TWO weeks after the Mamasapano massacre on Jan. 25, 2015, then president Aquino “accepted responsibility” for the tragedy. He was the father of the nation, he said, and the 44 slain police officers were his children.
The problem then, which would still trouble us now, since President Duterte would want to reopen the issue, is this: PNoy didn’t, and no other authority at the time did, define meaning and scope of the responsibility he accepted.
‘Responsibility’
Apparently, from what he said after the incident and his answer to the complaint of families of the Mamasapano victims, responsibility didn’t include being liable for the crime of reckless imprudence resulting in multiple deaths.
The incident would haunt him until his last breath but he wouldn’t admit being a criminal or accept civil liability for it. He’d be troubled all the way to his death bed but he’d resist any form of punishment. Responsibility without the pain of penalty.
Proximate cause
The investigative bodies didn’t think he was liable, PNoy said in his answer/ Only SAF commander Getulio Napeñas and former PNP chief Allan Purisima, so far, were to be charged.
The truth commission would’ve to get evidence that PNoy’s acts were “proximate cause” of the deaths. He contends he was merely briefed, didn’t give direct and specific orders, and didn’t take part in planning, approving and executing the operation to arrest two terrorists in rebel land.
The new probe might uncover interesting sidelights, such as whether it was a CIA operation and where the reward money went, but not anything crucial to send PNoy to jail.
Not enough
More probably, it would just affirm what many people have suspected: PNoy made poor judgment in relying on Napeñas and Purisima, for which the nation punished Aquino by rejecting his anointed would-be successor and his legacy of “matuwid-na-daan.”
PNoy’s name would be raked in coals again in the new inquiry. But there might not be enough lawful basis to lock him up.