Introduction

The practice of ‘red-tagging’ – labeling individuals or organizations as communist sympathizers or terrorists without substantial evidence – has a long and troubling history in the Philippines. Rooted in Cold War-era anti-communist sentiment, red-tagging bears striking similarities to McCarthyism in the United States during the 1950s. McCarthyism, named after U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy, was characterized by a campaign of unfounded accusations, investigations, and persecution of alleged communists in the 1950s. Both practices involve baseless accusations of subversion or treason, often targeting activists, journalists, and academics. On July 4, 2023, the Supreme Court of the Philippines delivered a landmark decision in the case of Siegfred D. Deduro v. Major General Eric C. Vinoya, (2023), declaring red-tagging a threat to people’s life, liberty, and security. This ruling has been widely welcomed by human rights organizations as a significant step towards recognizing red-tagging as a dangerous form of harassment that violates individuals’ rights.

While the Court’s decision rightly prioritized safeguarding individuals from potential threats associated with being labeled as members of terrorist or communist organizations, its narrow focus on security concerns overlooked the broader implications for fundamental freedoms. This article argues that red-tagging not only endangers personal safety but also significantly impacts free speech, academic and artistic expression, press freedom, freedom of association, and the right to protest. To explore this issue comprehensively, this article will delve into the history and continued use of red-tagging in the Philippines, presenting case studies of victims. It will also offer a comparative analysis of red-tagging and McCarthyism, highlighting their shared characteristics and consequences. It will then examine how red-tagging violates freedom of expression and other related rights under both the constitutional framework of the Philippines and international human rights law, and will propose recommendations for a more comprehensive approach to addressing red-tagging that protects both personal security and fundamental freedoms. By examining these aspects, the article aims to contribute to a broader understanding of red-tagging as not just a security issue, but as a multifaceted threat to democratic values and human rights in the Philippines.

Red-Tagging 

In the Philippines, government officials, military personnel, and law enforcement agencies have engaged in the practice of red-tagging (or red-baiting) by deliberately labeling human rights lawyers, judges, civil organization leaders, union & student leaders, journalists, political leaders, publishers, and activists as “terrorists” or “communists”. This intentional act by those in positions of power and authority poses a significant threat to the security and well-being of the targeted individuals. Once these individuals are labeled, they are denounced as potential targets and are frequently killed or injured by unknown actors followed by disinformation concerning the victims and the circumstances surrounding their deaths. Associate Justice Marvic Leonen of the Supreme Court of Philippines in his dissenting opinion in the case Zarate vs. Aquino III, defined red-tagging as “the act of labeling, branding, naming, and accusing individuals and/or organizations of being left-leaning, subversives, communists or terrorists.” [pg. 22, Siegfred D. Deduro] Justice Leonon clarified that this practice is instigated by “state agents, particularly law enforcement agencies and the military, against those perceived to be ‘threats’ or ‘enemies of the State’.” [pg. 22, Siegfred D. Deduro] In a 2007 Preliminary note on the visit to the Philippines, the UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions, Philip Alston defined this practice as “‘labelling’, or guilt by association [involving] the characterization of most groups on the left of the political spectrum as ‘front organizations’ for armed groups whose aim is to destroy democracy.” He added that ‘[t]he result is that a wide range of groups – including human rights advocates, labour union organizers, journalists, teachers unions, women’s groups, indigenous organizations, religious groups, student groups, agrarian reform advocates, and others – are classified as ‘fronts’ and then as ‘enemies of the State’ that are accordingly considered to be legitimate targets.” [para. 8, pg. 8, UN Special Rapporteur] This classification then leads to these groups being branded as ‘enemies of the State,’ a designation that, in turn, renders them vulnerable to being considered legitimate targets for various forms of harassment, intimidation, or even violence. 

