UNPOPULAR OPINION | Shaming season

With the recent psychological and propaganda attacks on former rebels, especially in Southern Tagalog and the killing spree of alleged “spies” in Negros, itt is apparent that the party is keen on implementing its retaliation against its “counter revolutionary” targets. All because they have no success in actually advancing guerilla warfare against their actual enemy: the troops of the Armed Forces of the Philippines.

Former rebels take no offense in being called traitors. After all, if dedicating one’s life in peace building and community service means being a traitor, then it must be an honor to be called one.

But these former rebels are no longer armed combatants. They are civilians.

For decades, the same movement argued that those killed in encounters were not legitimate military targets because they were unarmed activists or organizers. We have seen this narrative unfold repeatedly. When NPA fighters and leaders were killed or captured in armed encounters, national democratic organizations insisted they were mere “activists.” The so-called Agusan 6, Amanda Echanis and Faye Tallow were all claimed to be activists, until they were revealed to be CPP cadres.

If carrying no firearm is the standard for civilian protection when it benefits one’s argument, then that standard must apply consistently, especially when former rebels lay down arms and reintegrate into society.

The killings in Negros further erode that credibility. Those labeled “spies” were civilians—unarmed, outside any active firefight. And clearly, the category of “spy” is elastic; anyone can be accused. Once accusation alone pushes one into the threshold of execution.

Given these realities, silence is no longer an option.

If former rebels are being publicly branded, threatened, and vilified, then they are equally entitled to respond publicly. They are entitled to name inconsistencies, to challenge narratives, and to call out those who casually dismiss their lived experiences. Let former rebels shame figures who speak ill of them.

Let’s start with Tinay Palabay, who accused Alma Gabin of being “bayaran” (a paid hack) for testifying against Frenchie Cumpio and Marielle Domequil. Testimony, especially under oath or in formal proceedings, cannot be reduced to propaganda simply because it disrupts a preferred narrative. If advocates claim to stand for truth and justice, they must extend that same presumption of dignity to individuals who chose to leave the armed struggle.

Gabin does not need to worry, because she has tens of thousands of FRs all over the country supporting her, and who share the same plight as her. She represented all other FRs who knew Frenchie and Marielle as CPP cadres. Palabay on the other hand, who would fight tooth and nail for the New Peoples’ Army, has no one; because, even the NPA, now, cannot defend themselves.

Palabay, who does not know the struggles of former rebels inside the organization, or the exploitation they have experienced, should be shamed. She can only support the NPA, because she has no guts of being one herself. Her commitment to the movement is weak and half-hearted.

So shame on her, and all the others like her who reduce the courage of former rebels in standing for truth and justice.