MANILA, Philippines — Ombudsman Boying Remulla alleged the Senate is resisting efforts to investigate the May 13 gunfire incident, as his office attempted to serve subpoenas and secure key evidence, including CCTV footage from inside the chamber complex.
The Ombudsman earlier directed Senate authorities to submit CCTV footage of the Wednesday night shooting as investigators determine possible security and procedural lapses.
"We're encountering problems. Our process server is again not being accommodated at the Senate even though there was prior notice," Remulla said in mixed Filipino and English on a dzRH interview on Saturday, May 16.
Remulla said he considered the subpoena served even if Senate personnel refused to formally receive it.
"I don't understand them because, for me, that is already considered served even if they refused to receive it," he said.
Senate officials have yet to confirm or dispute Remulla's sattement as of press time.
The shooting erupted in the evening at the Senate complex after Sen. Bato Dela Rosa claimed he was about to be arrested. He had been staying in the premises under Senate protection while facing an International Criminal Court arrest warrant for crimes against humanity. More than a dozen shots were fired as "warning" at the adjacent GSIS building by the chamber's security, followed by response gunfire by National Bureau of Investigation agents while senators and journalists were inside the Senate's part of the complex.
The confrontation had no casualties, but Dela Rosa later fled before dawn following the overnight lockdown and gunfire scare.
'Nobody is above the law'
Remulla stressed that the Sergeant-at-Arms Mao Aplasca, who admitted to firing the first shot, remains subject to law enforcement processes despite holding a security position at the Senate.
"He's the Sergeant-at-Arms, the Senate's security guard. In the end, his job is to secure the Senate and ensure that rules are followed," Remulla said.
"Nobody is above the law, even if you work in the Senate," he added.
Remulla warned that allowing government institutions to disregard law enforcement agencies would weaken the rule of law.
"If we allow them to simply disregard the NBI and the police like that, that cannot be allowed. What kind of country would we be then?" he said.
- Latest
- Trending
Facts Only
* Ombudsman Boying Remulla alleged the Senate is resisting efforts to investigate the May 13 gunfire incident.
* The Ombudsman directed Senate authorities to submit CCTV footage of the Wednesday night shooting.
* Remulla stated he considered a subpoena served even if Senate personnel refused to receive it.
* The shooting occurred at the Senate complex in the evening following a claim by Sen. Bato Dela Rosa regarding an arrest warrant.
* More than a dozen shots were fired at the adjacent GSIS building by chamber security and response gunfire by NBI agents.
* The confrontation resulted in no casualties.
* Senator Dela Rosa fled after the overnight lockdown and gunfire scare.
* Remulla stated the Sergeant-at-Arms Mao Aplasca remains subject to law enforcement processes.
Executive Summary
Full Take
The narrative establishes a direct conflict between institutional authority and legal accountability. The core tension lies in the resistance by a government institution (the Senate) to facilitate a law enforcement investigation, specifically by withholding evidence and blocking subpoenas. Remulla’s intervention frames this resistance not as a mere procedural disagreement, but as a threat to the fundamental principle of the rule of law. By stressing that "Nobody is above the law," the statement positions the integrity of the legal system against institutional self-interest.
The pattern observed is the invocation of moral authority (law and order) to challenge bureaucratic obstruction. The conflict shifts the focus from the specific event (the shooting) to the systemic dynamics (who controls the evidence and processes). This dynamic suggests a potential pattern of evasion, where official processes are weaponized to shield actions rather than facilitate transparency. The implication is that institutional power, when asserted over external legal mandates, erodes public trust and weakens the functional relationship between government bodies and law enforcement.
This situation raises critical questions about the operational separation of powers and whether internal institutional barriers can legitimately supersede external legal requirements. What institutions or mechanisms are in place to ensure that legal mandates, particularly concerning criminal investigation and evidence retrieval, are not subject to institutional obstruction? What is the cost to public sovereignty when institutional resistance to accountability is permitted?
Sentinel — Human
The text reads as typical human-written journalistic reporting, characterized by specific attribution and the integration of direct, context-driven quotes regarding legal and institutional conflicts.