THE SUPREME Court’s recent decision to grant a writ of amparo to Iloilo City-based activist Siegfried Deduro is a resounding judicial rebuke against the dangerous practice of red-tagging. This landmark ruling unequivocally reaffirms the inviolability of the rights to life, liberty, and security, and that no arm of government can infringe upon these rights without facing stringent judicial scrutiny.
Red-tagging, which involves labeling individuals as communists or terrorists, has been a contentious issue, often resulting in severe consequences for those targeted, including harassment, surveillance, and even violence. The practice has been criticized both locally and internationally for undermining the rule of law and violating basic human rights.
By issuing a writ of amparo in favor of Deduro, the Supreme Court is sending is a strong message – the judiciary recognizes the grave threats posed by red-tagging. And by declaring that such action constitutes a threat to an individual’s right to life, liberty, and security, the Court has set a legal precedent that could shape future actions against similar abuses.
This ruling is particularly noteworthy because it not only addresses the immediate concerns of the petitioner but also sets a procedural and legal framework for others facing similar threats. The recognition of red-tagging as a real threat allows for the use of the writ of amparo, a powerful legal remedy designed to protect against threats to personal safety.
The decision also sends a broader signal to state agents about the limits of acceptable conduct. It underscores adherence to the rule of law and maintaining a balance between national security and individual rights, and that the state’s duty to protect its citizens extends to protecting their rights from unlawful encroachments even by its own agents. Indeed, in a democratic society, no one is above the law, not even those tasked with enforcing it.
The Supreme Court ruling thus gives hope for many activists and ordinary citizens who have been unfairly red-tagged. It opens the door for other potential victims to seek legal remedies. Additionally, it calls for a reevaluation of policies that allow for arbitrary labeling and vilification without due process.
But questions remain. Will this decision lead to a significant reduction in the incidents of red-tagging? Will state agencies now exercise more caution in labeling individuals to avoid judicial rebuke? Will it result to more stringent measures to ensure that the state’s counter-insurgency efforts do not trample upon the civil liberties of its citizens?
