NINETEEN individuals, including the leader and subleader of the North Negros Front of the New People’s Army (NPA), the armed wing of the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP), died in an armed encounter against soldiers from the 79th Infantry Battalion of the Philippine Army. That the fatalities in the skirmishes in Toboso, Negros Occidental, on April 19, 2026, include university students, faculty members and expatriates who were reported to be directly participating in the clashes alongside the NPA were claimed to be “researchers” and “community journalists” triggered calls for investigation.
This, and similar reports in the past, rekindled allegations by the government and its security forces that some students have been recruited to join the CPP-NPA. These allegations, often politically charged, raise a complex and sensitive question: what responsibility — and potential liability — do universities bear when their students become involved in insurgent or terrorist movements?
Contending arguments
Our universities have long been venues for intellectual exploration, dissent, and political awakening. From anticolonial movements and protests during Ferdinand Marcos Sr.’s regime to the present day, campuses have historically nurtured critical thinking and activism. This tradition remains essential in a democratic society. However, the line between sociopolitical activism and armed uprising is where the issue becomes deeply contentious.
Administrators and educators argue that universities cannot — and should not — curtail the political beliefs of their students.
The 1987 Constitution guarantees academic freedom. It protects the right of learning institutions to foster open inquiry. Students are encouraged to engage with a wide range of ideologies, including those critical of the government. Therefore, to impose restrictions on political discourse would risk undermining the very essence of higher education.
On the other hand, critics contend that some campus organizations serve as “fronts” for recruitment into underground movements. They argue that while universities may not be held directly responsible for the actions of individual students, they have a duty of care to ensure that their spaces are not exploited for illegal activities. They maintain that, while there exists autonomy among academic institutions, they have the obligation to be vigilant about groups that covertly encourage armed struggle rather than peaceful advocacy.
Safeguards must be in place to ensure that the activities students involve themselves in do not foster violence and encourage joining outlawed and designated terrorist organizations like the NPA while invoking freedom of speech and of association.
The challenge lies in distinguishing legitimate activism from recruitment efforts tied to insurgency. In many cases, recruitment does not occur overtly on campus grounds, but through personal networks, off-campus activities or online platforms. This makes it difficult to attribute responsibility to institutions. Holding universities legally liable for the independent decisions of adult students could set a dangerous precedent, potentially exposing them to undue political pressure.
Mutual obligations
However, moral responsibility on the part of higher educational institutions is a different matter. Universities are not merely passive venues; they are formative environments that shape young and idealistic minds. As such, they have a key role in promoting critical thinking grounded in democratic values, respect for human rights, and nonviolent engagement. This can be achieved through robust civic education, open dialogue, and support systems that address student grievances before they escalate into radicalization.
In loco parentis, or in place of parents in schools, faculty members play a crucial role. While they are free to teach and express diverse perspectives, they also bear the responsibility of guiding students toward constructive forms of activism and sociopolitical participation. By encouraging debate, providing historical context, and challenging simplistic narratives, it is the beholden obligation of members of the faculty to help and guide students to develop a more nuanced understanding of social and political issues. They cannot claim innocence and turn a blind eye to every student who was recruited.
Government agencies, for their part, must tread carefully. Accusations against universities need to be backed by evidence or risk eroding trust and infringing on civil liberties. But the coverage of extant government regulations, like, among others, the Commission on Higher Education Memorandum 63 governing local off-campus activities like immersions and reach-out programs, must be reviewed to conform to contemporary realities. The government should initiate, and higher educational institutions should welcome collaborations that focus on safeguarding students’ welfare without compromising academic independence.
It is important to recognize the broader socioeconomic context. Many students who are drawn to radical movements do so out of frustration with inequality, lack of opportunities, or perceived injustices. It is equally important to realize that these ills of society did not happen overnight. And addressing these root causes requires more than campus-level interventions. It demands systemic government reforms that make democratic processes and public services more responsive, inclusive and felt, especially in geographically isolated and depressed areas.
Ultimately, the issue of student recruitment into insurgent groups cannot be reduced to a question of institutional liability alone, much as it is a reflection of deeper societal tensions that manifest within university walls. While universities must remain vigilant and proactive in fostering a safe and open environment, they cannot be held solely accountable for the choices of individuals operating within a complex political landscape. But that said, they are expected to enforce severe penalties against students who openly glorify, explicitly enlist support for, and are actively campaigning to join the CPP-NPA. That can no longer pass as freedom of speech or of association. That is a crime punishable under the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020.
Admittedly, the way ahead lies in a difficult but necessary balance for both the state and academic institutions: protecting academic freedom while ensuring that campuses are not used to promote violence; encouraging activism while discouraging violent extremism; and holding universities accountable without undermining their autonomy.
In navigating this delicate terrain, academic institutions — and the society they cater to — must remain committed to dialogue, reason, and the rule of law.
atty.edarevalo@gmail.com
