But just like all similar disclosures, the IBP stopped short of actually releasing the names of the suspects. The media, to which the story was released, and which is often the victim of such shortchanging, has a name for it: Identifying without identifying.
Why is it that it is always said by anyone who claims to have the finger on anything that something or someone has been identified and then no identity is given? Is this just a ploy for dramatic effect, a publicity gimmick?
We do not have any doubt that the IBP, which is very concerned about the extrajudicial killings, has gained much headway in its investigation. The question, however, is whether it has reached the point where it is prepared to make public what it has.
If the IBP is not prepared to release the identities of whoever it suspects are involved in the vigilante killings, then it should not have prematurely released the story to the media. Of what use is saying it has the names but that it is not prepared to make them public.
The IBP has taken the police to task for failing to move as expected regarding the killings. Indeed, this is the very reason why the IBP has taken matters into its own hands and conducted its own investigation.
If the IBP has the goods on the vigilantes, then it should make them available to the police or better yet file charges by itself. If not, then it better wait until it is ready before prematurely going public.
The IBP is doing a good job of taking the issue to heart, which is far from what the police is doing. It should make the distinction even more refined, by saying what it means and meaning what it says.