The footage is authentic, time-stamped, direct from the source
In the weeks following a tense May 13 incident at the Philippine Senate, a dispute over truth itself has emerged alongside the original event. A retired two-star general stands accused not only of authorizing warning shots against a legitimate law enforcer, but now of alleging that the police manipulated the very evidence used against him. The Philippine National Police, led by Chief Gen. Nartatez, has responded not with defensiveness alone, but with an invitation: let independent experts examine the footage, because institutions that seek truth need not fear scrutiny.
- A retired general who once served the law is now accused of directing armed men to fire warning shots at a fellow law enforcer inside the Senate — a contradiction that investigators still cannot explain.
- Aplasca's counter-accusation — that the PNP spliced CCTV footage to fabricate a narrative — has injected a crisis of credibility into an already volatile investigation.
- The PNP is pushing back with specificity: the footage is time-stamped, sourced directly from the Senate, and handled by investigators who followed methodical procedures throughout.
- A legal fault line has opened — warning shots have no place in the six-stage protocol governing private security forces, and the abandonment of the scene further undermines Aplasca's claim of a genuine threat.
- Criminal charges have been recommended against Aplasca and two associates, while the PNP's offer of independent expert review signals confidence — or at least the performance of it — in their own evidence.
On the night of May 13, retired two-star general Mao Aplasca led armed Senate security personnel in firing warning shots at a police officer who was present legitimately. Weeks later, rather than explaining that decision, Aplasca has gone on offense — accusing the PNP of splicing CCTV footage to construct a false narrative that the Senate was never under threat.
PNP Chief Gen. Jose Melencio C. Nartatez Jr. responded on May 21 with a firm defense of his investigators' work. The footage, he said, was authentic, time-stamped, and drawn directly from Senate sources — a chain of custody that left no opening for the manipulation Aplasca described. CIDG director Maj. Gen. Robert Alexander Morico II suggested Aplasca may have acted on faulty intelligence, though that explanation does little to resolve the deeper question of why a retired general adopted a combat posture in the absence of a real threat.
Investigators also noted a telling detail: if the Senate had truly been under attack, why did security personnel leave the scene where shots were fired? The behavior contradicted the story Aplasca was now telling. Under the Private Security Services Act, warning shots are not part of any authorized use-of-force sequence — a legal reality that further complicated his position.
Aplasca's standing as a PMA Class of 1987 graduate gave his accusations a weight that couldn't be entirely dismissed, but the PNP held its ground while extending an unusual offer: independent expert review of the evidence. The CIDG has already recommended criminal charges against Aplasca and two associates. That recommendation now awaits action, as the central mystery of May 13 — why a man who once upheld the law made the choices he did — remains unanswered.
On the night of May 13, something happened at the Senate that still doesn't make sense to the Philippine National Police. A retired two-star general—Mao Aplasca, who once wore the uniform himself—led armed security personnel in firing warning shots at a police officer who was there legitimately. The PNP has been trying to understand why.
Now, weeks later, Aplasca is claiming the police doctored the evidence. He says the CCTV footage that investigators relied on was spliced together to support a predetermined story: that the Senate was never under attack. It's a serious accusation, and it stung. On May 21, PNP Chief Gen. Jose Melencio C. Nartatez Jr. felt compelled to respond directly, defending not just the footage but the entire investigative process his teams had conducted.
The investigation itself had been methodical. Criminal Investigation and Detection Group director Maj. Gen. Robert Alexander Morico II and his teams had pored over the evidence carefully, including the video recordings. Morico suggested that Aplasca may have been given faulty information—something that would explain the "lock and load" posture his men adopted that night. But the core question remained: why would a retired general authorize warning shots in a situation where there was no actual threat?
Nartatez was direct in his response. The footage was authentic, he said. It was time-stamped. It came directly from the Senate itself, which meant there was no opportunity for manipulation in transit or storage. The investigators had worked hard. They had been thorough. And they stood by their work. "The integrity of our investigative process is paramount," Nartatez stated, "and the footage we presented is authentic, time-stamped, and direct from the source, leaving no room for claims of manipulation."
The legal framework mattered too. Under the Private Security Services Act, there are six distinct stages that must be followed before lethal force is ever authorized. Warning shots don't appear anywhere in that sequence. Morico pointed out something else that troubled investigators: if the Senate had truly been under attack, why did the security personnel abandon the location where the shooting occurred? The behavior didn't match the narrative Aplasca was now offering.
Aplasca himself is a member of the Philippine Military Academy's Class of 1987, a man with credentials and standing. That made his accusation harder to dismiss outright, even as investigators rejected it. The Department of the Interior and Local Government Secretary Jonvic Remulla had noticed odd behavior from Aplasca during the incident—observations that police investigators had documented and now formed part of their case file.
Nartatez, a PMA Class of 1992 graduate himself, extended an olive branch while holding firm. If Aplasca wanted to pursue his claim that the video had been tampered with, the PNP would welcome independent expert review. They had nothing to hide, Nartatez suggested. They wanted the truth to emerge, unvarnished and complete. The CIDG had already recommended filing criminal charges against Aplasca and two of his men for violating the security services law. That recommendation now sat with the Office of the Sergeant-At-Arms, waiting for the next move. The investigation, Nartatez assured the public, would remain fair, impartial, and transparent—even as the central mystery of why a retired general made the choices he did on May 13 remained unsolved.
Notable Quotes
The integrity of our investigative process is paramount and the footage we presented is authentic, time-stamped, and direct from the source, leaving no room for claims of manipulation.— PNP Chief Gen. Jose Melencio C. Nartatez Jr.
It is very clear in our investigation that there was no attack in the Senate, there was no intent. If there is really perceived ongoing attack, why did they abandon the area where the shooting happened?— CIDG Director Maj. Gen. Robert Alexander Morico II
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why would a retired police general do something like this in the first place? What was he thinking?
That's what's driving the investigators crazy. Morico suggested Aplasca may have been fed bad intelligence—that he believed there was a real threat when there wasn't one. But the evidence doesn't support that reading.
And now he's saying the police faked the video to cover it up?
Yes. It's a defensive move, really. If the footage is authentic and shows no attack, then his decision to authorize warning shots looks indefensible. So he's attacking the evidence itself.
Is there any chance he's right? Could the video have been doctored?
Nartatez says no—it came directly from the Senate, time-stamped, with a clear chain of custody. But he's also offering to let independent experts examine it. That's either confidence or a calculated gamble.
What happens next?
Criminal charges are being recommended. But the real question is whether anyone will ever understand what Aplasca actually believed was happening that night. The behavior doesn't fit the facts.
Does his military background matter here?
It complicates things. He's not some random security contractor—he's a PMA graduate, a man with authority and credibility. That's probably why Nartatez felt he had to respond so directly and publicly.