations on which persons should be charged with what crime.

(The “Recommendations” portion of the report which has yet to be released belies this. The recommended charges were specific to each person.)

He also said he may uphold some recommendations, or add to or subtract from them.

Presidential spokesman Edwin Lacierda said releasing the recommendations would have an impact on the lives and reputation of the individuals cited in the report.

“Gusto ng Pangulo na he would be able to support everything in the report. That’s why he wants to study the report. Because first and foremost, let me emphasize, the report is recommendatory in nature,” he said.

“Kapag inilabas kung ano ang magiging pag-aaral po ng Chief Presidential Legal Counsel at ng Office of the Executive Secretary, ilalahad po iyong dalawa. So, wala po tayong itatago, ilalabas po natin iyong dalawang iyon in fairness to those people named,” he added.

Lacierda said Aquino has great confidence in Justice Secretary Leila de Lima, head of the IIRC, and her work but the President does not want to make hasty decisions.

“The report is recommendatory, so the final decision rests on the President. Kaya nais niyang maging maayos po ang kaniyang decision sa pag-aaral po ng IIRC report at ang mga recommendation doon sa report,” he said.

He said there is no need for the officials named in the IIRC report to go on leave.

Lacierda said unlike the partial report released by Malacañang to the public on Monday afternoon, the government gave the full IIRC report to the Chinese government through its embassy in Manila a few hours earlier.

He said Chinese Ambassador Liu Jianchao replied positively to Foreign Affairs Undersecretary Esteban Conejos, who delivered the report to the Chinese embassy.

He said Hong Kong authorities are conducting a separate investigation but he is not aware if it was finished.

Inhibition

Lima said the panel’s recommendation was basically to initiate administrative proceedings for specific administrative offenses under applicable rules of the National Police Commission (Napolcom) and the PNP and the Local Government code, and/or preliminary investigation for possible criminal liability arising from the acts or omissions as determined by the IIRC, or further investigation or referral to appropriate venues.

She also said she is willing to inhibit herself from reviewing any case that may reach the Department of Justice against those who would be charged in connection with the hostage crisis.

This is to allay perception of prejudgment.

She said there is a big possibility the DOJ will be tasked to handle the charges.

“The option to inhibit is always there…Due process must be observed and we cannot be the judge and jury at the same time,” De Lima said.

De Lima also asked President Aquino not to “absolve or exclude” personalities the IIRC recommended charged, and appealed for “minor” changes in report.

“Since under review nga by the President through his legal team, there may be changes there. But on the part of IIRC sana kung mayroon mang changes it would just be minor. Yun bang babawasan lang ng konti ang culpability o dadagdagan yung culpability. Hindi yung outright exclusion o absolution of certain personalities,” De Lima said at the Senate where she attended the hearing of the proposed DOJ budget.

She further defended the report’s “open-ended” recommendation on the liabilities of those included in the report.

“Talagang open-ended yung sa criminal proceedings because of lack of time sa evaluation and study ng committee. Hindi pa namin masyado mai-ugnay o hindi pa namin clear na ma-indicate or specify ang specific charge. So it’s an open-ended recommendation with respect to the criminal proceedings,” she said.

Report welcomed

China welcomed the submission but said it has yet to dissect the IIRC 83-page report, citing its length.

“The initial reading indicates that the Philippine side takes a sincere and serious manner in handling with and looking into the incident, to which the Chinese side expresses its appreciation,” said Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Jiang Yu in a statement released by the Chinese Embassy.

“Since it is a long report, the Chinese side does need time for a careful study,” the official added.

Jiang renewed calls for the prevention of similar incidents.

“We hope that the Philippine side takes effective measures to strengthen protection of the Chinese personnel in the Philippines and prevent the reoccurrence of similar tragedies,” said Jiang.

Jiang added that China is always ready to continue the further advancement of the relations between the two countries “in a sound and steady manner.”

‘Situation room’

Lacierda also said because of the hostage crisis, government is revising its crisis management manual and is cobbling up a “situation room” to monitor future crises. He said the new manual would be released soon.

“We have the manual. We have the resources. We have the forces to deal with any incident such as hostage taking,” he said.

He said National Security Adviser Cesar Garcia will head the situation room.

A “war room” was set up inside Malacañang by President Arroyo in 2004, following the kidnapping of Filipino overseas worker Angelo de la Cruz in Iraq. It was headed by former military colonel Victor Corpus.

The small facility, which was shown to Palace reporters, contained monitoring equipment such as telephones, several television screens dedicated to important news sources, computers and other telecommunications equipment.

Lacierda said the “war room” has been dismantled.

Verzosa ready

Verzosa, through lawyer Benjamin de los Santos, said is ready to face any charge.

Delos Santos expressed confidence his client, who is out of the country, will have no liability.

“We followed the manual and standards and international protocols on hostage situation, and if you have time to read and really analyze the report of the IIRC, they themselves admitted that it is difficult to determine authority due to inadequacy of the manual,” he said.

Delos Santos said the principle of command responsibility does not apply to Verzosa since the buck stops at Magtibay’s immediate superior. Santiago.

Verzosa was at Cagayan de Oro City at the height of the hostage drama and could not immediately fly back to Manila since there were no more flights available that time. He went on early retirement last week.

Con games

The Office of the Ombudsman questioned the basis for the recommendation on Gutierrez and Gonzalez.

Deputy Ombudsman Mark Jalandoni and Assistant Ombudsman Jose de Jesus clarified that Gutierrez never promised the hostage-taker, dismissed Supt. Rolando Mendoza, that he will be reinstated.

They stressed that Mendoza accepted the Ombudsman’s commitment to personally review the case which led to his dismissal.

“Mendoza knew very well that the Ombudsman cannot possibly grant his request that same day. There was no confusion; Mendoza had a crystal clear understanding of what was promised to him. After their phone conversation, he even released one of the hostages as a proof of good faith and acceptance,” Jalandoni pointed out.

As to suggestions that the Ombudsman should have readily agreed to reinstate Mendoza to save the lives of hostages, the two officials explained that the anti-graft body cannot be party to such a deception.

“We are not here to play con games or to compromise with criminals. Doing so would damage the irreversibly damage the credibility of this office. The Office of the Ombudsman is not part of the negotiation; we have no expertise about such matters. We only did our job according to the letter of the law,” De Jesus said.

The two likewise questioned the tone of the IIRC report which they said tended to portray Mendoza as a martyred hero rather than a former police officer who went rogue to force the government to give in to his demands.

“From what we read, the report seemed to depict the hostage-taker as a hero rather than a former lawman who chose to be a criminal. Mendoza betrayed his sworn duty to uphold and protect the law and brought shame to our country,” De Jesus added.

New investigation

At the same press conference, the two officials announced that the anti-graft body will begin today its own investigation centering exclusively on the botched rescue operations.

