THIS ONE is something weird. That is, as far as we are concerned. Imagine the driver of an unlucky vehicle passing under an elevated highway in Metro Manila getting charged for the death of a man who was apparently committing suicide by jumping!
The suicidal man jumped from the railing of the elevated highway and landed on the vehicle negotiating the road below. And as he might have wished, he died when his body hit the vehicle.
It is easy to imagine how the driver of the unfortunate vehicle felt when he was accused by the police of homicide through reckless imprudence when he had nothing to do with the man’s fall. In fact, if he were merely a driver of the vehicle and it was owned by another, he could have dreaded more of the potential cost of the damage to the car.
But no, he was slapped with a case that no person in their right senses could have imagined. The incident he met on that fateful day made him a victim twice over. First, he has to reckon with the expenses needed to restore the damage to the vehicle he was driving. Second is the strong possibility that the police will pursue the homicide through reckless imprudence that could even result in the impounding of his driven vehicle or his incarceration.
The case made us remember an unwritten policy of a large company based in the Davao Region that “encourages” drivers of its fleet of vehicles to just totally run over a person hit by its vehicles, especially if the driver feels that the victim may end up fully invalid.
After all, according to the unwritten policy, the company may end up paying for the long hospitalization and recovery process of the victim. So, it was believed by management to be more prudent to just pay one time for the life of the victim.
How did we learn about this “encouragement” by the company management to its drivers? Well, for a time, the giant firm was a valued client of the company where we once worked. And it was our insider office friends who told us through a slip of their tongues.
It was one revelation to hardest for us to believe. But the possibility of its truth was not remote during those times, especially when the company’s service vehicles were involved in road accidents, hitting some hapless victims. Settlements of such cases were as quick as the passage of wind gusts.
*************************************
Then, who has not heard of the reports that the appropriate authorities are running after the operators of the two sea vessels that met accidents in the high seas that resulted in deaths and injuries of a number of the boats’ passengers and crew members.
One of the vehicles was reported to have capsized in the waters off Samal Garden City largely still largely part of the Davao Gulf. The other is a Ro-Ro vessel plying the seas of the island Province of Basilan. As of yesterday, the number of deaths was already over 50 people, with many still missing.
The Department of Transportation and the Maritime Industry are quick to order the investigation of the operators of the two vessels.
But the two agencies appear to be a bit lenient on the Philippine Coast Guard (PCG) personnel who were actually the ones who gave the vessels clearance to depart from the port. Such clearance to leave port should have only been given after certain protocols were strictly followed, such as carrying only passengers allowed in its tonnage capacity, availability of safety gadgets based on the number of people on board, meeting the minimum safety requirements of the boat’s build, and, of course, ensuring the sanity of the crew’s minds and emotions.
On the incident involving the first vessel, it was reported that the boat was only authorized to travel within the waters around the island city. But the Coast Guard seemed to have been “hoodwinked” by the crew into believing that it was taking the route allowed in its operation and not much farther away.
In the second vessel sinking, the Coast Guard certainly knew the kind of weather conditions then prevailing in the Basilan Sea. And we have no doubt the CG knew just before the Departure of the vessel whether or not it was carrying passengers and cargo much beyond the boat’s allowable capacity.
It was also likely that the CG officials giving the clearance did not even attempt to validate the number of passengers listed in the manifest when they could have done it by simply taking even a cursory look at the crowd of human beings who had boarded the ro-ro vessel.
And the DOTr and Marina simply suspended the Coast Guard personnel involved while a thorough probe is still to be conducted on the said regulatory personnel.
Can they not possibly change the process – charge the boat operators simultaneously with the Coast Guard personnel? Let them prove in court beyond a reasonable doubt that they are not guilty of any wrongdoing.
The government though its regulatory bodies on maritime business, only has to produce what they may think is irrefutable evidence of the boat operators and Coast Guard personnel’s wrongdoings.
We believe that only in that scheme will the so-called probe into the misdeeds of both the CG and the operators be able to dodge the vulnerability of bias for or against any of the accused.
These two incidents remind us of a post on Facebook that showed pictures of a suspected snatcher arrested by the police. The lawman on the desk was quick to order the arresting policeman to immediately bring the suspect to the detention cell.
On the same post, another picture shows the same policeman hauling a politician who was caught red-handed demanding a percentage from a contractor and attempting to bribe the policeman into keeping his mouth shut on what he saw.
And the same desk officer shouted to the arresting cop to immediately release the politician as the charges against him by the contractor, and the claim of bribery by the apprehending officer are still subject to investigation.
Funny? Of course. But that is what has been happening in the country’s governance. Sad.
