Lubuagan, Mabongtot reconciliation and the challenge to end vote-buying: “We must address what caused the conflict, we can prevent another tragedy” — Atty. Dickpus

FEATURE

Based on her account, large amounts of money were reportedly distributed during elections with expectations of substantial electoral support. When the expected votes did not materialize, resentment and suspicion reportedly grew, eventually contributing to hostility and violence that claimed lives.

LUBUAGAN, Kalinga — On October 5, the Lubuagan and Mabongtot sub-tribes did something that once seemed difficult to imagine: they chose reconciliation after decades of conflict.

The peace settlement, reached through negotiations anchored on the traditional bodong system, brought together elders, local officials, peace negotiators and members of both communities.

But for Atty. Ann Ann Dickpus, former mayor of Lubuagan and a member of SAVE Kalinga, Inc., the agreement, although it is the what everybody dreamed of, should not simply close a painful chapter.

It should also force the communities, not only Lubuagan and Mabongtot but all tribes in town, to ask why the conflict became so deeply rooted—and what can be done to ensure that another community does not suffer the same fate.

“We have finally achieved reconciliation after so many years. But if we do not address the practices that contributed to the conflict, how can we prevent another community from suffering the same experience?” Dickpus said.

Her concern centers on the alleged role of vote-buying and political expectations in the conflict.

Based on her account, large amounts of money were reportedly distributed during elections with expectations of substantial electoral support. When the expected votes did not materialize, resentment and suspicion reportedly grew, eventually contributing to hostility and violence that claimed lives.

For Dickpus, the lesson is painful but clear.

“No amount of election money, political position, or electoral victory can ever justify the loss of lives.”

When election money becomes more than an election issue

One of the practices Dickpus wants communities to confront is the familiar thinking expressed in the phrase: “Tanggapin ang pera, pero iboto ang kursunada.”

For some voters, the saying may seem like a practical response to vote-buying—take the money but remain free to choose a candidate.

But Dickpus believes the practice deserves deeper reflection, particularly in a community where traditional values remain an important part of social life.

She pointed to paniyaw, ngilin and ba-in—values that emphasize moral boundaries, conscience and recognition of what is right and wrong.

“Accepting money with a promise and deliberately breaking that promise raises questions of paniyaw,” she said.

But she also stressed that this does not justify vote-buying or mean that a person who receives money is legally or morally required to vote for the giver.

The practice of vote-buying itself, she said, must be addressed.

A former politician asking for change

Dickpus acknowledges the uncomfortable question that may come with her position.

She has been part of politics herself.

Some may therefore ask why someone with political experience would now speak against a practice deeply associated with elections.

Her answer is rooted in the lessons of the conflict.

“Some say vote-buying can never be stopped. Others may question why someone who has been part of politics is now speaking against it,” she said.

“But should our past experiences prevent us from recognizing what needs to change?”

For Dickpus, the answer lies in what the communities have already endured.

They have experienced the consequences of political conflict, she said, and should not allow other families to suffer similar pain.

Changing political culture may be difficult, but difficulty should not become a reason to tolerate what is wrong.

Peace must go beyond the settlement

The October 5 reconciliation was made possible not only by leaders but also by the people who endured the conflict and the families who accepted the difficult path toward peace.

Their acceptance, Dickpus said, should not be forgotten.

The peace settlement therefore carries two messages: reconciliation is possible, but prevention is equally important.

Dickpus called on churches, religious leaders and faith-based organizations to take part in confronting vote-buying and strengthening moral responsibility among citizens.

“Our religious leaders have an important role in forming the conscience and character of our people,” she said.

For her, values such as honesty, justice, forgiveness and respect for human life should not remain inside places of worship. They should also guide people during elections and in their communities.

She called for traditional elders, government officials, religious leaders and citizens to work together to address potential causes of conflict before they escalate.

The lives already lost cannot be brought back

The Lubuagan–Mabongtot settlement is a victory for peace, but its deeper meaning may lie in what happens next.

A settlement can end a conflict.

But it cannot bring back those who died.

It cannot erase the suffering of families.

And it cannot guarantee that another conflict will never happen.

That is why Dickpus believes the real test of the October 5 peace agreement is not simply whether the two communities can remain reconciled, but whether the painful lessons of their past can change the way future political contests are fought.

“We have reached a historic settlement, but we cannot bring back the lives that were lost. Let the lessons of this painful history guide us in addressing the root causes of conflict, so that no other community will have to suffer the same tragedy.”