PRESS RELEASE
07 JULY 2026
Ombudsman dismisses Acting Sgt-at-Arms Aplasca over Senate shooting incident
QUEZON CITY, Philippines — The Office of the Ombudsman has ordered the dismissal from the service of retired P/MGEN Mao Ranada Aplasca, former Acting Senate Sergeant-at-Arms, after finding him administratively liable for Grave Misconduct and Gross Neglect of Duty over the shooting incident inside the Senate premises on 13 May 2026.
In an 18-page decision dated 25 June 2026, the Ombudsman ruled that Aplasca’s decision to fire warning shots during the incident was 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 within the Senate premises.
“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 decision said.
The administrative case stemmed from the exchange of gunfire between personnel of the Senate Office of the Sergeant-at-Arms (OSAA) and National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) agents stationed near the Senate-GSIS complex on 13 May 2026.
The complaint alleged that Aplasca violated his duty to preserve peace and security inside the Senate when he ordered and personally fired warning shots despite the absence of circumstances warranting such use of force. It further alleged that his actions endangered Senate personnel, media practitioners, and other civilians inside the complex.
In his defense, Aplasca maintained that he believed unidentified armed individuals posed a threat to the Senate and that the warning shots were necessary to protect senators, employees, and facilities.
He argued that he acted within the Senate’s Rules of Engagement for Threat Situations and insisted that the incident must be viewed in light of heightened security tensions arising from earlier events involving NBI personnel.
The Ombudsman, however, found otherwise and said that the essential element of unlawful aggression was absent.
“There is no actual, sudden, unexpected or imminent danger to Aplasca and the OSAA. If there was aggression, it was Aplasca who started the same,” the decision further emphasized.
Before Aplasca fired his weapon, the NBI agents had already identified themselves and were merely positioned along the hallway leading to the GSIS premises.
The investigation found no evidence that they had initiated an attack against Aplasca or his team.
The Ombudsman likewise rejected Aplasca’s claim that the incident was a continuation of the confrontation involving Senator Ronald “Bato” Dela Rosa two days earlier, stressing that the two incidents involved different circumstances and different personnel.
The Ombudsman ruled that even under police operational procedures, the use of warning shots is permitted only in exceptional circumstances where an officer is outnumbered, overpowered, and faces imminent danger to life.
Quoting the 2021 Revised Philippine National Police Operational Procedures, the decision stated that “police shall not use warning shots during police operation except when the police officer is outnumbered and overpowered, and his/her life and limb is in imminent danger.”
The Ombudsman found that none of these conditions existed.
Instead, it observed that Aplasca was accompanied by members of the OSAA, the Philippine National Police, and the Philippine Marine Corps when the clearing operation was conducted.
The Decision concluded that Aplasca “deliberately disregarded established rules,” thereby overcoming the presumption that he regularly performed his official duties.
Apart from the improper discharge of his firearm, the Ombudsman also held Aplasca liable for Gross Neglect of Duty, finding that he failed to fulfill his primary responsibility of ensuring the safety of everyone inside the Senate complex.
Under the Rules of the Senate, the Sergeant-at-Arms is responsible for maintaining order and protecting senators, employees, and visitors within the Senate premises.
The Decision found that although Aplasca ordered a lockdown, he nevertheless proceeded with the operation despite knowing that journalists and other civilians remained inside the building.
The Ombudsman stressed “Aplasca chose to engage the individuals in the second floor emergency/fire exit despite being reasonably aware that they were NBI agents.”
His actions, the decision stated, reflected “a flagrant breach of duties expected of someone tasked to maintain security and order.”
The Ombudsman also dismissed Aplasca’s argument that the Office lacked jurisdiction over him because he served as Senate Sergeant-at-Arms.
The Decision clarified that while the Senate is a co-equal branch of government, its appointive officials remain subject to the Ombudsman’s disciplinary authority under Republic Act No. 6770.
Although the complaint also charged Aplasca with Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, the Ombudsman no longer separately ruled on the offense, explaining that his liability for Grave Misconduct and Gross Neglect of Duty already warranted the supreme administrative penalty.
The Ombudsman imposed upon Aplasca the penalty of Dismissal from the Service, with the accessory penalties of cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, and perpetual disqualification from re-employment in the government service.
Since Aplasca had already retired from government service, the Decision provides that the penalty shall be converted into a fine equivalent to one year’s salary, deductible from his retirement benefits, accrued leave credits, or other receivables, while the accessory penalties remain in effect.#