Jalandoni said Gutierrez has created a special panel of field investigators to be led by Assistant Ombudsman Joselito Fangon. The team was given 30 days to submit its findings.

The new probe was launched at the request of HK-Special Administrative Region, Southern District councilors Henry Chai Man Hon and Andrew Fung Wai Kwong who wrote to Gutierrez last August 24.

De Jesus said their office received the letter last September 16 but the Ombudsman allowed the IIRC to complete its own investigation out of respect to the directives of President Aquino.

Jalandoni said testimonies and other evidence gathered by the IIRC will become part of the Ombudsman’s investigation and will be considered in its independent review of evidence “to prevent duplication.”

He stressed that the investigation will focus solely on the police conduct of the rescue operations at the request of the HK-SAR officials to determine the readiness of police operatives, accuracy of threat assessment by police officials and whether the ground commander made the correct call in not shooting Mendoza when he exposed himself outside the bus several times.

Lim blames Mendoza’s brother

Lim, in a pres conference, blew his top as he lashed at the IIRC for including him and Moreno among those recommended to be charged.

Lim said that contrary to the findings of the IIRC, he did not abandon his duty as head of the crisis management committee.

The mayor instead put the blame on SPO2 Gregorio Mendoza, brother of the hostage-taker, for egging the latter to not to agree to the offers of negotiators unless his service firearm was released by the MPD, thus, laying the groundwork for his brother to lose his confidence in the negotiations.

He recounted that Gregorio admitted before him and the other officers present at the advance command post (ACP) that he had knowledge of his brother’s plans. Yet, Lim said, there appeared to be no mention of Gregorio in the IIRC report.

“Baligtad na ba ang mundo?” he said.

Reacting to the portion of the report stating that Lim should have had his meal at the ACP instead of at the Emerald Restaurant, Lim said: “Gaano ba kalayo ang Emerald sa bus? Eh mas malayo pa ang MPD headquarters sa UN Avenue kung saan nandun ang ibang opisyal ng gobyerno. There is no abandonment that took place because all the key officials of the MPD remained at the ACP.”

Aside from Magtibay, the mayor said all the key MPD officers were at the post including the deputies, station commander and the one in charge of public affairs.

Meanwhile, lawyer Harry Roque, who heads Centerlaw, a group of lawyers advocating human rights and press freedom, expressed disappointment at the IIRC recommendation to charge the media, saying bad journalism is not synonymous to criminal conduct.

“While we acknowledge that media may have failed to observe the highest degree of professionalism and self-restraint in their coverage of the unfortunate incident, still this is not a basis for holding them liable for breach of the country’s criminal laws. Bad journalism is not and should never be criminal in a democracy,” he said in a statement. – Regina Bengco, Evangeline de Vera, JP Lopez, Gerard Naval, Peter Tabingo and Raymond Africa

It’s Monday, a start of yet another ordinary week. Heavy traffic faced me I was travelling home from school. It’s way too early for rush hour for me to experience this kind of traffic. I asked myself. Is there a VIP making his/her way through the busy streets of the metro? Is there a parade of celebrities? Is there a vehicular accident? What is happening, I have no idea.

The Media Coverage

Many thanks to the bus I took going home for they have a television set on board. The screen says “Live! Exclusive!” It was that I found out that the traffic was because of the hostage taking situation happening at Quirino Grandstand.

The media, or what is commonly known to us as the different news programs on TV and radio, has an important role in information dissemination. People’s sources of up-to-date and detailed news are these different television and radio stations. I personally watch the primetime news program on TV to keep myself in-the-know of the happenings in and out of the country.

We often hear and see the statements “Walang kinikilingan, serbisyong totoo lamang” and “In the service of the Filipino People,” but do we understand them? To me, it seems that these statements are promises coming from the local television stations; their promises of bringing to us complete news stories, no biases, no cuts.

But come to think of it… Is it still reasonable to show unedited footages of the restless driver shouting “wala nang buhay sa loob” or of the hostage taker being shot not once but multiple times? Yes, the members of the media may say that it is their duty to give people the truth and show the people what was really happening. For some, they appreciate the media’s effort of bringing a full blown coverage of the event. For most of us, it is disappointing.

Where do we draw the line? Where do these media people draw the line?

The Media and the World

It’s an issue between the Philippines and the world. We know for a fact that this event reached the world in a matter of hours. Video footages were immediately uploaded online. People started posting messages on their social networking accounts. People tweeted from time to time, about the event updates and their thoughts on the matter at hand. Conversations among networks quickly started and developed. It’s not just the Filipinos who were talking about this issue, it is the whole world.

This is clearly negative publicity for the Philippines, which can be rooted from the full blown media coverage. People had the television and the radio as sources for their conversations online. If only the media had given us partial coverage of the event, the world could not have given rash judgements against the Philippines.

Again, I ask the same questions: Where do we draw the line? Where do these media people draw the line?

Me and the Manila Mayhem

Because of the many emotions I was feeling during the entire duration of the hostage taking crisis, I posted a status message in my Facebook account. It says: “What is the implication of the hostage taking crisis to my OrCom (Organizational Communication) practice?” I’m still a student, and I know that I don’t have a big share of voice in this matter. But given the instance, I found the need to rationalize how my college degree program can actually apply in the situation. Let me enumerate my thoughts:

1. As an Organizational Communication (OrCom) practitioner, I am task to frame messages sent to the public. Framing messages is one of the tasks that we OrCom practitioners do best. I should be able to frame the hostage taking crisis into a message that would not cause any panic to the people.
2. As an OrCom practitioner, I should be able to handle unforeseen events such as crisis situations. OrCom is basically about “creating and exchanging messages in a network of interdependent relationships to cope with environmental uncertainties (Goldhaber, 1991).”
3. As an OrCom practitioner, I ought to know how to deal with the international community. Since the hostage taking crisis involved Hong Kong nationals, I should know how the Chinese would react to the situation. Given so, I would be able to talk to them or face them in an acceptable way.

There were more than 1,400 comments, including mine, on several Yahoo Philippines Fit to Post blog posts related to the failurefest that is the handling of the August 23 hostage crisis at the Quirino Grandstand. Now they’re all gone and instead there are these odd (and apparently unrelated) and completely outdated comments on these posts.

This comment is from  Anger and shock in Hong Kong over Manila siege:

This one is from Manila hostage crisis: Responsible or irresponsible media coverage? :

These comments aren’t related to the articles, they’re dated as two years old which is ridiculous, and the hundreds of comments made by so many people on each of these posts when the articles were still “hot” are gone. What the hell is going on???

I’d hate to think Yahoo Philippines is now censoring comments by deleting them in favor of whoever were at the receiving end of the very critical comments, but if they’ve been hacked into they’re being silent about it. What gives?

