Escape puzzle

At least a dozen or so embarrassed government entities are probably accountable for dismissed Mayor Alice Guo’s surreptitious escape last July to Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, and other parts unknown.

Undoubtedly, Guo’s flight mocks these numerous agencies’ failed efforts to arrest her and her alleged cohorts and prevent their escape.

Ridiculing these agencies, however, merely presages what President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. himself described as baring “the corruption that undermines our justice system and erodes public trust.”

By itself, the Chief Executive’s pithy denouncement came as no surprise. Commonly held opinions already had it that grease money, lots of grease money, oiled the dismissed mayor’s infamous escape.

President Marcos Jr. subsequently vowed that “heads will roll.” Echoing him, Justice Secretary Jesus “Boying” Remulla admitted there were “some dishonest immigration personnel in the country” whom he wanted the NBI to fully investigate. Remulla should look further.

Hopefully, the Chief Executive will soon lower the boom not only on erring public officials but also on private individuals involved in aiding Guo’s escape.

The involvement of private individuals in Guo’s escape can’t be discounted since Guo’s caper was an operation with “so many moving parts… that would require technical expertise not available to a simple private individual,” said the Presidential Anti-Organized Crime Commission (PAOCC).

Exacting accountability from all public officials and private individuals involved in the Guo debacle, however, is a thorny thicket of evasion, misdirection and legal obstacles.

Which only means that the first order of business is sorting out the puzzle of how Guo managed to pull it off. The authorities aren’t yet giving us an accurate picture of Guo’s caper.

From published news reports, the initial key to extracting accurate information lies with officials and personnel of at least five frontline agencies involved in monitoring and recording the overseas travel of Filipinos.

These five agencies are the Bureau of Immigration (BI), the Civil Aviation Authority of the Philippines, Philippine Ports Authority, and both the Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA) and Clark International Airport.

The involvement of these agencies in Guo’s escape should become clearer once we piece together what is known so far of her departure.

Guo was reportedly seen on 17 July leaving Denpasar, Indonesia aboard a Batik Air 177 bound for Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. The PAOCC, however, hasn’t confirmed if Guo really did go to Denpasar.

Confirming Guo’s arrival in Denpasar is essential because, as one news report had it, if Guo flew Batik Air it meant she departed from the NAIA. Baitik Air only flies out of NAIA.

The same news report, however, says the BI has no record of Guo’s departure from Manila in their centralized database. NAIA officials also have yet to officially present their records on the flight details of Batik Air 177.

Curiously, however, the same news report said the BI has records of Guo’s entry to the three ASEAN countries mentioned in the PAOCC’s intelligence reports: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia on 18 July, flight to Singapore on 21 July, and ferry boat to Batam, Indonesia on 18 August.

So, how was it possible that BI had reports about Guo’s movement in other countries but had no reports on what exactly happened here?

Other news reports raised the possibility that Guo left the country either by sea or private plane, meaning she left the country without formal immigration clearance and inspection.

Here, BI Commissioner Norman Tansingco admits there are “informal exit points” which are “managed and monitored by other aviation or maritime agencies.”

If Tansingco’s claim is correct, both the CAAP and PPA officials need to issue official statements, considering their agencies are directly responsible for ensuring that sea craft and private planes bound for overseas meet official monitoring and recording requirements.

At any rate, so many unanswered questions surrounding Guo’s escape caper remain, which only means some government entities fail to understand their transparency and accountability assignments.