What the new hearing on Mamasapano could add to its story

“We won’t know until the hearing what could still be added by the senators or what else do they want to know and if there is evidence or basis for their questions... I don’t see where there would be any difference at all.”

-- Manuel Quezon III, Malacañang spokesperson

IS MALACAÑANG really clueless as to what the Mamasapano Senate hearing on Jan. 27 would disclose? It must have an idea what Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile, proponent of the revived inquiry, is up to.

The accused plunderer, out on bail, hasn’t been quiet about his plan. Enrile said he has evidence on President Aquino’s actual role in the tragedy: from planning to overseeing the operation that killed a year ago 44 Special Action Force police to the suspected cover-up afterwards.

But did P-Noy not accept “full responsibility”?

He did, even saying it would hound him “until the end of my days.”

The Senate findings though had not spelled out P-Noy’s liability: no army, police or civilian person testified to specific offenses.

He erred in entrusting its preparations to a sacked PNP chief and its execution to an unreliable SAF commander. That much was established. Whether he rejected proposals to avert or stop the bloodbath and hid that fact was not nailed down by Senate probers.

Cover-up

The Grace Poe-led committee might resolve those issues in its fresh inquiry but Enrile must provide evidence, not just raise questions, which his colleagues had already done.

The new hearing might provide basis for a civil suit against P-Noy after his term or obscure his legacy as a fighter against poverty and corruption.

A more immediate fallout could be a rejection of his surrogate, presidential bet Mar Roxas, in next May’s elections.

If it’s something to add, that would be an interesting twist, with some dash of poetic justice in the Mamasapano narrative.