Little Libya

Today, Manila policeman Gregorio Mendoza will be interviewed by way of teleconference with Hong Kong authorities continuing their investigation of the tragic Luneta hostage incident August last year. He is the only Filipino participating in this investigation conducted, obviously, because Hong Kong authorities are dissatisfied with the outcome of Manila’s own review.

President Aquino II, we will recall, created his own panel to review the recommendations of the de Lima panel. In the end, no official has yet been taken to task for this bungled incident. The opinion in Hong Kong is that there is a cover-up — therefore a crying need for them to conduct their own inquiry to ferret out the truth.

Gregorio Mendoza’s testimony before the Hong Kong coroner’s inquiry is important not only to establish the full truth concerning this incident. The visibility he wins by participating in the Hong Kong inquiry could very well guarantee his survival.

The truth concerning this incident has been gradually warped the past few months as powerful personalities began massaging events. Important dimensions of this tragic incident were left out of the official version of what happened. The Chinese side, very clearly, see this case as far from closed.

Just last week, President Aquino II, on a foreign visit, added to the haze concerning the Luneta incident. In his eagerness to get Merceditas Gutierrez impeached, he basically blamed her for the hostage incident, saying it happened because she sat on hostage-taker Capt. Mendoza’s case.

That is patently false. The Ombudsman did act promptly and had the police officer dismissed from the service. It is precisely the Ombudsman’s prompt action that is the source of Capt. Mendoza’s grief. President Aquino II’s misstating of facts and processes is becoming chronic.

At any rate, the reason Gregorio is being interviewed today via teleconference is that he could not get the documentation required to make a personal appearance in Hong Kong. That is just an aspect of the many unseemly things that have happened since that bloody incident.

When the hostage incident broke out, Gregorio was fetched from his home by his colleagues at the Manila police force, hoping he might be helpful in unwinding this situation by talking to his brother. In the end, Gregorio is the only one so far charged in relation to this incident. The poor guy is out on bail on charges of illegal possession of firearms and for being an accomplice to the hostage-taking. He is likewise facing charges before the National Police Commission.

Dragged to the scene of the hostage-taking, he is the only one now charged for what happened. He has become the escape goat for all the bungling that occurred.

For Gregorio, at least, the situation has taken a turn for the surreal. Thrown into the vise of an unseemly event, he is now made to bear responsibility for all that happened. Each day, the chasm between the truth as he states in his written deposition before the Hong Kong panel and the official version of events widens by the day. He must feel like he is trapped in a Little Libya, where ruling tyrants say whatever they want to say without respect for the truth.

Gregorio invests all his trust in the work of the Hong Kong panel and spares none for the Palace’s official report that cleared the most guilty. That is, in itself, tragic. If there is wide discrepancy between the Hong Kong coroner’s report on the incident and our own sanitized official version, another thorn will strain our relations with China.

Little Tripoli

Gregorio Mendoza is not the only minor functionary trapped in a parallel universe enforced by powerful persons reinterpreting what is real.

On May 4, 2010, Atty. Randy Escolango was appointed to the post of deputy administrator for legal affairs of the SBMA. Shortly thereafter, he was asked to render a legal opinion regarding the terms of office of the SBMA administrator and chair. After due study of the relevant laws covering the case, he submitted a report on May 27, 2010 stating that the sitting chair and administrator’s terms ended on April 2, 2010 and the two officials were thus sitting on hold-over capacity.

That was when Escolango’s troubles began. His legal opinion, based largely on the Bases Conversion Act, the SBMA charter and related Supreme Court rulings obviously did not please his bosses.

A confidante advised Escolango to revise his legal opinion. The lawyer thought this would be an abdication of his professional responsibilities. The laws and court rulings were, as he saw them, clear as day.

Administrative cases came like a torrent. They were, quite strangely, cases based on his previous work as a private practitioner for employees of the Freeport Service Corporation and for which a quitclaim was signed by the same employees. 

 On November 10, 2010 Escolango received a preventive suspension order issued by SBMA administrator Armand Arreza. These were for issues and charges not directly relating to his functions as an SBMA official. Escolango, on November 15, filed a manifestation with his Administrator as well as an appeal before the Civil Service Commission. Both measures were to no avail and the lawyer who prepared a displeasing legal opinion was suspended effective November 11, 2010 to February 8, 2011.

One day before the preventive suspension ended, and without benefit of due process and a public hearing, Atty. Escolango was dismissed from the service. Shortly after, he filed a motion for reconsideration on the strong grounds that any charge of grave misconduct must be for actions while he was a public officer. Again, the motion was to no avail.

Refusing to bow to what he describes as fabricated charges, Escolango has now elevated his case to Ombudsman. He has the right to fight back against those who rule the Freeport like it was a little Tripoli.