By Atty. Howie Calleja
In the past week, a grave threat to the right of free speech has emerged; the termination of the University of the Philippines System and Department of National Defense (UP-DND) accord which, for more than three decades, gave young minds the freedom to express their views in a safe space. In February, the University of the Philippines will celebrate fifty years since the Diliman Commune – a week-long protest action initiated by members of the UP community, in protest of the Marcos government. It was this historical mass resistance that cemented UP as a sanctuary for free speech and organization, until just last week.
The danger of the unilateral termination of the accord lies in the history of UP as a place of refuge for student activists; it was the one place where they could protest without fear of intimidation or violence. Signed in 1989, just three years after the EDSA Revolution, the UP-DND accord ensured that military and police would only be allowed on campus grounds in cases of emergency, or if prior permission was given. Also among the agreed upon provisions was the prohibition against interfering with any peaceful protest actions by members of he community. Though this has been infringed upon numerous times, the UP administration has always had the ability to rely on the accord and ensure these violations would remain isolated incidents. With its termination, this only opens the floodgates for further red-tagging and inflicting fear-tactics on its students.
In the letter announcing the termination of the accord, DND Secretary Lorenzana red-tagged students, claiming that the UP campuses has become a safe haven for rebel groups, a baseless and dangerous claim. Unilaterally ending this accord not only emboldens the military to continue red-tagging the students of UP, but to use their usual tactics of fear and intimidation to “investigate” the claims on campus. The fear of this becoming harassment is not unfounded; not only have activists been arrested on trumped up charges, but student-leaders have been publicly degraded by the President himself. Just last November, he branded UP as a recruitment grounds for the CPP-NPA, and threatened to defund the State University as a result of a nationwide academic strike – initiated due to the response to the pandemic and natural disasters.
The now constant fear of being “tagged” as a member of a rebel group stems from the very real threat to liberty, including the provision in the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 that allows for the public posting of names of alleged terrorists (Before any hearing and before the individual is allowed to present evidence on their behalf), but also a threat to the safety and security of individuals tagged. Human rights defenders and critics of the administration are all too familiar with this tale – through publicly blacklisting them, their work is not only demeaned and belittled, but they are susceptible to attacks and investigations that impede them from doing their work.
To say that UP has enabled recruitment for communist groups is to say that the personal act and choice of a single student should not be attributed to the school and institution they come from. If that is the case, then what say Secretary Lorenzana, as an alumnus of PMA? Certainly, there have been more than enough cases of graft and corruption, and multiple criminal cases, from those that hailed from the institution. Is it the values taught in the school or the personal choice they made? In the same vein, if there are, indeed, members of the CPP-NPA in the UP student body, how can we say the UP faculty is at fault?
Even if the DND refuses to recognize the dangers of red-tagging, and the history of abuse of power, I fervently hope they acknowledge the power they have to intimidate. Whether it is intentional or not, their position can instill fear in the heart of the average citizen. There is certainly a power imbalance between an AFP or PNP officer with a gun, and a barely-legal UP student. If the very essence of our freedom of speech is the ability to petition the government for redress of grievances, shouldn’t we feel safe to do so?
While Secretary Lorenzana, and other high-ranking officials, have continuously said that peaceful citizens have nothing to fear, then what can be said about Sonya and Frank Anthony Gregorio? Or baby River? Or the tens of thousands killed without due process? There is a very real fear of abuse due to well-documented merciless killings by those with the power and tools to take life. This fear is warranted, and it cannot be stopped until the past deaths are acknowledged as human rights violations and reparations are made.
The termination also came with an express desire to provide the youth with “another perspective on our nation and society.” But how exactly will this education of our youth by the DND proceed? The youth of the country, and especially in the premier State University, are critical free-thinkers and any attempt by the AFP or PNP to “educate” the students (read: indoctrinate) dangerously infringes on UP’s academic freedom to determine who may teach and what may be taught. The mandate of the DND to protect and serve the country, and UP’s mandate to produce educated and critical minds are not mutually exclusive – in fact they are compatible. For decades, they have worked together to ensure that both sides of the accord are upheld, while allowing members of the community to engage in discourse and challenge political ideologies, religious beliefs without fear of persecution. What else is there to protect and serve, if not our civil liberties? What obstructs UP’s academic freedom is the termination of an accord that once solidified UP as a safe space. In its place is an atmosphere of fear that is not conducive to an effective learning environment, nor a home for the youth of our nation.
While one could easily dismiss the termination of the accord as affecting only UP students, this has dangerous implications for all free minds. If we continue to allow those in power to undermine the student-activists across the country, and prevent them from exploring their opinions, then how can we expect the next generation to move the needle? It is with healthy debate and ensuring a safe space for the exchange of ideas, that progress is made. The UP-DND accord was a history pact and a byproduct of the literal blood, sweat, and tears of past student-leaders, who demanded the nation’s attention during the Marcos administration. It was a testament to the youth’s actions and ability to fight a dictatorship and could never be considered “obsolete”, as Lorenzana argues. The youth should always have a voice and the freedom to express their ideas, but they should never again have to fight for that right as they did in the Diliman Commune. In respecting and upholding our youth’s constitutional rights and civil liberties, there is no need for military officials in a place of learning, and there is especially no need to allow armed officers in a place where ideas are supposed to flow freely and without interference.
