Understanding The New People's Army (NPA): An In-depth Look

he history of the Philippines is marked by periods of significant social and political upheaval. Among the most enduring and complex challenges the nation has faced is the armed struggle waged by the New People’s Army (NPA). For over five decades, the NPA has been at the forefront of a revolutionary movement rooted in Marxist-Leninist-Maoist ideology, aiming to overthrow the Philippine government and establish a socialist state. Understanding the NPA requires a deep dive into its origins, evolution, ideology, methods, and impact on Philippine History. This article provides an in-depth look at this persistent insurgency, exploring the forces that shaped it and its lasting legacy.

Roots of the Revolution: Precursors and Formation

The NPA did not emerge from a vacuum. Its roots can be traced back to earlier peasant and communist movements in the Philippines. The most significant precursor was the Hukbong Bayan Laban sa Hapon (People’s Anti-Japanese Army), or Hukbalahap, which fought Japanese occupation during World War II. After the war, the Hukbalahap transitioned into an anti-government guerrilla force, rebelling against perceived injustices and inequalities. While the Huk rebellion was largely suppressed by the late 1950s, the underlying grievances – primarily centered around land reform and the plight of the peasantry – persisted.

The current communist insurgency formally began with the re-establishment of the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) on December 26, 1968. This was led by Jose Maria Sison, a former professor at the University of the Philippines, who was critical of the old Partido Komunista ng Pilipinas (PKP) for its perceived revisionism and failures. Sison, also known by his nom de guerre “Amado Guerrero,” advocated for a “National Democratic Revolution” (NDR), a two-stage revolution involving first achieving national liberation from perceived foreign (primarily US) domination and domestic feudalism (landlordism), followed by a socialist revolution.

Just a few months later, on March 29, 1969, the New People’s Army (NPA) was formally created as the military wing of the revitalized CPP. It was formed by the merger of the CPP under Sison and the remnants of the old Huk movement led by Commander Dante (Bernabe Buscayno). This union aimed to combine the ideological guidance of the CPP with the guerrilla warfare experience of the former Huks. The NPA adopted Maoist strategies, focusing on protracted people’s war, building base areas in the countryside, and encircling the cities from the rural areas.

Ideology and Goals: Marxism-Leninism-Maoism and the National Democratic Revolution

The core ideology of the CPP-NPA-NDF (National Democratic Front of the Philippines, the political umbrella) is Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. This blended ideology posits that Philippine society is semi-colonial and semi-feudal, dominated by foreign imperialism (primarily US), feudal landlordism, and bureaucrat capitalism.

The ultimate goal of the NPA, guided by the CPP, is to achieve a socialist society. However, their immediate program is the National Democratic Revolution. This revolution has two stages:

Democratic Stage: Overthrow the current political system, eliminate foreign control, implement genuine land reform, nationalize industries, and establish a national and democratic government.
Socialist Stage: Transition from the national democratic system to a socialist one, eventually leading to communism.

The NPA serves as the primary instrument for the first stage, engaging in armed struggle to weaken and eventually overthrow the state. Their tactics include guerrilla warfare, ambushes, raids, and targeted killings of government forces and individuals perceived as enemies of the revolution. Beyond military actions, the NPA and its allied organizations work to build a mass base in rural areas through political education, organizing farmers and workers, and establishing parallel local government structures.

Central to their ideology is the concept of land reform. They argue that the unequal distribution of land and the exploitative relationship between landlords and peasants are fundamental problems in the Philippines, driving rural poverty and discontent. Genuine land reform is presented as a key component of the national democratic stage.

The Marcos Era and Martial Law: Growth and Suppression

The declaration of Martial Law by President Ferdinand Marcos on September 21, 1972, through Proclamation 1081, proved to be a critical turning point for the NPA. Ostensibly declared to suppress the growing communist insurgency (among other threats), Martial Law led to widespread human rights abuses, suppression of dissent, closure of media outlets, and the arrest of political opponents.

While Martial Law severely crippled legal opposition and suppressed urban activism, it inadvertently created fertile ground for the NPA to expand its influence in the countryside. Many students, activists, and intellectuals, fearing persecution under the Marcos regime, fled to rural areas and joined the NPA. The regime’s heavy-handed tactics, corruption, and the exacerbation of existing social inequalities fueled public resentment and drove more people into the arms of the revolutionary movement.

