The IIRC report:
http://www.gov.ph/2010/09/17/first-report-of-the-iirc-on-the-rizal-park-hostage-taking-incident/ or
http://www.scribd.com/doc/37763943/20100917-IIRC-Report
President Aquino today said he has ordered the review of the recommendations of the Incident Investigation and Review Committee (IIRC) to sanction 12 persons and three networks over the Aug. 23 hostage tragedy.
Statement of the Foreign Ministry of China, Sept. 21, 2010
On 20 September 2010, the Chinese Embassy in the Philippines has been given by the Philippine IIRC the First Report of the IIRC on the 23 August 2010 Rizal Park Hostage-taking Incident: Sequence of Events, Evaluation and Recommendations. Since it is a long report, the Chinese side does need time for a careful study. The initial reading indicates that the Philippine side takes a sincere and serious manner in handling with and looking into the incident, to which the Chinese side expresses its appreciation.
We hope that the Philippine side continues to handle with the aftermath in an appropriate manner, so as to console the souls of the victims and render comfort to the bereft families and injured Hong Kong compatriots. We also hope that the Philippine side takes effective measures to strengthen protection of the Chinese personnel in the Philippines and prevent the reoccurrence of similar tragedies. The Chinese side stands ready to work with the Philippine side to advance the bilateral relations in a sound and steady manner.
In a press conference, Aquino named the following who were cited by the IIRC for negligence or failure to follow manual:
* Then Philippine National Police (PNP) chief Jesus Verzosa;
* Then Manila Police District chief Rodolfo Magtibay, who served as ground commander;
* National Capital Region Police office chief Leocadio Santiago;
* Hostage negotiator Manila Superintendent Orlando Yebra;
* DILG Undersecretary Rico Puno;
* Chief Inspector Santiago Pascual, head of the Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) team;
* Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez;
* Deputy Ombudsman Emilio Gonzalez III;
* TV5’s Erwin Tulfo;
* Radio Mo Nationwide’s (RMN) Michael Rogas;
* Manila Mayor Alfredo Lim
* Manila Vice-Mayor Isko Moreno
* 3 broadcast networks.
Aquino’s statement:
I would like to thank Secretary de Lima and the members of the IIRC for the comprehensive work they have done. Our people have witnessed their diligence and perseverance to ferret out all the relevant facts, despite tremendous public pressure and time constraints.
This morning, we sent a copy of the report to the Chinese ambassador. Now I am authorizing the release of IIRC’s findings of fact to the public, in fulfillment of our administration’s commitment to transparency. It will be published online in the Official Gazette.
The report is recommendatory in nature. I have forwarded it, and its recommendations, to a legal team composed of the Executive Secretary and the Chief Presidential Legal Counsel to make a thorough review of the IIRC’s recommendations.
As I am now leaving on an important mission, I want to emphasize that I do not want make decisions regarding such important matters without a thorough review. I will study their findings upon my return, and decide accordingly.
I will release the committee’s recommendations alongside the legal team’s evaluation and recommended course of action at that time.
We are committed to implementing the necessary changes to upgrade the capabilities of our local government units, police and security forces, to ensure the safety of the public. We have also been working to review and improve our procedures and protocols for emergency and crisis situations and a draft of a new crisis management manual is now being prepared. This report represents a significant and necessary step in this process.
The IIRC identified eight critical incidents that turned the crisis into a tragedy.
They are:
1.The Crisis Management Committee was not activated in accordance with the Manual on the activation of a Crisis Management Committee (CMC). Mayor Alfredo Lim of the City of Manila was the person in authority charged with the duty of activating the CMC.
2. The improper appreciation of the nature of the demand of the hostage taker was the Second Critical Incident. How or when the demand for “an order for reinstatement to the service” was convoluted to “a letter promising to review Mendoza’s case” by the Ombudsman could not be satisfactorily explained by the authorities concerned. If it was intentional, then a proper assessment of its implications should have been made. The tenor of the letter was simply, a promise for further delay of the already delayed resolution of Mendoza’s Motion for Reconsideration.
3. The presentation to Mendoza of the letter from the Ombudsman and the resulting breakdown of negotiations. At this point the expectations of Mendoza that his demand for and Order for reinstatement was high because this was reinforced by the assurances from the Ombudsman and the Vice Mayor.
4.The acts, omissions and reaction, of the authorities concerned with resolving the crisis situation, to the initial breakdown (the third Critical Incident).
Immediately upon return of the Negotiating Team, with Gregorio (brother of hostage-taker Senior Inspector Rolando mendoza, to the Advance Command Post, Col. Yebra accused Gregorio of being a conspirator and an accessory. Whether he was shouting or not is not really material. The fact is Col. Yebra displayed his loss of focus on the task at hand. He was distracted by a peripheral matter.
More important to addressing the actuations of Gregorio was re-building the confidence of Mendoza, re-establishing contact with him, and salvaging the negotiations that clearly broke down, by working on the offered alternative solution. Instead, Col. Yebra, Mayor Lim, Gen. Magtibay, and other police officers present focused on handling the peripheral matter involving Gregorio resulting to Mayor Lim’s order for Gregorio’s arrest, looking for handcuffs, and conferring on how to handle Gregorio. By attending to the peripheral matter, precious time to salvage the negotiations, already critical at this late hour of the crisis situation, was lost. The windows of opportunity were closing.
5.The arrest of Gregorio Mendoza upon orders of Mayor Lim.
Viewed in perspective, this was the proximate cause of the chain of events that led to Mendoza’s shooting at the Hostages. The potential adverse reaction of Mendoza to an arrest of Gregorio was not lost to Mayor Lim. This is borne by his instruction to the escorting officers to use the back door of the Advance Command Post to avoid media. That Mendoza was viewing television at this time was already known at this point. The instruction to avoid media should be taken in this context.
6. The departure of Mayor Lim and General Magtibay from the Advance Command Post at a crucial time .
Immediately preceding events aggravated by lack of evaluation of their implications, compounded by error in judgment, resulted in the Sixth Critical Event. The absence of Mayor Lim and General Magtibay in the Advance Command Post created a vacuum in command or decision makers. This resulted in the inability of those present to handle crisis events as they unfolded. Everything that Mayor Lim and General Magtibay hoped to accomplish at Emerald Restaurant, including taking a meal, could have been accomplished at the Advance Command Post and even better because they would have been in a position to react to events promptly.
The most significant of events that transpired after Mayor Lim and General Magtibay left the Advance Command Post were the coverage of Gregorio being arrested, the deadlines being given by Mendoza before he starts shooting the hostages and the actual shooting of hostages.
7. The inefficient, disorganized and stalled assault brought about the Seventh Critical Incident. The manner by which the assault on the bus, to rescue the hostages and take down Mendoza, was carried out was the convergence of efficiencies omitted, and inefficiencies committed, through-out the day.
