Unanswered Questions About an Untimely Death
Perhaps the worst experience one can ever have is to lose a loved one in an untimely death, although death by disease is much better than death by accident. Death by accident is like a thief that comes under cover of darkness, stealing your loved one from you in the least expected moment, when your guard is down and emotions vulnerable.
Such sudden, unexpected deaths usually leave behind grieving relatives who are haunted with nagging questions like “What if..?”, “How can it happen…?” and the most compelling “Why?”.
An example is the sad fate which befell the Presidential chopper which crashed in Ifugao last April 7. Eight lives were lost that day, persons who were serving not just the President but the whole country as well. It was indeed a mournful loss, the grief of the family shared by many others.
I personally knew one of the victims, although not enough to say that I am close. I had many occasions to interact with Usec. Malou Frostrom owing to the nature of our jobs. That’s why when I first heard that she was among the passengers of the ill-fated chopper, I had a reason to give the news a little bit more attention.
The circumstances of the crash gave rise to questions as to how it could have happened considering that the area has a reputation of being inhospitable to flying during the time of the day that it took off. The accident could have been avoided if prudence was exercised, especially that there was a practice among aviators not to fly out of Loakan after 3:00PM.
This practice, which at that time was unclear to the public if it was actually a policy, had a reason to be in place and the nagging question in my mind was “why did the chopper take off and who authorized the flight?” The question was coming from the purpose of reviewing aviation policy and avoiding future accidents.
Media outfits carried the questions that I had as news reports which in turn earned the displeasure of Malacanang. I reacted to the tirade of the Press Secretary through my blog and subsequently delivered a privilege speech to call for an inquiry in the House of Representatives.
The inquiry was also given reason to be conducted even by Ms. Marichu Villanueva, a member of the Malacanang Press Corps, who wrote an article entitled “After Grief, Let Justice Be Served” in the April 24 edition of the Philippine Star. In it, she wrote “This sad incident should have ended there. But apparently there’s still a crying need to hold somebody, or some people accountable for this fatal chopper accident. Such sentiments continuously poured. But whether these sentiments are valid or not, this incident must not be just left to God’s will.”
It is no wonder then that my father, Senator Rodolfo Biazon had the same thing on his mind when he called for an inquiry in the upper chamber. Although we did not coordinate on this, perhaps he countless times that he has mentored me in my job as a legislator has resulted in us thinking along the same lines.
But it seems that our line of thinking---that the accident should be thoroughly looked into in order to get the whole picture of how the accident happened in order to prevent its reoccurrence---is not shared by all, especially Malacanang.
The inquiry in the Senate was already scheduled but the committee was asked by the Senate leadership to postpone indefinitely owing to a request from Malacanang on the grounds that “they are not yet ready.”
In the House of Representatives, the hearing was scheduled to proceed with me as chair of the hearing. While we were preparing for the hearing, the committee staff was contacted by some family members of some of the victims who expressed interest in the inquiry.
At first, I thought they were going to object to the hearing, which seemed to be the line of Malacanang. But I was surprised to be informed that the families wanted the hearing to proceed because they wanted to know the whole truth about how the accident which claimed the lives of their loved ones happened.
One of the staff in the House secretariat was a classmate of one of the crash victims and is close to the family. She told me that the wife of one of the casualties is really distraught, owing to the fact her husband was so dedicated to his job that his time with the family was limited and with his death, he is now forever parted from his wife and children. She is simply at a loss on how to live without him.
The House staff went on to tell me that what was really painful for the wife was that as her husband was leaving that day for the flight, she had asked him to stay and let the team go without him. She pleaded with him twice, but saying that he had a duty to perform, he left to board the chopper. Little did he know that that was the last time he would be talking to his wife.
I also received an email from someone who claimed to be a relative of one of the pilots. He said that he too, wants to know what really happened that fateful day. He said he knew his relative to be a good pilot and not one to taking risks.
Confident with the knowledge that the families themselves are interested in finding out the whole story about the ill-fated flight, I advised the committee secretariat that the hearing will proceed as scheduled.
On the morning of the hearing itself, which was scheduled at 1:30PM that afternoon, I was requested by the Chairman of the Oversight Committee on Dangerous Drugs to stand in for him in a hearing of his committee. I acceded to his request, since the hearing of his committee was scheduled at 10:00AM.
While I was in the Dangerous Drugs Committee hearing, I received a text message from the staff of the Defense Committee, telling me that they needed to talk to me before we start the hearing on the chopper crash. I sensed that there was a problem, but I had a task at hand, so I set it aside for awhile and tried to finish the hearing on time.
