The Office of the Ombudsman has ordered the dismissal of retired police major general Mao Aplasca, the former acting Senate Sergeant-at-Arms, after finding him guilty of grave misconduct and gross neglect of duty regarding a shooting incident inside the Senate complex on May 13.
In a statement released on Tuesday, the Ombudsman heavily criticized Aplasca’s behavior, emphasizing that his choice to discharge warning shots was completely unwarranted.
”unjustified, endangered lives, violated established rules on the use of force and reflected a flagrant disregard of his duties as the Senate official primarily responsible for maintaining security and order.”
Ombudsman Jesus Crispin “Boying” Remulla confirmed the dismissal order was signed on June 29. Since Aplasca is already retired from public service, the penalty will be converted into a fine equivalent to his one-year salary, deducted from his retirement benefits, alongside standard accessory penalties.
The administrative case developed from a chaotic standoff between Senate Office of the Sergeant-at-Arms (OSAA) staff and National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) agents near the Senate-GSIS complex. Amid the commotion, Aplasca fired his gun, triggering widespread panic among lawmakers, employees, and members of the press.
An 18-page resolution dated June 25 from the Ombudsman’s office detailed the gravity of the infraction:
”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. Aplasca’s deplorable acts must not be countenanced, and for this reason, he must be held administratively liable.”
The altercation took place while Senator Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa—who is currently facing an International Criminal Court (ICC) arrest warrant linked to the drug war of the previous administration—was under protective custody at the Senate.
Aplasca countered the allegations by stating he viewed the unidentified armed men as an active threat and operated within the Senate’s established security protocols during a high-stakes standoff.
However, the Ombudsman dismissed his explanation, pointing out that the NBI operatives had clearly announced their identities, concluding that if anyone initiated the hostility, it was Aplasca.
Issuing a response on Tuesday, Aplasca stated that the anti-graft body overlooked crucial evidence presented by his defense team and announced his intention to appeal the ruling.
”We were expecting the Ombudsman to consider all the evidence we have submitted, but we believe that the decision rendered did not so we will challenge this decision in the proper forum at the right time,” Aplasca said.
The former security chief added that he remains perplexed by the Ombudsman’s definition of aggression, standing firm in his belief that he was simply responding to an unidentified intruder breaching his security perimeter.