The Office of the Ombudsman released its full decision detailing the dismissal of retired police Major General Mao Ranada Aplasca, former acting Senate Sergeant-at-Arms, days after the ruling was initially announced to the public.
Ombudsman Jesus Crispin “Boying” Remulla first disclosed Aplasca’s dismissal on July 4 on DZRH's Executive Session, saying a formal statement explaining the decision would be made available.
On Tuesday, the Ombudsman issued the complete 18-page ruling dated June 25, outlining the basis for finding Aplasca administratively liable for grave misconduct and gross neglect of duty over a shooting incident inside the Senate on May 13.
The decision said Aplasca’s act of firing warning shots during the incident was unjustified, endangered lives and violated established rules on the use of force.
“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,” the ruling read. “Aplasca’s deplorable acts must not be countenanced.”
The case stemmed from an encounter involving personnel of the Senate Office of the Sergeant-at-Arms (OSAA) and agents of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) near the Senate-GSIS complex.
Investigators found that Aplasca ordered and personally fired warning shots despite the absence of any imminent threat. The Ombudsman noted that NBI agents had already identified themselves and were merely positioned along a hallway at the time.
“There is no actual, sudden, unexpected or imminent danger,” the decision stated, adding that if there was aggression, “it was Aplasca who started the same.”
The Ombudsman rejected Aplasca’s defense that he acted under a perceived threat and within rules of engagement, saying the essential element of unlawful aggression was absent.
Citing the 2021 Revised Philippine National Police Operational Procedures, the ruling emphasized that warning shots are allowed only in exceptional circumstances when an officer is outnumbered, overpowered and facing imminent danger — conditions that were not present.
The decision also held Aplasca liable for gross neglect of duty, saying he failed in his responsibility to ensure the safety of people inside the Senate complex, including journalists and civilians present during the incident.
It further affirmed the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction over Senate appointive officials under Republic Act No. 6770.
As a penalty, the Ombudsman ordered Aplasca’s dismissal from service, along with cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits and perpetual disqualification from reemployment in government.
Since Aplasca has already retired, the penalty will be converted into a fine equivalent to one year’s salary, to be deducted from his retirement benefits and other receivables, while accessory penalties remain in effect.