There was an absence of relevant intelligence information that could have aided the formulation and execution of a proper assault plan, including the choice of equipment needed to efficiently carry out the same. The information about the emergency exit door, the emergency button to open the main door and the strength of material of the window panels were vital information. Unfortunately, from the very start, there was no intelligence gathering sub-group activated.
8. The absence of an organized Post Assault Plan.
What transpired immediately after the neutralization of Mendoza clearly demonstrated the absence of a Post Assault Plan or the inefficient manner such a plan was carried out, if indeed there was a plan. There was no crowd control that resulted in by standers rushing to the immediate vicinity of the bus thereby hampering evacuation of hostages. Media reporters were even allowed to board ambulances. There was also no clear coordination with medical facilities as shown by the testimony that victims were rejected by one hospital because they could no longer be accommodated. Time was lost in traveling to the next nearest hospital.
Hi Ellen,
Do you have a link to the official gazette? Want to read recommendations by Madame de Lima.
Hah… DOJ Sec de Lima (ballsy and gutsy lady!!!) confirmed the names of the people we all said here at Ellenville were responsible for the fiasco.
Wonder what Aquino exactly meant by:
OK… just saw the link above your post…
But when will they publish the recommendations?
This is the link to the official gazette:
http://www.gov.ph/2010/09/17/first-report-of-the-iirc-on-the-rizal-park-hostage-taking-incident/
I haven’t read the whole report yet. But if the recommendations are not included in the link provided, maybe it’s because the President referred them for review by his legal team.
Recommended course of action later. I’ll wait….
Recommended course of action… Pag-aralin pa niya kung paano niya parusahan sina Puno, Lim, at Versoza. Madali lang yung kay Puno, pero paano kaya maparusahan sina Lim at Versoza?
Basically, a review is needed for any charge to stick. For example, in the case of Rogas and Tulfo, they are administratively governed by the Broadcast Code of 2007:
This is a grave offense punishable by:
sorry about that…
Basically, a review is needed for any charge to stick. For example, in the case of Rogas and Tulfo, they are administratively governed by the Broadcast Code of 2007:
This is a grave offense punishable by:
Possibly, this complaint must be addressed first to the “self-regulating” body or ombudsman of the Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster ng Pilipinas (KBP) – The KBP Standards Authority – before the two “clowns” can be charged and due process to take place.
The criminal aspect will also be reviewed, i.e., if indeed there was any infraction of an existing law. Then due process will take place.
Please be reminded also that while the court of public opinion already found them guilty by some (including me), they are to be presumed innocent first until proven otherwise (in Court, until finally decided by the Supreme Court).
In short, it’s still long…
Still a long while before they will suffer for their misdeeds, i.e., if indeed they will be proven wrong!
I’ve posted in the article above the eight critical incidents during the hostage is incident that turned the cris into a tragedy.
President Noynoy Aquino has now received the cover so that he can fire today, this very minute, those people who had lied to him as he talked to them during the course of Quirino grandstand. What is he waiting for, doesn’t he realize how unprofessional and weak it makes him look for each day he delays firing people in his administration? Pa-petek-petek, what a sight the president is (this is my opinion)
Did I say that President Noynoy got lied to? He mentioned it himself during the interview with the 3-person panel. This IIRC report supports his pakiramdam. Ano ba naman, what is he waiting for?
Lutong makaw ang naging resulta sa IIRC. Bakit hindi napasama sa listahan ang mga buwang na secretaries lyk paquito ochoa jr, edwin lacierda, ricky carandang, coloma at ed malaya!? dahil meron din silang malaking kasalanan sa hindi pagtanggap ng tawag from HK officials!? Epal din talaga itong secretary of DOJ dapat nakasali ang mga names itong apat na maria at isama na rin itong si jesse robredoa at yung umakong leader… Tanggalin ASAP.
Pepito,
Ano ba naman, what is he waiting for?
Malinaw ang statement ng presidente… paki basa ulit ‘tong article ni Ellen…
#9… Pang barangay captain lang ang kaya ni abnoy. Wala siyang kakayahan para mag isip. Pano pati mga adbayser niya mga nag aarap palang sa trabaho…. Noynoy kami ang BOSS MO sibakin kaagad ang mga taong nasa listahan. isama mo na rin yung mga rekomenda #11.
NOW NA!
Ochoa is the Executive Secretary. Who are members of the Chief Presidential Legal Counsel?
#9… Pang barangay captain lang ang kaya ni abnoy. Wala siyang kakayahan para mag isip. Pano pati mga adbayser niya mga nag aarap palang sa trabaho…. Noynoy kami ang BOSS MO sibakin kaagad ang mga taong nasa listahan. isama mo na rin yung mga rekomenda #11.
NOW NA!
—————————
susmaryosep! if my boss talks/writes like this i’ll resign immediately – malamang hindi kayang magbigay ng kahit minimum wage lang ang kompanyang ito… 🙂
looks like my 11 guesses were 100% accurate
President Noynoy Aquino has now received the cover so that he can fire today, this very minute, those people who had lied to him as he talked to them during the course of Quirino grandstand. What is he waiting for, doesn’t he realize how unprofessional and weak it makes him look for each day he delays firing people in his administration? Pa-petek-petek, what a sight the president is (this is my opinion)
—————————————–
good thing you don’t belong to the few whom the president listens to with regards to decision making then…mas lalong kahiyahiya (my opinion also) 🙂
looks like my 11 guesses were 100% accurate
————–
sychitpin,
you have the makings of a good profiler 🙂
Read the report; at least, what was posted.
Without the recommendations, parang Ligo sardines – puro sabaw, katiting na isda.
Now I wonder if there will be some Congressman filing a resolution to get the report in its entirety, including the recommendations. Will that be handed to the House? Or will E.O. 464 be resurrected?
Read the report; at least, what was posted.
Without the recommendations, parang Ligo sardines – puro sabaw, katiting na isda.
Now I wonder if there will be some Congressman filing a resolution to get the report in its entirety, including the recommendations. Will that be handed to the House? Or will E.O. 464 be resurrected?
