BY GEROME DALIPE IV
ILOILO City – Have you been red-tagged by state agents?
You can ask the court to issue a writ of amparo, a remedy available to any person whose right to life, liberty, and security is violated or threatened by a public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity.
The Supreme Court ruled that red-tagging, vilification, labeling, and guilt by association are considered threats to an individual’s right to life, liberty, and security.
In a landmark ruling, the high court issued a writ of amparo in favor of Siegfried Deduro, an Iloilo City-based activist and former representative of Bayan Muna party-list, who complained that military officers accused him of being a ranking member of the Communist Party of the Philippines – New People’s Army (CPP-NPA).
The court’s en banc decision was penned by Associate Justice Rodil V. Zalameda, who granted the writ of amparo in favor of Deduro.
On June 19, 2020, according to Deruno, military officers gave a presentation during a meeting of the Iloilo Provincial Peace and Order Council identifying him and several others as part of the CPP-NPA hierarchy.
The military officers were under the command of then Major General Eric C. Vinoya, the commanding officer of the Philippine Army’s 3rd Infantry Division, according to Deduro.
The activist also said the military placed posters in various locations in Iloilo City with his image labeled as a criminal, terrorist, and member of the CPP-NPA-National Democratic Front (NDF).
There were instances when two unidentified men followed him, he added.
Deduro filed a petition for a writ of amparo before the Regional Trial Court and enjoined Vinoya and his subordinates from red-tagging and harassing him.
The trial court dismissed Deduro’s petition, finding his allegations of red-tagging insufficient to be considered threats to his life, liberty, and security.
However, the Supreme Court found evidence in Deduro’s petition warranting the issuance of a writ of amparo, ruling that red-tagging, vilification, labeling, and guilt by association constitute threats to a person’s right to life, liberty, or security.
It cited the Rule on the Writ of Amparo, which states the petition for such a writ 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, the court noted.
“Labeling a person ‘red’ often comes with frequent surveillance, direct harassment, and in some instances, eventual death,” the SC said.
In Deduro’s case, the high court noted the 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.
“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,” the SC held.
Although it is uncertain whether such “red-baiting” threats ripen into actual abduction or killing of supposed “reds,” the tribunal said 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 Supreme Court reversed the RTC’s dismissal order and required it to conduct a summary hearing to ensure that Deduro’s cause of action and Major General Vinoya’s defense is fully heard.
Deduro was also ordered to submit to the RTC a supplemental petition to implement 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 him./PN