Due to extended questions by congressmen, we weren’t able to conclude the hearing on time, so I was late going to the Defense Committee. Before entering the hearing room, I was met by the committee staff who told me that they received a message from Malacanang.
Before he even told me what the message was, I already knew what it was. Malacanang was requesting that the hearing be postponed, since they were “not yet ready”, especially that they had just observed the 40th day of the deaths. The invited guests from the Presidential Management Staff (PMS) and the Presidential Security Group (PSG) were not going to attend.
I was also shown by the committee staff a letter from the Department of Defense informing the committee that the officers from the Armed Forces of the Philippines will not be able to attend the hearing since they were not able to secure permission from the Office of the President. But the AFP sent officers as resource persons for the bill proposing an increase in quarters allowance, since I also included it as part of the agenda for that afternoon’s hearing.
It became apparent that there is an effort to prevent the inquiry into the chopper crash. Even prior to the scheduled hearings in the Senate and the House, there were steps which seemed to be designed to stop the inquiry.
When I delivered my privilege speech on the crash, I moved for the inquiry citing several policy questions which I believed should be answered in order to enhance aviation safety. Although these questions were brought about by the crash of the presidential chopper, the adoption or modification of policies will benefit not just the aviation sector but the public as well.
Normally, privilege speeches are referred to the Committee on Rules in order to determine which committee it will be referred to for action. The one who delivered the speech is invited to explain the purpose of the speech and the action desired by the one who delivered it.
But in the case of my speech, it was taken up and acted on by the Committee on Rules without giving me the opportunity to explain the speech, although it was already clearly stated in my discourse.
The Committee on Rules sent my speech to the archives, even though the speech moved for an inquiry into military and civilian aviation policy and a further motion of referring the speech to the Committee on Defense.
When I came to know about the action on my speech, I decided to raise it as in issue in plenary. But some colleagues, members of the Committee on Rules, offered to just reverse the committee’s action and have it immediately referred to the Committee on Defense. Hence, I was able to schedule the hearing. Sadly, it seems Malacanang is taking steps to prevent it from happening.
After learning from the committee staff the request from Malacanang and the non-appearance of the invited guests from the PMS, PSG and AFP, I peeked inside the hearing room and saw the guests from the private sector, aviation experts and civilian pilots. The families of two of the victims were also there, although they were not officially invited. They came on their own volition, in the desire to learn the truth.
There were also two members of congress there, known close allies of Malacanang. At that point, I had to make a quick decision. Either I push through with the hearing or postpone. If I push through, I already anticipated the possibility of someone questioning the quorum (there was none) which would result in the adjournment of the committee hearing, and waste the time and effort of those who were present. On the other hand, if I postpone, everyone will go home without accomplishing anything.
After a quick consideration, I decided to cut the agenda into two. I would proceed with the hearing on the Quarters Allowance Bill, and just take up the chopper crash as a consultation, which cannot be questioned on the basis of quorum. It would be an activity purely at my discretion as chair. We will still be able to ask questions about the crash minus the possibility of the proceedings being challenged.
I then convened the committee and announced what will happen in the proceedings. The moment that I announced that we were not going to take up the chopper crash in a hearing but rather in a consultation, I noticed the families, who were seated at the back of the hearing room, animatedly talking among themselves looking agitated. A couple of minutes later, they all stood up and walked out of the room.
I immediately instructed my staff to try to catch up to them and explain to them that we will still discuss the matter, only that it will be in a consultation instead of a committee hearing. My staff was able to catch up but when he tried to explain, they did not want to hear any of it.
They were extremely disappointed. They had been waiting for the hearing, even skipping lunch, to find out what they can about the circumstances of their relative’s death. I can understand their frustration. Perhaps they even regard me with displeasure. But I don’t take it against them if they got angry at what happened, although I had all the intention of proceeding with asking questions about the crash. Maybe this is not the first time that their quest for answers were met with a blank wall.
The consultation proceeded in spite of the absence of the victims’ families. The information provided by the resource persons---aviation security experts, air accident investigation experts and pilots---all proved to be important and crucial in understanding the crash. It provided sufficient preliminary information that may be used when we finally conduct the official inquiry into the chopper crash.
What bothers me now is that there seems to be an effort to sweep this issue under the rug and relegate it to a forgotten memory, in spite of the fact that the families themselves are straining to find the truth. In addition, the whole circumstance surrounding the crash should be revealed in order to prevent the recurrence of accidents.
