The intricate art and science of finger-pointing
What is clearly emerging from the Senate hearing is that the Mamasapano debacle had been a tragedy of errors, exacerbated by a series of finger-pointing. There is finger-pointing between the government and the MILF. The government blames the MILF for the massacre of the fallen forty-four, and the MILF blames the government for entering their "controlled territory without due coordination." The INP blames the AFP for not providing artillery support to the operations and the AFP blames the PNP for failing to coordinate properly with the military.
But the most intriguing case of finger-pointing is that between police general Alan L. Purisima and his subordinate, Chief Superintendent Napeñas. Since Purisima admitted before the Senate investigation last Monday that he told Napeñas to break the chain of command, was he giving an order, or a mere advice, as claimed by him? From the viewpoint of a subordinate like Napeñas, could he refuse what was told to him by Purisima because it was a mere advice? In the first place, did Purisima specify that it was not an order but an advice? If it was an advice, did he give Napeñas an option to disobey?
I do not know how you, dear readers, feel about it. As for me, I take the side of Napeñas and do not believe Purisima. It was Purisima who was directly coordinating with the President, all the time, from the very beginning, while he was not yet suspended. It was Purisima who brought Napeñas to the President to brief P. Noy about the situation on the ground. Even while he was under suspension, Purisima was still giving what he called advices. It was Purisima who texted the military in the same morning of the operation. Therefore, Purisima was in charge.
It was Purisima who was in utmost need of a glorious victory, so as to neutralize the people's cry for his ouster, as a result of the multiple cases filed against him. It was Purisima who was suspended by the Ombudsman. Napeñas, despite his rank, was a mere implementor of orders from above. He had logical reason to believe that when Purisima told him to break the chain of command, the PNP chief was giving an order. Napeñas had reason to believe that any order from Purisima was, in effect, an order by the president.
Purisima cannot wash his hands like Pilate. He had command responsibility. But who gave Purisima the authority to act while under suspension? That is the 64 dollar question that the senators did not really want to ask, and nobody wants to answer. My discernment is as good as yours. But we all know who really did.
- Latest
