“To Rebel is Justified”: A Critical Perspective on the Roots of Intrastate Conflict and Political Violence in the Philippines

Photo by Mark Navales

Bombings here and there, civilians being kidnapped, establishments set ablaze, and fatal clashes with government forces — peace and order appear to be unattainable aspirations for the Filipino populace. Having experienced long history of rebellion, insurgency, as well as terrorism from minority groups within the country, and despite the continuous effort of the government to resolve these, the Philippines still suffers from internal conflict bringing about bloodshed, which has been the primary cause of its instability. In light of this, one might ask: how grave are the internal disputes that they had to result in violence?

Intrastate Conflict

First and foremost, to understand the discord within a state, we may refer to it as intrastate conflict. It is a type of conflict that occurs within the boundaries of a single state or nation, as opposed to inter-state conflicts between two or more states. According to Morales (1998), an advantaged or disadvantaged minority or majority group, as well as one or more of these groups and the political/legal state, may engage in intrastate conflict through violence in an effort to gain a larger portion of the limited resources available to them, control over or autonomy within the territorial state, or both.

In the Philippines, intrastate conflicts have been a major source of political violence for decades. Data from Asia Foundation (2017) shows that the country has a high-to-medium rate of communal/ideological conflict along with separatism and autonomy as well as a recorded high rate of urban crime and violence based on the last 15 years. The disagreements are largely driven by the country’s long history of colonization, as well as its ongoing struggle to achieve economic development. This conflict has been propelled by a combination of factors, including competition for resources, land disputes, political corruption, and ethnic and religious differences. The conflict is further exacerbated by the presence of a weak central government and the proliferation of armed groups.

The country has a longstanding history of armed insurgent organizations. Militants transition effortlessly between crime, insurrection, and violent extremism (Herbert, 2019). In this essay, we will focus on the groups that were established from communal/ideological conflict and struggle for separatism/autonomy, which are the Moro insurgents and the CPP-NPA rebels ー top two of the most notorious armed groups in the Philippines

Bangsamoro Insurgency

The first primary source of intrastate conflict is the ongoing struggle for autonomy in the southern region of Mindanao. The Moro people, a predominantly Muslim ethnic minority, have long been marginalized and discriminated against. The Philippine government has historically treated them as second-class citizens, and this has led to widespread poverty and inequality in the Mindanao region. Consider the Jabidah Massacre, in which Philippine Armed Forces personnel massacred at least 11 Muslim military recruits from the Philippines on Corregidor (Philippine Daily Inquirer, 2008). The Moro have also been subject to frequent military offensives, which have displaced many civilians and destroyed livelihoods. As such, they have long sought greater autonomy from the central government and saw the establishment of an autonomous Bangsamoro region as a way to achieve self-determination and justice.

Reclaiming autonomy and liberation from oppressive government structures, however, did not come easy as everyone anticipated. When the Tripoli Agreement was signed by the Philippine Government and the MNLF, the President at the time (Ferdinand Marcos) backed out from the agreement, thus violence persisted and Moro insurgency became all the more prevalent (GMA News, 2011).

The Bangsamoro insurgency began in the early 1970s, when the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) took up arms against the Philippine government. This struggle led to the formation of the Muslim separatists ー The Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF), the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), and the Abu Sayyaf. The MNLF has two splinter groups: the MILF and the Abu Sayyaf, which waged a violent insurgency against the government in an effort to achieve independence (BBC News, 2012).

The conflict has resulted in thousands of deaths and a large number of internally displaced persons. An estimated 153,000 lives have been lost since 1972 (Asia Foundation). Moreover, the Bangsamoro Conflict and Monitoring System (2014) reported a crime volume of 4,843 for moro-related conflict. During elections, politically-driven conflict and violence in Mindanao were sharply increased. Data gathered by Crisis Group (2022) shows that over 40 episodes of election day violence in the BARMM and surrounding villages resulted in at least eight fatalities and more than 30 injuries. This is fewer incidents than during the 2019 local elections, but there were more fatalities. The ultimate tally came to at least fifteen fatalities and over 40 injuries when the pre-election period was taken into consideration.

As highlighted in the UNDP 2005 and World Bank 2011 conflict and development reports, there are horizontal inequalities. Clans, ethnic groupings, political elites, and private armed organizations, according to reports, are reportedly responsible for more bloodshed than paramilitary and government security forces. The majority of horizontal conflicts in the Bangsamoro take the form of bloody clan wars and rivalry amongst rebel groups, and most of them are linked to the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF).

There have been numerous peace negotiations between the government and Bangsamoro insurgents, but these have all failed to bring about lasting peace. The most recent round of peace talks collapsed in 2017, and since then violence has once again flared up in Mindanao. The Bangsamoro insurgency is just one manifestation of the long-standing conflict between the Philippine government and the Moro people.

CPP-NPA Rebellion

The Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) and its military arm, the New People’s Army (NPA), have been waging a rebellion against the Philippine government for over 50 years, another form of intrastate conflict that threatens the country’s safety (Åkebo, 2021). Established by Jose Maria Sison, this insurgency is known as one of the longest-running communist rebellions in Asia.