Mapping Incidents of Red-Tagging: From Past to Present 

Red-tagging has been a longstanding issue in the Philippines, with roots stretching back several decades. Since the Philippines gained independence in 1946, its government has periodically employed red-tagging as a tool of political repression. Ferdinand Marcos Sr.’s regime (1965-1986) institutionalized this practice during martial law, using it to justify widespread arrests and disappearances of opposition figures and activists. Despite the 1986 People Power Revolution, subsequent administrations continued to use red-tagging against perceived threats. The practice intensified under Rodrigo Duterte’s presidency (2016-2022) when it became a key strategy to silence government critics alongside his “war on drugs.”  Duterte’s administration left a stark legacy of political prisoners and extrajudicial killings, with many victims previously red-tagged. The current government under Ferdinand ‘Bongbong’ Marcos Jr., despite initial hopes for change, has yet to significantly curtail this practice or improve the overall human rights situation in the country.

Duterte’s Regime

Initially, the practice of red-tagging emerged as a tactic to suppress dissent against the communist New People’s Army (NPA), an insurgent group that began its operations in 1969. Over time, this practice has evolved and become entrenched in the country’s political landscape. However, the phenomenon gained particular prominence during President Rodrigo Duterte’s administration. Under Duterte’s regime, red-tagging became more widely utilized and gained new significance as a parallel instrument to the government’s controversial “war on drugs” campaign. Under the pretext of a “war on drugs” or “Project Double Barrel”,  the Philippines authorities—including President Duterte himself— used public vilification as an instrument against drug addicts and issued statements that expressly allowed the killing of individuals entangled in drug use or trafficking. Red-tagging and the war on drugs both share a common principle which involves perceptual manipulation approaches that dissuade people from understanding the fundamental causes and so are the State’s attempt to offer society a narrative that characterises the victim as an acceptable target.

In 2018, President Duterte established the National Task Force to End Local Communist Armed Conflict (NTF-ELCAC), a primary red-tagging vehicle. With substantial funding (10 billion pesos allocated in 2024) and a broad mandate, the task force has used government press releases, conferences, and social media to make accusations.  In 2020, President Duterte’s administration introduced the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 (‘AT Act’), which effectively provided legal cover for the practice of red-tagging. The Act expanded the definition of terrorism to include acts that “create a serious risk to public safety,” allowing for broad interpretation. It also granted the Anti-Terrorism Council, composed of cabinet officials, the power to designate individuals and groups as terrorists without judicial oversight. These provisions have enabled authorities to label activists and government critics as terrorists more easily, thus institutionalizing red-tagging within the legal framework. 

The AT Act’s broad and potentially ambiguous definition of terrorism differs significantly from the previous Human Security Act of 2007. The new definition encompasses a wide range of acts, including those intended to cause death, serious bodily injury, extensive damage to property, interference with critical infrastructure, and the use of weapons or dangerous substances. Notably, the AT Act does not include the requirement that these acts be committed “in order to coerce the government to give in to an unlawful demand,”  under Section 4 of the AT Act, which was present in the previous law. This broader definition may overlap with or encompass acts that are already criminalized under existing Philippine laws, potentially creating confusion in legal interpretation and application. Furthermore, the AT Act introduces new specific stages of terrorism as punishable offenses, such as threats, planning, recruitment, and providing material support, which may not have direct counterparts in traditional Philippine criminal law. This expansion of what constitutes terrorism-related crimes, coupled with the removal of certain safeguards and the introduction of extended surveillance and detention periods, creates a legal framework that may not align seamlessly with the existing Philippine criminal justice system and constitutional protections. The Act’s vague language and reduced judicial safeguards have raised concerns that it could be used to suppress dissent under the guise of combating terrorism, thereby implicitly legitimizing the longstanding practice of red-tagging in the Philippines. Thus, the AT Act violates the very tenet of criminal law – the principle of legality of offenses (nullum crimen sine lege). 

Under Rodrigo Duterte’s government from July 2016 to December 2020, it was reported that there were 376 extrajudicial killings and 488 attempted extrajudicial killings. Illegal arrests without detention totaled 2,635, and illegal arrests with detention were 1,040. There were 1,037 illegal searches and seizures and 485 instances of physical assault and injury. There were 8,592 incidents of indiscriminate firing and 372,629 cases of bombing. Forced or fake surrenders involved 3,349 individuals, while 35 cases of forced labor or involuntary servitude were recorded. Additionally, 147 cases involved the use of civilians in police and/or military operations as guides and/or shields. Finally, there were 4,125 instances of restrictions or violent dispersal of mass actions, public assemblies, and gatherings. 

