The Philippine Supreme Court has
ruled that red-tagging or red-baiting – the act of linking activists or critics to communist rebel groups, or accusing them of supporting the country’s communist insurgency – is a threat to the life, liberty, and security of the intended victims.
This landmark decision is expected to help human rights groups challenge the government’s de facto policy of red-tagging dissenters to cow them into silence, which violates their fundamental rights such as freedom of speech.
In its ruling announced on May 8, the Supreme Court
cited the concerns raised by human rights bodies, like the U.N. Human Rights Council, about how red-tagging has been used to harass or intimidate civilians perceived to be sympathetic to or members of leftist groups.
"Being associated with communists or terrorists makes the red-tagged person a target of vigilantes, paramilitary groups, or even State agents,” the Supreme Court said.
For decades, rights advocates, including former U.N. special rapporteur Philip Alston, have sounded the alarm against red-tagging. Alston himself
published a report in 2007 flagging the military and the police’s practice of “vilification, labeling, or guilt by association” of certain groups as part of their counterinsurgency operations.
Philippine government officials have often defended themselves against red-tagging accusations by denying the practice even exists, with the controversial National Task Force to End Local Communist Armed Conflict saying in 2022 that the term was
coined by groups with links to the Communist Party of the Philippines to protect themselves.
The Supreme Court’s landmark ruling
finally gives victims of red-tagging the legal framework to hold red-taggers accountable. More victims may be able to successfully file
writs of amparo (protection), as well as writs of habeas data (access to information).
The Philippines’ Commission on Human Rights said the high court’s ruling acknowledges “the real and immediate dangers” faced by those red-tagged and hopes it will set a “
strong legal precedent” against this pernicious state practice against perceived dissidents.
Prior to the historic ruling, victims struggled to mount legal challenges against red-tagging in the absence of a law dedicated to this crime. But other legislation such as the Anti-Terrorism Act may be invoked to protect their rights.
Some activists have filed
civil cases for damages based on violations of their personal rights, while others have
lodged administrative cases against erring authorities. None of these have resulted in a favorable decision yet.