What’s going on, Yahoo Philippines?

WE STAND BY YOU

Dear Secretary Robredo,

We stood by you as you instituted programs that reduced poverty incidence, defined and enforced standards through which public services should be delivered, reduced red tape, and provided citizens with an honest and competent government.

We stood by you as you opened all public documents, deliberations, decisions, and contracts to the public.

We stood by you as you provided every citizen with a voice and choice through his participation in planning and implementation of the budget and development of programs.

We stand by you today in solidarity, and in the coming days, as you bring your integrity, competence, and commitment to bring excellence to local governments and the police.

This we do for a most worthy public servant.

Check out the signatories on that statement (among which I am by far the most unimpressive). Big names backing Sec. Robredo, and those are just to name a few.

Related links:

• Biography of Jesse Robredo – Ramon Magsaysay Award for Government Service
• Profile of Jesse Robredo by Raissa Robles
• People Power thrives in Naga City by Alecks P. Pabicon, PCIJ
• Support Mayor Jess Robredo for DILG Secretary Facebook Page
• Statement of Support for DILG Sec. Jesse Robredo by Kaya Natin
• “Ka-Vibes” doesn’t seem to be working by Solita C. Monsod, Former Socio Economic Planning Secretary
• Shame and Blame with a sense of proportion by Tony La Viña, Dean of Ateneo School of Government
• We stand by you, Sec. Robredo by Milwida M. Guevara, Former Undersecretary of Finance, President and CEO of Synergeia Foundation
• Post-mortem to the Manila hostage crisis by Willy Prilles, Naga City Planning and Development Officer
• Jesse Robredo is not “useless” by John Silva, Synergeia Foundation Trustee
• Aquino admits differences with Robredo – abs-cbnNEWS.com
• Noynoy Flunks His First Test by Maria Ressa, Wall Street Journal
• Why we need to support Secretary Jesse Robredo by Kay Malilong Isberto, Philippine Star
• PNoy’s ex-campaign volunteers launch ‘Save Robredo’ campaign – by Inday Espina-Varona, Bayan Mo Ipatrol Mo
• The Robredo Memo by Zoilo P. Dejaresco III, Manila Bulletin
• Cruz: Jueteng protectors out to oust Robredo – CBCP News

by Atty. Tony(APA) Acyatan (Atty. APA – chairman of Acyatan & Co., CPAs-DFK International is president of PICPA in 1990 and ASEAN Federation of CPAs (1998-2000) and Accountancy Hall-of-Famer (2006).

VAGARIES:  Truly – life is filled with uncertainties.  More  so – political life.  In its early days,   the P-Noy Administration was enjoying extreme popularity and support – thanks to the slogan – “kung walang corrupt, walang mahirap”. Then with just over 50 days in office – the hostage crisis in front of the Quirino grandstand – resulting in the death of a dismissed police officer and eight (or nine)  Hong Kong tourists, brought down the government’s initial gains.

Indeed – the failed negotiations and eventual carnage showed on global TV-media, that the RP police bungled their jobs.  That their arms and equipment were outdated and insufficient were seen by everyone via the latest technology.  The lack of training among the rescuers was evident.  The consequent outrage by millions of Chinese, more so from Hong Kong and Macau against the Filipino people was more than deserved!

BLAME, BLAME:  The main pre-occupation now of our government officials is to find likely scapegoats.  Since national interest was involved in the hostage taking, the negotiations should have been handled by those who are in the Top Management of government.  It turned out that Mayor Fred Lim and DILG Secretary Jesse Robredo were both in the area.  Had they been in that forefront, the results could have been positive.

There is a big stake in the on-going investigations.  Chinese tourists are now fearful of their lives and properties – and have decided to skip the Philippines as destination.  Hong Kong however must not over react.  If the Filipinos get unduly hurt – they can hit back.  Filipino tourists going to Hong Kong, Macau and China are probably twenty times more than their groups visiting the Philippines.  A “tit for tat” move will hurt them more!

AIRLINES:  That bloody incident has wrought havoc to the travel industry – especially among the airlines.  The cancellations and reduced bookings will probably last up to mid-November.  Thank God – the Christmas months, aside from being the season of hope and joy – will serve as balm for renewal of friendship, and thus effectively erase the sad memoirs of the hostage drama.

Hong Kong will certainly equally feel the pinch.  It takes “two to tango”. Filipino tourists have other destinations to consider – and the administrative region of “hotheads” will definitely take the loss.  Passenger traffic statistics – from Hong Kong to the Philippines and vice versa will show surely that neighborly disagreements will hurt the colony more than the Philippines.

PRUDENCE:  One of the administration’s key programs is Fiscal Prudence – meaning public expenditures will be optimized.  The move is geared to give higher budgets for infrastructures and social services.  The budgets being prepared for FY 2011 will be analyzed keeping in mind the priority projects of the P-Noy finance group even as fiscal restraints should be encouraged.

Many of the “white elephants” – or the government corporations that are continually losing or those whose functions are duplicative or are now unnecessary – should be phased out.  Savings from salaries and allowances in a restructured system can be shifted to more urgent budgetary requirements.  Certainly, the excessive allowances and perks of directors and consultants must be rationalized towards economy.

WISDOM:  Let the One who holds both the past and future be your Guide for the present.

A short video that we’ve made to show sympathy to the victim of the Manila hostage fiasco.

Saying sorry is being humble, and God exalts a humble man. A humble nation will likewise be exalted!

God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble. – James 4:6 (NIV)

Year Produced : 2010

Post Production: Shotgun Production
Editor: Rocky Ko
Digital Colorist: Rocky Ko

“Patawad”
Words: Ryan Enriquez
Music: Joven Tan

NOTE: For those who wants to share the video, just leave a message here and tell us where you will post the video. We’re glad to give you a copy.

In the search for a scapegoat (Who was in charge?), the primary target appears to be Interior Secretary Jesse Robredo. He is head of the department charged with promoting peace and order, ensuring public safety, and strengthening the capabilities of local government units as well as overseeing the Philippine National Police…

Yes, he should have been in charge, and apparently he was in the command center. And if he had been in charge, things would certainly have turned out different.

Judging from stories from knowledgeable sources, however, he could not have been in charge because, while he is DILG head, he was supposedly ordered to concentrate on the local government side, and to leave the PNP side to Undersecretary Rico Escalona Puno. In which case, Puno, the first undersecretary appointed by P-Noy, should be the one debriefed.

