THE ombudsman filed yesterday the information before the Sandiganbayan against former president Noynoy Aquino for the 2015 Mamasapano massacre in which 44 Special Action Force (SAF) troops were killed and 15 others wounded.
But here’s what may seem not right about the charges. Aquino and two others -- former PNP chief Alan Purisima and former SAF commander Getulio Napeñas -- are indicted not for the deaths and injuries. They’re for usurpation of functions and corruption, related to the planning and operation, not to death and injuries of people in that massacre.
Cause, effect
Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales explained in her earlier resolution why Aquino and the co-accused could not be charged with reckless imprudence resulting in multiple homicides and injuries.
“Proximate cause” to the deaths and injuries was the gunfire, the act of hostile forces. BIFF, MILF and other armed groups in Maguindanao pounced on helpless SAF police who didn’t get artillery support.
Cause and effect, Carpio-Morales said, was broken by the “proximate cause,” which was the act of shooting. That, she said, was an “active intervening external force” outside the control of Aquino, Purisima and Napeñas.
Legal mumbo-jumbo? Maybe but to architects of law and justice, it makes some sense. One cannot be responsible for damage whose nearest cause is not of one’s making. Aquino and company botched the planning and operation but they didn’t cause the armed attack. Or so Carpio-Morales’s argument runs.
Negligence
How about contributory cause? The accused didn’t set up the hostile armies but Noynoy and company were supposed to anticipate the attack. By their negligence, they exposed the troops to risks that could’ve been avoided.
Purisima and Napeñas were negligent, Carpio-Morales said, but their negligence was not criminal. We doubt if the families of the victims would agree. What degree of negligence would qualify as criminal?
The charges
Then we have the charges for which Aquino and company are now facing trial.
Usurpation of function? The commander-in-chief has the right to seek counsel from anyone he trusts. He is not limited to advisers with official appointments. Neither can Purisima be charged with usurping the power of police chief when Aquino sought him and asked for his input on the operation.
On the twin charge of corruption, if there’s no usurpation of function, there’s no “persuading, inducing or influencing” another to perform an illegal act or allowing oneself to be so persuaded, induced or influenced are not punishable. No usurpation, no corruption.
Dutertes take
President Duterte sensed the weakness of the cases against Noynoy upon learning that the charges were downgraded. A commander-in-chief usurping functions over two members of his armed forces? Silly.
Under his command responsibility, Noynoy Aquino may escape legal liability. Yet he might be afflicted by the haunting from his mistake or omission that sent those police officers to their grave.