TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES

Ayala Blvd., Ermita, Manila, 1000 Metro Manila

Thursday 12:00 – 3: 00 pm 2nd Semester 2019-2020

Ethical Case Analysis

Final Examination

in

Ethics

Submitted by:

Rochelle Mae V. Laylo BSA-2A

Gillian L. Nuelan BSA-2A

Charissa Mae P. OlivaBSA-2A

Charles Dominic R. Tapnio BSA-2A

Submitted to:

Prof. Jaime ,Mozo Jr.

July 24, 2020

Issue: Were the actions of Archie Paray justified because he knew after trying to
communicate his grievances to the proper authorities and that no one will listen to him, he
decided to take hostage the Greenhills Shopping Mall to be noticed and to investigate his
grievances?

Facts on the Greenhills Hostage Taking

Background of the scenario

On March 2, 2020, a former security guard who worked at the Greenhills shopping mall
complex in San Juan, Metro Manila, Philippines took about 30 people hostages, particularly at
the administration office on the second floor of the Virra Mall. The perpetrator was identified as
Archie Paray, a 40-year-old man who guarded the mall as an employee of Safeguard Armor
Security Corporation (SASCOR) who successfully demanded authorities to air his grievance
against his former employers. Paray killed none and injured one person during the hostage
incident and was arrested after he freed the hostages.

Perpetrator

Archie Paray is the perpetrator of the hostage taking incident on March 2, 2020 at the
Virra Mall at the Greenhills shopping mall complex. He is a 40-year-old man who previously
worked as a security guard in the shopping mall complex as an employee under Safeguard
Armor Security Corporation (SASCOR).

Reason of why the scenario started

There were varying accounts regarding the circumstances of his employment with
SASCOR. Paray has expressed belief that he was a subject of unjust termination.

Time Span of the Hostage Crisis – 11:14 pm to 8:14 pm

The hostage crisis, began when Archie Paray entered the employees' entrance of the Virra
Mall at around 11:14 am. Paray was confronted by a security officer who he immediately
preceded to shoot with a gun. The wounded officer was immediately rushed to a hospital and
Paray took people at the finance office as hostages. At 11:22 am, the Greenhill management
contacted the San Juan City Police and within three minutes city police chief Colonel Jimmy
Santos, a SWAT team along with other officials arrived at the scene.
 Paray threatened to kill the hostages and made his first demand - to have all security
guards of the mall gather outside the mall. He later demanded to be given media presence. At
around 12:30pm, the police set up a command post inside the Greenhills chapel. The V-Mall was
placed under lock down at around 1pm. At that time the incident was being reported as a
shooting incident with the police not yet officially confirming that a hostage taking was
underway. San Juan Mayor Francis Zamora and National Capital Region Police Office (NCRPO)
chief Debold Sinas arrived at the hostage taking site. At 2:30pm the Greenhills management
issued a statement publicly confirming the then-ongoing hostage taking. Despite the closure,
several onlookers still managed to gather at the site to film the incident live and give updates
about the situation online.

The police began setting up a press conference at 4pm as part of fulfilling one of the
demands of the hostage taker. An hour later, the media was brought in the Greenhills shopping
mall complex for a briefing with the police. A video-call was made by a police officer to confirm
the attendance of representatives of the media including reporters from CNN, GMA, ABS-CBN,
and TV5, and representatives from Paray's former employer, SASCOR.

At 6pm, six SASCOR officials publicly announced their intention to resign from their
post in a bid to appease Paray. Paray in response demanded that two of them eat ₱2,500 in front
of the media. The hostage taker offered one condition that must be fulfilled to drop that
particular demand: for the police to plead with him via the media to not force the act on his two
former bosses, a demand with which the police complied.

The hostages were freed at around 8:16pm. Paray, initially thought to be unarmed, exited
with the hostages. Paray then proceeded to air his grievances against his former employers on
national television for 20 minutes before the police managed to arrest him at around 8:45pm.

Victims

The hostage crisis saw only one injury, that of a security officer who was rushed to the
Cardinal Santos Medical Center after he was shot by the hostage taker. The officer was shot
twice but is reportedly in stable condition. 55 other people were taken hostage by Paray.

Articulating the dillema:

The perpetrator used the hostages on Greenhills ----------> The authorities will listen to his
demands
The perpetrator don’t resolved to violence------------------> The authorities will not listen to his
concerns

Ethical Rationale

Opinions about the issue

The incident of ‘The Greenhills Hostage Taking’ that fearfully happened just recently this
year in our society, made a drastic change and served as an eye opener for many of other
individuals, mainly among the laborers and employers of our society. Who would have thought
that in that normal day, a normal individual had taken a dangerous action just because he felt that
he was being oppressed by powerful individuals, and he felt that there are many injustices
happening in his job as a security guard.
Archie Paray, a normal individual with a normal job, with normal family and background
just wanted his feelings to be heard. His bottled-up emotions, and many grievances just spilled
like that in an instant, through doing the Hostage taking incident. To think that this individual
had decided and chose his actions by doing such an unethical action, can also mean that he
desperately wanted to let his employer and other coworkers to know what he have been
experiencing in his job. As a person, Paray have all the rights to be heard, but unfortunately, he
used the wrong method of voicing his emotions. The problem is Paray is just ‘normal’, and as
normal, we pointed out that in this kind of situation that ‘normal’ person like Paray is usually
treated inappropriately because of lack of powers and authorities as an individual. “Dahil siguro
kami, guwardya lang” was the words that he said as he spoke to the media and from all over the
people listening to him as the hostage taking takes place. And those words were just as heavy
and deep as his emotions.
Nowadays, in our society does normal people like Paray have many chances to be heard?
Does all of the working class, with usually have low incomes, and worst always had contractual
jobs, ever given a chance to be treated equally? This only proves that there are many working
Filipinos who are also suffering just as like as Paray’s situation. The never-ending problem of
how to and when to finally end job contractualization. The situation also reflects on how there
are also employers who abused their authorities when it comes to money. It is really unfortunate
that many people work for long hours, only to be paid and endure having low pay.
Evidently, in all sides and angles, Paray’s action of hostage taking is wrong. But he is not
only the one to be blamed, the management as well, and all the higher ups is responsible. If only
there are no mistreatment happening behind his job and his work, and if only he did not lay off
from his job, then none of these will happen.
 Now, Archie Paray, a normal individual with a normal family, with the actions he had
taken was being imprisoned. The ‘normal’ former security guard, now became a man known as a
‘hostage-taker’. Not only he had lost his job, but his dignity as a person was also affected. He
gained sympathy from all the people who had watched and heard him, but most of all the feeling
of empathy was highlighted in this situation, having the ability to understand and to feel what is
Paray’s situation, and imagining of putting oneself to his.
The main question is does Paray’s action was justified? No, it is considered as an
unethical action, and taking that action in the first place is not acceptable and unreasonable. His
decision was wrong in a way that he is committing a crime, an action against the law, and in
addition he involved many innocent individuals and have their lives threatened. Even if Paray is
in a difficult situation in his job, he should not have resolved by doing that action. The situation
is just very unfortunate, it was an eye-opener, a call for help, and an act of violence just to defend
and acquire the right to be heard.
Does Archy Paray’s action was unjustified? No, because he resorted on violence
involving other people, instead of using peacemaking agreement. Archy Paray’s action was
considered unethical because of the crime he did and also, he resorted to a hostage taking in
order to voice out his