EDITORIAL | When Kabataan shields abusers, Justice is denied

Justice delayed is justice denied—and in Kabataan Partylist’s (KPL) case, denial came wrapped in protocol and silence.

KPL has officially expelled one of its members following a concluded internal investigation into a case of sexual misconduct. In a public statement dated June 7, the Party outlined the steps it had taken: the accused was placed under preventive suspension, removed from Party activities and premises, and ultimately expelled. The statement claims that the organization offered psychosocial support to the survivor, provided legal options, and initiated reforms within their structures.

Yet beneath this seemingly comprehensive update lies a hollow statement for many, especially for those who believe in political organizing built on care, accountability, and collective safety. Why? Because the organization only spoke after public pressure forced its hand. Because their language prioritizes procedure over compassion. Because what should have been a moment for deep, public reckoning has been reduced to a technically correct but emotionally distant performance of responsibility.

KPL’s insistence on “handling the matter internally” is a telling red flag. Gender-based violence is not a purely administrative inconvenience. It is a trauma. It is violence. And it demands response systems rooted not just in due process but in urgency, transparency, and care.

Preventive suspension is not justice. Confronting the accused is not accountability. And stating that legal support was “offered” is not the same as actively enabling access to it. When survivors speak out, they do not need options on paper; they need advocates in practice.

The NEC’s statement tries to balance affirming the survivor with protecting the Party’s internal image. “We stand with the survivor,” they say, while carefully avoiding names, details, or timeline transparency. They stress that the accused was not a leader, as if the absence of rank lessens the severity of harm and absolves the institution of responsibility.. The need to uphold “organizational integrity” and “data privacy” is repeated, but the central question remains unanswered:

Where was the care when it was needed most?

By delaying public acknowledgment, by allowing the survivor to become isolated, and by taking action only after online backlash erupted, KPL effectively allowed trauma to fester behind closed doors.

The Party admits that “support and care to the aggrieved was insufficient...we may have had reasons, but these are no excuses.” This is a rare and important admission. However, it cannot stop at words. What the public and especially survivors deserve is a clear breakdown of accountability.

When was the report filed?

Who handled the intake?

What was the timeline between the report and the response?

What measures were taken, and when?

Absent these details, the apology is procedural, not personal. It reads like a press release, not a reckoning.

The NEC promises policy reviews, gender training, and structural changes. But those promises are not new. Variations of these commitments have been echoed for years across the progressive movement. What is needed now is a real-time demonstration of these reforms: the publication of survivor-centered protocols, the establishment of a trained GBV response unit, clear disciplinary timelines, and guaranteed survivor protection mechanisms.

Without this, the statement is another version of “we will do better”—words we have heard too often from too many organizations that failed to protect their own.

One of the most problematic lines in the NEC statement is the mention of state forces, particularly the NTF-ELCAC, as supposedly weaponizing the issue to discredit activism. While there is a historical basis to critique state red-tagging and co-optation of progressive causes, bringing this up alongside a case of gender-based violence can be seen as a form of deflection. It clouds the real issue and, whether intentional or not, suggests that public criticism of KPL is part of a coordinated attack on the Left.

Let’s be clear: criticizing the Party’s handling of GBV is not an attack on activism. It is activism. Protecting survivors is not counter-revolutionary—it is revolutionary praxis.

Let us name what should have been non-negotiable from the beginning:

If KPL wants to retain even a sliver of moral authority among the youth it claims to represent, then its work is just beginning. Expulsion is not resolution. A statement is not accountability. True justice requires rebuilding trust, not just fixing structures, but transforming culture.

Anything less is betrayal.

To stand with survivors is not a slogan. It is a commitment to change everything, starting with how we respond when one of our own is harmed.