Last Saturday, I wrote about the talking points offered by the Society of Jesus Social Apostolate (SJSA) to help members of its network reflect on the events in Mamasapano. We proposed four operative principles that people might consider: (1) Truth- telling is paramount; (2) Justice must be rendered to the victims and their families; (3) There must be accountability for decisions; (4) Peace in Mindanao must not be abandoned. The SJSA document aims “to identify and propose principles and action points to guide our members, both as institutions and individuals, as we critically and creatively engage with this crucial development in Mamasapano that so threatens peace in Mindanao.”
Last Saturday, I elaborated on the first principle—the need to uncover the whole truth. For this column, I will share the SJSA thoughts on justice and accountability. Next Saturday, I will wrote about the fourth principle —on the need to pursue peace in spite of this setback.
In the immediate aftermath of the encounter between commandos of the Special Action Force and the combined forces of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front and the Bangsamoro Islamic Liberation Fighters, there have been vigorous calls for justice. On one hand, unmistakably, people have asked for justice for the SAF 44. Others have broadened the call to include all those who were died, injured and displaced in this tragedy.
The SJSA supports this call for justice, “not as a matter of retribution, of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” but because there must be redress of wrongs and impunity for crimes must be avoided. Indeed, justice must be delivered for what happened in Mamasapano on January 25, 2015. According to the Talking Points: “It might come in different forms for the SAF men, as well as for the MILF/BIFF forces and the civilians killed and injured, but we must try to do our best that this is achieved.”
For the SJSA, it is clear that crimes were committed in Mamasapano: “The authorities should identify the perpetrators, arrest them, bring them to court, and put them on trial in proper judicial proceedings.” But it cautions that the criminal processes must focus on specific individuals and should not be directed towards whole groups. Simplistic ethnic, religious, linguistic or regional categories should be avoided and human rights respected in the pursuit of justice.
The SJSA also points out what kind of justice we should be working for and how it can be pursued while still moving forward on the peace process. For SJSA:
“It is possible to work out a paradigm or road map where we can combine truth-telling and genuine investigation with the pursuit of peace that will produce the hope of ‘justice’ as its outcome. Part of this justice must be a reflection on the type of justice that is demanded. Is this retributive justice (which may only spiral into violence), or are we talking about social justice, wherein we are calling political decision makers to political responsibility? In many situations of war—or what precedes and follows war—justice cannot always be served in its fullness. How do you bring justice to 44 men in uniform whose commanders botched their security operation and so terrified the people of a village? But hopefully, out of this process in seeking justice, those responsible from the MILF and BIFF who have done wrong will be punished, politicians who have erred will be called to political responsibility, police commanders who botched their command will be demoted. However, in the experience of peacemakers with transitional justice, this is not possible without realism and a certain amount of willingness to bring about healing by asking for forgiveness and forgiving others in turn.”
This brings us to the next principle proposed by SJSA: the imperative for accountability. The SJSA points out how “it is entirely possible that everyone involved here did their jobs properly and that this was inherently a risky operation that ended up with the worst possible outcome”. But given what we know now, including the admissions of the key actors from the President, resigned PNP Chief Alan Purisima, SAF Commander Getulio Napeñas, and others, it appears that laws, rules, and procedures might not have been followed. Certainly, as it became clear yesterday during the Senate hearing, at the very least improprieties might have been committed.
Assuming for example that the account Napeñas gave on his meeting with the President and Purisima is the whole truth, were any laws violated during that meeting? Was Purisima’s presence and interventions in that meeting illegal even as it was clearly improper? Did the President commit a crime when he consulted and relied apparently on his inputs? Were the President’s acts impeachable, or at the very least improper? For me the biggest question still are: on the day itself of the attack, did Purisima play any role in giving the go-ahead to the SAF? Did the President authorize the latter to play an operational role? If the answer to these questions is yes, then the actors here might have crossed over now from the inappropriate to the criminal?
As the SJSA Talking Points articulates: “It is important to know who violated what and to hold those persons legally and politically accountable for their decisions. Justice for the SAF men and their families, and for everyone killed and injured in Mamasapano, will be served if those who committed willful or negligent acts are to be held accountable for their decisions.”
Finally, SJSA emphasized why accountability to the country is important. The Mamasapano tragedy has endangered the peace process, “threatening to derail its momentum, even possibly dissipating all the gains achieved over the last two decades”. We cannot pretend that no one was at fault in this unfortunate turn of events. If we do not learn from it, for sure it will be repeated and the cycle of war and conflict will continue.
Facebook page: Dean Tony La Vina Twitter: tonylavs