Marissa N. Mahigab
Joana May B. Apolonio BEE 3-2

Mamasapano probe will prove Pnoy didn’t do anything to save SAF men, says Enrile

Minority Leader Juan Ponce Enrile on Monday vowed that he will prove that President Benigno Aquino III not only was “actively and directly” involved in the planning and preparation of the Mamasapano operation, but that the chief executive did not do anything to save the 44 members of the Philippine National Police-Special Action Force who were killed during the incident.
The veteran senator made the pronouncement on Monday with little more than a week before the resumption of the Senate investigation into the incident, which Enrile pushed the Committee on Public order to reopen.
“So that there will be no more questions whether we should reopen the probe or not, I would like to make manifestation that I have evidence that the President, Benigno Aquino III actively and directly involved himself in the planning and preparation of Oplan Exodus,” said Enrile as committee chairman Senator Grace Poe sought clarification on the Senate Rules Committee decision to reopen the probe.
Enrile said that on the day of actual preparation, the president was monitoring the operations while going to Zamboanga City.
“While the operation is going on the SAF units were being slaughtered, he did not do anything at all to save them. I’m going to prove this with evidence in the hearing, “said Enrile.
When sought for comment, Communication Secretary Herminio Coloma, Jr. Said Malacañiang will answer Enrile’s allegations in the proper forum”.
“We will address these questions if and when these are raised or asked at the proper forum,” Coloma wrote in a text message.
“As we have previously pointed out, the government has always been open and forthright in addressing all questions pertaining to the Mamasapano incident,” he added.
In a televised address a month after the January 25 incident, President Aquino claimed responsibility for the deaths of the SAF 44, saying he will carry tragedy for the rest of his life.
In the National Security. In her manifestation, Poe said she stands by her committee report on the incident but she agreed in the transparency call of Enrile “because he may have new information which will supplement our report, notably new perspectives as he directly discussed with survivors of the incidents and their families.”

She asked the plenary how they will treat resource persons invited before and who testified in executive sessions “taking into consideration the sensitivity of their testimonies and the implication of the same to national security.”
But Enrile believed there was no national security matter involved in the Mamasapano operation.
“This was a police operation involving the enforcement of our criminal laws. In fact, according to the basis of that operation, there was supposed to be enforcing a warrant of arrest. What is national security in that? The life of the nation is not involved... what are we talking about national security here? I’ve been handling national security of this country for 17 years,” he said.
Majority Leader Alan Peter Cayetano, head of the Rules committee, said there is nothing that prevents Enrile from questioning or challenging a witness who will claim national security.
He also said that the under Senate rules, new matters and not necessarily new evidence that arise after the submission of committee report warrants a reopening of the probe.
“Hindi naman court of law ang hearing, this is hearing in aid of legislation so matters regarding the law, the implementation of the law, or factual matters are considered new matters. I have always been fully supportive on the call for reopening and I have always supported this call,’ he said.
Senate President Franklin Drilon, for his part, said will reserve his opinion on the Senate Rules committee interpretation of “he phrase” new matters arising after the report.”
“We would like to state for the record that we would like to study carefully the manifestation and report of the chairman of the Committee on Rules because of its implication in the future matters that may arise in the chamber,” he said.
The plenary upheld the decision of the Rules committee but Drilon abstained because of his reservation.
“I am just reserving my right because this is precedent setting, and in case a similar incident happens in the future, I want to be free to revisit the interpretation, it can happen again and therefore, I want to have that ability to review and examine and not to be bound by this interpretation,” Drilon said in an interview after the session.