There?s a reason, on TV and in the movies, that when policemen pursue criminals and then end up killing them, they get upset and bewail the killing of the criminals as a failure. Sometimes it?s unavoidable, out of self-defense or to protect bystanders; but it?s always a failure, because it?s ultimately a denial of justice. But then again we are referring to Western shows, reflecting the values of societies that, Filipinos overseas always love to point out, truly understand what the rule of law really means.

We should therefore point out, first of all, that if the public were certain that the police had encountered, and killed, the real culprits in the grisly RCBC Cabuyao branch heist, chances are the public would have applauded the cops. This should disturb us. It is the reason why the police can pursue its suspects with the kind of devil-may-care attitude that makes rub-outs not only possible, but probable.

To be sure, the public demands results and has a right to demand the apprehension of the perpetrators of a truly shocking crime. We would even go as far as to say that what our society is trying to come to grips with is an act of terrorism. For we, the people, are no strangers to bank robberies; but we have scarcely seen such murderous mayhem as a consequence of a bank heist.

Instead of results, the public has been given opinions: the police top brass venturing the alarming suspicion that the robbery and murders were perpetrated either by cops or military men (alarming, because imprudent: The public has no idea whether these are informed suspicions or simply an effort to control coverage). Instead of reassurance, the public has seen an exhibition of inefficiency: the President ordering the throwing together of an ad hoc investigating team, a political and not institutional approach to problem-solving. Instead of a calm, thorough investigation, a demonstration of incompetence: crime scene photos leaked to the public and now circulating on the Internet. And instead of cool professionalism, reckless manifestations of brutality: the killing of three ?suspects? in a ?shoot-out? in Tanauan City that the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) has already decried as a rub-out.

And to top it all off, Philippine National Police (PNP) chief Avelino Razon Jr. can only say that he never gave shoot-to-kill orders, which tells us that his authority doesn?t extend any further than his desk, or that the men and women under his command are less impressed by his authority than they are by Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez?s bloodthirsty it?s-fine-to-shoot-to-kill statements. After all, even if the CHR brings cops to court, they can count on the Department of Justice.

Lawyer Marichu Lambino points to the reasons the PNP?s attempts to forestall bad headlines by producing results by hook or crook entirely misses the point.

?What does it serve the rights of victims,? she asks, ?if we cannot get the masterminds, accomplices and accessories, such as: those who gave the RCBC robbers information on the amount of money in the bank; those who gave them information on the busted security cameras and the busted alarm system; those who gave them information on the number of security guards, their weapons, number of employees, on the locks, etc.; those who conducted surveillance and acted as lookout; those who provided them with cars, high-powered firearms, safe houses, communication facilities, food, logistics; those who hid the money and laundered/will launder it??

What, indeed? Which is why we believe it?s fair to say this crime has the characteristics of terrorism. It has shown the vulnerability of civilian life; the extreme limitations of the authorities when it comes to law, order and justice; it has shaken our society because the question of why the crime was so gory has only been answered by the authorities by ignoring the question altogether, and producing more gore.

The entire approach of our authorities has been that of the vigilante: to form a posse and confuse justice with liquidating suspects without so much as a kangaroo trial.