During the Marcos years, the NPA saw significant growth in membership, resources, and territorial control, particularly in remote and impoverished areas. They exploited local grievances, offered protection against abusive officials or landlords, and provided basic social services where the government was absent. The armed struggle intensified, with frequent clashes between the NPA and the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP).

However, the Marcos government also implemented aggressive counterinsurgency measures, leading to significant casualties on both sides and accusations of extrajudicial killings, torture, and enforced disappearances against both the military and the NPA. The period is synonymous with intense human rights violations committed by the state in its effort to quell the insurgency.

Post-Marcos Period: Challenges, Shifts, and Continued Insurgency

The EDSA People Power Revolution in February 1986 ended the Ferdinand Marcos dictatorship and ushered in a new era of democracy under President Corazon Aquino. This period presented both opportunities and challenges for the NPA. Initially, there was hope for peace talks and reconciliation. The Aquino government released political prisoners, including Jose Maria Sison, and entered into negotiations with the CPP-NPA-NDF.

However, the peace talks were short-lived, collapsing after a massacre of farmers protesting for land reform near the Presidential Palace (Mendiola Massacre) in January 1987. The collapse of talks led to a renewed focus on armed struggle by the NPA and intensified counterinsurgency efforts by the government.

Subsequent administrations, from Fidel V. Ramos to the present, have grappled with the persistent insurgency. Cycles of peace talks have been initiated and subsequently failed, often due to fundamental disagreements on issues like socio-economic reforms, political power-sharing, and the disarmament of the NPA.

The post-Marcos era also saw internal purges within the CPP-NPA, particularly in the early 1990s, aimed at rooting out perceived deep penetration agents (“deep penetration agents” or “reaffirmists” vs. “rejectionists”), which led to significant losses in cadres and a temporary decline in strength in some areas. Jose Maria Sison, who had gone into exile, continued to exert ideological influence from abroad.

The NPA has also faced challenges from changing socio-economic landscapes, government development programs (however flawed), and internal rifts. Despite these challenges, the insurgency has persisted, albeit with fluctuating strength and geographical focus. They continue to operate in various rural areas, relying on the grievances of farmers, indigenous peoples, and marginalized communities. Their activities range from ambushes and attacks on military and police detachments to extortion from businesses and politicians.

Tactics and Operations: Armed Struggle, Propaganda, and Mass Base Building

The NPA employs a combination of military and political tactics derived from Maoist protracted people’s war strategy.

Military Tactics:

Guerrilla Warfare: Small unit actions, ambushes, raids, sabotage.
Sparrow Operations: Targeted assassinations of perceived enemies of the revolution (government officials, military/police, informants).
Attacks on detachments: Raids on isolated military or police posts to seize weapons and demoralize forces.
Landmines and Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs): Controversial tactics causing casualties to government forces and civilians.

Political Tactics:

Mass Base Building: Organizing and mobilizing peasants, workers, youth, women, and indigenous peoples in rural areas.
Political Education: Propagating the CPP’s ideology and analysis of Philippine society.
Agitation and Propaganda: Using various media (leaflets, radio, internet) to spread their message and criticize the government.
Establishing Parallel Governments: Forming revolutionary committees and local government structures in areas under their influence.
Taxation/Extortion: Collecting “revolutionary taxes” from businesses, individuals, and even government projects in their areas of operation, a major source of funding but also a point of contention.

The NPA’s military actions are often aimed at supporting their political objectives – demonstrating strength, disrupting government control, and creating space for mass organizing. Building a strong mass base is crucial for logistics, intelligence, recruitment, and political legitimacy in the areas where they operate.

Socioeconomic Factors and Grievances: Land Reform, Poverty, and Inequality

Historical analysis consistently points to deep-seated socioeconomic issues as primary drivers of the insurgency in the Philippines. Issues such as widespread poverty, lack of access to basic services, corruption, and particularly, the failure to implement genuine land reform, have fueled rural discontent and provided the CPP-NPA with a ready pool of recruits and supporters.

