Supreme Court declares red-tagging violates constitutional rights
The Supreme Court recently ruled that red-tagging and guilt by association pose a threat to an individual’s constitutional rights to life, liberty, and security. In a 39-page decision, the SC recognized red-tagging as a form of harassment and intimidation, with potential consequences such as surveillance, harassment, and even death.
The court emphasized that being associated with communists or terrorists can make a person a target for vigilantes, paramilitary groups, or state agents. The ruling, penned by Associate Justice Rodil Zalameda, described red-tagging as the use of threats and intimidation to deter “subversive activities.”
The decision stemmed from a petition filed by activist Siegfred Deduro, who sought the issuance of a writ of amparo after being accused of being a ranking member of the Communist Party of the Philippines-New People’s Army (CPP-NPA) by military officers. The SC found prima facie evidence to warrant the issuance of the writ in Deduro’s case, reversing the ruling of the Iloilo Regional Trial Court (RTC) that initially dismissed the petition.
The SC’s decision highlighted the evolving damages inflicted by red-tagging, starting from psychological harm before turning physical. The court granted the petition but did not yet provide the privilege of the writ of amparo, leaving the decision to the RTC after a hearing to determine if the privilege will be granted.
Following the ruling, the Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (Bayan) commended the SC for its decision, with Bayan chairperson emeritus Carol Araullo welcoming the high tribunal’s stance on red-tagging as legally and morally binding.
