‘Does Rep. Co want our stories erased?’ — former rebels on Kabataan Partylist’s dismissal of journal on terror grooming

Former rebels are questioning Kabataan Partylist Rep. Renee Co’s criticism of a National Security Council journal on terror grooming, saying the debate over its academic credentials should also address the experiences of people whose accounts informed the studies.

Arian Jane Ramos, Buklod Kapayapaan head of legal affairs and herself a law student, said former rebels were among the principal respondents in the studies under discussion. She questioned why Co was seeking to discredit the publication without addressing what those accounts revealed about recruitment and life inside the communist movement.

“Does Rep. Co want our stories erased?” Ramos asked.

Her challenge follows Co’s questioning of the maiden issue of the Philippine Journal on National Security, titled Target to Threat: The Psychology and Prevention of Terror Grooming, during plenary deliberations on the NSC’s proposed 2027 budget, Monday, September 21. The exchange focused on peer review, the composition of the editorial board, and a potential conflict of interest involving the editor-in-chief. 

Former rebels’ experiences

For Ramos, however, the discussion also concerns whether former rebels’ experiences will receive a substantive hearing.

Ramos identified former rebels as principal respondents whose accounts contributed to the studies. Her objection places their participation at the center of the controversy: the publication’s credibility is being challenged, while the experiences they say they contributed have received little attention in the quoted exchange.

Co did not identify a specific former rebel’s account and explain why it was inaccurate. Her questions instead challenged the procedures through which the publication claimed scholarly standing.

Co questioned the absence of a stated peer-review policy, the NSC-dominated editorial board, and the editor-in-chief’s contributions. The House budget sponsor agreed that scholarly publications should undergo peer review, but did not detail how the manuscripts were assessed.

Kabataan also warned that the publication could be used to suppress progressive youth, describing its subject as “terror-tagging.” The journal, however, presents its subject as “terror grooming” or manipulation and recruitment toward violence.

Lumad experience

For Rurelyn Bay-ao, a Lumad youth leader from Talaingod, Davao del Norte, the controversy also recalls earlier experiences involving accounts of her tribe, the Ata Manobo, that became subjects of several research.

Bay-ao said organizations affiliated with national democratic groups had previously studied and published their stories. She alleged that some accounts were deliberately skewed to favor the narratives of those organizations and even the Communist Party of the Philippines and New People’s Army.

Her allegation concerns how researchers represented the people whose experiences they collected. It introduces another question into the debate over academic credibility of whether the finished work faithfully reflects what respondents shared.

“Dapat tinanong din ni Rep. Co yung mga study na yun kung na-peer review din ba yun,” she said. Bay-ao is now a graduating Public Administration student in Davao del Norte. Her recollection explains why the treatment of community narratives matters to her in light of the present controversy.

Ramos and Bay-ao raise related concerns from different experiences. Ramos questions whether rejecting the journal also sidelines former rebels who participated in the studies. Bay-ao questions how research can shape or distort the stories of the communities, particularly by national democratic groups that reported on her tribe’s experiences for decades. Both objections press for the publication’s subject matter and the experiences behind it to receive attention alongside its academic credentials.

The journal in question

Published by the NSC Secretariat’s Strategic Communications Office, Target to Threat contains discussions of psychological manipulation, social media, higher education, journalism, and violent extremism. Its contributors examine how grievances, emotional vulnerabilities, and the search for belonging may be exploited in recruitment.

The journal calls for psychological insight, prevention strategies, digital literacy, responsible media, and community resilience. It presents the issue as a concern involving schools, families, communities, and government.

Recommendations include safe spaces for students to discuss concerns, critical thinking, and dialogue on ideologies and political views. They also stress that deeply rooted social problems require long-term solutions. 

The publication advances both preventive and enforcement proposals that can be examined on their evidence and implications. The plenary exchange during the budget hearing concentrated on its editorial process rather than testing those individual arguments.

Ramos’s challenge brings the discussion back to the people she says contributed to the studies. Her question about erasure is an objection to the effect of dismissing the publication.

What remains at issue for the former rebels is whether their accounts will be heard and examined as part of the discussion on recruitment, manipulation, and violence.