Encounter or massacre?

By Artchil B. Fernandez

Nineteen persons are dead, and the country is reeling from the impact of their deaths. The grisly killings pricked the conscience of the nation as it grappled to come to terms with the violent incident. Among the dead are two children, two University of the Philippines (UP) students, two Filipino Americans, and a community journalist.

What really happened in Barangay Salamanca, Toboso, Negros Occidental, on April 19, 2026, that led to the deaths of 19 persons? This is the question that demands an answer. Filipinos deserve to know the truth, particularly the families and loved ones of the dead.

There are two versions of the incident. The military said an armed encounter between its troops and members of the New People’s Army (NPA) produced 19 casualties. Progressive groups, on the other hand, claimed a massacre of civilians perpetrated by the military caused the deaths. The truth lies somewhere in between the two versions. Meanwhile, a fiery battle for narratives raged in the digital world.

In the military version of the incident, a running battle between its forces and the NPA, which lasted 12 hours, occurred in the area. The armed encounter led to the deaths of 19 NPA rebels, while a lone soldier was injured in the skirmishes. The military insists the incident was a legitimate operation with no civilian casualties. It adamantly asserts that the 19 who died were all members of the NPA.

If they were innocent civilians, what were they doing in the area, the military asked? Why were they firing and fighting back at military forces if they were civilians?

Dana Batnag of Rights Report, however, pointed out inconsistencies in the military explanation. She noted the huge disparity in the number of casualties between the two sides. Only one soldier was injured in the arms, while 19 died on the other side. How did those 19 people die? Were paraffin tests done to check whether the victims tested positive for gunpowder residue? These were some of the questions she asked.

Batnag also observed that “a 12-hour running gunfight should leave plenty of evidence: spent casings, trampled paths, bloodstains, bullet holes in trees or structures. These should have been documented by now, but there are no reports of any independent investigator having returned to the encounter area.”

There also are discrepancies in the number of guns recovered from the incident, Batnag noticed. On April 21, a Philippine News Agency report said “[an] assault rifle, two rifle grenades, a hand grenade, bandoliers, 20 hammocks, backpacks, food supplies, and other personal items” were found, while Panay News, on the same date, reported that “nine firearms were recovered from the encounter site.” The following day, the Inquirer gave this report: “The Army said troops recovered 24 firearms from the scene, including seven M16 rifles, three Garand rifles, three M14 rifles, a carbine rifle, an M203 grenade launcher, six .45-caliber pistols, and three .357 Magnum revolvers.”

Given the conflicting reports on the number of firearms recovered, Batnag raised these questions: “If 19 people died and only half as many guns were found in early reports, what proves all 19 were combatants? Or if 24 firearms were eventually seized — after an initial report of nine, or just one, depending on which account you trust — and only 19 were killed, who carried the extra weapons? Where were those guns taken from, and why does the count keep changing?”

The Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP), in an official statement, admitted that only 10 of the 19 who died were NPA members. The nine others were civilians. The group is disputing the military version of the incident.

One hypothesis put forward is that both the armed encounter and the massacre occurred. The nine civilians were in the area for immersion or integration, studying the social condition of the community. The military found, apprehended, and killed them — the massacre. Shortly after, an armed encounter between a group of NPA members and military troops erupted, resulting in the deaths of 10 NPA members. To cover up the massacre of the civilians, the military included them among those who died in the encounter.

Given the conflicting versions, an independent, thorough investigation must be conducted. The truth behind the tragic and horrific incident must be uncovered. Those responsible for the deaths of the civilians must be held accountable. This includes not only the armed groups — the military and the NPA — but also those who facilitated the immersion or integration of the civilians. Their deaths were preventable.

The UP students, the Filipino Americans, the journalist, and other civilians did not go to the area coincidentally or accidentally. Someone arranged their trip. The facilitators are also liable for their deaths. It has been an established trend in the last decades that unarmed activists in highly militarized areas are killed by the military, which later reports that they died in an armed encounter. This is the military’s standard modus.

Given the situation, meticulous care and preparation should have been undertaken to ensure the safety and security of the integrees or immersees. It appears there was laxity, or even carelessness, in security planning, leading to the military’s apprehension of the integrees and causing their elimination, possibly brutally. While integration is important in raising the social consciousness of activists, their safety and security must always be paramount. If their safety and security cannot be secured, integration or immersion should be canceled or called off. Unless ironclad safety is guaranteed, no such activity should be done. Between political activity and safety, the latter is the highest priority.

While the nation mourns the unfortunate and tragic deaths of civilians, it must confront the ugly reality — the material condition that breeds injustice and inequality — that makes areas like Negros Island a social volcano on the verge of eruption.