[OPINION] On the Toboso encounter, Alyssa Alano, and the question of justice

Those who know me well also know that I can relate. Pinagdaanan ko rin ang landas na ‘yon at, ‘ika nga sa Ingles, I survived “only by the skin of my teeth.”

The death of Alyssa Alano (known as “Ka Dea”), et al during a firefight in Toboso, Negros Occidental, is a tragedy that should resonate far beyond tactical reports and kneejerk, polarized reactions from social media. From the lens of transitional justice, her death is not merely a casualty of war; it is a profound symptom of the “unresolved” in our national narrative. It is a stark reminder that as long as the roots of armed conflict remain unaddressed, the country will continue to lose its brightest minds.

There is a piercing grief in the death of scholars in the hills. Scholars deconstruct and imagine new worlds. When a young intellectual decides that the only remaining venue for their scholarship is the armed revolution, it represents our failure to convince them there should be less drastic ways . Each time a student falls in a firefight, we lose a potential architect of our future peace. We are left with the hollow lament of “what could have been” had their brilliance been harnessed for institutional reform rather than extinguished in a mountain encounter.

The choice and the cost

This lament is not academic for me; it is visceral. I know the pull of that choice and lived it at one point, enduring the heavy price that comes with it. But my conviction has evolved. While the grievances of the revolution are often legitimate, the method of armed struggle often creates new cycles of trauma that transitional justice seeks to break. We cannot build a “just” society on a foundation of perpetual bloodletting.

The death of young scholars in the course of armed conflict represents a systemic failure of accountability that spans both the state and the revolutionary movement. For transitional justice, accountability goes beyond who pulled the trigger, but about examining structures that allow such tragedies to recur.

State accountability: The proportionality of force

For the state and its armed forces, accountability centers on the principles of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and the Rules of Engagement (ROE). When a firefight results in an excessive casualty count or the death of individuals who might have been in a position to surrender, several questions of accountability arise:

• The Principle of Proportionality: Was the level of force justified? With the power and mandate it holds as duty-bearers, the state must be held to a higher standard of transparency. An independent investigation seems warranted here.
• Command Responsibility: Were systems in place to ensure soldiers’ actions are put in check? Were they ordered to exercise reasonable restraint or to ensure victory at whatever cost? 

CPP-NPA accountability: The ethics of recruitment and exposure

The CPP-NPA also faces a profound ethical and political accountability regarding its recruitment and the deployment of the youth.

• Putting Youth in Harm’s Way: Were the scholars put into the direct line of fire of a modernized state military? If they were indeed doing “research” and “community work” in areas the movement “controls,” how were they protected? Putting these vulnerable youth in the battlefield makes them accountable as well. Or have they decided to become combatants themselves, whether full-time or part-time? If so, then just stand by it and be proud of the “martyrdom” in their revolutionary lingo.
• The Responsibility of the Vanguard: When a revolutionary strategy results in the consistent death of the youth without achieving tangible societal transformation, the leadership must account for the human cost of their ideological persistence.

The bottomline is the failure of peace. By insisting on  the decisive defeat of the insurgency on the part of the military; and the primacy of armed struggle on the part of the movement – both parties close off other avenues for these scholars to pursue reform. Accountability involves acknowledging that the persistence of war-as-policy contributes to the very “cycle of discontent” that prevents long-term peace.

The common ground: The roots of conflict

The ultimate accountability for both parties lies in their shared failure to move the struggle from the battlefield to the negotiating table.

As someone who once walked that path and felt the weight of those choices, I see the continuing lack of accountability on either side. The state justifies the “kill” as a victory for peace, while the movement frames the “fall” as a glorious sacrifice. Both narratives are convenient propaganda, but both are devastating for the families and the nation. We must find ways of pursuing societal transformation without the need for arms. The memory of those who have fallen should not be used as fuel for further conflict, but as a solemn motivation to work out a long-lasting solution. Peace is not the absence of struggle; it is the presence of a system where we can struggle for justice without having to die for it.

Long-lasting solutions require both parties to stop using the lives of the youth as currency for their respective agendas. Real accountability means working to resolve the landlessness, the poverty, and the institutional exclusion that make the “armed option” attractive. Until we address these roots, we are all accountable for the “Alyssas” we continue to lose. – Rappler.com

Robert Francis Garcia is the author of To Suffer Thy Comrades: How the Revolution Decimated its Own. He is the founding chair and current secretary-general of the human rights group Peace Advocates for Truth, Healing and Justice (PATH). He is also the convenor of the Transitional Justice League (TJL).