It’s not you, it’s me

BREAKUPS almost always end with a bittersweet outcome. When the separation is sudden and unexpected, one of the parties to the relationship usually resists and fights back. In love relationships, the politically correct “it’s not you, it’s me” breakup line leaves the other feeling particularly shocked and bewildered. I know the feeling of being a recipient of such a line, not too many moons ago.

Such a line, I think, can alleviate a lot of guilt, especially if the breakup really was about yourself. Seemingly a polite way of breaking up, such a line is in fact a rude way of keeping the discussion down to a minimum. According to a licensed social worker, Rachel Perlstein, “If it’s not you, it’s me, then there is less argument or opportunity to explore the differences or feelings.” But in truth, saying “it’s not you, it’s me” can mean virtually anything.

The normal response to an unexpected break up is to suck it up and weep. A different reaction, however, was generated when Department of National Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana sent a “break up” letter to University of the Philippines President Danilo Concepcion, unilaterally terminating the DND-UP Agreement on entry of cops and soldiers in the latter’s campuses. The unexpected abrogation now allows state authorities to enter UP campuses unannounced, or sans any prior notice. Instead of weeping, the UP community (students, alumni, activist groups within) was shocked, dismayed, and ready to defend this unexpected breakup without explanation.

Whatever the reason espoused by the DND Secretary, and by the President, it cannot be gainsaid that the consequence of this “breakup,” more than the mere act of ending a contract, weighs heavier in the scales of public perception and realities in Philippine society. essentially, this “it’s not you, it’s

me” breakup between UP and DND has opened the floodgates of fear from an imminent unauthorized presence of state security agents in the school’s premises at any given time. Considering that this same atmosphere of terror was the very element sought to be avoided by the DND-UP accord in 1989, the contract’s unilateral extinction as of last week constitutes an anathema to said objective.

All too suddenly, thoughts of abrupt arrests, or abduction, inundated everyone in and from UP. Perhaps, another Donato Continente will be picked up, forced to board a car, and brought to a place called elsewhere if only to be coerced into admitting a crime he did not commit. Continente, a staffer for the university publication, reportedly suffered this kind of fate in June 16, 1989. In a social-media post, Bayan Secretary General Renato Reyes narrated that Continente was accused of killing an American soldier and was imprisoned for 14 years until the Supreme Court ruled to abbreviate his jail sentence. Now, with the DND and UP breakup, the old and alarming equation was resurrected: a campus protest plus critical thinking students equals police/military intervention.

For the strident public, the cessation of this DND-UP relationship sends the message that being overly critical of the administration, or reflect just a mere color, or breath, or hush of opposition against the administration, is subject to state reprimand. Confronted with this overtone, a student, faculty member, and employee of the University, becomes vulnerable to police and military visit in whatever form—much like having the sword of Damocles over their heads. They sit (or stand) in such a perilous position where something bad could happen to them at any given time.

While efforts to fight an insurgency by nipping it in the bud (NPA recruitment in schools) are commendable, the decision of the administration to unilaterally terminate a decades’ old agreement is suspect at this time. The unannounced entry of military agents in any school’s premises has done nothing so far but to sow fear, panic and disgust. As a former intelligence officer, I know there are many other ways to combat the NPA recruitment in the state university or in any other institution. The termination of the DNDUP agreement comes with the horror of the stifling of academic freedom. As a people, we are free to speak our mind, of course, within the bounds of the law. Incidentally, this breakup comes alongside a startling mindset of some law enforcement these days where due process has been thrown into the dustbins of history, unfortunately.

Relatedly, Integrated Bar of the Philippines President Domingo Cayosa said, “Diverse groups, including those who oppose government, conduct recruitment in UP as they do in many other schools. Nevertheless, what truly impels and fuels dissent is not UP or its tradition of critical thinking and activism but the injustice, corruption, incompetence, abuse and oppression, poverty or hopelessness that citizens may experience or discern.”

The administration needs to recalibrate its position and focus instead on addressing the more pressing concerns of corruption, injustice, poverty and helplessness in society, all of which have become the best marketing tools for any insurgency. Idealists, students in particular, are free to disagree with government, provided they do so peacefully. School policies in general may encourage critical thinking and even dissent provided such are expressed in peaceful protests, rallies, and activities of similar nature. After all, this is essentially what academic freedom is.

Freedom of choice is bestowed upon us both under the laws of men, at least in democratic societies, and under the law of Our Lord. Believers are free to fully accept the Lord as their Savior. Public officials are free to serve in an upright or corrupt manner. In the same way, students are free to choose what courses to pursue and what ideologies they want to believe in. UP students, for instance, are free to choose between a professional career in the Army or a renegade life in the insurgency movement. And no amount of state intervention can dissuade them from choosing one over the other. Once choices are made, people must, however, live with the consequences. In the Bible, Joshua 24:15 NIV tells us, “But if serving the Lord seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your ancestors served beyond the euphrates, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the Lord.” Our convictions and actions in relation thereto in connection to what the laws of men and of God mandate us to do remain as personal choices.

In our relationship with Our God, I learned that he accepts us unconditionally, even when we drift away from his love. For people to say “it’s not you, it’s me” to unilaterally abandon their relationship with him is always true, understanding that his covenant with those who believe in him is unyielding.

A former infantry and intelligence officer in the Army, Siegfred Mison showcased his servant leadership philosophy in organizations such as the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, Malcolm Law Offices, Infogix Inc., University of the East, Bureau of Immigration, and Philippine Airlines. He is a graduate of West Point in New York, Ateneo Law School, and University of Southern California. A corporate lawyer by profession, he is an inspirational teacher and a Spirit-filled writer with a mission.

For questions and comments, please e-mail me at