————————
monday night quarterbacks, please wait for your turn…unahin muna ang mga “tunay” na may say… 🙂
parang Ligo sardines – puro sabaw, katiting na isda
——————-
i remember a time when paborito ko yan, mix together with kaning lamig plus bits and pieces of leftover 1st and 2nd viands…hmmmm, ang sarap nyan lalo na pag galing mase mase (di ba henry?) 🙂
#15 & 17-18… INUTIL ang administrasyon mo “basura” tignan mo ang mga reactions ng mga senador pati c drilon. Dapat lang na sibakin (IMMEDIATELY) ang mga taong inutil sa administrayon niya. Jugg ang population ng pinas ay more or less 95M, ibig sabihin kung hindi niya kaya maging mga advisers niya GO layas kaagad… kung siguro 1k lang ang employees niya pwede pang e train pero millions ang usapan dito. Inutil talaga kasi mas mahalaga ang mga tsekwang surot sa buong mundo na manufacturer ng mga shabu. Magising ka jugg typical kang pinoy… kasi gusto mo pang bigyan ng chance ang mga taong buwang na hindi productive… Gising mga “Government Student”…
may umaalulong na naman!puro ingay. walang sense…
Perl:
Huwag ka na magtaka. Dating lalaki yan. Nang wala nang pumapansin, nagpalit ng pangalan pero ganun pa rin ang style magsulat. Gets mo? Huwag nyo nang patulan. Tiyak palit uli ng ibang pangalan yan. 😛
Jugg magising ka sa katotohanan kung ano ang kakayahan ang mga nasa administrasyon abnoy “zero” production. Lalong lumolobo ang mga walang trabaho, mga magnanakaw lahat na ng klase ng crimes… tapos gusto mo pang bigyan ng chance dahil kakaupo lang niya bilang presidente ng mga INC! Dapat may batas na kung ang isang leader ng isang bansa ay hindi mapapakinabangan o di siya capable e IMPEACH kaagad ganun din ang mga government official… siguro meron batas na ganyan. WEAK sobra…
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view/20100920-293350/Media-group-warns-against-suing-journalists-over-hostage-taking
Talk about double standard. Is the media now exempted from observing proper procedures in critical situations? Are their members infallible? 😛
Baycas, ang tagal pa pala dahil dadaan pa as korte. Tulog muna ako. 🙂
Wala na ang report.
Try clicking the link.
Yung nabasa ni PNoy, 80 pages long ayon sa ulat dito
http://www.gmanews.tv/story/201285/aquino-receives-iirc-hostage-incident-report
Bakit 59 pages lang yung nasa website ng gobyerno? Nawala ba ang 21 pages sa reformatting?
Chi, ‘wag ka munang matulog. Nabasa mo ba ‘yung karugtong sa “Ang Buod?” Dito ko nilagay:
http://www.ellentordesillas.com/?p=12944
Pinamagatang “Ang Karugtong.”
—–
Three points so far I need to raise:
1. Was Gregorio an accomplice? Gregorio’s motives are suspect the first time he appeared on the scene…walking towards the bus with a concealed gun…even in extending 30 minutes to the 3pm deadline, he was heard saying to Rolando, “Before doing any harsh moves, let me talk and explain first to the authorities about OUR gripes.” Something to that effect. Lastly, he bargained for the return of his gun at a very crucial time.
2. What really transpired in the “kitchen” meeting of the higher-ups including Yebra? I asked this because at “quarter to 7” (as announced by Rogas) Rolando already saw SWAT teams deploying. That was also the time (or thereabouts) when Lim and Magtibay left for Emerald.
Moreno also recounted: “By that time Mayor Lim has already left the PCP for Emerald Restaurant. Isko Moreno saw Special Forces with sniper rifles come out behind Manila Hotel and decided to leave believing the crisis has now become a police matter.”
There are two things authorities can do: (a) Negotiate, or (b) Assault. Considering that the negotiation bogged down, were they already gearing up for an assault even before Rolando started his killing spree?
3. There is presumption that the gunman has access to TV and radio broadcast (media internal guideline). Way before Gregorio made a scene, video footage already showed a shot being fired from the bus as Yebra, Salvador and Gregorio (the “negotiating” team) are walking away. Was it accidental fire or a deliberate one? Regardless, gunshot most likely coming from the perpetrator still connotes danger in such crisis. It leaves no doubt that the threat (arrest and manhandling) to the gunman’s brother will make a huge negative impact on the gunman’s frame of mind if this was broadcast live. There goes the “self-restraint” the network bosses should have practiced in that critical time.
#12: “…pakibasa ulit…”
Agree ako kay Pepito at di na kailangan basahin pang muli ang post ni Ellen ukol sa disisyong patalsikin ang nagsinungaling sa kanya(pnoy).
Kung ikaw ang presidente at nagsinungaling ang tauhan mo sa iyo, dapat lang patalsikin kaagad! Ano pa nga ba hinihintay niya? Ang magsinungaling muli sa kanya?
For anyone, much more so for a president, trust is of utmost importance for obvious reasons. And, IMO, mas importante ang kaayusan ng pamamahala niya rito sa Pinas kaysa yang biyahe niya sa Tate. Ano, kung may gulo dito, maasahan pa ba niya ang salita ng mga nagsinungaling sa kanya, kung nasa puwesto pa ang mga yan?
By the way, sa palagay ninyo ba alam ni Mayor Lim na mayroong “Manual on the activation of a Crisis Management Committee (CMC),” at kung alam niya na mayroon, nabasa na niya kaya ito?
Palagay ko, NO! ang sagot on both questions. How about you, ano palagay niyo?
Tapos, sa resto kaagad ang hanap na hangout ng mga kinauukulan. Parang barkada ni Gloria Arroyo ang mentality.
Isagani,
unang tanong.. abogado ka ba?
Kahit alam mong nagsisinungaling ang mga tauhan mo… hindi basta-basta ang pagsisibak sa pwesto… wala tayo sa diktaduryang pamamalakad… kung ang gusto nyo pala ay bara-barang sipaan… bakit pa tayo nagimbestiga? kailngan daanin sa legalidad… kailgan sigurudao kung ano ang naangkop na parusa… at ano-anu ba ang mga consequenses ng mga decision at aksyon na gagawin…
oo, may rekomendayon na si Sec De Lima na isang abugado.. pero hindi pwed iasa ni PNoy sa kanya lahat ang legal na aspeto lalo pat malalaking opisyal ang nasasangkot…
parang lumalakad si PNoy sa isang bulok na tulay… sa ibabaw ng isang ilog na maraming ganid at gutom na buwaya… kailangang sigurado ang bawat hakbang…
You do not need due process if the official is serving at the pleasure of the appointing power. When pleasure turns to displeasure, puwede nang sibakin.
Hindi ko alam kung sino ang tinutukoy ng Pangulo. Ngunit kung serving at the pleasure, anytime puwede sibakin. Kung may tenure, yan ang kailangan ng administrative due process.
Baycas, nabasa ko ang “Ang Karugtong” nun pa. Walang nakakawala na poste mo sa akin. 🙂
@saxnviolins,
Tama ka. He could have fired Puno, among others, already last August 24. Why is the President dragging his feet over Puno? Ang hirap talaga ng kalagayan ni PNoy ngayon. tsk tsk tsk
Kagagawan rin yan ni PNoy kung bakit kailangan niyang sibakin si Puno. Nag-imbento pa siyang hatiin ang function the DILG para lang lumago ang negosyo ng arms supplier na si Puno. Ang tataas ng mga talahib sa bakuran ni PNoy. Hindi na makita ang daang matuwid.
sax,
tama ka… pero hindi ibig sabihin mali ang ginagawa ng presidente…
Dapat mag resign na yung mga nasa listahan. Ano pa ba hinihintay nila. Pakapalan nalang ng mukha ala dating administrasyon. Puno, mag resign ka na! P15000, P30000 ang multa? Katawa-tawa naman yan.