But I have this feeling that the next time I pursue this inquiry, it will once again be met with resistance. If that happens, then maybe I might just have to accept the reality that any effort will be in vain. It just bothers me that the families of the victims themselves are seeking the truth and it appears that I have failed them in their quest.
The truth may never be found out and just remain in the bosom of the cloud-covered mountains of Ifugao. All I can do at this time is offer my prayers for the departed and the families they left behind.
Showing posts with label presidential chopper crash. Show all posts
Showing posts with label presidential chopper crash. Show all posts
Friday, May 22, 2009
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Privilege Speech on the Presidential Chopper Crash and Secretary Cerge Remonde
Mr Speaker,
I am certain that I can speak in behalf of this House when I say that we mourn the lives that were lost during the crash of that ill-fated Presidential helicopter in the mountains of Ifugao.
The country lost public servants—two Undersecretaries, one general, one director, two pilots, two soldiers.
We speak their names with reverence and a prayer that the Almighty has taken them into His arms in everlasting peace :
1. Undersecretary Jose Capadocia
2. Undersecretary Marilou Frostrom
3. Brig. Gen. Carlos Clet (AFP)
4. Assistant Director Perlita Bandayanon
5. Major Rolando Sacatani
6. Captain Alvin Alegata
7. Quarter Master 3rd Class Demy Reyno
8. Sergeant Roegem Perez
There is no doubt that the Filipino people, no matter what dialect, no matter what faith, no matter what occupation, no matter what political leaning, are united in extending sympathies to the families of the departed.
Personally, I am one of those who were shocked at hearing the news of the aircraft’s crash because I knew one of those on board, Marilou Frostrom. My immediate reaction was to offer a silent prayer for each of those who perished.
But while the lives of the eight have ceased to exist, life on this earth goes on and we all have our responsibilities to perform. One of those is to make sure that their lives were not lost in vain, that their deaths will mean more than just a helicopter succumbing to the elements and nature.
We must make sure that their loss will not be repeated again.
It is in the performance of that responsibility that the Philippine Air Force Aircraft Accident Investigation Board dutifully investigated the mishap. I must commend the Board for their immediate and swift action, which resulted in the determination of how the helicopter met its fate.
With the finding that the aircraft was in top airworthiness at the time of its loss, the investigation of the debris on site and the information gathered regarding the weather and flying conditions at that time, it was determined by the PAFAAIB that the Presidential helicopter, a Bell 412, fell to earth due to inclement weather and poor visibility.
I believe that the investigating board, with its technical knowledge, expertise and experience, came up with this conclusion with utmost reliable competence. There is no reason for us to doubt their results, which I am confident was arrived at with skill, diligence, and sincerity. I believe we can all accept the findings that the immediate cause of the crash was what was reported by the PAF Aircraft Accident Investigating Board.
To some, that closes the book on this tragedy. For others, including this representation it is not.
For this representation, stopping at the conclusion on the immediate cause of the crash will not help in preventing future accidents. Although it somehow sheds light on the sudden loss of lives, just knowing the immediate cause will not result in saving other lives.
It is for this reason that I dared ask a question that still lingered in my mind, at the risk of sounding insensitive since the people are still in mourning for the lives lost. But it bothered my conscience to think that this might all be forgotten after the period of mourning. The investigation will be wrapped up and we all go back to our normal lives.
For me, if that happens, then our eight countrymen, who lived for this country, would have died in vain.
I asked the question—who ordered or authorized the flight?
The question would not have been relevant except for one thing----there is an existing policy or practice that aircraft are not supposed to fly out of Loakan after 3:00 PM. In fact, the airport closes at 3:30 PM. In fact, there is even a trivia among aviators about Loakan Airport being the only airport in the world where pedestrians are allowed to promenade on the runway and sometimes people take their cars on speed test runs on the tarmac after the airport closes.
The reason for the airport closure in the afternoon is common knowledge. The weather becomes unfavorable for flying in the afternoon. As the sun goes down and cools the air, the clouds begin to embrace the surrounding mountains and cause visibility to deteriorate. Coupled with increased winds blowing around the mountain range, flying becomes dangerous.
Whether it is a fixed policy or just a practice, it needs to be clarified. But the fact is, it is there for a reason—to prevent what happened to the Presidential helicopter on April 7, 2009.
While the investigating board’s report explained the immediate cause of the crash of a perfectly airworthy aircraft, it did not explain why it was allowed to take off at a time when it is common knowledge that aircraft are not allowed to take off from Loakan at that time of the day, never mind whether it is a policy or a just a practice.
