Red-tagging or accusing a person or organization of being a communist or communist sympathizer, which has been used widely by the previous regime and occasionally by the current administration is illegal.
So says the Supreme Court (SC), which last week said red-tagging is “a threat to life, liberty, and security.”
As such, any party labelled as a communist even by mere association may ask the court to issue a protective order.
The SC decision came in the wake of a petition filed by former party-list representative Siegfred Deduro of Iloilo.
The high tribunal issued a writ of amparo, defined as “a remedy available to any person whose right to life, liberty, and security is violated or threatened with violation by an unlawful act of omission of a public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity.”
A decision penned by Associate Justice Rodil Zalameda remanded Deduro’s petition to the Iloilo City regional trial court with an order for an expeditious resolution of the other issues raised in the former lawmaker’s petition.
Deduro had earlier filed a writ of amparo before the Iloilo court, which dismissed outright the petition in October 2020.
Deduro claimed that he had been tagged as a leader of terrorist-communist groups and had been subjected to surveillance.
Deduro claimed that his photos were seen in posters which identified him along with other persons as criminals, terrorists, and members of the National Democratic Front (NDF), its political wing the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP), and its armed wing the New People’s Army (NPA).
The Philippine government has officially named the NDF/CPP/NPA as a terrorist organization.
The Iloilo court rejected Deduro’s petition, ruling that his allegations of being a victim of red-tagging were baseless, unsupported by evidence, and insufficient for the grant of the extraordinary writ.
The former congressman then elevated his case before the SC, pleading with the high court that the Iloilo court should have ordered respondent – Maj. Gen. Eric Vinoya, commanding officer of the Philippine Army’s 3rd Infantry Division – to comment on his petition instead of outrightly dismissing it.
Deduro also stated that the Iloilo court should have conducted a summary hearing in line with the rules prescribed by the SC.
In granting partially Deduro’s petition, the SC said: “Red-tagging has been acknowledged by international organizations as a form of harassment and intimidation. As early as 2007, the UN Human Rights Council observed the prevalence of the practice in the Philippines where groups at the left of the political spectrum are characterized as front organizations of anti-democratic groups. The report called the practice ‘vilification,’ ‘labelling,’ or guilt by association.”
The Commission on Human Rights (CHR) welcomed the SC decision, saying, “In a society built on the rule of law, every citizen is entitled to the protection of their fundamental rights.”
The CHR added that the SC’s decision “underscores the importance of protecting these rights against any form of unwarranted harassment or intimidation. Red-tagging and similar practices not only violate the inherent dignity of individuals but also undermine the fabric of democracy and the rule of law.”
For its part, the Roman Catholic Church’s social action and justice arm also welcomed the SC’s ruling, calling it a “game changer.”
Caritas Philippines said the major ruling would play a “crucial step” towards a safer nation.
“This decision is a victory for justice and a crucial step for a safer Philippines,” said Caritas President Bishop Jose Colin Bagaforo.
He said: “Red-tagging has instilled fear and silenced dissent for far too long. The Supreme Court’s ruling sends a clear message that such tactics will not be tolerated.”
Caritas Vice-president Bishop Gerardo Alminaza said he had also been a victim of red-tagging. He also said that the practice creates “a climate of fear and intimidation.”