Who is Puno? Googling reveals that until he burst forth as undersecretary, there is nothing on him. His appointment was accompanied by the info that he was a consultant of then Tarlac Rep. Noynoy Aquino and also served him in the Senate, in charge of public order and safety, economic affairs and local government, and liaising with PNP and the Armed Forces. He was in the Liberal Party’s National Campaign Committee. The basis of their friendship, aside from a common province, is apparently that both are gun enthusiasts. Ka-Vibes trumping competence, not to mention integrity, anytime. (“Ka-Vibes” doesn’t seem to be working by Prof. Winnie Monsod)

In my view, aside from fundamental police reforms, we need to make sure that Secretary Robredo, an award winning mayor with nearly 20 years of experience working on local peace and order, has unencumbered powers over the police at the national level. The line of command should be clear from the President downwards to Robredo to the top police officials to the rank and file. If it is true, as reported by other columnists (not in this paper) that Robredo was not given supervision of the police when he was appointed, that needs to be changed right away. We should remember what happened in the Department of Agriculture in the last administration when an Undersecretary was able to bypass his principal and got instructions straight from the President. (Shame and Blame with a sense of proportion by Dean Tony La Viña)

President Aquino himself has just confirmed what the “knowledgeable sources” have been saying all along:

…Interior Secretary Jesse Robredo is not directly in control of the Philippine National Police… The President said it is DILG Undersecretary for Peace and Order Rico Puno who is “more directly in charge of police” since he had delegated that task to Robredo’s subordinate… Puno and not Robredo therefore was in charge of the police when the hostage situation was happening, Aquino said. (Journal Online: Robredo cleared by Tess Bedico)

Under this Aquino administration, the PNP was not placed under Jesse Robredo, but under DILG Undersecretary Rico Puno who is said to be a proxy of the President.

Puno was appointed almost a month before Robredo was himself appointed. The PNP, being taken out of Robredo’s control, was supposedly a condition for him to make the appointment of Robredo, who is a member of the Liberal Party under the Samar group. This is said to be why Robredo didn’t start managing the crisis till much later.

Robredo on Tuesday told ABS-CBN how he really did not have a role in the crisis management.

“I was not in the loop. Hindi ko alam kung ano ang nangyayari sa mga pag-uusap nila. It was treated like an ordinary police situation,” he said. (ABS-CBN News: ‘Presidential leadership lacking during hostage crisis’ by RG Cruz)

“Knowledgeable sources” have further said that Sec. Robredo’s appointment is temporary (he is only “Acting Secretary“) and that President Aquino intends to eventually replace him with Usec. Puno. They say Sec. Robredo was only given the post because of public clamor for his appointment. If the stories are true, I question the president’s judgment for not recognizing what a valuable asset he has in Sec. Robredo.

Why the president would favor Puno over Robredo is mind-boggling, given the latter’s track record and the former’s lack thereof. Palace insiders during former President Cory Aquino’s administration have observed that the Aquinos appear to value personal ties and loyalty over intelligence and competence. So much for all the “hope” and “change” rhetoric that’s been shoved down our throats. So far it sounds like the same old traditional politics.

I’m nobody, possessing none of the stature of Sec. Robredo’s staunchest defenders. But I have for years followed closely his impressive career and have had the privilege of working in an organization to which he belongs. For whatever it’s worth, I have nothing but the deepest admiration, utmost respect and unwavering support for him.

The communities Sec. Robredo has transformed and the people he has inspired know his true worth, even if the president he serves doesn’t.

Is our nation defined by blunders?

The Philippine Bus and Miss Universe
Daniel Wagner
The Huffington Post
2010

Social media sites are abuzz with opinions lately, thanks to our country. The tragic bus hostage. The “botched” Miss Universe effort. And a Huffington Post article discussing why both incidents reflect the hopelessness of the Filipinos as a people. Much judgment has been passed recently on our national identity based on these instances. He’s right, many say, agreeing to Daniel Wagner’s August 25 article, he’s just being objective, Filipinos make too many excuses. Others oppose this judgment, saying we’re actually hopeful. Either way, there is a tendency to define Filipinos with these blunders.

It is tempting in particular to dismiss Wagner’s article as mere American arrogance. Filipinos, after all, are no stranger to being the object of ridicule and disdain, enduring centuries of being called indio, little brown brother, monkey. However, unlike Wagner, we choose not to generalize—there are, after all, Americans who are wont to exploit and look down on other nationalities, and there are those who don’t, and perhaps Wagner deserves the benefit of the daw. Moreover, the sheer number of fellow Filipinos sharing and agreeing with Wagner’s article is worrisome, so perhaps it would be wiser to engage the points Wagner makes.

Global Events, Local Judgment

Wagner, a “political risk consultant,” begins with a conclusion on the nation’s future based on the Quirino grandstand incident and Venus Raj’s pageant performance. “The result of actions like this are unfortunately consistent with the expectations many people have of performance in other areas,” he says. “What does this say about the country’s future? Nothing good.”

He then uses both incidents as a springboard for discussing Philippine politics and culture:

Politically, the Philippines has descended into an ongoing competition between political dynasties: Marcos, Arroyo, and yes, Aquino. What I don’t understand is, why do Filipinos continue to vote them in, election after election? Is it because of a lack of viable alternatives? No. Is it because of political apathy? Possibly. Or is it because they have no expectations that anything will change, regardless of who is in power? Definitely.

The country has “descended” into a war of the rich families, Wagner argues. But has it ever been otherwise? In a nation with a long history of colonialism, the present situation is merely reflective of its subjugated past. The Philippines has long been a global battlefield where conquistadors and shrewd businessmen laid claim to everything as far as their eyes could see.

The Quirino grandstand hostage-taking incident: an imported tourist bus becomes "the Philippine bus," a national embarrassment. (Inquirer photo)

Why do Filipinos keep on handing them political power, Wagner asks, as if the ultimate gift of American “benevolent assimilation,” democracy, is an infallible system. Sure, people can vote, but do they really have a choice? In the first place, the election system in the Philippines is crafted in such a way that only the insanely rich—those who can afford to bankroll months of campaigning throughout the archipelago—can clinch top posts in government. The elite class, with its monopoly in both political and economic spheres, has pretty much ensured its grip on power. Centuries of culture and (mis-)education, as a factor of the ruling ideology, further cement this stranglehold. Does Wagner—or any Filipino, for that matter—really expect things to change by a simple vote?

The difference here is, many of the countries experiencing political instability and economic dislocation don’t have the things the Philippines has: agricultural self-sufficiency, a high literacy rate, and a largely homogeneous population.

How can we accept judgment as a nation from this man, who, according to a BusinessWorld profile, has 15 years of experience working with global (and neoliberal) groups like AIG, the Asian Development Bank, GE, and the World Bank, who has the gall to act as a connoisseur on the Philippines based on four years of living here, most probably in gentrified urban spaces and perhaps the occasional exoticised rural locale?

"Stupid President": President Noynoy Aquino's less-than-contrite visage is the object of hate not just of landless peasants, but of outraged Hong Kong and Filipino citizens alike.