With that consideration, the question of who ordered or authorized the flight becomes relevant.
I raised that question with the sincere objective of finding out the entire circumstance behind the crash of the helicopter. It is with the desire to find out how we can prevent the occurrence of such accidents in the future and to save lives.
That’s why I was first appalled then insulted by the reaction of Press Undersecretary Cerge Remonde to the question that I raised. Coincidentally, without us even talking about it or coordinating with each other, it was the same question raised by Senator Rodolfo Biazon, Chairman of the Senate Committee on National Defense and a former AFP Chief of Staff.
Instead of simply offering a direct answer to a legitimate question, Secretary Remonde went on a tirade against this representation, labeling it as a query “below the belt”.
He said that it was a “senseless and baseless accusation” and that “insisting that the orders to take off came from someone from her family is the most callous, insensitive and senseless thing to do”. He went on to say that it was “adding insult to injury”.
He then accused me and the senator of allowing ourselves “to be used as a tool for dignifying these text rumors that were spread” about the crash.
I find the reaction of the Press Secretary off-tangent, out of line, missing its mark.
First off, this representation never made an accusation against anyone with the question that I raised. Being a former journalist, it should be clear to him that my question---“Who gave the order or authorized the flight?”---- is one of the basic questions that a journalist should ask to get information on a particular issue or event. “Who, What, When, Where, Why and How”. It is not an accusation but a query for facts.
Never did I insinuate any person’s involvement and neither did I cite any text message or rumor as a basis of the question. In fact, I did not even know about the text message until the Press Secretary himself said that there’s one.
I am not the one who allowed myself to be used as a tool for dignifying the text message, it is he. The citation of the text message by the Press Secretary and Spokesperson of the President in a press conference and interviews is the act which dignified the text message.
Worst, it is the Press Secretary himself who has officially dragged the name of the President and the members of the First Family into the issue. I reiterate that a did not mention, insinuate the involvement of or made reference to the President or any member of her family.
What he called as hitting below the belt is actually an act in compliance to my oversight duties as a legislator and Vice Chairman of the Committee on National Defense and Security of this chamber. Historical records and common knowledge in the House of Representatives will show that from my first term in the 12th Congress, I consistently focus on issues involving national defense, public order, the Armed Forces of the Philippines, the Philippine National Police and other related agendas.
What crashed is an air asset of the Philippine Air Force and the Presidential Security Group which are both units of the AFP and distinguished officers, one of them a general and two of our finest pilots, were lost. I believe I am perfectly within my field, area of focus and mandate to make queries on the matter.
The point I raised is not adding insult to injury but aimed at preventing injury and death in the future. The question of who authorized or ordered the flight is immediately followed by the query as to the basis of such order or authority in light of the no-fly-beyond-3:00 PM policy or practice, whatever it may be.
It is now imperative to determine whether it is indeed just a practice and not a policy. If it is a policy, then the flight is definitely and undeniably a violation of such policy. The one who authorized or ordered the flight should be held accountable.
If it is just a practice, then it is high time that we consider converting it to a policy, because the very reason why it is practiced just happened to the presidential helicopter.
As the country’s Legislature, it is therefore within our bounds, authority, and function to enact or cause the adoption of policy.
Contrary to the Secretary’s portrayal of this representation’s queries, it is he who is making baseless accusations and being callous and insensitive by desecrating the memory of those who died by dragging the whole matter into a political arena.
By accusing this representation of making baseless accusations against the President when he said “it is clear they’re trying to blame the President for it” when in fact I am not, he seems to have deliberately splashed political color to the issue. Using the unfortunate incident to portray those who raise legitimate questions as unduly hitting at the President is distasteful.
Perhaps the Secretary is being too overeager to earn brownie points by making a show of defending the President but sadly, at the expense of those who died and to the detriment of efforts to prevent future accidents.
It never crossed my mind that it was the President who ordered or authorized the flight. I have been exposed to and involved with the Armed Forces long enough to know that in the AFP organization, there is a Chain of Command where the principle is that officers and enlisted personnel only receive and obey orders from their immediate superiors.
I do not believe the President will break that Chain of Command and micro manage the flight of a particular Air Force chopper. When I asked for the identity of the source of flight orders or authorization, I was not expecting or suspecting the President because she is not the immediate superior of the pilots.
Furthermore, I am also aware that in the military organization, no movement, maneuver or operation involving military assets and personnel occurs without the corresponding necessary orders or authority. In the military organization, someone is always accountable for whatever happens.
