Why Is the Military Being Blamed for Rebelyn’s Death?

By Alan Davis
Philippine Human Rights Reporting Project

Has the military made itself an obvious suspect in Rebelyn Pitao’s killing because of its activity in so-called “white (urban) areas?”

What is its policy in these areas anyway and why is the military investigating alleged links between armed insurgents and what been described as the “intellectual sector” by a senior army boss?

Why is a deputy chief of staff talking about an “intellectual sector” anyway? And what does it mean or indicate? Is it that the army suspects a series of civilian fronts are assisting the New People’s Army in some way and that therefore makes them legitimate army targets?

A senior military commander in Mindanao I spoke to in November told me ‘absolutely not – not unless they are armed and trying to use their weapon.’

They would of course not be civilians, but guerillas in such cases.

But why then is the army talking this way and is it active in urban areas?

If crimes are suspected and laws have been broken with regard to extortion, illegal fundraising or even summary killings, the police and not the military should be involved.

Major General Romeo Lustestica, deputy chief of staff for operations in Philippine army appeared in front of the media in Camp Aguinaldo on January 8 this year saying the military were committed to “dismantling priority areas including clearing 30 white (urban) area committees” as part of the government’s aim of ending the communist insurgency “once and for all” late next year. The story was well reported in the following day’s papers.

These areas he said were the “umbilical cord” where the “red areas” –the guerillas in the mountains – get their alleged support. These “white areas” were also where ‘cadres” from the so-called “intellectual sector” are recruited.

Is then the military being blamed for Rebelyn’s death –fairly or unfairly– because by its own admission, it is involved in areas it probably shouldn’t be in? Exactly what are these anyway, and how tight is the chain of command and control linking the chief of staff and regional commanders with military intelligence groups, the Civilian Armed Forces Geographical Unit (CAFGU) and village defense units that have been recently set up, armed and trained to look out for suspected guerilla activity?

Task Force Rebelyn, the police group set up to investigate last week’s abduction and brutal killing of the 20-year-old teacher and daughter of the NPA’s Commander Parago needs answers to these questions. We all do – not least Rebelyn’s mother, siblings, friends and workmates.

While the Task Force obviously must investigate every possible motive and lead, the fact remains that fairly or unfairly the military is being blamed for her death by many. “Like it or not, we (the government) will be blamed.”

So said Defense Secretary Gilberto Teodoro on Monday (March 9):

He went on: “Whoever is responsible, the Armed Forces are affected. For the sake of truth and the institution, we want a transparent investigation and I want to find out who was responsible.”

Teodoro was himself at Camp Aguinaldo back in January when the AFP rolled out its plans to “dismantle” a total of 54 NPA fronts this year. And a few hours after he spoke on Monday, the leader of an anti-development aggression group was shot dead by gunmen in nearby Koronadal City. Eleazar “Boy” Billanes was head of something called the Anti-Development Aggression Coalition.

The military may unjustly be accused of both killings.

Eleazar Billanes might have been killed by those business interests who opposed his campaigning against them: he might have been killed for personal reasons – or he may even have been killed by some elements in or connected to the military because he thought to be sympathetic or in some way connected to the NPA.

Who knows right now?

The defense secretary’s problem is that a lot of right-minded people believe the military has a case to answer in connection with many previous killings and enforced disappearances and so will simply add these to the “charge sheet.”

This doesn’t mean the NPA and people like Rebelyn’s own father don’t similarly have a serious case to answer.

But the military act for the state and too many people believe they are impenetrable, ubiquitous, and unable to clearly differentiate between what constitutes a real threat to state security and what is legitimate dissent.

To be fair, it sometimes is not always crystal clear what the threat is and what laws, if any at all, have been broken. Without doubt, some groups probably exploit that: Invariably there are NPA sympathizers in towns and cities and villages across the Philippines.

But that is no crime and ultimately it is for the police and law enforcement agencies to determine if and when a crime has been committed and when a political sympathizer becomes a conspirator and- or insurgent.

It is not the job of the army to do police work. The job of a soldier is typically to find the enemy – and kill them.

This problem surely lies at the heart of the matter –especially when the military are caught talking about closing down ‘urban fronts.’

Nobody can fairly deny there is a continuing armed insurgency in the Philippines which espouses revolutionary ideals, targets agents of the state and engages in criminal activity including extortion, kidnapping and murder. A nation’s military has the duty to defend the political system, the elected administration and too the constitution if it is under threat.

Really under threat that is –from armed revolutionaries – not leftwing critics.

The problem is that if soldiers have to be deployed on their own soil to confront their own compatriots there will invariably be tragedies and abuses on all sides.

The British army was sent onto the streets of Northern Ireland forty years ago in a vain effort to keep the peace –and became a seemingly intractable part of the conflict itself. The continuing presence of the British army only helped people on all sides avoid addressing fundamental issues which were a stepping stone to peace. Terrorism appears to be returning this week to the streets of Northern Ireland, but the government is wisely refusing to redeploy the military.

The AFP’s political masters in Manila might be wise to reconsider its own policy –particularly given it claims to be winning the ‘war’ against the NPA – and particularly given concerns over what its aims are in these so called “white (urban) areas.”

Was Rebelyn somehow caught up as an innocent victim in some “white (urban) area” policy? Who knows? One can only conclude though that it is the position and statements of military chiefs that precisely put them in the frame and if they do not want to be “unfairly accused”, people need to come clean on what the policy is and who is doing what.

Will the insurgency really end by force of arms whether employed in the hills or urban centers?

Probably not:

The wisest words this week come from one of the army’s own – Lt. General Victor Ibrado who was quoted speaking in Bacolod City in relation to the army campaign against the NPA. He reportedly admitted that the insurgency could not be completely annihilated by 2010, adding: “Insurgency is not a military war, but a socio-economic and political problem, which has to be solved by all of us.”

Perfectly put and Ibrado’s superiors and political masters would do well to listen. For in the case of poor Rebelyn –and others – the military may or may not be actually responsible – but the hierarchy do have themselves in part to blame –at least those who shape and implement policy in so-called “white (urban) areas.”

Such a policy – whatever it is – and that should be the focus of serious investigation – helps give the military a poor reputation in the eyes of many. And that is not fair to those many honorable soldiers in the Philippine Army who serve –and sometimes die– for their country.

But everybody needs to understand it was Rebelyn’s country too.

Alan Davis is the director of Philippine Human Rights Reporting Project and the Institute for War and Peace Reporting special projects.