By Jeffrey Damicog Solicitor General Jose Calida has lauded the decision of the Supreme Court (SC) to suspend the arraignment of former President Benigno “Noynoy” Aquino III for lesser crimes over his alleged liability in the deaths of 44 members of the Special Action Force (SAF) during a botched operation in Mamasapano, Maguindanao in 2015. Solicitor General Jose C. Calida (MANILA BULLETIN FILE PHOTO) “I commend the Supreme Court for granting the TRO (temporary restraining order) and upholding the sacred duty of the State to prosecute crimes,” he stated in his post in official Twitter account. “This is the first step to hold those responsible for the senseless killing of the SAF44,” Calida pointed out. The SC yesterday issued a TRO stopping the Sandiganbayan from arraigning Aquino and his coaccused—former Philippine National Police (PNP) chief Alan Purisima and former SAF chief Getulio Napeñas—for graft and usurpation of authority in connection with the so-called “Mamasapano massacre.” The three are supposed to be arraigned over the charges on February 15. The high tribunal granted the plea of Calida to issue a TRO considering a review has been sought over the case and charges of 44 counts of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide be filed instead against Aquino, Purisima and Napeñas. In its resolution ordering the stop of the arraignment,  the SC enjoined the Office of the Ombudsman from implementing its resolutions “insofar as it dismissed the complaint for reckless imprudence resulting in multiple homicide against respondents Benigno Simeon C. Aguino III, Alan Purisima and Getulio Napeñas and from further proceeding in the subject cases.” Last month, Calida filed a manifestation asking the SC to compel the Ombudsman to file 44 counts of homicide against  Aquino, Purisima, and Napeñas in connection with 2015 encounter in Mamasapano, Maguindanao where 44 policemen were killed in a clash with rebels. In his manifestation, Calida also asked the SC to nullify the Ombudsman’s ruling which dismissed the charges of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide filed against the three. “The act of public respondent Ombudsman in the case of dismissing the case for reckless imprudence, however, is a wanton disregard of the sufficiency of evidence to form a belief that a crime for Reckless Imprudence has been committed,” read the manifestation. The Solicitor General filed the manifestation in support of the petition filed with the high tribunal by the relatives of two policemen killed in the encounter. with the high tribunal by the relatives of two policemen killed in the encounter.