Secretary Remonde’s explanation that the unit is autonomous, that they can fly whenever they want, wherever they want, to me is irregular and unacceptable. If that is a policy or a practice, it needs to be reviewed. While the Presidential Air Wing exists for the use and benefit of the President, they are still AFP assets and personnel and remain within the Chain of Command and therefore still covered by AFP rules and regulations.
His statement that the no-fly policy or practice only applies to civilian aircraft and not to military aircraft merits review. What makes civilian aircraft different from AFP aircraft which justifies the non-applicability of the rule? Are all our military aircraft all-weather capable? Is there a rule for military aircraft which carry civilian passengers? These are all well-meaning policy questions that are aimed at ensuring safe flying conditions.
The circumstances of the accident reveal that there is basis for the question I raised and more queries based on subsequent statements of Secretary Remonde. At first I thought that my simple question would be given a direct and simple answer which would have made matters more simple.
But Secretary Remonde’s tirade, which actually brought out more information that also bred more questions, has made it imperative for me to move that this House conduct an inquiry into the no-fly policy or practice in Loakan Airport, standard operating procedures for military aircraft, and command structure and relationship of the AFP and civilian government agencies that interact by reason of function.
I also move that this inquiry be conducted by the Committee on National Defense and Security based on the fact that the incident involves personnel and an air asset of the Armed Forces of the Philippines.
Finally, as a parting statement, I would like to give unsolicited advice to Secretary Remonde.
Do not put words into the mouths of other people, especially those who have not commissioned you as their spokesperson. I did not make an accusation against the president nor any other person. I raised a legitimate question in search of facts.
Do not be overeager to drag the name of the President into an issue on the pretext of defending her. Sometimes she is not even involved or she is not the target but in the eagerness to defend her, she is unwittingly cast into the limelight.
Do not think that everyone is out to simply politically harass the President. Your judgment on who is simply doing his job and who acts on political motivation seems to have been clouded by your own biases.
Hindi lahat ng tao ay gusto lang manggulo. Meron din namang iba na gusto lang na gawin yung tama sa tamang paraan.
To my distinguished colleagues and to the Speaker, thank you for the time.
House of Representatives
April 20, 2009
I am certain that I can speak in behalf of this House when I say that we mourn the lives that were lost during the crash of that ill-fated Presidential helicopter in the mountains of Ifugao.
The country lost public servants—two Undersecretaries, one general, one director, two pilots, two soldiers.
We speak their names with reverence and a prayer that the Almighty has taken them into His arms in everlasting peace :
1. Undersecretary Jose Capadocia
2. Undersecretary Marilou Frostrom
3. Brig. Gen. Carlos Clet (AFP)
4. Assistant Director Perlita Bandayanon
5. Major Rolando Sacatani
6. Captain Alvin Alegata
7. Quarter Master 3rd Class Demy Reyno
8. Sergeant Roegem Perez
There is no doubt that the Filipino people, no matter what dialect, no matter what faith, no matter what occupation, no matter what political leaning, are united in extending sympathies to the families of the departed.
Personally, I am one of those who were shocked at hearing the news of the aircraft’s crash because I knew one of those on board, Marilou Frostrom. My immediate reaction was to offer a silent prayer for each of those who perished.
But while the lives of the eight have ceased to exist, life on this earth goes on and we all have our responsibilities to perform. One of those is to make sure that their lives were not lost in vain, that their deaths will mean more than just a helicopter succumbing to the elements and nature.
We must make sure that their loss will not be repeated again.
It is in the performance of that responsibility that the Philippine Air Force Aircraft Accident Investigation Board dutifully investigated the mishap. I must commend the Board for their immediate and swift action, which resulted in the determination of how the helicopter met its fate.
With the finding that the aircraft was in top airworthiness at the time of its loss, the investigation of the debris on site and the information gathered regarding the weather and flying conditions at that time, it was determined by the PAFAAIB that the Presidential helicopter, a Bell 412, fell to earth due to inclement weather and poor visibility.
I believe that the investigating board, with its technical knowledge, expertise and experience, came up with this conclusion with utmost reliable competence. There is no reason for us to doubt their results, which I am confident was arrived at with skill, diligence, and sincerity. I believe we can all accept the findings that the immediate cause of the crash was what was reported by the PAF Aircraft Accident Investigating Board.
To some, that closes the book on this tragedy. For others, including this representation it is not.
For this representation, stopping at the conclusion on the immediate cause of the crash will not help in preventing future accidents. Although it somehow sheds light on the sudden loss of lives, just knowing the immediate cause will not result in saving other lives.
