The clash between the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) and the New People’s Army (NPA) in Toboso, which left 19 alleged rebels dead, has triggered calls within the government to investigate and possibly penalize the military. Such a posture is misguided and dangerously weakens the very institution tasked with defending the state.
The AFP exists precisely to confront armed groups that seek to overthrow the government through violence. The NPA is not a civic organization or a dissenting political party; it is an armed insurgent force engaged in a decades-long rebellion against the Republic. When soldiers encounter such a group in the field, engagement is not optional—it is their duty. To treat the outcome of such encounters as inherently suspicious or illegitimate is to deny the reality of armed conflict and the responsibilities assigned to the military.
Calls for investigation are not, by themselves, improper. Any operation that results in multiple deaths must be subject to scrutiny to ensure compliance with the rules of engagement and the laws of armed conflict. However, the tone and timing of these demands matter. When high-ranking officials publicly cast doubt on the legitimacy of a military success without evidence of wrongdoing, they send a message that soldiers may be punished for doing their job. This creates hesitation in the field, where clarity and decisiveness are essential, and it emboldens insurgents who thrive on signs of political division.
The silence of the country’s leadership, including the President of the Philippines, further complicates the situation. Military operations, especially those that neutralize armed threats, require not only legal backing but also moral support from civilian authority. When such support is absent—or worse, replaced with threats of sanctions—the chain of confidence between the state and its defenders begins to fracture. A military that feels abandoned by its own government cannot operate with full effectiveness.
The proper course is clear. Investigate the incident with fairness and discipline, but refrain from prejudging the outcome or undermining the institution involved. Government officials must choose whether they stand with the rule of law or with those who seek to dismantle it by force. If the AFP is to continue fulfilling its mandate, it must be supported, not second-guessed at every turn. Anything less invites disorder and signals weakness to those already committed to destabilizing the nation.