In March 2021, President Duterte said in a public address that he had directed the police and military to “kill” and “finish off” communist rebels and to “forget about human rights.” Two days after President Duterte’s address, the Philippine armed forces killed nine individuals and arrested six others in raids against a red-tagged group in Southern Tagalog. This intensification of the practice marked a shift in its application, broadening its scope beyond just countering communist insurgency to potentially targeting a wider range of government critics and dissenters. 

In 2018, human rights advocates Haide Flores, Anthony Trinidad and Benjamin Ramos, and City Councillor Bernardino Patigas were all red-tagged and later murdered one by one by unknown actors. Flores, Trinidad, and Ramos’s names and photos were made public in poster published by an anti-communist group, Kawsa Guihulnganon Batok Kumunista (Kagubak) along with 15 other people. The poster stated that the following people are being “Judged” and will “would not make it to 2018”. Following the publication of their names and photographs in the poster, all of them received death threats. Trinidad was shot on his way home from a Court hearing and was with his wife when the incident happened, who also suffered several injuries.  

The UNHRC in its Annual Report on the Philippines referenced the posters tagging the pictures and names of Flores, Ramos, Patigas, and Trinidad with red circles and a declaration that they were ‘communist’ and under surveillance. (Annex II, p. 23)  In November 2019, an environment rights activist, Honey Mae Suazo, went missing after she was red-tagged. Suazo had received death threats concerning her work documenting violations against farmers and indigenous peoples in Southern Mindanao. Many female activists and human rights defenders including Cristina Palabay have been sexually assaulted and/or have been threatened with rape. State Senators, Leila de Lima and Risa Hontiveros, both women officials, faced state-sanctioned harassment for raising dissenting opinions against Duterte’s administration. Lima was incarcerated in prison as pre-trial detention between 2017-2023, for allegedly abetting the illegal drug trade in the New Bilibid Prison while serving as the Justice Secretary from 2010 to 2015. The UN independent experts (2017) and the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (2018) expressed that charges against Lima were politically motivated and could be a form of reprisal for her criticism of the Government’s “war on drugs”. Similarly, Hontiveros was falsely accused of being associated with Anakbayan, Gabriela, and the Communist Party of the Philippines-New People’s Army (CPP-NPA).

In 2020, Land Rights Activist Randall Echanis was tortured to death while human rights lawyer Zara Alvarez and National Democratic Front’s Peace Consultant Randy Malayao were shot to death by an unknown assailant. Angelo Karlo “AK” Guillen, a vocal critic of the Anti-Terrorism law and a legal advocate for indigenous communities, faced relentless harassment through red-tagging. In December 2018, Guillen’s image appeared on posters in Iloilo City—falsely identifying him as a member of the NPA, a designated terrorist organization by the Philippine government. In 2021, two unknown assailants stabbed him. Sarah Elago was also falsely linked to communist groups attempting to overthrow the government in over 14,000 Facebook posts, which were widely shared and included comments inciting violence, even calling to harm her.  Echanis, Alvarez, Malayao, and other human rights defenders were labeled as communists/terrorists by the Philippine Department of Justice in a petition before the Philippines Regional Trial Court. Once they were red-tagged, they all faced harassment and received death threats. In 2022, a school art teacher and award-winning cartoonist Benharl Capote Kahil was red-tagged for his art and digital activism before he was killed. 

Maria Ressa, a prominent journalist and 2021 Nobel Peace Prize laureate, was also red-tagged by the government-backed media platform, Sonshine Media Network International (SMNI). Several journalists including Percival “Lapid” Mabasa were murdered after being red-tagged. The National Union of Journalists of the Philippines reported 32 incidents of red-tagging against journalists, leading to the murders of 23 between 2016 and 2022.  Red-tagging has also been used against Indigenous people and climate activists. At least 126 members of the Indigenous community and leaders were extrajudicially killed between 2016 and 2021, to silence any dissent from Indigenous communities regarding illegal corporate projects like mining operations and hydropower dams. 

In January 2021,  the Cordillera Police Chief gave an order to “shoot-to-kill” Windel Bollinger, a renowned Indigenous peoples’ rights defender, if he opposed his arrest. In February 2021, Julie Catamin, the Chief of Roosevelt Village in the Tapaz municipality of the Capiz Province was shot dead by an unknown riding-in-tandem. Catamin was the witness in a case concerning a police raid in December 2020, wherein Tumandok Indigenous community leaders were unlawfully arrested and some other Indigenous people were killed. Red-tagging has had an enduring consequence on Indigenous communities on peoples unrelated to the communist insurgency. 

