What’s wrong with the truth?

THE NEXT PAGE / Dean dela Paz

Recently, the highest official in the land—the person we trusted with the awesome powers of the presidency, the coffers of the national treasury, and the full might of the police and Armed Forces—has had his word tested and retested. So far, the man has failed those tests miserably. His credibility shot full of holes and his trust ratings in a free fall, what precious legacy his parents died for are now a shambles.

It is unfortunate that, coming from being labeled the “Pork Barrel King,” President Benigno Aquino III is now being called the “Massacre King.” In the former, funds were malversed to fatten political patronage. Now, lives have again been lost brutally, and uselessly. Unable to resort to default and characteristic finger-pointing, the President finds that there is no one to blame. That last point is critical. Ironically, as if mocked by karma, fate and circumstance, questions of integrity seem to be suddenly more important now than they have ever been.

In this short essay, we will be debunking an age-old cliché declaring that the truth is the best way out of a pickle and that the truth, as the crusty cliché goes, sets us free.

Take at face value the following facts on the Mamasapano massacre assembled from publications, pronouncements, sworn testimony, unaltered video and undisputed sources tested and tempered by debate and which bear little or no internal discrepancies. By most criteria, these have been accepted as true and definitive.

While each is undeniable, they remain inexplicable. And inexcusable—shorn of immunities, not likely to set anyone free from the subsequent obstruction of justice and betrayal of the public trust charges.

The first involves unfolding foreign intervention and its extent. It has to do with sovereignty or, in its absence, subservience.

The first statement on the issue declared that intervention was limited to medical evacuation after the massacre occurred. When undeniable videos of drone aircraft surveilling in real time as the massacre unfolded surfaced, previous statements were amended to include intelligence gathering. Later, congressional-hearing documents revealed that six foreigners were present at the Tactical Command Post, one of whom ordered a Filipino brigade commander to initiate artillery fire.

The second has to do with critical and competent coordination, or, in its absence, fatal and incompetent bungling.

The President, a suspended general and the Special Action Force (SAF) commander were “in the loop” from the planning up to the execution stage. The head of the Philippine National Police and the secretary of the Interior were deliberately kept out. No one disputes these relationships. The President knew his Interior secretary was in the doghouse. The alienation had his consent.

The third has to do with leadership accountability or, in its absence, criminal irresponsibility.

When first interviewed, the President said he was on top of the situation. Later, news releases attempted to depict that his full and busy schedule only allowed updates late in the day. Never mind that cell-phone text records show otherwise.

Eventually, while the President claimed command responsibility, he would later claim he was “fooled.” Later still, choosing between a suspended general and a field officer, the President would again change his line, this time claiming that the SAF commander “lied.”

The fourth deals with the Filipino value of malasakit—care, compassion and sympathy, or, in its absence, a puerile propensity to ogle shiny cars.

As emotions peaked and the dead were finally brought back to Manila, their homecoming was attended by a combination of deep sorrow and profound grief, profuse tears shed and solemn prayers said for justice, compassion and concern for those orphaned and widowed—all experienced unfathomable pain.

At that time, the President chose the creature comforts of pomp and pageantry over the more profound responsibilities of his office.

All these are undeniable reality. The truth is that some enjoy cars, guns, toy soldiers and video games. What 10-year-old does not?