FROM under which rock did Human Rights Commissioner Loretta Rosales crawl?
Outside the bounds of ordinary decency, this supposed guardian of human rights in the Philippines this week questioned the results of the Senate investigation into the Mamasapano massacre in which 44 police commandos were killed by Muslim rebels.
The commissioner alleged that in articulating its findings, the Senate panel allowed “emotion rather than objectivity” to prevail.
She also said the Senate’s use of the word “massacre” to describe what happened was “excessive” because the Special Action Force (SAF) commandos were armed and not helpless.
Rosales also said the Senate trivialized the “maturity” of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), which pushed ahead with the signing of a disarmament agreement despite what happened in Mamasapano.
Finally, she said the Senate was unfair in describing the government peace negotiators as “suffering from an excess of optimism” in negotiating the Bangsamoro Basic Law (BBL) with the MILF, because no court has ruled on it, and that it was before Congress so lawmakers could review its provisions.
Let us take these arguments one at a time.
Did emotion rather than objectivity prevail in the writing of the Senate report?
Senator Grace Poe, who prepared the report, states simply—and convincingly–that the committee report was based primarily on the testimony of 37 resource persons given under oath, and more than 4,300 documents presented to her panel.
Was what happened in Mamasapano a “mis-encounter” as some government apologists insist, or was it a massacre?
The Random House Dictionary defines a massacre as the wanton killing of a large number of especially unresisting human beings. In voicing her objection to the use of the term, Rosales clearly glossed over the fact that 27 of the police commandos were shot in the head at close range, indicating that they were already gravely injured and defenseless when they were finished off by the Muslim rebels.
By this definition, there can be no doubt that what happened in Mamasapano was not a “mis-encounter” as government apologists first insisted, but a massacre. Given the grief suffered by the families of the SAF 44, the commissioner’s parsing on this point is nothing short of despicable.
The allegation that the Senate report trivialized the “maturity” of the MILF is just as ridiculous, given that its fighters joined in the massacre despite the ongoing peace process with the government. Just as telling are the MILF’s actions after the massacre. Was the MILF’s refusal to turn over to the government a copy of its own report on the Mamasapano incident a sign of its “maturity”? Rosales is silent, too, on this point.
Finally, it is no surprise that this rights commissioner would come to the defense of the government peace negotiators, regardless of the many defects that are now apparent in the BBL.
The Akbayan party-list to which she belongs has consistently defended the President and his administration, where a number of its members hold key positions.
Perhaps Rosales’ real but unstated objection to the Senate report was its conclusion that her boss, President Benigno Aquino III, was ultimately responsible for the Mamasapano debacle. Perhaps the rights commissioner was merely doing her job and defending her master. That is, after all, what a good attack dog does.