Red-tagging has also been employed against queer activists including, Rey Valmores. Valmores, the  Chair of the queer rights organization, Bahaghari (Rainbow) Philippines, was stalked by suspected security forces in 2020 and 2021. In November 2022, Valmores and her group were red-tagged by SMNI. Irish Inoceto, chair of the Iloilo Pride Team, was also red-tagged for advocating for the transgender community and gender-affirming policies in schools. SMNI falsely accused Inoceto of being a member of the Communist Party and weaponizing the Queer agenda to recruit members for communist groups. In 2022, a Mandaluyong City judge named Judge Monique Quisumbing-Ignacio was red-tagged solely because he dismissed a Philippines Department of Justice’s petition that sought to declare the Communist Party of the Philippines as a “terrorist organization.” The red-tagging against Judge Quisumbing-Ignacio was put on stay when the Supreme Court of the Philippines intervened. 

Marcos Jr.’s Regime 

Ferdinand ‘Bongbong’ Marcos Jr., son of former dictator Ferdinand Marcos Sr., was elected president in 2022, marking a controversial return of the Marcos family to power. His election campaign capitalized on social media disinformation and historical revisionism, downplaying the human rights abuses of his father’s regime. Despite initial hopes for change, red-tagging has persisted under Marcos Jr.’s administration. The NTF-ELCAC, established under Duterte, continues to operate, labeling human rights groups and government critics as “communists and terrorists.” In March 2023, the NTF-ELCAC opposed the enactment of a Human Rights Defenders Protection Act, accusing various human rights and lawyers’ groups of being “Communist Terrorist Groups.” The Marcos Jr. administration has not taken significant steps to curtail this practice, despite calls from UN member states during the Philippines’ human rights review in November 2022 to end red-tagging. This continuity suggests that red-tagging remains a tool for suppressing dissent and criticism, even under a new administration that promised unity and progress.

In 2023, the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines and its chair were accused on pro-government television of having communist ties, while environmental defenders sought Supreme Court protection after being red-tagged by the military and police. Some victims, like Carol Araullo and her son Atom, have begun to fight back through legal channels. Araullo, chairperson emeritus of Bagong Alyansang Makabayan, has filed a civil suit against former anti-insurgency spokesperson Lorraine Badoy and her co-host Jeffrey Celiz for repeated red-tagging. Araullo is seeking over P2 million in damages and aims to hold red taggers accountable, hoping to encourage others to file similar complaints. The Marcos Jr. administration has also escalated its tactics by using the AT Act to accuse organizations like CERNET of financing terrorists. This targeting of civil society groups, particularly labor unions, prompted an International Labour Organization mission, leading to President Marcos signing an executive order promising protection to workers. Despite these challenges, there have been some positive developments: the release of former senator Leila de Lima, after nearly seven years of detention on dubious charges, and the acquittal of journalist Maria Ressa on tax evasion charges—though she still faces other legal challenges. On April 29, 2024, the police arrested a third suspect in the on-air shooting of radio broadcaster Juan Jumalon case, while on May 6 2024, a Manila court sentenced the gunman responsible for the murder of radio commentator Percival “Lapid” Mabasa to up to sixteen years in prison. Despite these developments, the masterminds behind these murders remain at large, highlighting the Philippines’ notorious record for impunity regarding journalist killings.

Modern McCarthyism in the Philippines 

McCarthyism, named after U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy, refers to the period in 1950s America characterized by intense anti-communist suspicion and persecution. It involved unfounded accusations, investigations, and blacklisting of individuals suspected of communist sympathies. Red-tagging in the Philippines bears similarities to McCarthyism in its targeting of perceived political opponents through public accusation and stigmatization. However, red-tagging in the Philippines can be considered a more severe manifestation of this phenomenon for several reasons. 

