An Allegation Is Not a Verdict: Who Exactly Harassed Heroine Fernandez?

The allegation that someone identifying himself as “PFC Dagohoy” contacted the mother of LFS-Davao coordinator Heroine Fernandez is serious and deserves investigation. If a genuine military personnel used his position to pressure, threaten, or intimidate a civilian family because of political or organizational activity, that would be unacceptable and should carry consequences.

But precisely because the allegation is serious, it must be established through evidence rather than converted immediately into a verdict against the military or the government.

The publicly presented account shows that someone using the Facebook name “Charlie OneTwo” identified himself as “PFC Dagohoy,” sought to speak with Fernandez’s mother about her daughter’s organizations, and reportedly called again afterward. What remains unestablished is the critical part:

• Who was actually behind the account?
• Was he genuinely a member of the Armed Forces of the Philippines?
• Which unit did he belong to?
• Was he acting in an official capacity?
• Who authorized the contact?
• And what was its purpose?

Even reporting on the incident noted that the supposed connection between the account and a particular Army unit had not been independently confirmed. 

That distinction cannot simply be brushed aside. A Facebook account claiming to belong to a soldier is evidence that someone made that claim. It is not, by itself, proof that the Philippine Army or the Philippine government conducted an operation. The allegation may ultimately be proven true, but that requires establishing the person’s identity, affiliation, authority, and conduct. Until then, the leap from an alleged contact to “state surveillance,” “intimidation,” and “fascism” remains a political conclusion rather than an established fact.

The reported contact may indeed have been disturbing, particularly because the mother was approached about her daughter’s organizational involvement rather than the matter being addressed directly with her. That concern deserves an answer. But the available account does not, by itself, establish an explicit threat of physical harm, arrest, or other coercive action. Whether the conduct amounted to harassment therefore depends on facts that still need to be examined, including the full communications, the frequency and nature of the contact, the identity of the person involved, and whether official authority was invoked or abused. 

There is nothing wrong with demanding accountability, and there is nothing wrong with investigating whether young people are being exposed to recruitment or radicalization. But those concerns do not suspend constitutional rights, and they do not give government personnel a license to intimidate civilians. Any legitimate security engagement must still be lawful, properly identified, proportionate, and subject to accountability. At the same time, the existence of a security concern does not prove that every contact involving an activist is an act of repression.

There is, however, a documented reason why the issue of recruitment and radicalization cannot simply be dismissed as a fiction invented by security agencies. There have been actual cases involving prominent student activists from LFS who later entered the CPP-NPA underground, and one of those cases comes from a living former participant who has publicly described his own trajectory.

Rendell Ryan “Perper” Cagula, who served as president of the UP Mindanao University Student Council and Davao City coordinator of the League of Filipino Students, later joined the New People’s Army and was killed in an encounter with government forces in Maasim, Sarangani, in November 2014. More significantly, the Communist Party of the Philippines’ Southern Mindanao Regional Committee itself published an account describing Cagula’s recruitment into the communist movement, his work in the youth and student sector, and his decision to leave school and join the NPA.

Charisse Bernadine “Chaba” Bañez provides another documented case. Public records in 2015 identified Bañez as chairperson of the League of Filipino Students. A decade later, following her arrest in Agusan del Sur in June 2025, Philippine authorities identified her as “Nikki,” secretary of the Southern Mindanao Regional Committee of the NPA.

Then there is Jamm Saguino or “Ka Amihan”, a living former CPP-NPA cadre whose own public account describes the same trajectory from the student movement into the underground. Saguino has said that he was recruited through the League of Filipino Students while studying at the University of the Philippines Visayas in Iloilo in 2007, subsequently entered Kabataang Makabayan, and eventually became a member and cadre of the underground communist movement before leaving it. His account has been publicly reported for years, including his testimony that he was recruited through LFS and later joined the armed movement.

These cases establish that there have been real instances in which individuals involved in the legal student movement like the LFS later entered the CPP-NPA underground, and there are former participants who have publicly described that progression from firsthand experience. That makes recruitment and radicalization a legitimate security and public-interest concern, even while the rights of peaceful activists remain protected.

There is another possibility that must not be excluded before the evidence is authenticated: the conversation itself could have been fabricated, altered, or deliberately staged to create the impression that military personnel were harassing the families of activists. A screenshot attributed to an account that has since become unavailable does not, by itself, establish the authenticity of the conversation, the identity of the person behind the account, or any connection to the Armed Forces of the Philippines. Someone could impersonate a soldier or manipulate a digital exchange to manufacture a politically damaging narrative.

This is where the statement of Anakbayan SMR and LFS Davao risk going beyond its own evidence. It takes one disputed incident and uses it to substantiate a much broader claim about state fascism, surveillance, confidential funds, corruption, and the suppression of dissent. Those are separate propositions requiring separate evidence. The existence of an unresolved allegation cannot, on its own, establish a coordinated government policy or activity.

The appropriate response is therefore straightforward: investigate the incident, verify the identity of “PFC Dagohoy,” establish whether he is actually military personnel, determine his unit and authority, examine whether the contact was officially sanctioned, and hold the responsible person accountable if misconduct is proven.

If the individual falsely represented himself as military or acted without authorization, that should also be exposed. Either outcome requires the same thing: FACTS.

The public can take the family’s concerns seriously while insisting that attribution must be proven. We can condemn genuine intimidation without treating an unverified identity as evidence of a government conspiracy.

An allegation should be heard. Genuine harassment should be punished. But a political verdict cannot substitute for an evidentiary investigation.

So, before declaring “state fascism,” answer the most basic question first:

WHO EXACTLY HARASSED HEROINE FERNANDEZ?