NFA rice, eto ang recommendation kong parusa kay versosa let him travel from north to south of the Pinas until he reach 75 years old, while Lim naman ay suspended to eat Chinese food until he leaves office. siguro naman parehas na yan.
# 39
Nobody said that. Even the comment of Pepito that you reacted to did not say that. What Pepito said was:
That is a valid observation. Whether you agree with speedy action or opt for a more measured response is a matter of preference. But if somebody said this with respect to my management of subordinates, I would give it careful consideration instead of taking offense.
Bakit walang sala yung nagluluto ng siopao? Isn’t he/she the proximate cause for Lim’s abandonment of his duties?
HIndi ba’t ang tukso, si Eva, naparusahan din, hindi lang si Adan?
Correct. All of us here are merely expressing our own opinions. Just like the two clowns, the one is actually a Joker, of the previous admin. Lakas ng loob mangantiyaw pero tanungin nyo nga kung may nailabas ba yung dati nilang amo kahit isang investigation man lang na ginawa nila sa napakaraming anomalya sa gobyerno nang sila ang nasa kapangyarihan. Tingnan mo tuloy, bagot na bagot na ang mga Pinoy na mabasa ang De Lima report. Paano, sa nakaraang 9 na taon, puro hula-hula na lang nag ginawa natin. 😛
sax, ayosh! mabuti ng malinaw…
… and to your last post… para mo na ding sinabing dapat isama si Gloria at si Erap… dahil kung nakapag stock sila ng lutong hopia.. hindi na kailngan magluto ang bagong kusinero ng siopao 🙂
Congratulations to IIRC for a job well done! those sanctioned included close personal friends and allies of the president, no sacred cow were spared. There were no cover ups, unlike previous gma administration wherein cover ups , lies and more lies, together with silencing of witnesses ruled her days.
Pertinent cases which may be important in crafting guidelines:
Negotiator’s promise issues. Although during a crisis negotiation a negotiator may promise the perpetrator certain things in an attempt to successfully mediate surrender the government is under no obligation to enforce the promise(s). Such action is void as against public policy. (State vs. Sands, 1985).
Use of force issues. Even though negotiations are in progress, it is permissible to use deadly force if police have probable cause to believe that the perpetrator poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the police or to others. Further, it is permissible to use deadly force to prevent escape if there is probable cause to believe that the perpetrator has committed a crime involving the infliction of serious physical harm or the threat of serious physical harm and, if feasible, some warning has been given. (Tennessee vs. Gardner, 1985). However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit chastised the FBI’s use of deadly force during negotiations in a hijacked airliner incident, finding that they had turned “what had been a successful ‘waiting game,’ during which two persons safely left the plane, into a “shooting” match that left three persons dead” (Downs vs. U.S., 1975, p. 1002).
Control of media issues. The media have the right to gather news from any source within the law. But the media does not have a constitutional right of special access. Thus the media have no guaranteed right of access to disaster or crime scenes where the general public has been excluded (Branzburg vs. Hayes, 1972).
Lifted from http://www.crisisinc.com/Websites/crisisinc/Images/2006%20Crisis%20Negotiation%20Chapter.pdf
4. Where in the world was the veteran Jake Maderazo all the time Michael Rogas was “interviewing” Rolando Mendoza? Was he relegated to an “Uzi” that he forgot to coordinate with the police and somehow alert them on the existing “intelligence arm” of Rolando (care of the live TV broadcast) and the imminent danger?
Don’t charge the messengers: bad journalism is not criminal conduct
The Center for International Law (CENTERLAW), a civil society organization that advocates, among others, freedom of expression and a free press, express its disappointment at the IIRC recommendation to charge the media for the August 23 debacle. While we acknowledge that media may have failed to observe the highest degree of professionalism and self-restraint in their coverage of the unfortunate incident, still this is not a basis for holding them liable for breach of the country’s criminal laws. Bad journalism is not and should never be criminal in a democracy.
The reality is that the August 23 incident was truly a news worthy event. Media hence had a duty to cover the incident. While the Philippine media has acknowledged that its coverage may have affected the outcome of the incident; this however, is but a natural consequence of the right of the public to information on matters involving public concerns. Indeed, the whole incident is reflective of why there is a culture of impunity in this country: a failure of the legal system to work provide adequate remedies to individuals under domestic law and security forces that are both inept and abusive in the discharge of their functions.
CENTERLAW thus calls on the reformist P Noy not to adopt the IIRC’s recommendations. Coming on the eve of the anniversary of the declaration of martial law by the despot Ferdinand Marcos, P Noy must be reminded that without a free press, there would no public debates on public issues crucial to the functioning of a representative democracy. This was why as a precondition for the establishment of an authoritarian regime, then despot Marcos had to muzzle a free press.
CENTERLAW also express alarm that the recommendation is no different from the manner by which the Arroyo administration sought to silence the public debate on issues relevant to the nation. Like Arroyo, the IIRC recommends the use of penal laws to repress press freedom. The difference is in the crime sought to be charged: under Arroyo it was libel or disobedience to authorities; under the IIRC recommendation, it is obstruction of justice.
Unlike Marcos or Arroyo, P Noy has no reason to repress press freedom. This is because unlike both Marcos and Arroyo, P Noy was vested with an overwhelming mandate by the people. With no skeleton in his closet, P Noy should allow the media to thrive and mature in an adolescent democracy.
Here’s another link to the IIRC report:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/37763943/20100917-IIRC-Report
baycas2:
If you read Branzburg v Hayes in the original, not excerpts, you will realize that your quote is obiter dictum (a passing remark or comment not essential to the determination of the case, and therefore, not binding precedent).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=408&invol=665
The opening line of the decision says it all:
This is the pertinent quote relative to your point:
Note that that was a factual observation, not a legal principle laid down. Also, the media, in the case of Mendoza, was not excluded, as De Lima noted in her report when the report said:
If you read the transcript published by the Inquirer, Mendoza wanted to talk to Erwin Tulfo in the bus, but Tulfo was not allowed by the police. Had Tulfo been able to talk to Mendoza, it would have bought more time. As any good negotiator would opine, a talking hostage taker is not a shooting hostage taker.
And talk is good, whether with Rogas or Tulfo. Psychologists [including Father Bulatao (remember him?)] would even say that talking has a cathartic effect. In fact, psychoanalysis is just that – talk therapy. You sit on a couch, and the psychologist listens. You actually cure yourself.
Me, I’d rather talk to Johnny Walker – that is, if Glenlivet is not around.