The Philippine population, for example, with hundreds of languages and ethnic groups scattered over seven thousand islands, each with its particular experience of colonialism and migration, is not “homogeneous.” And given the sorry state of agriculture in our country, where farmers remain landless, agricultural technologies remain undeveloped and wealthy families (like that of President Benigno Aquino III) maintain control of haciendas (like Luisita), it is also presumptuous to say that we are “agriculturally sufficient.” Even rice, the staple food of Filipinos, is prone to monopoly manipulation, as seen in the “rice crisis” a few years back.

In fairness to Wagner, a tamer and more sober version of his article appears in the BusinessWorld. Citing the country’s economic dependence on OFW remittances and multinational outsourcing industries, he concludes that “[t]he country remains chronically challenged by its inability to create a sustainable economic foundation, a meaningful tax base, and a truly diversified source of revenue.” In short, the Philippines remains economically unstable because of its export-dependent, import-oriented tendencies, which stunts national industrialization in favor of allowing foreign multinational monopolies.

Regardless of the presumptuous tone (despite his outsider position), it is important to recognize two key points that Wagner makes. First, he agrees that this dominance of dynasties, the rule of the rich, is a main factor in the nation’s stunted development. Second, his article demonstrates that even an American outsider can see, whether consciously or not, that at the heart of our issues is imperialism.

The Filipina as Candidate

It is odd how we make such a big deal out of the Miss Universe pageant. Surely, any nation would hate for their psyche and culture to be judged based solely on their country’s performance in the pageant. The funny thing is that people, Facebookers and “political risk consultants” like Wagner alike, are really into this spectacle of “universal” femininity, the pageantry of national “representation,” the fantasy of global competition with the illusion of an even playing field. Not to downplay the hard work of Filipinas like Venus Raj, but we all know it’s all an act, and the “national glory” it brings is just as fake, temporary and flimsy as the contestants’ eyelashes.

Why are we allowing our national identity to be judged on how we perform in a Donald Trump franchise?

Venus Raj (left) and the pageant blunder; Judilyn Oliveros (right) and the political blunder.

The real Filipinas to emulate are the health workers who walk stiletto-less with the countryside as their stage. The sad thing is that three days before Venus Raj wowed judges in the Miss Universe preliminaries, Morong courts junked the petition to free Judilyn Oliveros, a Morong 43 detainee, so she can take care of the child she bore under detention. While we were screaming about who made it to the top 15, we were silent about those who were among the Morong 43. While our eyes were glued to Venus Raj pondering her big mistake, Filipinas like Judilyn were contending with other bigger “mistakes”: being a woman in a nation where to be a rural health worker is tantamount to being a threat to national security.

Perhaps it’s easier to watch a Filipina strutting around, shedding sheer, silvery scarves, instead of watching one in a wheelchair, a Filipina who cannot even carry their own newborn because of the silvery steel handcuffs she cannot shed as easily.

Venus is judged based on how well she articulates universalized virtues, how well she negotiates between strong-careerist-achiever and fragile-gentle-beautiful-mother—all hallmarks of the woman’s role in a capitalist-feudal world. Judilyn is a casualty of Oplan Bantay Laya, the US-devised, Philippine-adopted counterinsurgency strategy. Both women are targets of an imperialist agenda deeply ingrained in our culture, manifesting as both humanitarianism (Venus, corporate social responsibility) and inhumanity (Judilyn, fascism).

Wagner raises a storm of questions and judgment based on our Miss Universe appearance, but that’s just the struggle of one Filipina among millions. To respond to such, it is necessary to broaden the discussion on context—especially if our “national identity” is in question.

There are Filipinos who express embarrassment when state forces cause the death of eight foreigners, but remain mum when the same forces are involved in the harassment and deaths of hundreds of political dissenters and activists. There are Filipinos who are quick to express disappointment when a President fails to act somber and apologetic on a television interview, but are not outraged by his and his family’s continued usurpation of land and suppression of genuine agrarian reform. There are Filipinos who anchor the nation’s glory on beauty queens in the global spotlight, rather than ordinary Filipinas who work tirelessly without seeking media attention. What we react to, what we look at, what embarrasses us, what we cheer for. These speak volumes about who we are, how we got here and why it remains to be so.

We know our nation’s big mistakes. The major major question is, what do we do to make it right? That is for each one of us, and not a foreign commentator, to decide.#

The infamous answer to the even more infamous question.

Venus Raj breezes though questions like a true-blue Miss Gay gandidate.
Half-Pinay, reprezent!

The infamous reaction of the Half-Pinays that Venus Raj reprezents.

How and why the incident happened has been dissected by many. But what is often lost in the cacophony of accusations and mea culpas is that blaming and shaming, while they have a place in society, should not be taken too far. The ongoing investigation has to be thorough but, if it is to result in accountability and more importantly in reform and improvement, it must not be turned into a witch hunt that can only embitter, paralyze, and divide a people. We must respond to this incident with the right sense of proportion.

Filipinos have this habit of over-reacting due to our preconceived notions and unfortunately often regardless of the evidence. Our disillusionment with the Arroyo , Estrada and yes Marcos governments makes us overlook or dismiss their positive contributions to Philippine development, perceiving everything they did through a black and white lens. More recently, we saw the hostile reaction to Dean Marvic Leonen’s statement, delivered as the chief negotiator of the Philippines to the Moro Islamic Liberation Front, that constitutional change might be an option to achieve peace in Mindanao. In this context, the calls for the resignation of officials right up to Interior and Local Government Secretary Jesse Robredo are expected. In the case of Robredo, such calls are absurd without any evidence that he made serious errors of judgment during the crisis. In the same way, it is foolish to hold President Aquino or, for that matter, the past administration responsible for what happened. The problems of our police force precede the Aquino and Arroyo administrations. Unless we recognize this fact, our diagnosis of these problems, which should be evidence-based and not be guided by our understandably raw feelings, will be seriously flawed and the problems will remain unsolved.

Apologies are in order for what happened in that tourist bus last week. These gestures of humility, intended to heal wounds, are particularly important for those directly in contact with the peoples of Hong Kong and China, such as our overseas workers, tourism officials and industry, and diplomats. But the country loses its sense of proportion when it expects all its citizens to feel equally guilty or ashamed.

We should also remind ourselves that genuine atonement is not solely about apologies, laying blame, or feeling shame. Apologies without real, tangible, on the ground change are empty words that drive a wedge between apologizer and the hurt one. When all people feel is blame and shame for their mistakes, they become resentful, embittered, suspicious and hostile, making meaningful reform impossible. This is also why it is imperative that we take immediate and constructive steps so that this incident is not repeated.