While various land reform programs have been enacted by the Philippine government since the American colonial period, critics argue that these have often been insufficient, poorly implemented, or undermined by powerful landed elites. The continued concentration of land ownership in the hands of a few, coupled with exploitative tenancy systems and lack of support for small farmers, leaves many rural Filipinos vulnerable and receptive to the NPA’s calls for revolution and genuine land reform.

Other contributing factors include:

Lack of Development: Many areas where the NPA operates suffer from poor infrastructure, limited economic opportunities, and inadequate government services (education, healthcare).
Marginalization of Indigenous Peoples: Many ancestral domains overlap with areas of NPA activity, and indigenous communities often face displacement or exploitation, leading to grievances that the NPA can tap into.
Political Corruption: Perceived corruption and lack of accountability within the government erode public trust and reinforce the CPP’s narrative of a rotten system needing fundamental change.

These underlying grievances provide the NPA with a degree of legitimacy in certain communities and sustain the armed struggle despite military pressure. Addressing these socioeconomic issues effectively is widely seen as crucial for achieving lasting peace.

Human Rights Concerns and Controversies

The conflict between the Philippine government and the NPA has been fraught with human rights concerns on both sides.

The Marcos era and subsequent periods of intense counterinsurgency have been associated with numerous allegations of human rights violations by state forces, including:

Extrajudicial killings (“salvaging”)
Torture
Enforced disappearances
Illegal arrests and detention
Displacement of communities due to military operations

The NPA and the CPP have also been accused of human rights abuses, including:

Targeted killings of civilians (e.g., alleged informants, political opponents, local officials)
Recruitment of child soldiers
Use of landmines and IEDs causing civilian casualties
Abductions and extortion
Internal purges resulting in the execution of alleged spies

International and local human rights organizations have consistently documented abuses by both state and non-state actors in the conflict. The cycle of violence and retaliation has had a devastating impact on communities caught in the middle. Addressing accountability for these violations is a significant challenge in any potential peace process.

Counterinsurgency Efforts by the Philippine Government

Successive Philippine governments have implemented various counterinsurgency strategies to combat the NPA. These efforts have typically involved a mix of military operations and socio-economic programs.

Military Approach:

Search and destroy missions
Clearing operations in NPA-influenced areas
Targeting NPA leadership and cadres
Establishing military detachments in contested areas

Non-Military Approach:

Poverty alleviation programs
Infrastructure development (roads, schools, health centers) in rural areas
Conditional cash transfer programs
Local peace initiatives and dialogues
Amnesty programs for surrendering rebels
National Task Force to End Local Communist Armed Conflict (NTF-ELCAC), a controversial body established under the Duterte administration, which has been criticized for red-tagging and alleged human rights violations.

Historically, military-centric approaches have often failed to achieve decisive victory and have sometimes exacerbated grievances. While socio-economic programs are seen as crucial, their effectiveness has been hampered by issues like corruption, poor implementation, and lack of sustainability. A truly comprehensive counterinsurgency strategy requires addressing the root causes of the insurgency, not just its symptoms.

Peace Talks and Negotiations: Cycles of Hope and Failure

Attempts to resolve the conflict through peace talks and negotiations have been a recurring feature of the relationship between the Philippine government and the CPP-NPA-NDF. These talks have occurred under various administrations, often mediated by third-party facilitators like Norway.

Key Cycles of Peace Talks:

Corazon Aquino Administration: Initial talks after EDSA, collapsed in 1987.
Fidel V. Ramos Administration: Formal talks led to the Hague Joint Declaration in 1992, outlining the framework and agenda (human rights, socio-economic reforms, political and constitutional reforms, end of hostilities). Talks eventually stalled over disagreements on substantive issues.
Joseph Estrada Administration: Brief talks, collapsed due to ongoing hostilities.
Gloria Macapagal Arroyo Administration: Sporadic talks, often hampered by distrust and ongoing conflict.
Benigno S. Aquino III Administration: Efforts to restart talks faced obstacles.
Rodrigo Duterte Administration: Initial promising talks in 2016-2017 led to significant progress on some agenda items but eventually collapsed due to mutual accusations of violations of agreements and ongoing attacks.