It is for this reason that I dared ask a question that still lingered in my mind, at the risk of sounding insensitive since the people are still in mourning for the lives lost. But it bothered my conscience to think that this might all be forgotten after the period of mourning. The investigation will be wrapped up and we all go back to our normal lives.
For me, if that happens, then our eight countrymen, who lived for this country, would have died in vain.
I asked the question—who ordered or authorized the flight?
The question would not have been relevant except for one thing----there is an existing policy or practice that aircraft are not supposed to fly out of Loakan after 3:00 PM. In fact, the airport closes at 3:30 PM. In fact, there is even a trivia among aviators about Loakan Airport being the only airport in the world where pedestrians are allowed to promenade on the runway and sometimes people take their cars on speed test runs on the tarmac after the airport closes.
The reason for the airport closure in the afternoon is common knowledge. The weather becomes unfavorable for flying in the afternoon. As the sun goes down and cools the air, the clouds begin to embrace the surrounding mountains and cause visibility to deteriorate. Coupled with increased winds blowing around the mountain range, flying becomes dangerous.
Whether it is a fixed policy or just a practice, it needs to be clarified. But the fact is, it is there for a reason—to prevent what happened to the Presidential helicopter on April 7, 2009.
While the investigating board’s report explained the immediate cause of the crash of a perfectly airworthy aircraft, it did not explain why it was allowed to take off at a time when it is common knowledge that aircraft are not allowed to take off from Loakan at that time of the day, never mind whether it is a policy or a just a practice.
With that consideration, the question of who ordered or authorized the flight becomes relevant.
I raised that question with the sincere objective of finding out the entire circumstance behind the crash of the helicopter. It is with the desire to find out how we can prevent the occurrence of such accidents in the future and to save lives.
That’s why I was first appalled then insulted by the reaction of Press Undersecretary Cerge Remonde to the question that I raised. Coincidentally, without us even talking about it or coordinating with each other, it was the same question raised by Senator Rodolfo Biazon, Chairman of the Senate Committee on National Defense and a former AFP Chief of Staff.
Instead of simply offering a direct answer to a legitimate question, Secretary Remonde went on a tirade against this representation, labeling it as a query “below the belt”.
He said that it was a “senseless and baseless accusation” and that “insisting that the orders to take off came from someone from her family is the most callous, insensitive and senseless thing to do”. He went on to say that it was “adding insult to injury”.
He then accused me and the senator of allowing ourselves “to be used as a tool for dignifying these text rumors that were spread” about the crash.
I find the reaction of the Press Secretary off-tangent, out of line, missing its mark.
First off, this representation never made an accusation against anyone with the question that I raised. Being a former journalist, it should be clear to him that my question---“Who gave the order or authorized the flight?”---- is one of the basic questions that a journalist should ask to get information on a particular issue or event. “Who, What, When, Where, Why and How”. It is not an accusation but a query for facts.
Never did I insinuate any person’s involvement and neither did I cite any text message or rumor as a basis of the question. In fact, I did not even know about the text message until the Press Secretary himself said that there’s one.
I am not the one who allowed myself to be used as a tool for dignifying the text message, it is he. The citation of the text message by the Press Secretary and Spokesperson of the President in a press conference and interviews is the act which dignified the text message.
Worst, it is the Press Secretary himself who has officially dragged the name of the President and the members of the First Family into the issue. I reiterate that a did not mention, insinuate the involvement of or made reference to the President or any member of her family.
What he called as hitting below the belt is actually an act in compliance to my oversight duties as a legislator and Vice Chairman of the Committee on National Defense and Security of this chamber. Historical records and common knowledge in the House of Representatives will show that from my first term in the 12th Congress, I consistently focus on issues involving national defense, public order, the Armed Forces of the Philippines, the Philippine National Police and other related agendas.
What crashed is an air asset of the Philippine Air Force and the Presidential Security Group which are both units of the AFP and distinguished officers, one of them a general and two of our finest pilots, were lost. I believe I am perfectly within my field, area of focus and mandate to make queries on the matter.
The point I raised is not adding insult to injury but aimed at preventing injury and death in the future. The question of who authorized or ordered the flight is immediately followed by the query as to the basis of such order or authority in light of the no-fly-beyond-3:00 PM policy or practice, whatever it may be.
It is now imperative to determine whether it is indeed just a practice and not a policy. If it is a policy, then the flight is definitely and undeniably a violation of such policy. The one who authorized or ordered the flight should be held accountable.
