Revision

In the end, it seems, two men will end up taking all the blame for the bungled hostage crisis last year: Deputy Ombudsman Emilio Gonzales III and SP02 Gregorio Mendoza. The official narrative of this event is being altered day by day, bit by bit. The historical revisionism in progress will put Gadhafi’s propagandists to shame.

When the revision of the narrative is completed, it will bear no resemblance to the event as we saw it unfold on live television. That officially revised narrative, so far from what the whole world saw, will have no credibility at all. In the end, because the revision is done to protect the President’s closest friends and supporters, faith in the integrity of our justice system will be seriously shaken — or disastrously eroded.

In the case of erstwhile law professor and now beleaguered Deputy Ombudsman Gonzales, no proper inquiry was conducted on whatever it is he is accused of. From what is publicly known, two lawyers (with impeachable motives) from the office of the Deputy Executive Secretary for Legal Affairs wrote a recommendation. That recommendation somehow metamorphosed into a “Palace order” with neither the signature of the Executive Secretary on behalf of the President nor of the President himself.

The case of SPO2 Gregorio Mendoza is even more bizarre.

Last week, the media was fed a news release announcing that a “manhunt” was on for the policeman. All the while, Mendoza was dutifully reporting for work. When he presented himself before justice secretary de Lima, he was in full uniform.

How could there be a “manhunt” for someone who was not hiding? That question, it seems, was not raised at the news desks.

Fearful that the announced “manhunt” would soon escalate into a “shoot-to-kill” order, Mendoza immediately submitted himself to the custody of the NBI. The Manila Police demanded custody of the poor policeman. The Justice Department — bless their souls — refused to yield him.

Mendoza’s life is probably under threat. He is a hindrance to the revisionism that is going on. He presented his testimony to the Hong Kong investigative panel that eventually pinned the blame for the hostage fiasco on the bungling of officials supposed to be in charge of the incident, beginning from the Manila mayor.

Should the families of the Hong Kong tourists killed or wounded in that incident finally decide to file suit for damages in Philippine courts, Mendoza offered himself as witness. The Hong Kong coroner’s report sets the legal basis for such a suit. The civil suit claims could run into the millions of dollars.

The survival of Gregorio Mendoza is important to safeguard the truth of what happened from the determined effort to revise the story.

The charges brought upon SP02 Mendoza are symbolic of how the justice system here prejudices poor citizens. It is symbolic of the vulnerability of our justice system to the machinations of the powerful.

Because the clerk of his detachment had failed to renew the documentation of his service firearm in time, he now faces charges of illegal possession of a firearm. Imagine that: a policeman charged for illegal possession of his own service firearm!

That does not yet take the cake, however. Today, SP02 Mendoza is charged as an accomplice in the hostage incident.

The bail recommended for such a serious offense is astronomical. Were it not for the support of concerned citizens, Mendoza could not have posted bail. He would have rotted in jail while the silly charges ran in court, completely vulnerable to anyone who might be interested in contriving a situation that might justify gunning him down.

At the rate the hostage story is being rewritten, we might forget what we — and all the rest of the world — saw on live television.

The IIRC report of the incident more or less accurately documents what we all saw unfolding on television. In that report, a number of people were recommended to be charged. Neither SP02 Mendoza nor Deputy Ombudsman Gonzales are on that list.      

The full IIRC report was submitted to the Chinese authorities in the effort to appease them. Remember, the delegation hastily, and unilaterally, organized to be sent to China was rejected pending investigation. That delegation has not been received to this day.

Having sent the full IIRC report to the Chinese authorities, the Palace then handed that report to a “review” panel. The “review” panel watered down the recommendations of the IIRC report — to the just consternation of the Chinese. The Chinese authorities justly felt they were being taken for fools, handed a report and then having that report subsequently watered down.

The Palace now puts salt on the injury we inflicted on the Chinese. Not only are the people the IIRC report recommended to be charged spared, it is Gregorio Mendoza and the Deputy Ombudsman who are now made the fall guys for the ugly incident.

I hope the functionaries at the Palace are keeping diligent track of the way the hostage story is being treated in the Chinese media in general and the Hong Kong media in particular. There is a stream of bitter commentary not only about the clumsiness with which our officials handled the hostage situation itself — but also about the clumsiness with which our government is trying to cover for those truly responsible for this bloodbath.

President Aquino should exercise some statesmanship on this growing black hole that threatens to eat up the credibility of our justice system and eventually the respectability of our foreign relations.