In the midst of search, rescue and possible recovery efforts both by civilian and government operations at the site, continuing blames are raised on people and agencies involved as to who bares the greater part of the responsibility over this tragic occurrence. Words are thrown and fingers are pointed at each others bounds. One claiming as operational failure, while the other hides the guilt in claiming indeed that it was an act of God.
TV footages for the past few days clearly exhibited the apparent failure of Sulpicio Lines in communicating with the relatives who convened in their offices either for help and obviously for information about their loved ones. Having suffered in previous mishaps, the management blatantly as we can say ignored all lessons learned over at least two major events.
December 10, 1987 Dona Paz after a collision with MV Vector resulted to a significant death toll of about 1,565 including all of their own crew members. A year later, a recurrence took place involving MV Dona Marilyn on 24th of October 1988 where 600 passengers died including crew members and left 300 reported survivors. One clear fact now simply tells the public that no matter what Sulpicio has done so far at this very point.. There was a visible failure of the company's implementation of their Crisis Management Plan.. if ever there was.In its intent to diffuse tension, monetary assistance for P200T each was publicly promised. This however came only after heightened criticism, media intervention and burst of emotions on the part of the relatives the way Sulpicio handled the situation. Over two past incidents alone, Sulpicio could have undertaken a serious assessment of each tragedy. Worst the company had ample time to prepare for such crisis. With the members of the security community observing the flow of this incident, a common observation on hand can be raised safely and leaves professional security practitioners wondering, if indeed Sulpicio Lines management is competent enough in putting some contingencies into action purposely to protect the welfare of its passengers.
From an observer's point of view, the most important thing that management could have extended in the middle of this tragedy, is a sincere representation to address the sentiments of the relatives of the victims, the agony, fear and painful apprehensions on the fate of their families. Clearly, except for the usual statement of indemnifying the victims and a half-baked display of concern through a solid appearance which came basically after two days of the tragedy, security practitioners did not feel any solid action on their part to look after the immediate concerns of the families. 
To date, one important thought investigators and the board of inquiry should look into is the Crisis Management Plan of the company if ever there really was. A detailed scrutiny of this aspect should be initiated objectively to thresh out specific action plans the company has to take in the event, a crisis occurs. Under the same light, the public may expect accurate information from certain government agencies as to why the company continued its operations despite of those past events. Man made or an act of God, inevitably an entity has to prepare for its own crisis and strives to lessen its impact in every cycle of events.
