What happened during the hostage drama in the Philippines

What happened during the hostage drama in the Philippines

What could have pushed a bemedalled police officer to commit such a heinous crime in eyes of the whole world?

Many have criticized the Philippine government, i.e., the military commanders, including the local government and even national government officials for the fiasco. Many more express sadness and grief at the bloody end to the 12-hour drama. But what factors affected the decision makers and the hostage taker?

Hostage-taker Rolando Mendoza was demanding that the adverse ruling against him be reversed and that he be returned to the police force, and that all these should happen before the end of office hours last Monday.

Officials maintain that this demand is untenable, citing that the rule of law and justice should prevail, and people should remember that there was also a victim who had filed a complaint and who has rights as well. The complainant there, one named Kalaw, accused the policemen of accosting him for a traffic violation, then forced him to swallow shabu (methamphetamine hydrochloride) and demanded money for his release.

Yet, the resolution of his seemingly untenable demands are not the factors that pushed the hostage taker to the limits. Indeed, his background as a former Police Superintendent (with a rank equivalent to a Captain), and his experience in hostage situations, coupled with the initial reconciliatory gestures (i.e., release of hostages) were all indicative that he was ready to negotiate for a peaceful ending, and that he only intended the exercise as a means to air a long-festering grievance.

However, both the negotiator and the hostage taker were playing a deadly game of chess, trying to wear each other out but playing events far ahead which eventually ended in a no-win situation.

It was the decision to arrest the brother of Rolando Mendoza, and the apparent ill-treatment of his relatives, which came to his knowledge through celphone/s and the presence of a television monitor inside the bus, that escalated the events irretrievably towards the bloody end.

Foreseeing no resolution of his demands, and apparent confirmation of his worst suspicions for the aftermath of a peaceful surrender, the hostage taker took the darker route and no longer cared for the consequences.

Indeed, as the events played out, not one factor was alone responsible. It is, however, the combination of these factors that contributed to the inevitable bloody conclusion. Like in all other cases, this case will have to be analyzed thoroughly, and the lessons learned therefrom assimilated and taught, to prevent another recurrence.