(We yield this space to the statement of the Philippine Universal Periodic Review Watch, a network of faith-based and human rights groups, due to its timeliness. – Ed.)
WE TAKE strong exception to the incredible remarks of Department of Justice secretary Jesus Crispin “Boying” Remulla at the United Nations Human Rights Committee on red-tagging as a “part of democracy”.
We enjoin members of the UN Human Rights Committee and the international community to denounce red-tagging because it has no place in a democratic and civilized society.
Remulla’s statements were made amidst concerns of an independent human rights expert of the Committee over the perils of red-tagging on the lives of the people who raise legitimate issues on government policies.
His remarks, while a brazen official admission of the practice, do not only encourage and normalize red-tagging but also brandish it as an institutionalized and orchestrated method of the government in dealing with perceived “political critics”.
At the end of former President Rodrigo Duterte’s administration, there were 801 political prisoners and 442 human rights defenders, church and health workers, journalists, environmentalists, women, peasants and indigenous people who became victims of extra-judicial killings in his counterinsurgency campaign. Most, if not all of them, have been red-tagged by the State, its agents, proxies, supporters and enablers.
Meanwhile, during President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.’s first 100 days in office, 10 civilians, majority of which are peasants and a nine-year old girl, were killed, four have been abducted and remain missing, and at least 37 have been arbitrarily arrested and detained. Similarly, all of them were red-tagged online and offline, and suffered threats and harassment before they were killed, abducted or arrested.
Red-tagging especially of State forces and their adjuncts has dire consequences on persons, families, organizations and communities. Feigning ignorance on these consequences and packaging these threats as mere exercise of freedom of expression are clear signals of a policy of tolerance for human rights violations and impunity.
But hate speech by the State itself inciting violence on its own people cannot be sensibly rationalized as freedom of expression because it produces the opposite: discourage or penalize freedom of expression of the people which the State is duty-bound to respect and protect.
Although it comes as no surprise, Secretary Remulla’s distorted view before the UN Human Rights Committee belabor the obvious in this policy of the past and current administration – justice will remain elusive and human rights violations will continue unabated.
We are determined to likewise belabor the obvious – that with an administration that has not indicated any commitment, sincerity nor political will to commit to justice and accountability, it is imperative to hold our ground, push back and demand for the protection of our rights, even as we help enlighten those who are open to see through the razzle-dazzle of demagogic rhetorics by our supposed protectors.