If it is just a practice, then it is high time that we consider converting it to a policy, because the very reason why it is practiced just happened to the presidential helicopter.
As the country’s Legislature, it is therefore within our bounds, authority, and function to enact or cause the adoption of policy.
Contrary to the Secretary’s portrayal of this representation’s queries, it is he who is making baseless accusations and being callous and insensitive by desecrating the memory of those who died by dragging the whole matter into a political arena.
By accusing this representation of making baseless accusations against the President when he said “it is clear they’re trying to blame the President for it” when in fact I am not, he seems to have deliberately splashed political color to the issue. Using the unfortunate incident to portray those who raise legitimate questions as unduly hitting at the President is distasteful.
Perhaps the Secretary is being too overeager to earn brownie points by making a show of defending the President but sadly, at the expense of those who died and to the detriment of efforts to prevent future accidents.
It never crossed my mind that it was the President who ordered or authorized the flight. I have been exposed to and involved with the Armed Forces long enough to know that in the AFP organization, there is a Chain of Command where the principle is that officers and enlisted personnel only receive and obey orders from their immediate superiors.
I do not believe the President will break that Chain of Command and micro manage the flight of a particular Air Force chopper. When I asked for the identity of the source of flight orders or authorization, I was not expecting or suspecting the President because she is not the immediate superior of the pilots.
Furthermore, I am also aware that in the military organization, no movement, maneuver or operation involving military assets and personnel occurs without the corresponding necessary orders or authority. In the military organization, someone is always accountable for whatever happens.
Secretary Remonde’s explanation that the unit is autonomous, that they can fly whenever they want, wherever they want, to me is irregular and unacceptable. If that is a policy or a practice, it needs to be reviewed. While the Presidential Air Wing exists for the use and benefit of the President, they are still AFP assets and personnel and remain within the Chain of Command and therefore still covered by AFP rules and regulations.
His statement that the no-fly policy or practice only applies to civilian aircraft and not to military aircraft merits review. What makes civilian aircraft different from AFP aircraft which justifies the non-applicability of the rule? Are all our military aircraft all-weather capable? Is there a rule for military aircraft which carry civilian passengers? These are all well-meaning policy questions that are aimed at ensuring safe flying conditions.
The circumstances of the accident reveal that there is basis for the question I raised and more queries based on subsequent statements of Secretary Remonde. At first I thought that my simple question would be given a direct and simple answer which would have made matters more simple.
But Secretary Remonde’s tirade, which actually brought out more information that also bred more questions, has made it imperative for me to move that this House conduct an inquiry into the no-fly policy or practice in Loakan Airport, standard operating procedures for military aircraft, and command structure and relationship of the AFP and civilian government agencies that interact by reason of function.
I also move that this inquiry be conducted by the Committee on National Defense and Security based on the fact that the incident involves personnel and an air asset of the Armed Forces of the Philippines.
Finally, as a parting statement, I would like to give unsolicited advice to Secretary Remonde.
Do not put words into the mouths of other people, especially those who have not commissioned you as their spokesperson. I did not make an accusation against the president nor any other person. I raised a legitimate question in search of facts.
Do not be overeager to drag the name of the President into an issue on the pretext of defending her. Sometimes she is not even involved or she is not the target but in the eagerness to defend her, she is unwittingly cast into the limelight.
Do not think that everyone is out to simply politically harass the President. Your judgment on who is simply doing his job and who acts on political motivation seems to have been clouded by your own biases.
Hindi lahat ng tao ay gusto lang manggulo. Meron din namang iba na gusto lang na gawin yung tama sa tamang paraan.
To my distinguished colleagues and to the Speaker, thank you for the time.
House of Representatives
April 20, 2009
Sunday, April 19, 2009
The Presidential Chopper Crash--Who Said Anything About President Arroyo?
Press Secretary Cerge Remonde’s tirade on this representation when I raised a question on who ordered or authorized the flight of the Presidential helicopter which crashed in Ifugao seems to be an attempt to deliberately politicize a legitimate question on operational procedures and policies of civilian and military aviation. The question is relevant to the issue not just to determine the responsibility for the crash but also to prevent future incidents from happening again.
The Press Secretary accused this representation of “hitting below the belt” and allowing myself to be used as “a tool for dignifying text rumors” which insinuated that the use of the helicopter by the President’s son contributed to the crash of the helicopter.
I take offense at such statements of the Press Secretary which are completely out of line and baseless.
I was not aware of such rumors when I raised the question and neither have I even read it. As Vice Chairman of the House Committee on National Defense and Security, I was perfectly within my scope of responsibility and concern when I raised the question of the flight’s orders and authorization. The Philippine Air Force lost an air asset and personnel, therefore this matter should not be taken lightly and looked into more extensively.
