I never worked with Mike as my contemporaries in the movement were Dennis Cunanan and Sahlee Cariño who chaired the NUSP in 1992 and 1993, respectively. From what I heard, though, I gathered that despite Mike’s “chick boy” image, he was a committed and well-respected activist and student leader.

But NUSP has disowned him, saying that he is a disgrace to the movement.

But is he?

I propose that NUSP, like the movement where it aligns itself is wrong with its analysis, and has rendered itself inutile in the struggle for freedom and democracy.

Let us make a roll call of the NUSP luminaries: John Osmeña, Raul Roco, Rene Saguisag, Sonia Malasarte, Ricardo Puno Jr., Ronaldo Puno, Salvador Britanico, Violy Calvo, Loida and Mely Nicolas, Macapanton Abbas, Carlos Padilla, Miriam Defensor, Tina Monzon, Jose Lina, Francis Pangilinan, Lean Alejandro, Chito Gascon, Lorenzo Tañada III, Hernani Braganza, and Mike Defensor.

How do we judge the trajectory of student activists? Should they die like Lean Alejandro for them to considered worthy alumni of the cause? Should they remain in the movement, stuck in the comforts of a country like the Netherlands?

Rene Saguisag became the defense lawyer of Erap Estrada, should that diminish his credentials as an active participant in the struggles for justice? Francis Pangilinan plays it safe and does nothing controversial. Is that the way to evolve?

I say Mike Defensor did a better job in sustaining his fire. He knew that no matter what people will do, the left will never take over this country. So, he became part of the institution and work the change from within. That is the logic of people like Etta Rosales and Riza Hontiveros, right?

But Mike was denounced because of his association with President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo – an act that is seen as an abandonment of the cause of justice and a giving in to the status quo.

But Mike Defensor saw the light. He sees the global reality, and knows that new times require new ways of thinking, new modes of doing. That is not called mutation, it is called evolution – survival of the fittest, supremacy of the finest.

Political activism can only effect change if it has the platform to direct it – without that, it is a useless machinery that finds joy in landing frontpage in the media without the slightest effect on the lives of the people they profess to protect.

Mike Defensor earned the ire of his former colleagues when he denounced Cavite State University student Maria Theresa Pangilinan’s gutsy act of heckling the President during her school’s graduation rites. He said Pangilinan’s protest was “done in poor taste.” He berated the Presidential Security Group for allowing such breach in decorum.

Dekada 80 Movement, an association of leftwing activists who started their political activism in the 80s will remember former colleague Presidential Management Staff (PMS) chief Michael Defensor a “ bad egg” and would no longer entertain talking to him in the near future.

“ He is dropped from the roster of Dekada 80 activists. We categorically disown this guy for betraying the principles and legacy of our activism. He is a total disgrace to the activists of the 80’s,” the Dekada 80 Movement said in a press statement.

“ What ever little respect and trust we have for him, they are all gone. He is now nothing but a bureaucrat capitalist”, said Gerry Albert Corpuz, one of the early organizers of Dekada 80 Movement.

And this is where I must be blunt.

WHO REALLY KNOWS WHO GERRY CORPUZ IS?

And if he, for the sake of argument, is so pure that he does not have any connection with the present administration, he is also helpless and useless in delivering any change that he hopes for. At best, he will die with a clean record. That’s it.

Mike has worked hard to be at that level where he has the connection, the power, and the resources to make push for change – the kind that is not borne out of useless analysis, political spectrum and comparative ideology. It is a change that comes from a careful analysis of the present political turmoil of the country, and from a strong conviction that the country will survive better in the track where it is right now.

We may not agree with that. But we can certainly argue that such an act is neither selfish nor corrupt. It is activism in its present form.