A war against one, peace for more

“REGARDLESS of who did the crime, they will have to pay. That has been the direction of this administration from the start—you do the crime, you will be in jail.” This statement by President Benigno Aquino Jr. is in relation to the killing of an Italian missionary.

But let me compare this statement of the President to his other statement in relation to the 19 soldiers who died in a clash in Al-Barka, Basilan province. Asked whether there was a need to review or even suspend the ceasefire agreement with the MILF, the President said:

“(Are) we advocating (an) all-out war… that redounds to an improvement to the situation?” “(W)e have to learn. Nobody benefits from war.” Mr. Aquino dismissed suggestions that government go all-out against the MILF following the attack in Basilan which many branded as treacherous.

“The war is over. The peace needs to be won completely…If there’s one rotten egg, should the whole basket of eggs be tagged as bad? It would be good if we would investigate what happened. Who’s at fault? Who committed an abuse? etc.,” he said. (“Aquino: No to all-out war on Moro rebels” by Christian V. Esguerra, DJ Yap, Norman Bordadora, Philippine Daily Inquirer)

Sounds conflicting. For the killing of one person, the President vows to get the killer, the culprit and that by all cause, regardless of who did the crime, they will have to pay. An immediate probe was conducted right away. But what about the 19 soldiers? Why such hesitation to go after the culprit? What difference does it make?

Rebels commit crimes and the commission of which is very apparent. Evidence for that matter could be traced even without probe, probe and probe! The killer of the Italian priest is also a culprit! In layman’s term, he is a killer, a murderer. The same with those who did the slaying of the 19 soldiers.

Army spokesperson Col. Antonio Parlade said wounded the soldiers reported that they saw their comrades captured alive after running out of ammunition. “They were captured and then killed. So they murdered the six,” Parlade said. Is it not treacherous, a circumstance that qualifies the killing into murder? The killing of the priest was done treacherously. No difference there, right?

So why continue adhering peace talks? He said, if there’s one rotten egg, should the whole basket of eggs be tagged as bad?” Look, rebels are hiding. Rebels commit rebellion and it is a crime. Rebels kill. Why would you investigate who is at fault? They kill, right? And it is a crime.

Do you have to determine who’s at fault? C’mon! Tinutugis ang taong pumatay ng isang tao. Bakit peace talks ang solution sa pagkamatay ng 19 soldiers? You look for the killer of the priest regardless of who did the crime, they will have to pay. But why would you not look for the killers while you already know who they are?

 

For God’s sake, this is a waste of time. This is a war against one culprit and peace talks for more culprits. When a person dies extrajudicially, they demand human rights! But what about the 19 soldiers who died? Nasaan ang human rights? What if it is the President who is being attacked by the rebels? Will you take peace talks as a solution? Do we have to determine who’s at fault? How many soldiers will have to die before you work on this problem? 

(Issue of Oct. 24-30, 2011)