In addition, the fact that two Undersecretaries and personnel of the Presidential Management Staff were lost in a crash of a Presidential Aircraft should make it even more imperative for the matter to be fully investigated. It would be an injustice to the lives lost if this matter is swept under the rug.
It is common knowledge that flying out of Baguio at that time of the day is not advised. Whether it is a policy or just a practice needs to be determined. If it is a policy, then definitely it was violated. If it was just a practice, then it is time that we consider converting it to a policy. But it will not be determined if we do not take the issue into a full discussion.
The question of who ordered or authorized the flight is also borne from the fact that in the military, operations are always covered by orders, authorization or clearance. The pilots couldn’t have simply flown on their own decisions. There had to be someone in authority to order or allow the flight.
In addition, I am fully aware that the military structure strictly adheres to the principle of Chain of Command and that officers, such as the pilots of the ill-fated chopper, will only take orders from their immediate superiors. I do not believe that the President will short circuit that Chain of Command an micro-manage the flight of the chopper.
Never did I say nor insinuate that it was the President who ordered the flight. It was only Secretary Remonde who put words into my mouth when he said that “it is clear they’re trying to blame the President for it”. It is he who has dragged the name of the president into the matter. Not I. I urge him not to put words into my mouth because he is not my spokesperson.
By doing this, the Press Secretary turned a legitimate question into a political ploy. It is sad that he chose to ignore what the intention of the question is, which is to prevent future accidents, and turn it into a political controversy. It seems he is deliberately driving a wedge between this representation and the President, in order to rack up brownie points in the eyes of the President at the expense of those who died in the crash.
The Press Secretary must realize that not everyone is in the shoot-the-gun-and-damn-everything mindset and that there are those who are simply trying to do what is right. But if it will be the position of Malcanang to think that they have done the right thing by weeping and then simply forgetting about the whole thing , then I guess those who perished in the crash perished in vain.
The Press Secretary accused this representation of “hitting below the belt” and allowing myself to be used as “a tool for dignifying text rumors” which insinuated that the use of the helicopter by the President’s son contributed to the crash of the helicopter.
I take offense at such statements of the Press Secretary which are completely out of line and baseless.
I was not aware of such rumors when I raised the question and neither have I even read it. As Vice Chairman of the House Committee on National Defense and Security, I was perfectly within my scope of responsibility and concern when I raised the question of the flight’s orders and authorization. The Philippine Air Force lost an air asset and personnel, therefore this matter should not be taken lightly and looked into more extensively.
In addition, the fact that two Undersecretaries and personnel of the Presidential Management Staff were lost in a crash of a Presidential Aircraft should make it even more imperative for the matter to be fully investigated. It would be an injustice to the lives lost if this matter is swept under the rug.
It is common knowledge that flying out of Baguio at that time of the day is not advised. Whether it is a policy or just a practice needs to be determined. If it is a policy, then definitely it was violated. If it was just a practice, then it is time that we consider converting it to a policy. But it will not be determined if we do not take the issue into a full discussion.
The question of who ordered or authorized the flight is also borne from the fact that in the military, operations are always covered by orders, authorization or clearance. The pilots couldn’t have simply flown on their own decisions. There had to be someone in authority to order or allow the flight.
In addition, I am fully aware that the military structure strictly adheres to the principle of Chain of Command and that officers, such as the pilots of the ill-fated chopper, will only take orders from their immediate superiors. I do not believe that the President will short circuit that Chain of Command an micro-manage the flight of the chopper.
Never did I say nor insinuate that it was the President who ordered the flight. It was only Secretary Remonde who put words into my mouth when he said that “it is clear they’re trying to blame the President for it”. It is he who has dragged the name of the president into the matter. Not I. I urge him not to put words into my mouth because he is not my spokesperson.
By doing this, the Press Secretary turned a legitimate question into a political ploy. It is sad that he chose to ignore what the intention of the question is, which is to prevent future accidents, and turn it into a political controversy. It seems he is deliberately driving a wedge between this representation and the President, in order to rack up brownie points in the eyes of the President at the expense of those who died in the crash.
The Press Secretary must realize that not everyone is in the shoot-the-gun-and-damn-everything mindset and that there are those who are simply trying to do what is right. But if it will be the position of Malcanang to think that they have done the right thing by weeping and then simply forgetting about the whole thing , then I guess those who perished in the crash perished in vain.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
