Upgrade to High-Speed Internet for only ₱1499/month!
Enjoy up to 100 Mbps fiber broadband, perfect for browsing, streaming, and gaming.
Visit Suniway.ph to learn
Neil Jayson Servallos - The Philippine Star
July 8, 2026 | 12:00am
Senate sergeant-at-arms Mao Aplasca on May 14, 2026 faces the media for the first time since the Senate gun scare on May 13, 2026.
Philstar.com / Ian Laqui
MANILA, Philippines — Former acting Senate sergeant-at-arms Mao Aplasca had initiated the aggression and breached security protocols when he fired warning shots during the May 13 Senate shooting, according to the Office of the Ombudsman.
In a June 25 resolution, the ombudsman outlined findings that led to Aplasca’s dismissal for grave misconduct and gross neglect of duty. The decision dismantles Aplasca’s defense of protecting the Senate from unidentified armed threats.
Unlawful aggression from the opposing side was entirely absent, the ombudsman pointed out.
Investigators found that before Aplasca discharged his weapon, agents of the National Bureau of Investigation stationed near the Senate-GSIS complex had identified themselves and were merely positioned along the hallway, not initiating any attack against the Senate security team.
“There is no actual, sudden, unexpected or imminent danger to Aplasca and the Office of the Sergeant-at-Arms. If there was aggression, it was Aplasca who started the same,” the decision emphasized.
Aplasca’s actions endangered the lives of journalists and Senate personnel “and resulted in the emotional distress of some senators,” the ombudsman said.
Despite knowing that media workers and civilians were still inside the Senate building, Aplasca chose to engage with NBI agents “on the second floor’s emergency/fire exit,” the ombudsman stressed.
Since Aplasca has retired from government service following his replacement last month, the penalty of dismissal has been converted into a fine equivalent to his one-year salary.
Aplasca is also facing forfeiture of retirement benefits, cancellation of civil service eligibility and perpetual disqualification from government re-employment.

1 hour ago
1