#34:
Perl,
Hindi kailangan na maging abogado ka upang mabatid kung nagsinungaling sa iyo. May sariling isip si pnoy at kung kailangan pa niya ng abogado na magsabi sa kanya kung ano ang dapat niyang gawain sa sinungaling e naloko na pinas.
Pnoy can fire and hire whoever and whenever he wants, lalo na ang hindi niya mapagkatiwalaan. Ano pa bang consequences and sinasabi mo e kita mo na ang consequence ng pagsisinungaling sa kasong ito.
And talk is good, whether with Rogas or Tulfo. Psychologists [including Father Bulatao (remember him?)] would even say that talking has a cathartic effect. In fact, psychoanalysis is just that – talk therapy. You sit on a couch, and the psychologist listens. You actually cure yourself.
——————————————
Wrong! There is a proper “structure” that the therapist follows in order to “assist” the patient achieve catharsis, otherwise, you make the matter worst…its not all talk without any direction…in psychology, there are sle’s (structured learning excercises), etc…and you can’t take one bit you like and make “tagpi tagpi” like you do with law, you have to take the whole concept and apply, otherwise you cannot properly monitor, document, evaluate, and replicate successes or avoid failures in the future…
…like in the case of another approach, hypnosis, if you you make a mistake and regress a person without properly preparing him, you’ll even do more damage…
The problem is, the police prohibited the wrong things, and allowed the wrong things.
They should have prohibited camera shots of the bus, so there would be no footage beamed to the whole world. But they should have allowed Erwin Tulfo in, so that Mendoza would have continued talking. As Tongue pointed out in an earlier thread, the media, in the person of Ruther Batuigas, used to help police in emergency situations.
In fact, in the transcript, Tulfo was telling the police to stop the assault on Gregorio. Where was the negotiator? Nowhere to be found. It seems, as baycas2 pointed out, that even before Mendoza fired the shots, there was already a decision to storm the bus. Maybe that is why Lim went to the restaurant – because negotiations were over. He was going to sit out the assault, and after his late lunch, go and collect Mendoza’s body. Too bad, it was the bodies of Hongkongites that were collected.
“..the media have no guaranteed right of access to disaster or crime scenes where the general public has been excluded (Branzburg vs. Hayes, 1972).” -Baycas
The kapulisan forgot to tie a loop of loooong yellow ribbon (orange ba?) to secure the crime scene. So the media and public had a free access to the crime scene, sinamantala ang incompetence ng kapulisan.
Thanks, atty sax, dami kong binabasa ngayon….
The kapulisan forgot to tie a loop of loooong yellow ribbon (orange ba?) to secure the crime scene. So the media and public had a free access to the crime scene, sinamantala ang incompetence ng kapulisan.
——————————
If the media involved showed any level of professionalism and maturity they should have execised self-restraint (this goes for the usis also). If the “media concerned” (I’m emphasizing this because their actions do not represent all media practitioners) want to be treated like children or cattle (kailangan may harang) then they should craft a law that will do so, because they don’t know how to behave themselves without being told to do so, its common sense…
We’re too hard and expect too much from the police (and military) at times, we don’t train them, we don’t compensate them properly, we don’t equip them – but we expect them to put their lives in harm’s way, these guys have “human” lives too and families who worry about them to boot…
If Noynoy has Ninoy’s blood in him, he will not touch the media, he’s father was the young journalist in his time, the youngest to cover the Vietnam war (how’s that for journalists going to the line of fire), and he suffered and died fighting oppression and curtailment of freedom of speech and dissent…
We may like to clobber and defang the media now but what happens if laws limiting media freedom are passed and we get a dictator in the future? We are treading on dangerous ground here, we should realize that we are not just living for today, we have to think of the impact of our actions on the future…
Something is not right with the report and the list.
A quote goes something like this:
“Sorry Mr. Tsang, I was not able to answer your phone call and I failed twice to return your call because I was too busy COMMANDING the operation”.
And in the next breath, he admitted full RESPONSIBILITY of the palpak hostage operation absolving all his underlings.
If he was in command of the operation as he said, it’s no longer a command responsibility but his direct responsibility. And unless he lied to Tsang and to the people there’s no excuse for his exclusion from the list.
Responsibility means accountability, so if he admitted responsibility, he is accountable.
Why the hell he was not included in the list of those to be sanctioned?
If ever, we have to accept what happened as “it happened” no what ifs, no coulda, woulda, shouldas – and learn from it. One of the things we should learn is that the wrong response to a crisis or “over reaction” is more damaging and has long term effects…we have to learn to exercise restraint, some heated words, spoken in anger or hurt, even more are actions, wrong reactions, wrong interventions, can do more long term damage than good…
Eventually, when everything settles, the bereaved are consoled, the victims are buried, some of us even are feeling victims themselves in the way they over react (OA na), we will realize that its best to let the “experts” do their jobs…let the lawyers practice law, let the police enforce it, and if sometimes they make mistakes, thats life – we have to accept that…”shit happens”
Why the hell he was not included in the list of those to be sanctioned?
——————-
simple…common sense…what is your end game? impeach him for this? or you have none, just thinking out loud?
with the IIRC report, Pres Aquino passed his test with flying colors, P.Noy proved his honesty, courage and sincerity once again.
BEFORE only sacrificial lambs or small fries were punished, NOW big fishes were sanctioned. including long time allies like Mayor Lim who also served under his mother’s presidency.
BEFORE Phil had a bogus pres. gma who promised one thing, and always did the opposite. NOW we have a Pres Noynoy who meant what he said.
BEFORE, a bogus pres gma fooled the people while breaking laws and violating constitution with impunity, NOW P.Noy leads not by what he preached but by what he practices and by setting a good example
Sychitpin masyado kang adelantado sa congratulations. Wala pang nangyayari. Pinag-aaralan pa ng mga adviser ng Pangulo an ang gagawin. Hinay hinay lang sa cheerleading.
And in the next breath, he admitted full RESPONSIBILITY of the palpak hostage operation absolving all his underlings.
——————-
…if until now you haven’t realized that any hostage situation that shifts to “breach” stage cannot assure 100% zero casualty – please do your homework…please live in the real world…at least paminsan minsan…
If I were Noynoy, with all the powers vested in me I will assert my right “not to” punish anyone involved in the incident, except maybe do everything in my power to get rid of Gutierez and Magtibay…just because “I can” and tell my detractors to “stuff their fingers in the electric outlets and die…” ala Meriam Santiago… 🙂
if ever i had some misunderstanding with my leader i just ask him if he knows what he’s doing, if says “yes” then we go back to work…we get more things done this way and definitely more rewarding if we meet our goals…
…and then snv, true to form, will hit me with what i said earlier…what can i do? i’m only human, let me be inconsistent, paminsan minsan… 🙂
goodbye guys…catch up with you later…meeting na…hehehe
#62- Jug, calm down! Your common sense is getting the better of you.
