Posing for the Camera, Then Posting the Complaint

It's amusing yet somewhat pitiable to see Rep. Rene Co of Kabataan Partylist's reaction to the 5th Infantry Division's post about their joint activity at Kalinga State University (KSU). I saw nothing wrong with the 5th ID's post; if anything, it was quite cordial in the way it mentioned the unity between them and KSU for the welfare of the students and youth of Kalinga. There was no trace of insult, no accusation, nothing malicious, just an acknowledgment of an occasion where both sides came together for a goal that shouldn't even be controversial: the welfare of the youth.

That's precisely what makes it notable that Rep. Rene Co herself seems uneasy about her own post, even though her expression looks pleasant in the photo taken with 5th ID personnel - not forced, not uncomfortable, and she genuinely appears to have enjoyed the moment when the picture was taken. This is exactly what highlights the contradiction: if she truly had strong objections to the military's presence on campus, wouldn't that show in her expression when the photo was taken? The message of the photo and the message of the caption seem to pull in opposite directions.

There's also a deeper pattern worth noting here, one consistent with Kabataan Partylist's long-running institutional posture toward the military. For years, the partylist, going back to its earlier representatives and regional coordinators, has built much of its public identity around resisting what it calls "red-tagging": the practice of publicly linking activist groups to the communist insurgency. This has been a recurring and legitimate grievance raised by Kabataan chapters, including in the Cordillera region where Kalinga is located. But that history is exactly what makes the current reaction so puzzling. If the complaint has always been that the military unfairly brands them as subversive, then a post that does the opposite - one that credits them with cooperating constructively for student welfare - should, by their own logic, be a welcome development. Instead, the discomfort persists, suggesting that the real objection may not be about how the military characterizes them, but about being seen cooperating with the military at all, regardless of the framing.

There's also a tone of ownership in her post, as if she alone represents the activity at KSU and speaks on behalf of all its students, when this may not reflect the actual views of the majority who attended. Kabataan Partylist, like similar groups, has often framed itself nationally as the singular authentic voice of Filipino youth. That's a legitimate political brand to build, but it doesn't automatically translate into being the sole legitimate interpreter of what happened at a specific university event, especially one where the school administration itself was presumably a co-organizer.

To be clear, Rep. Rene Co did nothing illegal by attending or participating. But her reaction is disproportionate, as if the 5th ID were at fault for describing a cooperative event in a positive light. If she didn't want her photo with the 5th ID circulated, there was room to decline being photographed in that moment. And a military unit doesn't typically gain access to a state university campus without coordination, invitation, or clearance from the school administration - this is standard practice for any outside government agency conducting activities on campus grounds. That weakens the basis for questioning the 5th ID's presence there in the first place.

Her point about academic freedom being "obstructed" by the presence of soldiers and police also deserves scrutiny. Kabataan Partylist has historically framed academic freedom as central to its advocacy - including past privilege speeches and "National Students Day for Academic Freedom" campaigns emphasizing that a healthy academic environment depends on students being able to organize, speak, and encounter diverse viewpoints without suppression. By that same standard, though, academic freedom should mean exposure to a plurality of perspectives, not the exclusion of any one institutional voice. If security forces attending a coordinated event constitutes "obstruction" of academic freedom, then the same argument could just as easily be turned around: shouldn't excluding one perspective from campus discourse - including the government's own - raise the same concern?

Finally, Kabataan isn't the only stakeholder with a legitimate interest in student welfare in Kalinga. Security concerns tied to NPA recruitment activity remain a real and documented issue in parts of the Cordillera region, including Kalinga, where insurgent recruitment among students and youth has historically been a concern for both local government and security agencies. That's a dimension of "youth welfare" that shouldn't be dismissed just because it originates from the military's side of the conversation. Genuine concern for the youth shouldn't be selectively applied based on who's raising it, it should be judged on what's actually at stake for their safety and future.