Press Release
September 16, 2008

Noynoy on CA's decision on Mr. Lozada kidnapping

The Court of Appeals ruled that it is not convinced that Rodolfo Lozada's right to life, liberty and security was violated and threatened. Neither are we convinced of the court's findings.

The Constitution states that no decision shall be rendered by any court without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based.

It is established procedure of professional security personnel to undertake a threat analysis before formulating a plan that would adequately shield the person they are trying to protect from any identified threat. When Senior Superintendent Paul Mascariñas, then the deputy chief of the Police Security and Protection Office who headed the unit tasked to protect Mr. Lozada, was asked directly as to where the threats were emanating from, he said they were not apprised.

It would have been more prudent for Mascariñas to have utilized the NAIA, a hardened and secure site, as a holding area for Mr. Lozada pending an identification of these threats. However, he and his men chose to move Mr. Lozada around the streets of Metro Manila and adjacent areas where these threats would have been more substantial and harder to counteract than the premises of the NAIA.

Furthermore, Mascariñas authorized a supposed retired Army sergeant with the name Rodolfo Valeroso, whom he did not trust enough as evidenced by the frisking he conducted to the same, to be the sole security officer inside the primary vehicle housing the protectee. This action is contrary not only to established protocols but also to common sense. Why would you entrust a person under your care and custody to an individual you are uncertain and wary of?

Given such indications that the security officials may have been remiss in their duties, what could be the basis of the Court of Appeals to deny the motion of Mr. Lozada to have his abductors testify? Is it not the court's duty to summon all parties involved to arrive at a reasonable and fair decision?

Surprisingly, we have received reports that in spite of all these lapses, Mascariñas was promoted. It is disturbing that the commanding officer of the security detail that failed to conform to standard operating procedures in providing VIP protection, which one would presume he knows more than anyone else in his team, was rewarded rather than reprimanded.

In light of all this, we are stunned by the judgment rendered by the CA on Mr. Lozada's petitions. We are dismayed to find that it was the person seeking protection who was subjected to intense judicial questioning while those who, in our mind, detained him illegally, were conveniently insulated from scrutiny.

We believe that the threat to Mr. Lozada's right to life, liberty and security remains. It seems that those who are mandated to protect him have failed to live up to their sworn duty. Unfortunately for Mr. Lozada, the Court that should have been his refuge has failed him as well.

Yesterday, CA justices publicly expressed their desire to redeem their tarnished institution from a bribery scandal by signing a covenant of moral recovery. The alleged kidnapping of Mr. Lozada could have provided the CA with a vital opportunity in the furtherance of this vow. However, the CA decision on this particular case seems to merely affirm its lack of sincerity to reform.

Our Constitution is meant to create a government that protects its citizens. However, it seems that what we have is one that inspires fear rather than a sense of security.

News Latest News Feed