Relax, there’s no impeachment for your idol. Just asking why the investigating body did not cite the most responsible character in that palpak operation IF he is really responsible as he claimed. It’s not a secret that he admitted responsibility and anybody who understands the meaning of the word and in sound mind knows the consequences of that act.
Now if you just read between my lines, you will understand what I really meant.
For your eyes: “And UNLESS he LIED to Tsang and to the people there’s no excuse for his exclusion from the list”.
And so he was excluded from the list, meaning the body didn’t believe him because he lied.
Tedanz:
Dami palang puedeng maging Justiis Secretary at Ombagsman dito sa Ellenville. lol
#65 – jug
…if until now you haven’t realized that any hostage situation that shifts to “breach” stage cannot assure 100% zero casualty – please do your homework…please live in the real world…at least paminsan minsan…
That was your response to my comment:
“And in the next breath, he admitted full RESPONSIBILITY of the palpak hostage operation absolving all his underlings”.
Please, Please jug, help me connect your response to my comment! Masyadong out and out of line. Hindi ko ma-get.
…pasingit…
florry,
sorry, not even my wife, who professes to love me all these years gets me all the time (sometimes i’m not in the mood)…you don’t have to “get me” in our relationship, just tolerate me… 🙂
ellen,
you’re so forgiving…remember how some media people lambasted you guys during the manila penn incident? if i remember a certain tulfo was one of them? i never read or heard you condemn anyone, even the police officials who had you handcuffed then, di ba si Santiago yun?
🙂
sibakin na yang Puno. . .napakabobo pala talagang sumagot. . sa akin ka na lang paturo bumaril Noy. Tigokin mo na ynag Puno na yan. super laksitibo. sarap katayin. . .
This is really “unheard of”; one bungled hostage situation and 12 people are under fire as well as three networks. Another for the “only in da pilipins” adage. Some in here are not satisfied they even wanted the president to be included on that long list. So absurd.
The following was a forwarded email which I held for three days hoping somebody here would get it and post it here. This particular email was supposed to have been written by an angry female overseas worker towards the chinese. It’s pretty much germane to what we’ve been articulating about and it’s says a lot about how we bow down to the chinese. Read on…..
“You hate the Filipino people for the hostage fiasco that unfortunate incident that went out of control at the end. This was a hostage situation that was under control and which netted 7 Chinese tourists to be released upon the efforts of our policemen.
You appear and sound sanctimonious and have even stepped upon our sovereignty. You have demanded apology, the moon and the heavens. You hate the Filipino people as if we wanted this unfortunate incident to happen. First and foremost, we offer our condolences to the families of the 8
that were killed in this incident. Secondly, we are sorry for the bungled handling of this hostage taking. It was unfortunate, it was an accident, we never planned it that way. Is it fair to blame a whole nation for a situation that was never planned?
Let me ask you this question, “Should we hate you also for the lead poisoning caused by the paint you used in your baby furniture and toys for the children of the world, Should we hate you also for the use of cardboard in the “siopao” that you sell to tourists? Should we hate you
also for the melamine contamination wherein not 8, but hundreds, maybe even thousands have suffered and some even died?
Or, let us talk of Filipino casualties. A few years ago, 3 Filipino tourists, all surnamed Madrigal, a family of 5 were walking on Tienemen Square and Beijing . One Chinese stabbed the father and two of his children, killing all three. Were you even sorry for what this one Chinese did? Did the Filipino people even demand that China apologized for this unfortunate incident. This was PRE-MEDITATED MURDER.
Just as the use of lead, cardboard, melamine was pre-meditated – used because they were cheaper materials, in order to generate PROFITS for the Chinese businessman. Did you pay damages the same way you are demanding damages from the Filipino nation and people.
Where was the anger of the Chinese and Hongkong people? Did you even apologize to the world? My God in the case of melanine, you even kept this information from the world, until you were exposed for what you are!!!
Enough! We symphatize but don’t blame the Filipino people.
So you want to send our OFWs home, that take care of your children? They play an important part in your lives. Both spouses are able to work, earn money because of the tender loving care being heaped on your children by Filipino maids and yayas/amahs. While you pay our OFWs for the work they
do, you earn more for the love and care they bestow on your children. Go ahead, send our OFWs home. Let us see how that will affect your family incomes.
Enough!”
re #74.Talaga naman Henry.
Not helping PNoy at all.
They can be friends but he should not be given a high government position.
Too early to applaud. Naririg ba ninyo yung sabi ni Lim? Wala siyang kasalanan. Kahit na may mga napangalanan na mga may sala, due process still has to be followed. Marami pang proseso. I do not know if the elected officers are easily punished. Nasa step one pa lang tayo.
I watched Puno answer the senators. Gee, anong klaseng Usec yan. Ni hindi daw niya maremember yung mga lumapit sa kanyang jueteng operators. Pwede ba!
#18 @ juggernaut:
sychitpin,
you have the makings of a good profiler
Thanks juggenaut
#64 @saxnviolins:
Sychitpin masyado kang adelantado sa congratulations. Wala pang nangyayari. Pinag-aaralan pa ng mga adviser ng Pangulo an ang gagawin. Hinay hinay lang sa cheerleading.
compared with gma’s administration, good miracles were happening now, TRUTH is being upheld along with JUSTICE, its a good time to celebrate the positive changes instead of being stuck in fault finding mode
We have to remind ourselves that DeLima DID NOT investigate PNoy, so the report did not exonerate PNoy. There is still a big question mark over PNoy’s activities on that day.
Where are the terms of reference of the IIRC?
Please read the report.
#75 true blu:
objectively speaking, Chinese gov’t have brought closures to the lead poisoning in toys and melamine tainted milk issues. Those responsible were either executed by firing squad, in jail serving life sentences or had committed suicide.
About melamine tainted milk which reached Phil shores sometime in 2008, former health sec Francisco Duque stopped sale of jolly cow milk brand from china, but there was no closure yet, good news was 3 customs execs were suspended last week or after 2 years in relation to that, it takes a new gov’t under P.Noy to make the wheels of justice move in the right direction, better late than never, btw what happened to the company that imported the melamine tainted milk jolly cow?
seems that the IIRC is just meant to appease the Chinese. to let them now that the country is doing something
the IIRC played it safe. it left the determination of what charges to file against whom to another committee
so this new committee will take the heat, whatever action it takes
Isagani – September 21, 2010 8:41 am
hindi ang “pagsisinungaling” ang dahilan kung bakit kailangan ni PNoy isangguni sa kanyang legal adviser ang issueng ito…
okay.. hindi ka abugado… naiintindihan na kita… kaya siguro hindi mo naiisip mga possible consequences… hindi simple.. complicated…
Thank you, saxnviolins. Pardon me; because this will be another litany…I just had a 16oz homemade iced cappuccino in our canteen.