The CPP-NPA is a far-left political organization and armed guerrilla group in the Philippines. Founded in 1969, the CPP-NPA is dedicated to the overthrow of the current Philippine government and the establishment of a communist state. The CPP-NPA is a member of the international communist movement and is aligned with Maoist thought.

The CPP-NPA’s ideology is based on Marxism-Leninism and Maoism, and it is committed to the ultimate goal of a classless society. It views the current Philippine government as oppressive, exploitative, and undemocratic, and it advocates for a revolution to overthrow the current system. The communist insurgency envisages an agricultural revolution in the Philippines. The CPP-NPA highlights three fundamental issues, namely US imperialism, bureaucratic capitalism, and feudalism, as the causes of the war. It seeks to nationalize the economy and install a socialist “national democratic” system, believing that the only way to achieve a just and equal society is through a revolutionary struggle led by the proletariat (Walch, 2014).

With a variety of above-ground organizations entwined with an underground guerrilla force, the insurgency had evolved into a societal movement. The CPP-NPA was able to gain a strong foothold in the rural areas of the country, particularly in the Visayas, where it was able to gain support from the peasantry and the local population. International financing is also provided to the communist organization: they allegedly succeeded in collecting P5.8 billion in foreign contributions and revolutionary taxes between 2016 and 2018 (Punongbayan, 2021).

The CPP-NPA is primarily engaged in a campaign of armed struggle against the Philippine government. It has conducted numerous attacks on military and police forces, as well as assassinations of politicians and other prominent figures. The CPP-NPA has also been involved in kidnappings, extortion, and other criminal activities. Numerous acts of political violence, including assassinations, ambush, and bombings were also reported . The conflict has killed tens of thousands of people, most of them civilians. It has also displaced millions of people and destroyed countless homes and businesses. The conflict has resulted in thousands of casualties and has displaced millions of people (Global Terrorism Index, 2014).

The government especially during the Ferdinand Marcos and Rodrigo Duterte administration, on the other hand, responded to the CPP-NPA rebellion with an authoritarian and oppressive counter-insurgency campaign. The government employed heavy-handed tactics such as torture, extrajudicial killings, and the displacement of thousands of people from their homes.

Since the groups of combatants are scattered all over the country, as compared to the moro conflict that is congregated in a single territory, the CPP-NPA insurgency is one of the most intractable conflicts in Asia. Despite peace talks and ceasefires over the years, violence continues to flare up from time to time. For example, in 2017, the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) and the NPA engaged in combat just one month after the rebels unilaterally ended their truce, in which at least 26 individuals were killed (Santos, 2017). The nation’s largest communist organization is now regarded as a terrorist organization by the government, which has proclaimed “all-out war” against armed communist insurgents. With both sides dug in for the long haul, it seems unlikely that this conflict will be resolved anytime soon.

Terrorists or revolutionaries?

What is terrorism to some is heroism to others, an adage says. While some believe that these current armed movements constitute a fresh wave of violent extremism, others believe they are an evolution of earlier movements for independence and self-determination.

Take the recent death of Jose Maria Sison, founder of NPA, as an example which was met with a mixture of emotions from the public (Reuters, 2022). For some people, there was a sense of sadness and loss, as Sison had been a symbol of the struggle for freedom and justice, taking a major part of the fight against the Marcos regime and had dedicated his life to the liberation of the Filipino people from the semi-colonial and semi-feudal society. He was a respected figure for the leftist individuals and had been instrumental in the fight for social justice and equality. On the other side of the coin, Sison was a dangerous and violent figure who was responsible for the deaths of many innocent people and posed a threat to the safety and security of the Filipino people.

There is no easy answer to the question of whether the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) and the National People’s Army (NPA) are terrorists or revolutionaries. On one hand, the CPP and NPA have been responsible for some horrific terrorist acts, such as bombing civilian targets and kidnapping and murdering government officials. On the other hand, they claim to be fighting for a just cause — the liberation of the Filipino people from oppression and exploitation.

The truth is probably somewhere in between. The CPP/NPA are not simply terrorists as it is known today; they are also engaged in a legitimate struggle against a government that has, for decades, been responsible for gross human rights abuses. However, their methods are often brutal and indiscriminate, causing suffering for innocent civilians caught in the crossfire. It is hard to see them as anything other than terrorists when they engage in such activities.

The Bangsamoro struggle is similar. They argue that the Bangsamoro have been fighting for their rights and freedom for centuries, and have been subject to systematic oppression and discrimination by the Philippine government for decades. It is important to note that the Bangsamoro people have resorted to violence out of desperation, not out of a desire to terrorize and destroy. Furthermore, the Bangsamoro people are seeking to create a state of their own, based on their own cultural and religious values, which is a reasonable goal. On that note, they could be considered as revolutionaries.

While there is no denying that they have been victims of gross injustice at the hands of the Philippine government, their methods of resistance often involve violence against civilians. Again, it is hard to see them as anything other than terrorists when they engage in such activities. The Bangsamoro has been involved in attacks on military and police targets who are mere pawns and weapons of the state. All of these and the incidents of kidnappings and bombings are forms of terrorism.

