Napeñas: The burden of command

As I watched the Senate hearings on the Mamasapano conflict that resulted in the unfortunate deaths of 44 PNP SAF policemen, the one person — among all the participants — that made an impression on me was PNP Director Getulio Napeñas. By the end of the two days I had begun to empathize with him.

Almost all the other people in the hearings had their own personal agendas. There were the resource persons who were there to make sure that after all  the finger pointing was done, there would be no finger pointed at them. Some were there whose questioning and testifying were preparation for the 2016 elections.

There were those who were crying for blood and demanding for an all out war. I hope that if war is again resumed and thousands of Filipinos end up again dying in the conflict zones, the world will remember the faces and voices of those who passionately advocated war as the only alternative. There were a few voices of reason trying to save the peace process.

Napeñas endured all the questions and accusations with stoicism but with obvious anguish and sorrow. After all, he was the commander of the PNP SAF that suffered the fatalities. It was he who had to suffer the pangs of conscience. It was also his personal honor and career record that was at stake.

During the hearings, Napeñas had four main points he kept stressing in his testimonies.

First, the mission was a success. The objective of neutralizing the international terrorist Marwan was accomplished. Furthermore, although the SAF suffered casualties, they inflicted bigger casualties on the BIFF and the MILF. This point seemed very important to him because it would lessen the pain of the lost lives on the part of their families and the PNP as a whole. It would be a tragic ending to a sad story if, after all those sacrifices, the mission would be declared a failure.

Second, Napeñas admitted that after updating the President on the progress of the planning, the President had told him to coordinate with General Catapang, AFP Chief of Staff. He also stated that the President did not give any order for the OPLAN EXODUS which resulted in the Mamasapano conflict.

However, he asserted that the failure to inform the AFP and other higher officials was not a violation of any police procedures or legal processes. The decision to inform the others only at the so-called “time on target” was part of the operational plan that had been previously approved. Napeñas even read from the PNP Handbook Rule Four which, according to him, gave him the authority to conduct field operations without necessarily having to get the go signal from higher officers. This point is crucial because it would establish that he acted in good faith and did not mean to deliberately violate any PNP protocols.

Third, the PNP SAF forces that were engaged in the fight did ask for support from the Armed Forces of the Philippines and gave the army ground commanders the information needed to send assistance. This is where the details get murky because there are conflicting versions of when the assistance was requested and whether the intelligence information was complete. Napeñas was obviously  very emotional and grief stricken when he said that he requested for help but the AFP “abandoned” them.

Fourth, and perhaps the most sensitive part of his testimony, Director Napeñas insists that he did not break the chain of command. He said he did not take any orders from suspended PNP Director General Alan Purisima but only followed the advice given to him. When asked why he accepted the advice, Napeñas said that it was a “judgment call” on his part.

I would like to believe that Napeñas was telling the truth. He had no intention of deliberately breaking the chain of command. Based on his record and his demeanour during the hearings, I feel it was really a “judgment call.” Besides, if Napeñas admits he broke the chain of command, he is subject to possible court martial or dishonorable dismissal from the service.

If the mission had succeeded without any loss of life, his judgment call would have been called a stroke of genius. But military history is full of examples of commanders who had the best intentions but had to suffer the consequences of failures. American military history, for example, has in their annals, the failed rescue attempt of the hostages in Iran after the US Embassy was taken over by dissidents. The failure of the US Rangers to assassinate a rebel leader in Somalia was later made into a movie called Black Hawk Down.

The record of Director Napeñas also does not show any direct connection between his promotions and Purisima or Espina.

He is a PMA graduate of class 1982. As a young police officer, he served in the provinces of Sultan Kudarat and Maguindanao. He became provincial police director of South Cotabato in 2005 and served for two years. Governor Daisy Avancena-Fuentes and then PNP Director General Aglipay spoke very highly of him. He served as commander of the Philippine police contingent in the United Nations peacekeeping force in Kosovo. Napeñas also topped various trainings in special action forces which he attended. He was regional police director in the CARAGA region of Mindanao, until he was appointed PNP SAF head in December 2013.

Mistakes were made that led to the death of the 44 members of SAF. But it is a dangerous precedent for lawmakers and other officials to claim – after the incident happened – that they could have done better than the ground commanders and the implication that disaster could have been easily avoided.

Unless there are evidences of cowardice or deliberate violation of the law and battlefield regulations, we should assume that Director Napeñas was guilty of bad judgment and must now accept censure which is the burden of command.

*      *      *

Email: [email protected]