The link I supplied (re: Branzburg vs. Hayes, Downs vs. U.S., and State vs. Sands) will tell us that it was the handiwork of a certain John A. Call, Ph.D., J.D., A.B.P.P., a consultant psychologist in Crisis Management. The title of the chapter reads “Psychological Consultation in Hostage/Barricade Crisis Negotiation.” (In my haste this morning, I forgot to affix the “blockquote” tags.)
It will probably help in guidelines formulation both by our police and media as regards crisis situations such as the Aug23 Incident. Basic, of course, is to understand what negotiations are all about and how it is affected by some factors.
Anyway, in http://www.ellentordesillas.com/?p=12944 (Comment No. 40) I’ve posted a comment with a link that further expounded Branzburg vs. Hayes in relation to other situations where control (or non-control) of media access is considered. (Other related issues on media coverage in hostage/barricade incidents are found in that blog post.)
Suffice it to say probably is that when free press is operating, a sense of responsibility on the part of media has to be demanded. Those authorities who committed sins of omissions and commissions are all accountable (Except probably mercetigas? Na may kakampi pang SC!) and “heads definitely should roll.” But, are those irresponsible members of media likewise accountable?
Drawing the line between MEDIA SELF-REGULATION and REGULATING MEDIA should be addressed by a consensus meeting. Extremes of opinion are welcome for this to be a worthwhile endeavor with a common goal of PREVENTING similar disastrous outcome to recur.
—–
In the same blog post, I already said:
…as I also believe that there is no law crafted (or ever to be crafted!) that may abridge a “constitutionally-protected primary right” of freedom of the press. It’s wishful thinking on my part to hopefully enact a “prior restraint” law to media in situations where public access is also prohibited (e.g., a crime scene).
Again, are those irresponsible members of media accountable? I believe yes…as I posted their violation of the Code above together with corresponding sanctions on the first offense. Sisiw lang, ‘di ba Michael and Erwin? Well, of course it will still depend on the findings and verdict of their SELF-REGULATORY BODY.
—–
You betcha I read the transcript…two actually: “Excerpts from hostage-taker’s last interview” on 8/29/10 and “Mind of a hostage-taker (2): ‘Just shot two tourists …I’ll kill them all’” on 9/18/10. As I recall…and as I’ve written before…it was Michael who offered the service of the-ever-adamant-negotiator-wanna-be Erwin Tulfo. It was Susan Enriquez Rolando sought for and earlier that day he spoke to.
(Too bad for Kapatid Erwin for Rolando is a “kapuso” although he loved his real “kapatid” so much! Additional testament to Rolando being a “kapuso” is that he tuned in on GMA-7 and that all the while he thought he was speaking with Mike Enriquez…little did he know that it was Mike Elrogas whose voice is on the other line.)
Michelle Ward Ghetti laid down one of the two general areas of conflict that particularly caused media coverage during publicity-seeking crimes to become the hotbed of controversy:
Media interference with law enforcement…
[While the other general area is:
Media dissemination of information…
Both areas of conflict are present in the Aug23 Incident.]
(From http://law.indiana.edu/fclj/pubs/v60/no3/8-Ghetti.pdf )
henry90 – September 21, 2010 11:34 am
sibakin na yang Puno… napakabobo pala talagang sumagot…
agree henry! yan ang tinatawag na punong walang lilim…
(A)
Thank you, saxnviolins. Pardon me; because this will be another litany…I just had a 16oz homemade iced cappuccino in our canteen.
The link I supplied (re: Branzburg vs. Hayes, Downs vs. U.S., and State vs. Sands) will tell us that it was the handiwork of a certain John A. Call, Ph.D., J.D., A.B.P.P., a consultant psychologist in Crisis Management. The title of the chapter reads “Psychological Consultation in Hostage/Barricade Crisis Negotiation.” (In my haste this morning, I forgot to affix the “blockquote” tags.)
It will probably help in guidelines formulation both by our police and media as regards crisis situations such as the Aug23 Incident. Basic, of course, is to understand what negotiations are all about and how it is affected by some factors.
Anyway, in http://www.ellentordesillas.com/?p=12944 (Comment No. 40) I’ve posted a comment with a link that further expounded Branzburg vs. Hayes in relation to other situations where control (or non-control) of media access is considered. (Other related issues on media coverage in hostage/barricade incidents are found in that blog post.)
Suffice it to say probably is that when free press is operating, a sense of responsibility on the part of media has to be demanded. Those authorities who committed sins of omissions and commissions are all accountable (Except probably mercetigas? Na may kakampi pang SC!) and “heads definitely should roll.” But, are those irresponsible members of media likewise accountable?
Drawing the line between MEDIA SELF-REGULATION and REGULATING MEDIA should be addressed by a consensus meeting. Extremes of opinion are welcome for this to be a worthwhile endeavor with a common goal of PREVENTING similar disastrous outcome to recur.
(B)
In the same blog post, I already said:
…as I also believe that there is no law crafted (or ever to be crafted!) that may abridge a “constitutionally-protected primary right” of freedom of the press. It’s wishful thinking on my part to hopefully enact a “prior restraint” law to media in situations where public access is also prohibited (e.g., a crime scene).
Again, are those irresponsible members of media accountable? I believe yes…as I posted their violation of the Code above together with corresponding sanctions on the first offense. Sisiw lang, ‘di ba Michael and Erwin? Well, of course it will still depend on the findings and verdict of their SELF-REGULATORY BODY.
(C)
You betcha I read the transcript…two actually: “Excerpts from hostage-taker’s last interview” on 8/29/10 and “Mind of a hostage-taker (2): ‘Just shot two tourists …I’ll kill them all’” on 9/18/10. As I recall…and as I’ve written before…it was Michael who offered the service of the-ever-adamant-negotiator-wanna-be Erwin Tulfo. It was Susan Enriquez Rolando sought for and earlier that day he spoke to.
(Too bad for Kapatid Erwin for Rolando is a “kapuso” although he loved his real “kapatid” so much! Additional testament to Rolando being a “kapuso” is that he tuned in on GMA-7 and that all the while he thought he was speaking with Mike Enriquez…little did he know that it was Mike Elrogas whose voice is on the other line.)
Michelle Ward Ghetti laid down one of the two general areas of conflict that particularly caused media coverage during publicity-seeking crimes to become the hotbed of controversy:
Media interference with law enforcement…
[While the other general area is:
Media dissemination of information…
Both areas of conflict are present in the Aug23 Incident.]