Firstly, it occurs within the context of an ongoing armed conflict between the government and the communist NPA, which began in 1969. This conflict provides a pretext for more aggressive actions against those accused. Secondly, red-tagging in the Philippines has been associated with more severe consequences, including extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances, as documented by human rights organizations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. Furthermore, while McCarthyism was largely confined to a specific historical period, red-tagging has been a persistent tactic in Philippine politics for decades, evolving and intensifying under different administrations. The practice has become deeply entrenched in the country’s political landscape, affecting a wide range of civil society actors, including journalists, activists, and human rights defenders. This comparison highlights the need to understand red-tagging not just as a form of political persecution, but as a systematic practice with profound implications for human rights and democratic governance in the Philippines. As HRW documented, a long list of activists and human rights defenders either disappeared or were extrajudicially killed by Philippines security forces under the veil of battling the country’s communist insurgency. Under Marcos Jr.’s government, from July 2022 to December 2023, 89 extrajudicial killings and 53 attempted extrajudicial killings were reported. Enforced disappearances numbered thirteen, and cases of torture were recorded at eighteen. Illegal arrests without detention totaled 207, while illegal arrests with detention reached 122. There were 546 illegal searches and seizures and 30 instances of physical assaults and injuries. There were 39,769 incidents of indiscriminate firing and 22,391 cases of bombing. Additionally, 552 individuals were involved in forced or fake surrenders.

Freedom of Expression under the Philippine Constitution and International Law

The practice of red-tagging in the Philippines represents a grave and systematic violation of fundamental rights protected under both the Philippine Constitution and international human rights law. This part examines specific cases of red-tagging and their implications for freedom of expression, press freedom, academic freedom, and the right to information, demonstrating how this practice undermines the rule of law and democratic principles.

The Philippines has a rich constitutional history, with four distinct constitutions marking key political developments since 1898. Throughout these constitutional changes, the right to freedom of expression has been a consistent feature, reflecting its deep roots in the Filipino struggle for freedom and democracy. The current 1987 Constitution, also known as the People Power Constitution, provides the strongest protections for human rights and free expression to date. Article III, Section 4 of the Bill of Rights explicitly guarantees freedom of speech, expression, and the press, as well as the right to peaceful assembly and petition. This constitutional protection is a direct response to the suppression of civil liberties during the Marcos era and represents the Filipino people’s determination to safeguard democratic values. The right to freedom of expression is of paramount importance in any democratic society. Internationally, these rights are protected under several key instruments, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and the  International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), to which the Philippines is a state party and has an obligation under Article II, Section 2 of the Philippine Constitution.

The case of Sarah Elago exemplifies how red-tagging violates these protections. Elago’s image and name were falsely associated with communist groups in thousands of social media posts (approximately 14,000 posts), effectively weaponizing disinformation to stifle legitimate political discourse and activism. This practice not only infringes on individual rights but also creates a chilling effect that discourages citizens from exercising their constitutionally-protected right to express dissenting opinions or criticize government policies. The red-tagging of youth organizations, particularly the Kabataan Party-list, illustrates how this practice can be used to suppress political participation and expression among young people. By labeling these groups as fronts for communist organizations, authorities create an environment of fear that discourages youth engagement in political processes. Subsequently, the red-tagging of indigenous rights group CPA and its leaders, including Beverly Longid, national convener of Katribu, a political party that advances Indigenous peoples’ rights, demonstrates how this practice can be used to silence advocacy for marginalized communities. By associating human rights defenders with terrorist groups, authorities effectively criminalize legitimate forms of expression and advocacy.

The systematic nature of red-tagging, often carried out through state-affiliated media platforms and official channels, suggests a coordinated effort to suppress dissent that contravenes the spirit of the 1987 Constitution. This approach also fails to meet the criteria for permissible limitations on freedom of expression under international law, as outlined in Article 19(3) of the ICCPR and elaborated in the Siracusa Principles. The broad and arbitrary application of red-tagging violates the principles of necessity and proportionality, essential for any legitimate restriction on free speech.

Press Freedom

The cases of journalists Maria Ressa and Percival “Lapid” Mabasa illustrate the dire consequences of red-tagging on press freedom. Both were subjected to red-tagging before facing legal challenges or, in Mabasa’s case, murder. While a direct causal link hasn’t been legally established, these incidents have been cited by human rights organizations as examples of how red-tagging can lead to a chilling effect on press freedom.

