“We must emphasize that peace is not just the absence of war—it also involves the presence of justice, dialogue, and reconciliation”
In his 2025 State of the Nation Address (SONA) last month, President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. announced a milestone in the government’s decades-long campaign against the Maoist-led New People’s Army (NPA): “Finally, there are no guerrilla groups left in the country, and the government will ensure that none will be formed again.”
Last week, top officials of the National Task Force to End Local Communist Armed Conflict (NTF-ELCAC) and the Philippine Army confirmed the Chief Executive’s recent declaration that all 89 NPA guerrilla fronts across the country have been dismantled as of the end of 2024.
The NTF-ELCAC highlighted the role of non-military programs in the counterinsurgency effort.
This, it said, was made possible by a whole-of-nation approach mandated by Executive Order 70. The agency cited combat operations combined with social interventions: livelihood, infrastructure, peace dialogues, and reintegration of former rebels into the mainstream of society.
For its part, the Philippine Army reported the last active front—Komite Larangang Guerrilla 1 in the Bicol Region—was dismantled late last year.
These fronts were formerly structured as independent politico-military units capable of conducting armed operations and cultivating underground mass support.
The Army’s assessment that the NPA is all but finished is based on five key indicators: the neutralization or withdrawal of NPA armed elements, the breakdown of their political-military infrastructure, the loss of grassroots mass support, denial of access to guerrilla base areas, and the full restoration of government services in previously affected communities.
With the disintegration of these five elements, the Army claimed, the NPA has lost operational capability.
What remains are small groups—typically squads of fewer than 10 men who now operate without direction, support, or territory. The military now considers them as bandits, not insurgents.
For nearly 60 years, the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) and its armed wing, the New People’s Army (NPA), waged a guerrilla war rooted in calls for land reform, labor rights, and social justice.
The conflict claimed thousands of lives and shaped the country’s political and military institutions.
Now, with the government citing the dismantling of rebel fronts and the surrender of thousands of fighters, the administration is eager to turn the page.
But we must emphasize that peace is not just the absence of war—it also involves the presence of justice, dialogue, and reconciliation.
The National Democratic Front (NDF), the political arm of the communist movement, had engaged in intermittent peace talks with successive administrations.
In 2023, negotiations resumed after years of stalemate, raising hopes for a political settlement.
Yet the current administration’s declaration risks undermining these efforts by framing the insurgency as a closed chapter rather than a complex issue requiring continued engagement.
By emphasizing military success and surrender statistics, the government may be ignoring the deeper socioeconomic grievances that fueled the insurgency.
Landlessness, rural poverty, and labor exploitation remain unresolved in many parts of the country.
Without thorough structural reforms, discontent could resurface in new forms, maybe not as armed rebellion, but as radicalization or civil unrest.
I am worried that labeling the rebellion as “defeated” or “finished” could delegitimize the voices of those who still advocate for systemic change through peaceful means.
It may also discourage future dialogue with other dissenting groups, thus unnecessarily setting a precedent of exclusion rather than negotiation.
Genuine peace requires more than disarmament; it also demands truth-telling and accountability.
Former rebels need not only livelihood programs but also recognition of their grievances and a role in shaping the nation’s future. Communities affected by decades of conflict deserve economic opportunities, health and education, and a voice in national development.
The declaration of the end of the rebellion in the country should open the door to a genuine national reconciliation process.
Otherwise, it risks becoming a political sound bite that only conceals the complexities of contemporary Philippine history.
We believe that if the Marcos Jr. administration really wants to build lasting peace, it must go beyond mere victory narratives.
It must reopen channels of dialogue, invest in inclusive development, and confront the agonizing truths of the past.
Only then can the Philippines truly say that the rebellion is really over—not just in terms of laying down of arms, but in an invigorated national spirit. (Email: ernhil@yahoo.com)
