Photo from Pexels | Elijah O’Donnell
The following post does not create a lawyer-client relationship between Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices (or any of its lawyers) and the reader. It is still best for you to engage the services of a lawyer or you may directly contact and consult Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices to address your specific legal concerns, if there is any.
Also, the matters contained in the following were written in accordance with the law, rules, and jurisprudence prevailing at the time of writing and posting, and do not include any future developments on the subject matter under discussion.
AT A GLANCE:
What is red-tagging? How does it threaten a person’s right to life, liberty or security? This was discussed in detail in the case of Deduro vs. Maj. Gen. Vinoya, promulgated by the Supreme Court on July 4, 2023.
The antecedent facts of the case are as follows:
Petitioner Siegfred D. Deduro described himself as “an activist from Iloilo and a founding member and Vice President for the Visayas for both Bayan Muna Party-list and the Makabayan Coalition.” On the other hand, respondent Maj. Gen. Eric. C. Vinoya (respondent) is impleaded in his official capacity as “the commanding officer of the Third Infantry Division (3rd ID), Philippine Army, Armed Forces of the Philippines.
Petitioner alleged that military officers under respondent’s command red-tagged and accused him of being a ranking member of the Communist Party of the Philippines-New People’s Army (CPP-NPA) in several instances, such as when Petitioner was explicitly identified as part of the CPP-NPA during a meeting of the Iloilo Provincial Peace and Order Council (hereafter referred to as “PPOC” for brevity) took place at the Casa Real de Iloilo, Iloilo Provincial Capitol in Iloilo City.
Other incidents of red-tagging consisted of seeing posters with his image alongside that of other persons who are known activists, lawyers, and members of non-government organizations (NGOs), where they were labeled as criminals, terrorists, and members of the CPP-NPA-National Democratic Front (NDF); being followed by unidentified men from a restaurant to the Bayan-Panay office; and labelling petitioner’s organizations as supporters of the CPP-NPA-NDF.
Particularly disturbing for the Petitioner was the awareness that Porquia and Alvarez, two persons whose photos appeared alongside that of petitioner’s in posters, met violent deaths.
Petitioner filed a Petition for issuance of a writ of amparo. The RTC immediately dismissed the said Petition, explaining that in order to be entitled to the protective writ of amparo, the applicant must establish that his right to life, liberty and security are being threatened by the acts of the respondent.
The Supreme Court on the other hand, granted the Petition for issuance of a writ of amparo by the Petitioner. The Court cited the case of Manalo, wherein it was explained what constitutes threats in the context of Section 1 of the Amparo Rule:
“…”freedom from fear” is the right and any threat to the rights to life, liberty or security is the actionable wrong. Fear is a state of mind, a reaction; threat is a stimulus, a cause of action. Fear caused by the same stimulus can range from being baseless to well-founded as people react differently. The degree of fear can vary from one person to another with the variation of the prolificacy of their imagination, strength of character or past experience with the stimulus. Thus, in the amparo context, it is more correct to say that the “right to security” is actually the “freedom from threat”. Viewed in this light, the “threatened with violation” Clause in the latter part of Section 1 of the Amparo Rule is a form of violation of the right to security mentioned in the earlier part of the provision.”
Red-tagging has been acknowledged by international organizations as a form of harassment and intimidation. As early as 2007, the United Nations Human Rights Council observed the prevalence of a 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 “villification,” “labelling,” or guilt by association.
More than a decade after, red-tagging also transitioned to online social media platforms like Facebook. As noted by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in its Annual Report dated 29 June 2020, labelling certain groups or persons as “reds” oftentimes came with frequent surveillance and direct harassment. Some received death threats either through text or online direct messages. A number of women activists have reported being threatened with rape or other forms of sexual assault.
While some of these red-labelling remained as threats, the report also noted that some of those red-tagged individuals were eventually killed. Just last year, various United Nations special rapporteurs made a public plea to stop the practice of red-tagging in the country, stating: “Human rights defenders in the Philippines continue to be red-tagged, labelled as ‘terrorists’ and ultimately killed in attempts to silence them and delegitimize their human rights work. This must end.”
Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, in his separate opinion in Zarate v. Aquino, explained that the petitioners in the said case alleged facts that threaten their lives and liberty; and therefore, their security. He emphasized that even though there is still no tangible offense committed by respondents against petitioners, Amparo is still a proper remedy. Amparo does not come into existence as a relevant preventive device only when there is certainty of an offense committed. Rather, Amparo is a remedy designed for events that reside in legal penumbra. Those conditions, which, though ambiguously legal, incrementally create the vulnerabilities that will, with the certainty of experience, lead to the person’s harassment, disappearance, or death. Certainly, “red baiting” is quintessentially paradigmatic of these cases.
Related Articles:
Click here to subscribe to our newsletter
Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices specializes in business law and labor law consulting. For inquiries regarding legal services, you may reach us at info@alburolaw.com, or dial us at (02)7745-4391/ 0917-5772207/ 09778050020.
All rights reserved.