Justice by System
Engr. Elaine Macatangay Morales, MPA | 16 July 2025
Thirty-four men disappeared. One by one, over the course of several months, sabungeros (cockfighting players) vanished. Families are still waiting. Leads are (hopefully) unfolding. And while the cases have generated headlines, Senate inquiries, and task forces, answers remain elusive. I don’t write about this to speculate or assign blame. The investigation is ongoing, and it should be. But what this and many similar cases bring to light is a deeper, quieter question, one that often goes unasked, “What system is supposed to help us get to the truth?”
When Investigations Need a System
Whenever lives are at stake, whether through crime, disaster, or negligence, the response must go beyond concern. It must be structured. Investigations are not merely about gathering facts; they involve navigating jurisdictions, timelines, evidence protocols, and communication lines across institutions. That requires more than a checklist. It requires a system, and that system must deliver quality output at every stage.
In quality management, the value of a system lies not only in its structure but in the outputs it enables: timely reports, accurate documentation, coordinated actions. In a multi-agency investigation, quality means fulfilling both stakeholder expectations and institutional requirements. Whether it's a police report, a forensic analysis, or an official statement, each piece must be fit for its purpose and contribute meaningfully to the larger process. A system that fails to ensure these risks undermine the very search for truth.
When the System Struggles to Show Up
In the case of the missing sabungeros, multiple government agencies are involved. That is to be expected as no single institution can resolve a complex, cross-regional case on its own. But multi-agency involvement should not mean blurred lines or disconnected workstreams. For an investigation to move forward with integrity, certain things must be in place: clear roles, agreed protocols, shared timelines, coordinated updates, and transparency for the families waiting. And just as important, each part of the system must deliver its contribution to a consistent standard.
Without that, what remains is not just silence but uncertainty—not only about what happened, but about how we are trying to find out.
Learning from Disasters and Gaps
In past typhoon disasters, such as Odette in 2021 or Egay in 2023, we’ve seen how critical coordination becomes in crisis. The government has formal disaster response protocols, like the Incident Command System (ICS), which provide a structure for linking national agencies, LGUs, and responders. But as post-disaster assessments have shown, the strength of that system depends heavily on local capacity, communication, and logistics. The framework exists, but its effectiveness varies, especially in remote or hard-hit areas. When systems falter, communities wait and risks multiply.
The oil spill in Oriental Mindoro in 2023 also revealed the complexity of inter-agency response. The effort involved the Philippine Coast Guard, LGUs, environmental agencies, scientists, and international partners. While there were attempts to mobilize expertise and resources, gaps emerged especially in containment, risk communication, and accountability. What stood out was not the strength of coordination, but the need for a more integrated and quality-driven system. The crisis exposed how fragile responses can be when data, decisions, and responsibilities are not clearly defined and connected.
Systems Require Quality
We often think of systems as internal: within an agency, a company, or a department. But some of the most critical systems are inter-organizational, where institutions must work together toward a common goal. These systems don’t run on org charts, they run on alignment, communication, and clarity of purpose.
But alignment alone is not enough. The quality of each agency’s contribution—its reports, decisions, and actions—matters. In quality terms, this means meeting requirements effectively and consistently. Even a well-structured system can fail if its parts do not perform to standard. Whether responding to a disaster or investigating a crime, it is not only the system’s design that counts but also the reliability of every action within it.
Systems for Accountability
At the heart of it all is this: accountability is not an accident. It doesn’t happen just because people want justice. It happens when processes are designed to make truth possible, and when every actor in the system delivers what is needed—on time, to standard, and in coordination with others. Whether it's a criminal investigation, a disaster response, or an environmental crisis, what matters is not just that agencies respond, but how well they do it, and how well they do it together.
Because in cases where lives are affected—victims, survivors, families, and even the accused—justice is not just a verdict. It is the system we build to pursue it. And in that system, quality is not a luxury, it is a necessity. So when something goes wrong, when a tragedy unfolds, or when answers are slow to come, maybe the most important question is not just “Who is responsible?” But also, “What system was supposed to lead us to the truth, and did it do so with the quality that justice demands?”
