WITH the midterm elections now on, was the implementation by the police of the search warrants on the farmers in Negros Oriental, which resulted in the death of 14 persons, done at the wrong time?
While the issue may be limited and considered only as police work, this could be used against the candidates for the administration in this midterm polls. The widows and orphans of the dead 14 men have contradicted the police version as told to the media, and the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) will conduct an investigation.
The police claimed that those killed were supporters of the New People’s Army (NPA) and had fought it out with the policemen serving the search warrant. Police Brig. Gen. Debold Sinas, PRO 7 director, denied he authorized the killing. The 14 men allegedly kept unlicensed firearms. But the NPA denied that those killed were its members.
General Sinas said the killings could only be described as a massacre if these were done in one place. The police implemented “Oplan Sauron” in Canlaon City where eight were killed, four in Manjuyod and two in Santa Catalina, all in Negros Oriental. Aside from being supporters of the NPA, Sinas said those killed were tasked to monitor police officers in the rebels’ kill list.
This police operation that left 14 families mourning may not directly affect some of the administration’s candidates, but it could lessen the people’s trust in them, especially those seeking reelection under the party of the present leadership. Students from the University of the Philippines, Cebu have staged a rally to protest the killing of the farmers.
In the same fashion that cases filed against the candidates seeking an elective post on May 13 could backfire on the person who filed the charges, especially if the complainant is also a candidate. It’s kind of funny, but it’s really happening that during election season, cases like an epidemic of all sorts are filed against candidates before the Ombudsman.
While the filing of cases before the Courts or Ombudsman against candidates, particularly those seeking reelections, may have factual or legal basis, these could be considered, if not misunderstood, by the voters and supporters as another form of harassment because of the timing.
I can’t remember (pardon the age) exactly who the Ombudsman was then who issued a memorandum to the deputy ombudsman not to entertain cases filed against the candidates during the election period. The order was to put away the Ombudsman’s office from being used as a tool to annoy or intimidate the candidates.
Any case or cases that may be filed against any of the candidates where the evidence of corruption is apparent should have been filed long before the election period started, so that the complainant could not be accused of politicking. But, you know, filing of cases against candidates in the election period has become a trend such that many already don’t believe this kind of gimmick.
What the complainant may not have understood is that if the case filed won’t succeed or it’s dismissed for lack of evidence, the person unfairly charged could get back at him/her for damages, and this could turn into ugly events and further clog case dockets in our already understaffed courts.