In my view, aside from fundamental police reforms, we need to make sure that Secretary Robredo, an award winning mayor with nearly 20 years of experience working on local peace and order, has unencumbered powers over the police at the national level. The line of command should be clear from the President downwards to Robredo to the top police officials to the rank and file. If it is true, as reported by other columnists (not in this paper) that Robredo was not given supervision of the police when he was appointed, that needs to be changed right away. We should remember what happened in the Department of Agriculture in the last administration when an Undersecretary was able to bypass his principal and got instructions straight from the President.

The President should also seriously look at his own internal and communication operations so that the way the Palace responded – in my view, a tragedy of errors – never happens again. Foremost is making sure the President has close-in advisers with extensive and senior, including international, governance experience so he is well advised all the time and regardless of type of crisis. He must also make the tough decision of who should singularly head his communications department and replace the current arrangement which is likely to bring him and the country more grief in the future. All professionals will tell the President that communications by committee never works. Unfortunately, this crisis is above all about communications and the Palace is failing absolutely in this challenge.

For the record, in spite of my dissatisfaction with what happened, my optimism for the future of an Aquino-led country remains unchanged. A sense of proportion also means that one sees that a single incident does not make a pattern and should not make us lose hope for our country.

This week, we celebrate National Heroes Day, and to dwell on the mistakes of the past is not what this day is all about. There is a time to kill and a time to heal, a time to tear and a time to mend, the Book of Ecclesiastes says. Today is therefore a good moment to remember that there are heroes among us.

Despite the mistakes and omissions of the Manila police force, among them surely are honest men and women who answered the call, and put their lives on the line, even while ill-equipped, in the middle of confusion, and against one of their own. Another hero is Venus Raj, our representative to the Miss Universe 2010 pageant. Her less than perfect answer should not overshadow her humble roots, the virtues she brought to the stage, or the odds against her. She should make us proud, not ashamed. This week is also a time to remember present day heroes, not only in the Philippines but in Asia with the traditional awarding ceremony of the Ramon Magsaysay awardees. Let us celebrate particularly the two Filipino science teachers who are among this year’s awardees.

Finally, there are our fellow Filipinos in Hong Kong who are in the front lines of this crisis. I know many of them personally and they have communicated to me through text, email, Facebook and Twitter how affected they are by what happened. Let us salute them for their sacrifice, courage and dignity – and give them whatever support they need to overcome this. They are truly our heroes and we owe this to them.

Overcoming the fog of confusion, today and in the weeks to come, why don’t we surprise ourselves and find our heroes from both unlikely and ordinary of sources? For a start, let’s truly get to the bottom of this incident and make the changes necessary so that never, never again do we have to do so much blaming and shaming. That to me is doing things with a good sense of proportion.

Email: Tonylavs@gmail.com Facebook: Tonylavs@gmail.com Twitter: tonylavs

This article is a slightly edited version of Dean La Viña’s column “Eagle Eyes” in the Manila Standard Today published on August 31, 2010.

Although Jackie Chan is a superstar, he gives his thoughts on the Manila hostage crisis.

Unlike those Filipinos who are no longer Filipinos, the guy in the video gives his condolences.

Even though the guy is from other country, he gives his condolences.

The dust of the hostage aftermath has not yet completely settled down but the bits and pieces of facts are beginning to paint a clearer picture of what transpired that day. It was all premeditated by Mendoza.

The now infamous Mendoza travelled early morning that day from Tanauan, Batangas to Manila which was around 3 hours ride. Carrying with him were weapons, blank placards and pen. The drama started 9 ‘o’ clock in the morning when the hostage-taker boarded his pre-selected ride to Libingan ng mga Bayani (but opted to hold his mission in Quirino Grandstand). He chose a tourist bus to take him where he intended to go. And as the world now knows, the tragedy ended nine lives, including that of Mendoza’s and probably also ended Filipinos’ relations with Hong Kong nationals.

The underdog has no good excuse for what he has done especially now that everyone knows it was all in his plan. Mendoza has been alluded to be someone who was honourable to his work and has been a victim of injustice in our social system when he was mistakenly charged for something that he claims he has nothing to do with. As Filipinos try to analyze what has led this upstanding citizen to commit drastic measures to gain back his lost compensation, I am still not convinced that he was that good of a citizen, much more a former man of law.

Some of those directly involved in the hostage-taking states that Mendoza was asking around a million Pesos to finally compensate his lost pension. Was it all about money? Was it his aspiration all along? I’m quite certain it wasn’t to clear up his name because to take a number of lives hostage wouldn’t do him any good on that aspect.

How many times have people, not only Filipinos, taken lives in their own hands just for money? Countless of times. In this country alone, crime rates are mostly because of financial reasons to be able to provide the needs that most of our fellowmen lacks – even the basic ones. My problem with Mendoza was that he had caused all this tragedy because of pride and probably, money. It was not because he was already dying of hunger.

If he wanted to get a message across, he could have surrendered and not taken any life at all. After surrendering, media will do its job to peel everything on its way to get to the core of things – a review of his misjudged case. I think he already sensed it when he saw the crowd and media coverage he was getting. He already knew he got our full attention. He was being interviewed until almost at the end of his shift as a hostage-taker.

Why did he chosoe a group of tourist to vent out his anger over the government? The tourists can do nothing about his problems. They probably didn’t understand even when he explained himself to them. The twenty-five passengers of that bus was looking forward to a relaxing day travelling all over Manila. It was very unfortunate for them that they were chosen to sacrifice their lives for something they don’t understand. It has been an unspoken rule throughout the world that tourists are not to be harmed in the country they are visiting. In return, they are not supposed cause mischief in the country they are visiting.

When real tourists take interest to visit the Philippines, it is a big deal. For the past decades, “tourists” are mostly military men, men who condone prostitution in the country, foreigners who have business interest in the country, international social workers and so on. It is only recently when people come here to enjoy themselves with what the country has to offer without the need to damage our self-respect.

I am personally fond of visiting Hong Kong and has been there thrice or four times now. I have enjoyed all of those trips even if the bus tours they offer go to almost the same places each time. Even if Filipinos work there as housemaids or equally undignified (for some), it is rare that citizens of Hong Kong will treat tourists badly.

After the tragedy in the Hong Thai Travel bus transpired, I’m in no disposition to travel anywhere in Asia. There is both shame and fear that once they knew I was Filipino, they would probably give me a hard time. How can a Filipino go around Hong Kong or China when we have clearly done harm in a number of their citizens? We can all sense their loathing over Filipinos after what happened. Hopefully, they would come to know that we, ourselves, are embarrassed by what happened. And even if the people directly involved in the hostage-taking last August 23, 2010 are trying not to own up to their mistakes, the nation feels truly sorry for what has happened.

I was watching the events too as it unfolds, we were monitoring everything on the television from 10:30 AM until its completion at around 8:30 PM on August 23, 2010.

