Former CPP-NPA cadres dispute op-ed piece on Talaingod 13, say ruling centered on child protection

Photo courtesy of Al Jazeera

DAVAO CITY — A former youth leader and CPP cadre of a Lumad organization in Davao region and a former CPP-NPA leader have challenged a recent opinion piece by Atty. Tony La Viña who criticized the conviction of the so-called Talaingod 13. Rurelyn Bay-ao and Ida Marie Montero argued that the case was not about criminalizing Lumad education but about protecting children during a volatile security situation in 2018.

In interviews, the former cadres said the opinion article downplayed key circumstances surrounding the removal of Lumad children from Talaingod, Davao del Norte, at the height of armed encounters, and failed to reflect the perspectives of parents and community members who later questioned how the children were taken.

Narrow framing

Bay-ao, former coordinator of Sabokahan Youth who has since surrendered to the government and is now engaged in peace and reintegration work, said the case has been framed too narrowly as an attack on indigenous schooling.

“It’s not [the case] about closing the Lumad schools,” Bay-ao said. “It is about adults making decisions that placed children at risk, only because the CPP directed it. From my experience inside the movement, these so-called ‘rescues’ were political actions, not purely humanitarian.”

She added that the broader debate has often overlooked what families themselves were asking for. “What many Lumad parents want is simple. They want safe, stable schooling for their children, and they want the government to provide it. Once before, the CPP filled that gap, but it wasn’t really for us, it was to make sure the CPP-NPA become rooted in our communities,” Bay-ao said, herself a former student of the Lumad school Salugpungan Ta Tanu Igkanogon Community Learning Center, Inc.

About Child Protection

The Court of Appeals recently affirmed a regional trial court ruling that found former lawmakers, teachers, and activists guilty of violating child protection laws over the 2018 incident. Supporters of the accused have described the conviction as a blow to humanitarian action and indigenous rights, a view echoed in Atty. Laviña's opinion piece.

A former CPP-NPA leader, however, said the ruling addressed specific acts and did not amount to a rejection of culturally appropriate education for Lumad communities.

Arian Jane Ramos, Head of Legal Affairs of Buklod Kapayapaan said that the distinction matters. “The court ruling was about child protection, not an attack on education,” she said. “Compassion cannot justify actions that expose children to danger.”

Ramos said many former rebels now work with indigenous communities precisely to ensure that education initiatives are transparent, accountable, and coordinated with parents and authorities. “We support education that respects Lumad culture,” she added. “But children should never be used for political ends.”

Humanitarian Narratives 'Weaponized'

Both Bay-ao and Ramos said they respect the right of commentators to criticize court decisions but urged media outlets to include voices of former rebels and former students of Lumad schools who understand how humanitarian narratives are being ‘weaponized’ to further a violent agenda.

“The Talaingod 13 have supporters and funding from abroad because they continue to use our story, the story of the Lumad, to generate sympathy and money,” Bay-ao said. “They have lawyers like Atty Laviña and many allies. The Lumad children of Talaingod only have the truth, and we are glad the courts are listening.”

“When children are caught in the middle of ideological battles, they are the ones who lose,” Ramos said. “Accountability should not be mistaken for repression.”

She hopes the discussion following the ruling will move beyond polarized narratives and focus instead on ensuring safe education, genuine community consent, and lasting peace in Lumad areas.