|
THE best that the Armed Forces of the Philippines
could report on the Black Saturday massacre at an army camp in Jolo
is that a civilian “was behind” the rampage that killed nine
soldiers and two civilians. The killer, however, remains
unidentified.
The shooting took place April 7
or 19 days ago. The investigation must have begun immediately April
8. What is keeping the Army from doing a thorough and speedy
investigation?
These facts are undisputable: the
massacre took place at a military camp in Barangay Silangkan, Parang,
Sulu, housing the Charlie Company of the 35th Infantry Battalion. It
started at about 2:25 a.m. At issue is whether a drinking session
was going on. Most first accounts described a drinking bout, but the
Army report on Thursday denied it.
According to the report, the
civilian was accompanied by a soldier going into the camp. The
soldier must have known him. The killer grabbed the rifle of a
sentry at some point. For what reason? The gunman reportedly went on
a rampage for three hours before he was killed by troops at about
5:30 a.m.
Does the reader see the flaws and
gaps in the report? How could a civilian terrorize a detachment for
three hours without being stopped immediately? Did the killer ever
run out of ammo, during which some of the soldiers could have taken
aim and shot him? What were the troops doing?
AFP spokesman, Lt. Col. Bartolome
Bacarro, told newsmen at a briefing Thursday it was a mystery the
suspect remained unidentified. Yes, it’s stupefying, isn’t
it? Why is the basic task of identifying the dead so
formidable for the military investigators?
We have some suggestions. We urge
the AFP to release the picture of the killer and have it published
in the national and hometown papers. Embellish the caption with a
physical description of the shooter, including distinguishing marks
on the body. Put up a prize for the person who could identify him.
We urge the army to publish the
photos taken inside the camp after the shooting. They did take
pictures of the carnage, didn’t they?
We urge the authorities to
identify the nine soldiers and to publish their pictures. Our
reporter could only get such names as “a certain Pvt. Nautan”
and a “certain Pvt. Gindal.” The AFP has a problem getting the
full names of its men.
The report said the killer
entered the camp in the company of Pvt. Nautan. Have they checked
into the background and the friends of the private?
The AFP complains about shortage
of manpower and resources. The death of the nine troops is a big
loss. They deserve military honors. Meanwhile, the military has sent
a hundred soldiers to Metro Manila to educate the poor and to build
public-works projects.
Colonel Bacarro said that AFP
chief of staff, Gen. Hermogenes Esperon Jr., has directed the Army
chief, Lt. Gen. Romeo Tolentino, to begin a new inquiry. They
should. They haven’t even told us who commands the 35th Infantry
Battalion. We haven’t heard anything about apologies or about
taking responsibility for the massacre. We haven’t heard anything
meaningful about the killings.
Sense in Sulu
Unless all parties to the
conflict act sensibly and honorably, the skirmishes and battles in
Sulu between government troops and elements of the Moro National
Liberation Front will escalate into a real war.
Over the past two months,
encounters between the MNLF and government troops have displaced up
to 50,000 persons. It is not a joke for some 10,000 families to be
driven out of their homes by cannon fire and bombs. It is serious
enough to worry some branches of the United Nations. It has
distressed the officials of the Organization of the Islamic
Conference who have asked both the MNLF and the Philippine
government to stop the fighting.
More encounters, which will
displace more families and kill more civilians and soldiers, will
continue unless both the government and the MNLF central command do
as the OIC suggest.
They must immediately establish a
joint monitoring team, exactly like the one in place for Moro
Islamic Liberation Front occupied areas. The 1996 GRP-MNLF Final
Peace Agreement in fact calls for such a joint-monitoring
“committee” made up of OIC, Philippine government and MNLF
representatives. Such a system has worked so well with the MILF,
with whom the government is soon to resume talks to forge the
GRP-MILF peace agreement.
Executive Secretary Eduardo
Ermita was talking about such a monitoring system earlier this week.
He said the government, the MNLF and the OIC will discuss setting up
a ceasefire mechanism in the Sulu-Basilan-Tawi-Tawi area at a
tripartite meeting to review the implementation of the 1996 GRP-MNLF
FPA.
But when will the tripartite
review of the 1996 FPA be held? Was it not the government’s
decision to postpone this scheduled tripartite meeting in Jeddah
that led to the recalcitrant behavior of Ustadz Habier Malik in the
first place?
The government should move to
hold the meeting soonest.
|