The targeting of journalists through red-tagging violates not only the constitutional guarantees of press freedom but also international protections. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has emphasized that mass media make the exercise of freedom of expression a reality, while the UN Human Rights Committee General Comment No. 2 stresses the importance of a free press in the political process. The harassment and violence faced by journalists following red-tagging undermines the media’s crucial role as a “public watchdog,” a function deemed essential by international human rights bodies.

Academic Freedom

The red-tagging of artists and academics, such as Benharl Capote Kahil and Prof. Diosa Labiste, raises significant concerns about the violation of academic freedom. Article XIV, Section 5(2) of the Philippine Constitution explicitly provides that “academic freedom shall be enjoyed in all institutions of higher learning.” By subjecting academics to red-tagging and its corresponding risks, the state effectively constrains the free exchange of ideas within educational institutions, undermining the very purpose of academic freedom as envisioned by the Constitution. The Supreme Court, in cases like Ateneo De Manila University v. Capulong, has emphasized the expansive nature of this right, recognizing its importance in the pursuit of knowledge and truth.

Internationally, while not explicitly mentioned in the ICCPR, academic freedom is widely recognized as an essential component of the right to freedom of expression and the right to education. The UNESCO Recommendation concerning the Status of Higher-Education Teaching Personnel (1997) emphasizes the importance of academic freedom in higher education institutions. By subjecting academics to red-tagging and its attendant risks, the state effectively constrains the free exchange of ideas within educational institutions, undermining the very purpose of academic freedom as envisioned by both the Constitution and international norms.

Right to Information and Privacy

The right to information, protected under Article III, Section 7 of the Philippine Constitution, is intrinsically linked to freedom of expression. In Valmonte v. Belmonte (1989), the Supreme Court of the Philippines held that “the right to information… is meant to enhance the widening role of the citizenry in governmental decision-making as well as checking abuse in government.” This right is also enshrined in Article 19 of both the UDHR and ICCPR, encompassing not only the freedom to impart information but also to seek and receive it, particularly from public authorities.

The practice of red-tagging directly contravenes this right by creating an environment of fear and secrecy that impedes the free flow of information. As emphasized by the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression in his 1997 and 1998 reports, governments have a positive obligation to ensure access to information, especially that held by the state. The systematic nature of red-tagging, often involving state actors and state-affiliated media, represents a failure from the state to meet this obligation, which instead has actively obstructed the public’s right to receive information on matters of public interest.

Red-tagging also raises significant concerns regarding the right to privacy, protected under Article 17 of the ICCPR. While the right to privacy is not absolute and can be limited under certain conditions, the broad and often arbitrary application of red-tagging fails to meet the criteria of being in accordance with the law, in pursuit of a legitimate aim, and necessary in a democratic society. The public dissemination of individuals’ personal information and the false accusations of having terrorist affiliations, is an unjustifiable invasion of privacy that cannot be justified by vague notions of “public interest.”

Furthermore, the chilling effect created by red-tagging practices in the Philippines extends beyond individual cases to create a broader assault on the public’s right to receive information. This effect is particularly pernicious in light of the principle, recognized in international jurisprudence, that the public interest must be defined broadly to avoid diminishing the flow of important information to the public. By creating an environment where journalists, activists, and ordinary citizens fear reprisal for expressing dissenting views or sharing certain types of information, red-tagging effectively narrows the scope of public discourse and limits the public’s access to diverse viewpoints and critical information.

Systematic Violations and Broader Implications

The cumulative effect of these incidents creates a broader assault on freedom of expression that extends beyond individual cases. The chilling effect created by red-tagging practices in the Philippines narrows the scope of public discourse and limits the public’s access to diverse viewpoints and critical information. This effect is particularly pernicious in light of the principle, recognized in international jurisprudence, that the public interest must be defined broadly to avoid diminishing the flow of important information to the public.

