OP-ED| Toboso and the Myth of Neutral, Harmless Research

An Interview with “Ka Cecilia”

On April 19, 2026, a prolonged armed encounter took place in Barangay Salamanca, Toboso, Negros Occidental, resulting in the deaths of 19 individuals. The Armed Forces of the Philippines described the operation as a legitimate action against an NPA guerrilla unit. The Communist Party of the Philippines - New People’s Army, meanwhile, claimed that while 10 were their armed fighters, the remaining nine were “students, researchers, journalists, and civilians” massacred while conducting legitimate community work. This narrative has been aggressively pushed online. The truth demands closer scrutiny.

As a former member of the movement, I have experienced guerrilla life firsthand. I know the genuine hardships of farmers and the powerful pull of revolutionary ideals. But truthfulness compels us to reject romanticized portrayals that conceal how the NPA actually operates.

The young people involved were indeed conducting social investigation and class analysis (SICA) — a core Maoist technique that all CPP-NPA cadres practice . However, this was not legitimate, neutral, or academic research. SICA is a systematic process of gathering intelligence on local conditions, identifying class enemies, mapping vulnerabilities, and preparing the ground for mass organizing in support of the armed struggle. It is political warfare disguised as “research.”

What is being circulated online — portraying the victims as innocent students and independent researchers doing harmless fieldwork is misleading. The issue is not whether some of them carried student IDs, wrote articles, joined campus organizations, or described themselves as researchers. The more relevant questions are: Who cleared their entry? Who guided them? Who secured them? What was the purpose of the activity? And why were they embedded with an armed NPA unit in an area where no ordinary civilian could simply walk in?

Entry into an active NPA guerrilla zone, or sonang gerilya, is never casual or open to ordinary civilians.

Standard NPA protocol is clear. Urban youth and students undergo rigorous screening before being allowed into guerrilla areas. This includes ideological vetting, political education, physical and psychological evaluation, and security checks. By the time they reach the actual camp and operate alongside armed units, they are no longer ordinary civilians. They have been integrated into the revolutionary machinery, whether as propagandists, mass organizers, medics, or support elements.

Public reports on the Toboso casualties support this reality. Several of the deceased were known activists from militant campus organizations aligned with the national democratic movement. Some held positions in student councils or people’s organizations that openly support the NPA. Their presence deep in a remote guerrilla area, together with confirmed NPA commanders and fighters during an active military operation, was not a coincidence. At the very least, it raises questions that cannot be dismissed by simply calling the activity “research.”

The barangay itself reportedly had no official record of any authorized research or immersion activity in the area. This further undermines claims of legitimate, independent research.

This does not erase the tragedy of wasted young lives. But it exposes the dangerous deception in the dominant online narrative. These individuals were not killed while innocently studying rural poverty. They were operating inside an active guerrilla unit as part of the NPA’s politico-military work. In the language of the revolution, they were already considered “advanced elements.”

The CPP-NPA has long mastered this dual strategy: deploying students and intellectuals for propaganda and mass work while shielding the armed core. When clashes result in deaths, the story is immediately reframed as a “massacre of civilians” to generate sympathy and international pressure — a tactic seen in many previous encounters.

The harsh reality of guerrilla warfare remains: once you enter the armed domain — whether as a fighter or a “researcher” for the movement — you cross a line. The mountains are not a university campus or a safe research site. They are a battlefield. Idealism offers no protection against superior firepower or the chaos of prolonged combat.

The Toboso 19 should compel us to confront difficult truths: How many more idealistic young people will be drawn into this protracted war under the guise of “research” and “service to the people”? When will we stop glorifying a conflict that has consumed thousands of Filipino lives for over five decades with no realistic path to victory?

Sympathy for the dead must not come at the expense of honesty. These young men and women were not neutral observers. They had chosen a side and operated within an armed revolutionary framework. Acknowledging this reality does not celebrate their deaths — it honors the truth and may help prevent future generations from meeting the same fate.

It is long past time to abandon romantic revolutionary myths and face the full human cost of a war that refuses to end.