One of our officemate told us to open the TV because there was a hostage taking going on. And so we did, honestly, none of us expected the ordeal to last that long and we really thought it would be resolved peacefully like with the previous ones or at the very least it would be resolved with the perpetrator dead or taken into custody and there would be no lost of lives among the victims. Let us admit that this has happened before and so far we came out of it decidedly on top. Besides, things look quite bright as the hostage-taker, Police Senior Inspector Mendoza started freeing hostages. By 12 noon of that day he had already freed 9 hostages, so things really looked on the up and up. We were actually saying that he really didn’t intend to kill anyone and that he just wanted to be heard. The sympathy was really all on him, and the blame was placed on the OMBUDSMAN.

By mid afternoon his brother Senior Police Officer 4 Gregorio Mendoza arrived on the scene and tried to approach the bus with his gun tucked on his belt. The police took him aside, confiscated his gun and then he proceeded to cooperate with the police on the scene. By 5:00 PM food was again brought to the bus for the remaining hostages. At that time we all went home and monitored what was going from home. I was watching the scenes with my sister, who was a psychologists and I remember her saying things are starting to look bleat. I told her that Captain Mendoza really didn’t intend to kill anyone, and she told me the negotiations had been going on for far too long. She also said that at this point the hostage taker would be getting weary and irritable. I didn’t believe her.

Then we saw the negotiators approach the bus once more together with the brother of the hostage-taker, they talked for sometime and then we saw the negotiators started to walk away from the bus with the brother of Capt. Mendoza. Then we saw a single shot erupted from one of the windows of the bus, the negotiators looked back once and seemingly calm continued to walk away. After that the next scene we saw was Capt. Mendoza’s brother being arrested, his relatives were surrounding him, shouting and crying, refusing to let him go. At this point, the situation became tense. Watching from the safety of our home was no comfort as the gravity of what was happening hit you right in the face. The police knew that the bus in which the hostage taker was in had a TV and that he can see everything as it was being broadcast live on national TV. SPO4 Gregorio Mendoza was forcibly taken in custody by the police and the thing we heard were shots being fired from inside the bus. Then the bus started to move and shots were fired to disable the tires so it can’t go anywhere.  The camera fanned out and we saw the driver of the bus jumped from one of the windows and ran towards the police line.  The commentator on the TV said that the driver was saying that everyone was already dead inside the bus.

Then the SWAT team came towards the bus, obviously ill-equipped and yet not at all lacking in courage. They tried to enter the bus through the windows and the door but hostage taker kept firing. At this point the tension was so high even within the safety of our living room, probably due to the distance of the media from the bus we cannot hear anything but the exchange of gun shots. It seemed that the bus was eerily quiet; it truly seemed that what the driver said was true. But still the SWAT team moved cautiously, they didn’t storm the bus. To us at the time it seemed incompetent that they should move so slow, but upon further thinking, I realized they were trying to protect themselves and they didn’t rain bullets on the bus hoping that somehow some of the victims were still alive.

It almost feels like it took forever for the whole scene to end. There were intermittent gun shots being fired, tear gases were thrown inside the bus and the final, like a coup d’ gras’ one of the snipers got a shot and took it. Police Senior Inspector Mendoza was shot in the head, blowing his brains out and ended the ordeal. For the longest time, nothing happened the SWAT had difficulty entering the bus – they didn’t have gas masks – and then finally one by one the hostages were taken out from the bus. Some remarkably were still alive! I remember breaking down with my sister as we found out that some of the hostages were alive.

All this time we were wondering where were the high ranking officials? Who was in charge? And why was the MPD left on their own? I mean, if a high ranking Philippine National Police official or a high ranking government official was on the scene why aren’t they coming out. Honestly, it would have given both the hostage taker and the public a sense of reassurance that things are being done and that they’re really taking the matter seriously. There was an earlier announcement that the President was monitoring the events so why didn’t he come out to reassure the nation that he was on top of the situation? Where was he when HK Chief Executive Tsang wanted to talk to him? If it were true that he was not informed about the call from Chief Executive Tsang, then they should sack the personnel who failed to inform him about a very important call which could have somehow eased the anguish of the Chinese officials. Pnoy needs a lesson on diplomacy and international relations.

As for the police, of the SWAT unit that assaulted the bus I really cannot say much except that I admire their courage. Really I cannot blame those who approached the bus because they were little more than pawns in a chess game. They were simply following orders by someone higher. This is something that the public must understand – that as much as the police are thinking individuals they are also soldiers. The PNP is a paramilitary organization; it is civilian in nature and military in practice. They are less than soldiers and yet not complete civilian; they are still bound to their commander’s orders and to refuse would be deemed as insubordination. Maybe the public will not, and maybe even the courts will not but their commanding officers and the rest of the organization will see it that way.

The police had already admitted they made several lapses in judgment during the incident, lapses that may have caused 8 people their lives, but at least they have owned up to their fault. As for the government officials, when are they going to admit to their faults. This is not solely the police’s faults, the government officials have some very big mistakes to own up too as well. Even if the people in power try to deny it the Philippines is still a presidential form of government, where the people including all agencies within its scope look up for guidance and direction from the president of the country. Let us admit that in terms of government we are still not as mature as the US, the people still expect the president to oversee all things – like a father or a mother for that matter. They need to see someone running the show and that’s how they feel reassured. We have a very different culture from the US and our officials should not use that excuse of how the government should run in order to save face for their lack of control and supervision on the incident.

I admit as some point we need to move forward and move towards where the different units of the government work independently but towards a common goal. But that is not yet in place and at times like these someone needs to take control especially as it was quite obvious during the incident that no one except for the hostage taker was in control. In my personal opinion and I am not imposing this on anyone, but for me, I believe that Pnoy should really reconsider the people he had appointed into the different areas of the government, because honestly they’re not being effective. Imagine Secretary of the Interior and Local Government saying during the Senate inquiry that this was the problem that they inherited from the previous administration, this was the sort of police force they inherited? Wow! Well, this problem came up during their time therefore it is their problem – not the previous administration! They should have been able to solve this, they have all the sources to do so but instead they decided to focus on finger pointing and narrowing down their view on the lack of training and equipment of the police. But there were so many other things they could have done, and should have done.

In conclusion, I would like to appeal first to our Chinese neighbors, please forgive us for the lapses made by our government officials. But also please keep in mind that not all Filipinos are bad, that we have worked together for many years and no one wanted this thing to happen. We are sorry that your people got dragged into our problems but please also know that we are as outraged about what happened as you are. Please do not take your anger on the Filipinos working for and with you, they have nothing to do with this incident except that we were born Filipinos and that was something they cannot help.

And to my fellow Filipinos, please stop the finger pointing and demoralizing our race further. Isn’t enough that the world also thinks so low of us that we have to join them in lashing out at our own? Instead, of pointing a finger think what you can do as an individual to improve our lot, think what you can do for your people instead of saving face and pointing at others.

