From Abra clash to Kalinga campus: What Renee Co’s visit actually revealed

There was palpable distrust among some residents toward Kabataan Partylist, and a clearer discomfort with Rep. Renee Louise Co than with the presence of the Armed Forces of the Philippines. This was evident in online comments and public statements that circulated even before her Campus Tour and Konsultahang Kabataan at Kalinga State University on August 14.

Long before the event began, voices online were already questioning the purpose of the visit. The dominant tone was not mere policy disagreement but a preemptive rejection rooted in the belief that such engagements could carry a recruitment agenda. In contrast, expressions of gratitude toward the AFP, particularly the 5th Infantry Division, were common, with commenters thanking the military for monitoring the activity.

The contrast was striking: an elected youth representative was met with suspicion by some members of the public, while the presence of people associated with the security sector was viewed as a form of accountability and protection.

But what actually happened on August 14 tells a more complicated, and perhaps more important, story.

KSU draws the line

The distrust was neither sudden nor confined to social media users. Kalinga State University itself clarified that it did not organize or initiate the visit.

Ronald Bulwayan, director of the Office of Student Development and Services and Placement Services, said the university merely received a letter from the representative’s office.

“KSU did not arrange this one. We just accommodated her being a national politician. It’s not initiated by KSU; it is a random visit of the representative to the SUCs,” he stated.

More pointedly, the university gave a public assurance: “If there is a recruitment that will happen, we will not allow that. We assure you that we will not allow that. That’s why we are here.” The statement reveals institutional caution, but it also shows that KSU did not close its doors to Co.

It accommodated an elected member of Congress while making clear the boundaries it intended to enforce. Political engagement was permitted but recruitment, should it occur, would not be.

Why the suspicion exists

This wariness has deeper roots in the Cordillera.

Progressive youth organizations and security forces have long existed in tension. Kabataan Partylist, as part of the Makabayan bloc, has repeatedly faced allegations from former rebels that organizations within the broader national democratic movement have served as recruitment environments or pathways toward the underground movement and, in some cases, eventually the New People’s Army.

Multiple former rebels have publicly described their own progression from legal activism and campus organizing toward underground work and armed struggle. Similar former-rebel accounts revealed the relationship between aboveground organizations and underground CPP structures.

These allegations remain fiercely contested by the organizations concerned, which have repeatedly described such accusations as red-tagging. But dismissing every question about recruitment as red-tagging does not answer the testimonies of former members who say they themselves passed through such a process.

From Abra to Kalinga

The timing of the activity further fueled public suspicion.

Not long before Co’s visit, government forces clashed with NPA members in Licuan-Baay, Abra, in an encounter involving units under the 5th Infantry Division and alleged remnants of the Ilocos-Cordillera Regional Committee. Shortly after the clash, Anakbayan, a convening organization of Kabataan Partylist, publicly honored those killed as martyrs.

Against this backdrop, the decision of Co to hold a campus consultation in another Cordillera province inevitably attracted attention. For residents still processing the latest violence in the region, the presence of a Kabataan representative soon after a related youth organization honored those killed in an armed encounter heightened existing distrust.

But proximity in time is not, by itself, evidence that Co’s Kalinga consultation was connected to the Abra encounter.

The legitimate question is not whether a Kabataan representative should be prohibited from visiting a university because an NPA encounter recently occurred elsewhere in the Cordillera. She should not. The more useful question is whether communities have reasonable grounds to remain vigilant about recruitment while still allowing legitimate democratic engagement to proceed.

What actually happened

Co’s consultation proceeded. Those who attended alongside other students included ROTC cadets, students themselves, accompanied by reservist officer Lt. Col. Dantog. This was not an active combat unit of the Philippine Army occupying the campus.

There is nothing inherently wrong with their presence. ROTC cadets, along with students under the National Service Training Program are fellow students undergoing training in military preparedness, discipline, citizenship and civic responsibility. Their attendance should not automatically transform a political consultation into “militarization.”

Co was able to conduct her activity. Students were able to attend. The university maintained its safeguards. ROTC cadets were present. Security concerns were acknowledged.

And there is an important difference between monitoring an activity and preventing it from happening.

The twist: 5ID welcomed the engagement

Perhaps the most interesting development came afterward.

Instead of portraying the activity as a confrontation between the government and Kabataan Partylist, the 5th Infantry Division characterized what happened as a demonstration of “convergence and shared commitment to youth development.”

The division expressed appreciation to the participating university, local government, partner security and law-enforcement agencies and Kabataan Partylist for contributing to the activity.

“The participation of various stakeholders reflected a shared commitment to a common purpose, empowering the youth and creating a peaceful, secure, and progressive future for the people of Kalinga,” the 5ID said.

The same security institution frequently accused by progressive organizations of suppressing dissent did not demand that Co be removed from the university. It did not call for her consultation to be cancelled. It did not prevent students from listening to her.

Instead, the activity proceeded, security remained present, and afterward the Army publicly acknowledged Kabataan Partylist. That is hardly the picture of a campus being “hijacked” by the military.

Scrutiny is not suppression

But there remains a legitimate debate about recruitment.

State universities in areas historically affected by insurgency inevitably become important arenas of political contestation. Students encounter competing explanations of poverty, inequality, human rights, development, governance and armed conflict.

The answer should not be to shield students from political ideas. Neither should the answer be to pretend that recruitment into underground or armed organizations has never occurred.

Students should instead have access to competing perspectives, sufficient information to interrogate political claims, and an environment where legitimate activism can flourish without crossing into clandestine recruitment for armed organizations.

That means Kabataan Partylist should be free to speak, as they have. But it also means that others, say, former rebels should be free to challenge its narratives. ROTC cadets should not be treated as suspicious merely because they are ROTC cadets. To frame the activity as “militarization” or a “hijacking” of the event stretches the facts beyond recognition.

Beyond “militarization”

This is not a simple contest between the military and activists. It is a question of who truly serves the interests of the youth: those who pursue open democratic engagement with transparency, or those who operate under the banner of “youth empowerment” while carrying a deeper agenda. 

Kabataan Partylist and Co must surely agree that security is preferred over an ideology that has historically placed young people in harm’s way.