PageBASIS of AUTHORITY, COMPOSITIONand MANDATE OF THE IIRC3SUMMARY of PROCEEDINGS4LIMITATIONS of the REPORT6FACTS and SEQUENCE of EVENTS7FORENSIC FINDINGS35CRITICAL INCIDENTS39EVALUATION of CMC and POLICE ACTIONS44EVALUATION of MEDIA COVERAGE54CONCLUSIONS on ACCOUNTABILITY61RECOMMENDATIONS77HIGHLIGHTS80EPILOGUE82
First Report of theINCIDENT INVESTIGATION and REVIEW COMMITTEE on theAugust, 23, 2010 Rizal Park Hostage-taking Incident:SEQUENCE OF EVENTS, EVALUATION and RECOMMENDATIONSIIRC, September 16, 2010
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
First Report on Rizal Park Hostage Taking Incident -IIRC-Report
What's clear from the IIRC report is that the government of the Philippines viewed this incident as a local matter. Hence, it was under the jurisdiction of Alfredo Lim as Mayor of Manila. The IIRC report…
What's clear from the IIRC report is that the government of the Philippines viewed this incident as a local matter. Hence, it was under the jurisdiction of Alfredo Lim as Mayor of Manila. The IIRC report identified that there is no existing protocol to have bumped it up the chain, even if the situation involved foreign nationals.
The fact of the matter is that Lim was the highest ranking authority as Chair of the Crisis Management Committee . His was perhaps the highest negligence in the matter. He did not form the Crisis Management Committee. Mayor Lim claimed that by issuing orders to Magtibay, and had asked the general to inform him of his requirements he had "effectively convened and operationalized the CMC."
The IIRC determined that it was Lim who should have determined that the components of the CMC were formed. He should have ensured that there were subcommittees handling intelligence, media, and all the other point person.