Who’s under attack?

The gunfire—ironically triggered by the acting chief of Senate security, whose primary duty is to protect the 24-member chamber and maintain order—resulted in no casualties. Yet the institution itself came under fire from multiple quarters as the riveting political drama played out live on social media and television.

That Sen. Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa later escaped under cover of darkness, even while under the protective custody of the upper chamber, further fueled the political fire. The nation has since been abuzz with conspiracy theories, including claims that it was all staged. Was this indeed a ruse meant to elicit public sympathy and shield Dela Rosa from arrest by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), preventing him from being brought forthwith before the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague for prosecution for alleged crimes against humanity?

If you ask newly installed Senate President Alan Peter Cayetano, the Senate was unmistakably under attack on May 13. He explained that an attack occurred when armed NBI agents presumably entered the Senate premises and shot back. “Kung tututukan kita ng baril, papasukin ko ang bahay mo na may baril ako, nag-warning shot ka, pinutukan kita pabalik, is it not an attack? Sorry ha, but I don’t think there’s any question the Senate … was under attack,” he said emphatically at a May 14 press conference.

Cayetano said that the lives of media personnel were also in danger, adding: “We’re a democracy. This is the Senate of the Philippines … What do you think happens when there’s no democracy? Who’s the first casualty? The media.”

Connecting the dots. But since the proverbial dust has settled, can we now connect the dots?

“All evidence points” to the fact “that there was no attack on the Senate,” said Interior Secretary Jonvic Remulla on Tuesday. He, along with Philippine National Police chief Gen. Jose Melencio Nartatez Jr., shared the findings of the PNP Scene of the Crime Operations (Soco) team regarding the “gun-related incident” in a televised press briefing from Malacañang on Tuesday.

Remulla and Nartatez made public, for the first time, CCTV footage of the gunfire from all available angles, vividly showing that there was no aggression or attack directed toward the Senate premises. The video, in fact, shows that the Office of the Sergeant-at-Arms (OSAA) personnel, without provocation, initiated the shooting either to frighten or to draw fire from the opposing force.

Besides Dela Rosa, the center of this swirling conspiracy is the now-suspended Senate Sergeant-at-Arms Mao Aplasca, a retired police major general and Dela Rosa’s classmate at the military academy, as well as a fellow Davaoeño. It was Dela Rosa who nominated Aplasca for the acting OSAA chief position immediately after the surprise leadership change in the Senate on May 11. That day, the NBI tried but failed to serve the ICC-issued warrant as Dela Rosa dashed from the ground floor to the second floor, where the plenary hall is located. The Senate occupies the other half of the sprawling Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) building in Pasay City.

By his own admission, Aplasca fired the first shot, claiming it was part of “standard operational” procedure and that he fired even more shots during the three-minute confrontation.

But the Soco investigation established that Aplasca fired not one but three warning shots. Some 21 spent shells were accounted for by the PNP, with 23 fired bullets still unaccounted for, but “were believed to be all from Aplasca’s shots.” (see “PNP prove indicates Senate ‘not attacked,’” News, 5/20/26)

Was Aplasca justified in firing warning shots? The Revised PNP Operational Procedures Manual (2021) explicitly prohibits the use of warning shots due to the significant danger they pose. Common sense also dictates that firing in public risks injuring innocent bystanders, and such gunfire is more likely to spark confusion, panic, or even a stampede, rather than de-escalate a tense situation.

CCTV footage shows that Aplasca fired “toward the vicinity” of a lone NBI agent (Darwin Francisco) manning the exit door on the GSIS side of the building, which leads to the outdoor canteen hallway and Kalayaan garden.

Aplasca’s actions may have put senators’ lives at serious risk. His reckless behavior turned the Senate into a virtual war zone—39 of 44 spent cartridges reportedly came from OSAA personnel. Had Francisco chosen to fight back instead of retreating quickly and firing five shots as “cover fire” at the GSIS side, the situation could have escalated into a bloodbath. What was Aplasca thinking? Who was he trying to protect—and from whom? Ombudsman Jesus Crispin Remulla sharply condemned Aplasca’s “unacceptable” decision to fire at law enforcers: “Who does he think he is?”

At the request of GSIS General Manager Jose Arnulfo “Wick” Veloso, NBI Director Melvin Matibag deployed 29 agents to the GSIS to secure its premises, including precious artworks. He couldn’t put it more succinctly when he said, “It’s the NBI that’s under attack.”

—————-

[email protected]