SC: Red-Tagging Threatens Right to Life, Liberty, and Security
May 8, 2024
The Supreme Court has declared that red-tagging, vilification, labelling, and guilt by association threaten a person’s right to life, liberty, or security, which may justify the issuance of a writ of amparo.
This was the ruling of the Supreme Court En Banc in a Decision penned by Associate Justice Rodil V. Zalameda, where it granted the writ of amparo in favor of Siegfred D. Deduro (Deduro).
Deduro is an activist and former representative of the party-list Bayan Muna in the House of Representatives. He claimed that on June 19, 2020, in a meeting of the Iloilo Provincial Peace and Order Council, military officers gave a presentation where Deduro, among others, was explicitly identified as part of the Communist Party of the Philippines-New People’s Army (CPP-NPA) hierarchy. The military officers were under the command of Maj. Gen. Eric C. Vinoya (Maj. Gen. Vinoya), the Commanding Officer of the Philippine Army’s 3rd Infantry Division.
This was later reported by Bombo Radyo Iloilo and the Philippine News Agency.
Deduro further claimed that posters were put up in different locations in Iloilo City with his image labeled as a criminal, terrorist, and member of the CPP-NPA-National Democratic Front (NDF). The captions in the poster state:
“MGA KAMPON SANG CPP-NPA-NDF SA SYUDAD! NAGAPANG-INTO KAG NAGA-BUTUG SA PUMULUYO! RALLY DIRI, RALLY DIDTO! WALA MAY NAUBRAHAN PARA SA BANWA!”
(“DISCIPLES OF THE CPP-NPA-NDF IN THE CITY! FOOLING AND DECEIVING THE PEOPLE! HOLDING RALLIES HERE AND THERE! THEY HAVE DONE NOTHING FOR THE COUNTRY!”)
Deduro also said there were instances where unidentified men followed him.
He thus filed a petition for a writ of amparo before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to enjoin Maj. Gen. Vinoya and his subordinates from red-tagging and harassing him.
The RTC dismissed Deduro’s petition, finding his allegations of red-tagging insufficient to be considered threats to his life, liberty, and security.
The Supreme Court found prima facie evidence in Deduro’s petition warranting the issuance of a writ of amparo. It ruled that red-tagging, vilification, labelling, and guilt by association constitute threats to a person’s right to life, liberty, or security.
Under A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC or the Rule on the Writ of Amparo (Rule), the petition for a writ of amparo is a remedy available to any person whose right to life, liberty, or security is violated or threatened by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity.
One form of such threats is the act of red-tagging, acknowledged by international organizations as a form of harassment and intimidation. Labelling a person “red” often comes with frequent surveillance, direct harassment, and in some instances, eventual death.
As being associated with communists or terrorists makes the red-tagged person a target of vigilantes, paramilitary groups, or even State agents, it is easy to understand why a person may fear that being red-tagged puts their life and security at risk.
In Deduro’s case, the supposed meeting where he and other activists were identified, when viewed together with the killings of some of these identified persons, may, if true, justify the issuance of the writ of amparo.
Further, the posters with Deduro’s image contained statements implying his alleged association with the CPP. These posters were placed in locations easily visible to the public.
As Deduro’s petition was not groundless nor lacking in merit, the RTC should not have dismissed the case without requiring Maj. Gen. Vinoya to first file a return. Under the Rule, within 72 hours after service of the writ, the respondent shall file a verified written return stating their lawful defenses, the actions they have taken to determine the fate or whereabouts of the aggrieved party, and all other information in their possession relevant to the threat against the aggrieved party.
In this case, by dismissing the petition without requiring Maj. Gen. Vinoya to first file a return, the RTC effectively denied both parties due process.
The Court further stressed that although it is uncertain whether such “red-baiting” threats ripen into actual abduction or killing of supposed “reds,” Deduro should not be expected to “await his own abduction, or worse, death, or even that the supposed responsible persons directly admit their role in the threats to [his] life, liberty, or security…”
The Court reversed the RTC’s dismissal order and required it to conduct a summary hearing to ensure that Deduro’s cause of action and Gen. Maj. Vinoya’s defense are fully heard.
Deduro was also ordered to submit to the RTC a Supplemental Petition to implead the Alliance of Victims of the CPP-NPA-NDF and Western Visayan Alliance of Victims of the CPP-NPA-NDF which allegedly caused the circulation of posters red-tagging Deduro. (Courtesy of the Supreme Court Public Information Office)
Full text of G.R. No. 254753, Deduro v. Maj. Gen. Vinoya (July 4, 2023) at: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/254753-siegfred-d-deduro-vs-maj-gen-eric-c-vinoya-in-his-capacity-as-commanding-officer-of-the-3rd-infantry-division-philippine-army/
Full text of the Concurring Opinion of Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen at: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/254753-concurring-opinion-justice-marvic-m-v-f-leonen/