On Cebu PB’s backing of anti-insurgency measures

While Cebu boasts of its insurgency-free status, The Freeman reported on February 18 that "the Cebu Provincial Board had passed a resolution supporting President Rodrigo Duterte’s counter-insurgency measures." Since Cebu is insurgency-free, for whom and for what is the resolution? What makes up an insurgency?

The United States Army and Marine Corps defines insurgency as “an organized movement aimed at the overthrow of a constituted government through the use of subversion and armed conflict”. In an article published by the Canadian Center of Science and Education, William Holden writes that “grievances, sources of discontent motivating people to take up arms and attempt to achieve change violently, are a crucial impetus to an insurgency.” Is the resolution backed up by scientific data from intelligent intelligence? Or is this a reflection of the militarized bureaucracy?

Recently the country's intelligence has been discredited by no less than the press secretary over the inclusion of Lieutenant Colonel Espenido on the drug list. How can we certify, then, that this resolution will be implemented with utmost prudence? In fact, progressive organizations are under attack on the pretext that they are communist fronts. E.O. 70 is executed vis-a-vis the militarist stance of OPAPP and NTF-ELCAC. Intimidation, harassment, incarceration, and trumped-up charges propagate with the legal cloak of E.O. 70 dyed with “peace and order”.

A militarized national task force does not, will not, and cannot address the root cause of the armed resistance in the Philippines. The forging of the "peace framework" is scientific and rigorous which requires comprehensive socio-politico-economic reforms. The task force should have abandoned its obsolete militarist approach and regionalized talks. Learn from the lessons of peace deals with the MNLF and with Colombia's FARC! The task force should have listened to the academics and other communities, and call for the resumption of peace talks. The "peace framework" of E.O. 70 silenced critics rinsing the Filipinos progressiveness in dealing with the country's social ills. Even without the E.O. 70, a state university professor of NSTP irresponsibly red-tagged the MAKABAYAN Bloc and its allied progressive people's organizations.

What to expect with the PB's resolution? Under E.O. 70, the democratic space shrinks. Democracy is lip service if there's no mass mobilizations and people's organizations. What is the use of being progressive if one is not militant? Does this mean enforcing conservatism? Is it a crime if one embraces the philosophy of Marx? What is the bearing of the repealed Anti-Subversion Law?

After the passing of CARHRIHL and JASIG, “peace effort”, in today's context, should have dealt with CASER. Incarcerating peace talk consultants paralyzes the process of resuming peace talks. The effort through E.O. 70 does not contribute to the peace process as has been observed in other provinces; however, it serves as a prelude to martial law. The peace framework without the comprehensive socio-politico-economic reforms commits illicit jump. There is no shortcut to the peace process; it is a painstaking effort.

Noe M. Santillan

Assistant Professor of Philosophy and Social Studies

University of the Philippines Cebu