However, both groups have also been involved in humanitarian efforts, providing relief to victims of natural disasters and conflict zones. They have also provided social services to communities in need.

Both the Moro and the communist conflicts in the Philippines have had opposing groups that have at least occasionally dedicated themselves to peace negotiating procedures. It has been said that these insurgencies are primarily motivated by political and ideological issues (Akebo, 2021). The thing is, compared to other political organizations, the social, political, and economic views of the moro insurgents and CPP-NPA rebels are viewed as extremes, to the extent of waging violence.

Theory on Extremism and Political Violence

We need to understand that both the Moro insurgents and those of the CPP-NPA operate as a group from their extremist values which acts as the primary driver of violence. Extremism is often rooted in deep-seated ideologies and beliefs, and understanding the nature of these ideologies can help individuals identify potential radicalization and potential threats before they manifest into violence. Similarly, understanding the motivations behind political violence can help individuals understand the context behind acts of violence and help identify potential perpetrators.

Nele Schils (2016) constructed a theoretical model on Political Violence and the Mediating Role of Violent Extremist Propensities. Using situational action theory (SAT) as a foundation surpasses the prevalent risk factor method and suggests an integrated strategy for a description of political and religious violence, highlighting the difference between direct means and “cause of the causes”, which is illustrated in the figure below.

Figure 1: Integrated Model for the Explanation of Political/Religious Violence

The key elements of the integrated model are the following: Extremist propensity, Exposure to violent extremism, Perceived injustice, Social integration, Perceived alienation (political powerlessness), Perceived procedural justice and police legitimacy, and Religious authoritarianism.

Schils (2016) discovered that through influencing violent extremist moral ideas and inciting direct exposure to violent extremist moral environments, perceived injustice and social integration might be considered as significant elements that indirectly contribute to political/religious violence. Perceived unfairness has a significant impact on both sentiments of perceived isolation and authoritarianism. The act of alienation itself is part of a causal chain since it reduces one’s capacity for self-control, strengthens violent extreme moral convictions, and affects one’s understanding of the justice system. Perceived injustice and social integration both contribute to a lower sense of respect in others. This lack of respect, coupled with a sense of alienation, results in poor procedural justice and, ultimately, a belief that the authorities are unjust, do not share one’s beliefs, and should not be obeyed.

This theory is particularly applicable to both the Bangsamoro Insurgency and the CPP-NPA Rebellion. The Bangsamoro insurgents have been met with a harsh, often violent, response from the Philippine government. This has created an environment of fear and despair among the Moro people and has further entrenched the insurgency. The CPP-NPA rebels have been met with a similarly harsh response from the Philippine government, which has created a hostile and violent environment for them and their supporters.

Both of these insurgencies have been surrounded by violent extremist moral environments, which have further exacerbated the conflict and violence. These environments are characterized by a lack of respect for human rights, a disregard for the rule of law, and a willingness to resort to extreme measures to achieve their aims. This has resulted in a cycle of violence and suffering for those caught in the conflict.

Ending Conflict and Political Violence

“When injustice becomes law, rebellion becomes duty.” The violent extremist moral environments that surround these insurgencies have been further aggravated by the global rise of radical ideologies. These ideologies are often used to justify violence and oppression, and can be found in various forms of extremism. This has further entrenched the conflict and violence, making it even more difficult to find a peaceful resolution to the conflict.

Additional root causes of extremist political violence mentioned between the Philippine government and the Bangsamoro insurgents and the CPP-NPA rebels are perceived injustices and a lack of meaningful dialogue. The Bangsamoro have long been discriminated against (perceived alienation/ powerlessness), and the CPP-NPA rebels have felt that the government has failed to address the root causes of poverty and inequality (perceived injustice). These feelings of injustice are what fuel the conflict between the government and the rebels.

Given the perception of injustice and the long-standing grievances of both the Bangsamoro and CPP-NPA, it is clear that the conflict with the Philippine government can only be stopped if their grievances are addressed. The Philippine government should also take steps to address the underlying issues that are causing the conflict. This could include measures to improve economic opportunities for marginalized communities, as well as measures to combat discrimination and human rights abuses.

The government must also ensure that the Bangsamoro and the CPP-NPA have the opportunity to exercise their right to self-determination and to take part in the decision-making process on matters that affect them. Moreover, the government must take concrete steps to address the root causes of the conflict and provide meaningful solutions to the problems experienced by the Bangsamoro and the CPP-NPA.

The Philippine government must also ensure that all its policies and actions are in accordance with international human rights and humanitarian law. This includes taking steps to ensure that the rights of all individuals, including those belonging to minority groups, are respected and protected. The government must make sure that they have access to justice and accountability procedures so they can seek redress for any wrongs they may have experienced.

Unless grievances are addressed and a just and equitable resolution to the political conflict are provided, internal disputes and violence would still prevail and extremist groups, as well as the ordinary people, would keep being exposed to such an environment. The debate on whether we can justify the ongoing rebellion and violence could go on and on, and the conflict would just continue. The ultimate goal should not find excuses for violence, but to stop them.

This essay was written last January 05, 2023 for my Political Science Class where I got a flat uno.