Ombudsman rules Aplasca liable for grave misconduct

The Ombudsman deemed that the act of the former Senate official of firing warning shots at officers from the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) was “unjustified” as it endangered lives, violated established rules on the use of force and that Aplasca had shown a flagrant disregard of his duties.

“The unjustified discharge of firearm caused panic and disturbance, endangered the lives of unarmed journalists and Senate personnel, and resulted in the emotional distress of some Senators. Aplasca’s deplorable acts must not be countenanced, and for this reason, he must be held administratively liable,” the resolution read.

Amid the filing of a complaint against him concerning the issue, Aplasca argued that he was merely attempting to protect the lives of the various individuals at the Senate as he viewed the unidentified armed individuals he saw as an immediate threat.

The former police officer noted that he did his duty in line with the Senate’s Rules of Engagement for Threat Situations, particularly with the heightened security tensions at the upper house at the time.

Despite his arguments, the Ombudsman maintained that it did not find any unlawful aggression from the individuals necessitating for Aplasca to fire bullets.

“There is no actual, sudden, unexpected or imminent danger to Aplasca and the OSAA. If there was aggression, it was Aplasca who started the same,” the decision said.

It was also explained by the Ombudsman that Aplasca was fully aware that he was confronting officials from the NBI as he as the officers positioned at the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) repeatedly identified themselves.

The investigations further yielded that Aplasca was not warranted in firing warning shots given that the Sergeant-At-Arms were not outnumbered, overpowered, and facing imminent danger–factors that are considered under the 2021 Revised Philippine National Police Operational Procedures.

The Ombudsman also denied the notion carried by Aplasca that their office had no jurisdiction in the case, being an official under the Senate.

The resolution explained that Philippine law acknowledged that both institutions were co-equal branches and that the officials in the Senate were still subject to the disciplinary authority of the Ombudsman.

In its conclusion, the Ombudsman deemed that the former Senate official had indeed committed an act liable for gross neglect of duty as he failed to ensure the safety of all individuals inside the Senate complex given the dangerous operation that he undertook.

Given the implications of the actions, the investigative body said that Aplasca would not only be subjected to dismissal, he would also be penalized with a cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, and perpetual disqualification from being employed in a government office.

Aplasca would also be subjected to fines equivalent to one year’s salary given that he was already retired from government service.

Notably, the Ombudsman had previously ordered for the preventive suspension of Aplasca on 15 May for a period of six-months involving the same incident.

He is also one of the co-respondents concerning the case of Senator Alan Peter Cayetano and Senator Robin Padilla related to an obstruction of justice complaint for the escape of internationally wanted Senator Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa from Senate premises on 14 May.