P-Noy should have ordered a news black-out in the early part of the hostage situation. There are two risks involved: Risking media relationship or risking the lives of the hostages and country’s interests (economy, tourism, international ties, OFWs…). The latter is an extreme risk.

Although the news black-out may be against the essence of democracy (Press freedom), he will just have to deal with the local media relations after. But by choosing this option, there would have been more chances for the hostages to live, and he would have protected the country’s interest.

But because he is still new in office, he may not be aware of the capabilities of the people working around him- from his advisers to the PNP, who did not expect that the hostage situation would end tragically. No one expected that the crisis management committee would fail. The mistake of the crisis manager was that he did not consider a back-up in case plan A and B failed. They hoped that it will be a happy-ending wherein the Philippines will be applauded for its success in the handling of the hostage-taking.

P-Noy chose a higher risk – by not ordering a news black-out, he risked human lives and the country’s economy. By showing the PNP’s incompetence and questionable security in a live coverage worldwide, international investors would now think twice on investing in our country.

There was no risk and crisis communication specialist who advised P-Noy on a news black-out. According to news report, he had a meeting at Emerald Restaurant with Police Director Leocadio Santiago, Mayor Alfredo Lim and his media advisers. However none of his media advisers are communication specialists- Ricky Carandang, excelled in news reporting, Manuel Roxas excelled in Political Analysis, and Edwin Lacierda,  still needs to train more in handling the media- therefore, the President’s men were incapable of deciding on the communication aspects.

If there was an order on a news blackout, the hostages would have lived, P-Noy’s press conference would have been unnecessary. P-Noy will not be heavily criticized internationally for crisis management incompetence or praised if handled successfully . He would not risk our country’s interest. He will just have to deal with media ties after. It would have been a better ending  for our country.

The first heard of it through my sister as I saw a picture posted in her Facebook account. I didn’t even think at first that it was in Manila. That’s when I started to google it.  There wasn’t much info in the net yet early in the morning; just a few pictures. Then it was full blast on TV.

Nakakahiya lang panoodin yung mga SWAT (Sulong.Wait.Atras.Tago as P said) kasi parang hindi naman nila alam ang ginagawa nila. Ilang beses nila inattempt basagin yung glass sa pintuan pero ilang beses din naitapon sa loob ng bus yung mason!

I guess it was also because of fear. Na biglang barilin sila ni Mendoza.

But, I just couldn’t help but feel ashamed. They lack training. Resources. Gas masks nalang wala pa.

They’re supposed to be a team of special individuals, but they showed nothing special during the rescue operation.

Will we ever learn? We should.

a) Suggest that he route his call through the Department of Foreign Affairs, as protocol demands.

b) Tell him the President is not accessible at the moment but will get back to him as soon as he is reached.

c) Tell him the line is not clear, and the President will call him back on another line immediately.

The first option has to be the pits. There is a crisis going on, and if the caller is who he says he is, he is understandably trying to cut through red tape. The aide choosing this alternative should be fired immediately, because either he has, without any basis, come to the conclusion that the caller is a fraud and is palming him off, thus putting his principal and the country in hot water if the caller is authentic; or he is inept and cannot exercise initiative in unusual situations, hiding behind bureaucratic procedures instead. The President needs this aide like he needs a hole in the head.

The second option is better than the first, but still unacceptable. It is better because the aide at least has kept his mind open about the authenticity of the caller, and is covering all bases, because if the caller is a fraud, it will be discovered immediately when the chief executive’s office is called. But it will leave a bad impression (if authentic) of inefficiency in the seat of power. In this day of communications technology, how can a President not be immediately accessible to his office?

The third alternative covers all the bases, and of course is the best choice. If it was indeed Tsang who called, he would be gratified at the immediate response. And if the original caller was fraudulent, the President’s call will be interpreted by Tsang as a thoughtful and sincere initiative to assure him that all is being done to ensure the hostages’ safety, and that he will be updated regularly by whoever is in charge of the negotiations.

From what I read in the papers, option one was chosen, or a truly fumbled variant of it: the caller was told that the Department of Foreign Affairs would call back; but the DFA was told to await the call from Hong Kong. Which is why Tsang waited for a return call in vain, even as DFA was waiting for the Hong Kong call—until the tragedy occurred. No wonder Tsang was hopping mad, and no wonder his constituents were angry. (Which does not excuse their stupid retaliatory actions.)

What is not clear is whether the President was apprised of the Tsang call (whether real or fraudulent). If he was not, then again, heads should roll. If he was, it is legitimate to ask why he did not call Tsang (regardless of the original call’s authenticity). There was nothing to lose, and everything to gain, by calling his counterpart to convey his assurances. Obviously the President’s head cannot roll—not this early in the game anyway—but one has to wonder about the quality of the advise he is receiving, which means the quality of his close-in aides. Kaklase Inc. or Ka-Vibes (a.k.a. Ka-rancho, ka-billiards, ka-yosi) does not seem to be working out too well. Now may be a good time to reexamine this criterion for selection.

In the search for a scapegoat (Who was in charge?), the primary target appears to be Interior Secretary Jesse Robredo. He is head of the department charged with promoting peace and order, ensuring public safety, and strengthening the capabilities of local government units as well as overseeing the Philippine National Police. I have made no secret that I am impressed with his credentials and his performance as a local government executive, although I have not even had the opportunity to congratulate him or talk to him since his appointment. And there is no reason to change my mind.

Yes, he should have been in charge, and apparently he was in the command center. And if he had been in charge, things would certainly have turned out different.

Judging from stories from knowledgeable sources, however, he could not have been in charge because, while he is DILG head, he was supposedly ordered to concentrate on the local government side, and to leave the PNP side to Undersecretary Rico Escalona Puno. In which case, Puno, the first undersecretary appointed by P-Noy, should be the one debriefed.

Who is Puno? Googling reveals that until he burst forth as undersecretary, there is nothing on him. His appointment was accompanied by the info that he was a consultant of then Tarlac Rep. Noynoy Aquino and also served him in the Senate, in charge of public order and safety, economic affairs and local government, and liaising with PNP and the Armed Forces. He was in the Liberal Party’s National Campaign Committee. The basis of their friendship, aside from a common province, is apparently that both are gun enthusiasts. Ka-Vibes trumping competence, not to mention integrity, anytime.

Actually, it seemed that everything was going well until the Gregorio Mendoza situation, when the laxity of the police with respect to broadcast (TV) media, combined with the latter’s incredible irresponsibility, resulted in that awful tragedy and brought everybody else’s shortcomings to light.

Unless all involved learn from this experience, we are bound to repeat our mistakes.

This article appeared in Prof. Monsod’s column “Get Real” in the Philippine Daily Inquirer published on August 28, 2010.