Purisima didn’t commit usurpation of authority—lawyer

By: Julliane Love De Jesus - 10 years ago

Resigned PNP chief Alan Purisima. RAFFY LERMA/INQUIRER FILE PHOTO

MANILA, Philippines—Resigned Philippine National Police chief Director General Alan Purisima did not commit usurpation of authority, his camp maintained on Tuesday.

Reacting to the Senate’s joint committee report on the Mamasapano debacle, Purisima’s lawyer disagreed with the findings of the Senate, particularly Purisima committing the violation for participating in “Oplan Exodus,” even giving orders to Police Director Getulio Napeñas despite his suspension.

“We will study the draft committee report once it is made public. We, however, take exception to the finding that PDG Purisima committed usurpation of authority or official functions,” Lawyer Kristoffer James Purisima said in a statement.

Purisima disputed claims that his client performed official duties and functions while serving his suspension from the Office of the Ombudsman over corruption allegations.

“At no time since his preventive suspension did PDG Purisima perform official duties and functions. Neither did he misrepresent or falsely represent himself as the Chief PNP under pretense of official position,” he said.

Purisima gave orders to Napeñas, then Special Action Force commander, during the planning and execution of “Oplan Exodus”—the covert operation that led to the killing of 44 policemen, 18 Moro Islamic Liberation Front fighters and five civilians.

Earlier reports said President Benigno Aquino III, mindful of Purisima’s suspension, dealt with Purisima who provided the intelligence information on international terrorists Zulkifli Bin Hir or Marwan and Abdul Basit Usman.

The beleaguered police official’s lawyer also pointed out that carrying out the arrest warrants against the terrorist suspects does not need the approval of Aquino.

“Oplan Exodus was based on the PNP’s mandate under RA 6975 and on the strength of a warrant of arrest, the enforcement of which does not require approval of the President,” he said.

“Following their logic, then even the judge who issued the arrest warrant could be made liable,” Purisima added.