The practice of red-tagging is, undoubtedly, unconstitutional and destroys the rule of law by failing to respect the presumption of innocence, due process, and the rights of the arrestee. It violates multiple provisions of the Philippine Constitution and international human rights treaties to which the Philippines is a state party, as mandated by Article II, Section 2 of the Philippine Constitution. Thus, the systematic nature of red-tagging in the Philippines represents a coordinated effort to suppress dissent and control public discourse. This approach not only violates specific constitutional provisions and international human rights laws but also contravenes the spirit of the 1987 Constitution, which was drafted with the explicit intent of safeguarding democratic freedoms and preventing a return to authoritarian rule. The practice undermines the very foundations of a democratic society, creating an environment where the free exchange of ideas, critical to the functioning of a healthy democracy, is severely compromised.

The Deduro Case

In the case of Siegfred Deduro, the Supreme Court of the Philippines issued a Writ of Amparo in favor of Deduro reversing the lower court’s dismissal of his petition. The Court found that Deduro’s allegations of red-tagging by military officials, which included public labeling as a communist sympathizer and alleged surveillance, constituted a prima facie threat to his life and security. This decision lowered the evidentiary bar for issuing a Writ of Amparo in cases involving red-tagging, emphasizing that even without actual deprivation of liberty, individuals can invoke their right to security. The Court ordered a full hearing on the merits and directed Deduro to include additional respondents allegedly responsible for circulating red-tagging materials. While this ruling sets an important precedent for protecting activists and dissenting voices from potential threats associated with red-tagging, its true impact will depend on consistent application by lower courts. The Supreme Court’s decision recognizing red-tagging as a threat within the context of the Writ of Amparo also represents a significant milestone in the protection of human rights in the Philippines. 

However, the Court’s decision notably missed a crucial opportunity to address the complex interplay between security concerns and freedom of expression. By focusing primarily on the security aspects of red-tagging, the Court overlooked the need to establish clear guidelines on how to balance public discussions about alleged terrorist affiliations against the rights of those targeted by such accusations. This omission is particularly significant given the Philippines’ constitutional protections for free speech and its commitments under international human rights treaties. The ruling could have benefited from incorporating international standards and jurisprudence on freedom of expression, which would have provided a more robust framework for adjudicating such cases. 

By failing to delineate where protected speech ends and actions that genuinely threaten individuals’ rights begin, the Court risks creating a chilling effect on public discourse. This lack of clarity may lead to overly broad interpretations of what constitutes a threat, potentially stifling legitimate political debate and criticism. Furthermore, the decision does not adequately address how lower courts should handle cases where security concerns directly conflict with free speech rights. This gap in guidance may lead to inconsistent rulings and could potentially be used to suppress dissenting voices under the guise of security concerns. As a result, while the ruling strengthens protections for individuals against potential threats, it simultaneously leaves open questions about the preservation of open dialogue on matters of public interest, especially regarding allegations of links to terrorist organizations.

Conclusion

To address the pervasive issue of red-tagging in the Philippines, and its detrimental impact on human rights, freedom of expression, and democratic processes, a multifaceted approach is imperative. Legal reforms, such as amending or repealing laws like the AT Act, are crucial to eliminating the legal basis for red-tagging. Nonetheless, there have been some endeavors, backed by Congressmen, like introducing an Anti-Red Tagging Bill to criminalize the practice of red-tagging and declare it a human rights violation. However, such a Bill, prime face, would not be adequate to protect the rights (including the freedom of expression) of the human rights defenders and activists against red-tagging because it fails to accommodate red-tagging victims with access to an effective remedy, including compensation and safeguards against recurrence, as it concentrates exclusively on sanctions against State actors involved in the practice. Institutional accountability must be strengthened through independent oversight bodies and robust judicial processes to hold perpetrators accountable, and the international community should persist in applying diplomatic pressure on the Philippines to adhere to human rights standards. Additionally, increased support for journalists, activists, and human rights defenders, along with digital literacy programs to combat online disinformation, is vital. By implementing these measures, the Philippines can dismantle the culture of red-tagging while preserving freedom of expression. This balanced approach involves enacting carefully crafted legislation, strengthening independent oversight mechanisms, and promoting media literacy. It also requires encouraging open dialogue between government and civil society, and ensuring that national security measures do not suppress legitimate dissent.

By addressing both the harms of red-tagging and the importance of free speech, the Philippines can foster a more democratic society that protects individual rights while maintaining robust public discourse. This nuanced strategy would create an environment where unfounded accusations are discouraged, but critical thinking and political debate continue to thrive.