(From http://law.indiana.edu/fclj/pubs/v60/no3/8-Ghetti.pdf )
juggernaut – September 21, 2010 9:38 am
If I were Noynoy, with all the powers vested in me I will assert my right “not to” punish anyone involved in the incident, except maybe do everything in my power to get rid of Gutierez and Magtibay…
sa totoo lang… agree jug! Ang pagiisipan kong hindi sibakin lalo na si Mayor lim and vice mayor isko…
(D)
I must admit, as my posts will attest, that I am at one end of a continuum, i.e., I am for regulating media. Of course, this will be to a certain extent only. “Prior restraint” on the free press should raise a howl especially from the constitutionalists. However, I sure would hope that the Operative Definitions of Terms I “scattered” in the blogosphere would somehow be changed into their original or intended meanings:
Journalists’ glossary
CRIME AND CRISIS SITUATIONS – The Aug23 Incident is an EXAMPLE and not an exception
LIVE COVERAGE – Long-shot camera views from a snipers’ vantage point starring the sniper himself is NOT aired live
SELF-REGULATE – Imposing news embargo when human lives are at stake
SELF-RESTRAINT – Responsible journalism in existence even when NO ONE is looking
I still can’t agree with media personalities getting in the way of a police operation like in a hostage crisis. Unless.. unless, the negotiator allows them to help, they should just stay put behind police lines and do their reporting there.
I wonder if they can do that in other countries like the US.
Also, after the assault where Mendoza was killed already, one of the first to enter the crime scene (inside bus) were media people trying to out do each other for a scoop. These people should know that the crime scene should be off limits to anyone except SOCO since evidence that needed to be preserved might be tampered with. They are also the first one to be inside ambulances where the victims are being rushed to hospitals. sigh*
Note these two quotes. The first from the Report, the second from Noy’s Q and A with Mel Tiangco, Ted Failon and Paolo Bediones.
IIRC Report
Talakayan transcript:
So iniutos ba? O tinanong lang?
Statement of the Foreign Ministry of China issued Sept. 21, 2010:
On 20 September 2010, the Chinese Embassy in the Philippines has been given by the Philippine IIRC the First Report of the IIRC on the 23 August 2010 Rizal Park Hostage-taking Incident: Sequence of Events, Evaluation and Recommendations. Since it is a long report, the Chinese side does need time for a careful study. The initial reading indicates that the Philippine side takes a sincere and serious manner in handling with and looking into the incident, to which the Chinese side expresses its appreciation.
We hope that the Philippine side continues to handle with the aftermath in an appropriate manner, so as to console the souls of the victims and render comfort to the bereft families and injured Hong Kong compatriots. We also hope that the Philippine side takes effective measures to strengthen protection of the Chinese personnel in the Philippines and prevent the reoccurrence of similar tragedies. The Chinese side stands ready to work with the Philippine side to advance the bilateral relations in a sound and steady manner.
Note, there were alleged instructions on which assault unit to use.
There is no mention of the President asking, “Ano ba ang demands? Pera ba? Getaway car or plane? Kaya ba natin?
Assault lang ang iniisip. Of course, there was that afterthought about:
Kung final option, bakit yun lang ang instructions? Walang instructions ni tanong ukol sa mga hiling ng hostage taker.
Gun freak nga itong Pangulong ito.
SNV, I’m no gun freak and have handled a gun (but never fired) only a few times during gun exhibits. But when given the opportunity to shoot someone like Mendoza who’s taking in hostages (whether foreigners or locals), I’ll shoot him and will ask questions later. By the way shoot to disable only but can go as far as killing him when necessary. 😛
Why? For me, these type of people has unstable minds and we can’t be sure if he can keep their promise not harming the hostages and letting them go even if their demands are met.
To interview or not to interview a perpetrator during a hostage/barricade situation: that is also the question. (Rolando has several cell phones. Practically any resourceful journalist can easily speak with him…in the name of newsgathering. Gag journalists with the “police line” barrier tape??? Naah, that’s prior restraint; besides, CHR will certainly cry foul!).
Look at how Jake Maderazo view the Aug23 Incident:
“
”
Copy-pasted from “Media execs nix tighter controls” by David Dizon, abs-cbnNEWS.com (Posted at 09/14/2010 6:18 PM, Updated as of 09/15/2010 1:35 AM)
Kung final option, bakit yun lang ang instructions? Walang instructions ni tanong ukol sa mga hiling ng hostage taker.
Gun freak nga itong Pangulong ito.
—————
Gun freaks are infinitely better than noisy cowards like you…us gun freaks need to stick together and fight for the right to bear arms… 🙂
Kung final option, bakit yun lang ang instructions? Walang -instructions ni tanong ukol sa mga hiling ng hostage taker.
—————-
a little knowledge is a dangerous thing…please ask henry90 re protocols for these situations…if you want, you make a new one…the police know their jobs better than we do…mistakes happen…you can do better, go join the force and show them how…sobrang nagmamagaling hanggang kiaw kiaw lang naman…
IFJ Warns Against Charging Journalists
The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) joins its affiliates in the Philippines and Hong Kong in warning that any charges laid against media personnel in the Philippines in regard to reporting on a siege in Manila in August would set a dangerous precedent for free reporting of sensitive situations.
Philippine President Benigno Aquino said on September 20 that investigators had recommended charges be laid against at least 12 people, including two journalists, over an incident in which a tour bus was hijacked in Manila on August 23. Eight Hong Kong nationals were killed in the day-long siege. Seven people were injured.
The IFJ supports the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP) in cautioning the Philippines’ Government against attributing criminal liability to journalists in relation to the incident.
“The Philippine media have, by and large, acknowledged lapses and have begun discussing ways to individually and collectively ensure that more care and sensitivity are taken in future coverage of similar delicate situations,” the NUJP said in a statement.
The IFJ notes that several media organisations in the Philippines have already put in place concrete measures to revise and strengthen guidelines on coverage of similar incidents. The IFJ firmly believes that journalists and media workers must devise and implement independent mechanisms for dealing with professional ethical issues and complaints against the media.
“Criminal charges against media personnel would set a dangerous precedent for the Philippines that would potentially cause journalists and media organisations to censor coverage of other sensitive situations for fear of criminal liability,” IFJ Asia-Pacific Director Jacqueline Park said.
“There is a risk here that journalists and media organisations may be made scapegoats.”
The Hong Kong Journalists’ association (HKJA) has also made clear it supports the spirit of the NUJP position on this issue. It stresses that professional ethical issues must be handled by media professionals when no laws have been violated.
Ito ipupusta ko ng pitpitan ng bayag:
Kung meron uling hostage situation bukas mismo, palpak pa rin yan! Ano na ang ginagawa sa kasalukuyan? Nagte-training na ba? Bumibili na ba ng equipment? Ng firearms? Meron nang protocol?
Kung ako si Robredo, ipa-spotcheck ko sa Napolcom ngayon din kung ano na ang nagbago. Siguradong wala pa rin.
Ang tagal naman.
Wala pa bang report yung investigation on the report of the investigators of the hostage-taking fiasco?
Isn’t that double-redundancy by repeating the same job, again, once more, uli?