The main sticking points in peace talks have consistently included:

Substantive Agenda: Disagreements on the depth and scope of socio-economic and political reforms, particularly land reform.
Ceasefire Mechanisms: Challenges in implementing and monitoring ceasefires amidst ongoing hostilities.
Third-Party Role: Debates over the role and effectiveness of facilitators.
Trust Deficit: Deep-seated mistrust between the negotiating panels and the forces on the ground.
Demand for CPP-NPA Disarmament: The government’s insistence on disarmament before a comprehensive political settlement, which the CPP-NPA rejects.

Despite repeated failures, many observers believe that a negotiated political settlement remains the most viable path to ending the insurgency, but it requires addressing the root causes and finding common ground on fundamental issues.

Current Status and Future Prospects

As of early 2025, the New People’s Army continues its armed struggle, though its reported strength has fluctuated over the years. Government claims often indicate a significant decline in NPA numbers and influence, while the CPP-NPA-NDF disputes these figures. The insurgency remains active in several regions, particularly in Mindanao, Bicol, and parts of the Visayas and Northern Luzon.

The strategies of the Philippine government’s counterinsurgency efforts, particularly through the NTF-ELCAC, remain controversial, drawing criticism regarding human rights and effectiveness. The possibility of resuming peace talks remains uncertain, dependent on political will, trust-building measures, and a willingness from both sides to address core issues.

The future of the New People’s Army and the communist insurgency in the Philippines is complex. While the movement has faced significant setbacks, particularly in terms of membership and territorial control compared to its peak in the 1980s, it continues to survive by adapting, exploiting persistent socio-economic grievances, and drawing on a deep history of armed struggle.

Resolving the insurgency requires a multi-faceted approach that goes beyond military solutions. Sustainable peace hinges on addressing the root causes of discontent – poverty, inequality, lack of land reform, injustice, and corruption. Without significant progress on these fronts, the revolutionary movement, represented by the CPP-NPA, is likely to persist, continuing to shape the landscape of Philippine History.

Markdown Table Example: Key Eras and the NPA

Era	Key President(s)	NPA Status & Characteristics	Government Approach	Significant Events Affecting NPA
Pre-CPP/NPA (Post-WWII)	Various	Hukbalahap insurgency, focused on peasant grievances and land issues.	Military suppression campaigns.	Dissolution of Huk movement.
Early CPP/NPA (1968-1972)	Ferdinand Marcos	Formation of CPP & NPA, focused on ideological purity & building mass base, initial growth.	Initial military actions, intelligence gathering.	Re-establishment of CPP, Formation of NPA.
Martial Law (1972-1986)	Ferdinand Marcos	Significant growth due to political repression & human rights abuses, expansion to countryside.	Aggressive military counterinsurgency (Proclamation 1081), human rights violations.	Declaration of Martial Law, crackdown on dissent, increased NPA recruitment.
Post-Marcos (1986-Present)	Corazon Aquino, Ramos, Estrada, Arroyo, Aquino III, Duterte, Marcos Jr.	Fluctuating strength, internal purges, cycles of peace talks & conflict.	Mix of military operations, peace initiatives, socio-economic programs (NTF-ELCAC).	EDSA People Power Revolution, Collapse of peace talks, Internal CPP-NPA purges.

Export to Sheets

Key Takeaways:

The New People’s Army (NPA) is the military wing of the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP), founded in 1969.
Its ideology is based on Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, aiming for a National Democratic Revolution and eventual socialism.
The insurgency is deeply rooted in socioeconomic issues, particularly the lack of genuine land reform, poverty, and inequality.
Martial Law under Ferdinand Marcos inadvertently fueled the growth of the NPA due to political repression and human rights abuses (Proclamation 1081).
The post-Marcos era, initiated by the EDSA People Power Revolution, has seen repeated cycles of failed peace talks and continued armed struggle.
Both the government’s counterinsurgency efforts and the NPA’s actions have been associated with significant human rights concerns.
Addressing the root causes, rather than solely focusing on military solutions, is widely considered essential for achieving lasting peace.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ):

Q1: When was the New People’s Army (NPA) founded? A1: The New People’s Army (NPA) was formally founded on March 29, 1969.

