The Commission on Human Rights (CHR) has applauded the recent ruling of the Supreme Court (SC) declaring red-tagging, vilification, labeling, and guilt by association as threats to one’s right to life, liberty, or security. This decision came after activist Siegfried Deduro filed a petition recounting his experience of red-tagging by military officials.
The SC identified the issuance of a writ of amparo as a solution to address threats arising from such actions. This legal remedy also applies to cases involving enforced disappearances and extrajudicial killings.
“In a society governed by the rule of law, every individual is entitled to the protection of their basic rights,” stated the commission in a released statement. The commission emphasized that red-tagging and similar practices not only violate the dignity of individuals but also weaken the foundation of democracy and the rule of law.
The writ of amparo serves as a tool to hold individuals accountable by allowing them to seek legal protection against actions that endanger their safety and well-being. The SC defined red-tagging as the use of threats and intimidation to deter subversive activities, as state agents hastily link individuals or legal groups with the armed communist insurgency.
The CHR expressed hope that the SC’s decision will establish a strong legal precedent for court cases involving red-tagging. They aim for adherence to due process and the rule of law before making serious accusations that jeopardize human rights and dignity.
Moreover, the SC ruling supports CHR’s 2020 national inquiry on the situation of human rights defenders, many of whom were red-tagged before facing harm. The commission urges all stakeholders, including government entities, civil society organizations, and the public, to remain vigilant in upholding due process and the rule of law.
CHR plans to conduct another national inquiry on red-tagging this year to engage with civil society, the government, and other relevant parties in addressing this ongoing issue.