Q2: Who founded the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) and the NPA? A2: The re-established Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP), which founded the NPA, was led by Jose Maria Sison.

Q3: What is the main ideology of the CPP-NPA? A3: The main ideology is Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, aiming for a National Democratic Revolution to address perceived semi-colonial and semi-feudal conditions in the Philippines.

Q4: How did Martial Law under Ferdinand Marcos affect the NPA? A4: While intended to suppress the insurgency, Martial Law (Proclamation 1081) led to widespread repression and human rights abuses, which inadvertently drove many people to join the NPA, contributing to its significant growth during this period.

Q5: What are the main goals of the National Democratic Revolution? A5: The National Democratic Revolution aims to overthrow the current government, achieve national liberation from foreign influence, implement genuine land reform, and lay the groundwork for a socialist society.

Q6: Why have peace talks between the government and the CPP-NPA repeatedly failed? A6: Peace talks have failed due to fundamental disagreements on substantive issues like land reform and political reforms, mistrust, issues surrounding ceasefires, and the government’s demand for disarmament before a comprehensive political settlement.

Q7: What are some of the socioeconomic factors that contribute to the insurgency? A7: Key factors include widespread poverty, inequality, lack of genuine land reform, corruption, and inadequate access to basic services in rural areas.

Q8: What are some human rights concerns related to the conflict? A8: Both government forces and the NPA have been accused of human rights violations, including extrajudicial killings, torture, illegal detention, and the use of landmines.

Q9: What is the significance of the Hukbalahap in relation to the NPA? A9: The Hukbalahap was an earlier peasant-based anti-government guerrilla movement. While distinct, remnants of the old Huk movement merged with the new CPP to form the NPA, providing historical continuity and guerrilla warfare experience.

Q10: Is the NPA still active today? A10: Yes, the NPA remains active in certain rural areas of the Philippines, though its strength and areas of operation may fluctuate according to government reports and their own claims. The insurgency continues to be a significant challenge for the Philippine government.

Sources:

Abinales, P. N. (2000). Making Mindanao: Cotabato and Davao in the Formation of the Philippine Nation-State. Ateneo de Manila University Press. (Provides context on historical grievances and land issues in Mindanao, relevant to insurgency drivers).
Curaming, R. A. (2013). The Power of the Media in the Philippine Revolution of 1983-1986. Taylor & Francis. (Relevant for understanding the political climate and the lead-up to EDSA, which impacted the NPA’s context).
Guerrero, A. (Jose Maria Sison). (1970). Philippine Society and Revolution. (The foundational text outlining the CPP’s analysis and program for the National Democratic Revolution).
Jones, S. (1989). The Communist Party of the Philippines-New People’s Army: From Maoist Insurgency to Political Rebellion. Armed Forces and Society, 15(3), 341-360.
Porpora, D. V. (2010). Globalizing Resistance: The New People’s Army and Philippine Crisis. Paradigm Publishers.
Putzel, J. (1998). A Captive Land: The Politics of Agrarian Reform in the Philippines. Ateneo de Manila University Press. (Essential for understanding the historical failures of land reform).
Ross, B. (2008). Culture of Impunity: The Philippines. Human Rights Quarterly, 30(4), 983-1000. (Discusses human rights issues in the Philippines, relevant to the conflict).
Sison, J. M. (Various Writings). (Provides primary source perspective on CPP-NPA ideology and strategy).
Taylor, R. (2014). The Philippine Revolution and the Archive: National Myth and Colonial Critique. Ateneo de Manila University Press. (Offers broader historical context).
Thompson, M. R. (1995). The Anti-Marcos Struggle: Personalistic Rule and Democratic Transition in the Philippines. Yale University Press. (Details the political context of the Marcos era and the transition).
Various reports from Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and local Philippine human rights organizations on the conflict and human rights situation. (Provide documented accounts of human rights concerns).
Official publications and reports from the Government of the Philippines (e.g., Presidential issuances like Proclamation 1081, reports from the Department of National Defense or NTF-ELCAC) and the Armed Forces of the Philippines regarding counterinsurgency efforts and the NPA.
Statements and publications from the National Democratic Front of the Philippines (NDFP) related to peace talks and their perspective on the conflict.

Category: Contemporary Period (1986-Present)