The Commission on Human Rights (CHR) has expressed fears on the government’s red-tagging of individuals and organizations as it lamented that allegations that they are fronts of terrorist groups have resulted in vilification, harassment, unlawful arrests, and even killings.
It highlighted its findings in its national inquiry on the situation of human rights defenders (HRDs), which are "replete with testimonies about HRDs across all sectors who, prior to being killed, injured, illegally arrested, charged with trumped-up cases, or otherwise put in harm’s way, have first been red-tagged."
In the report submitted in July 2020, the CHR made several recommendations, one of which is for the government to "desist from red-tagging and labelling HRDs as terrorists or enemies of the State" and to "publicly acknowledge the legitimacy of the work of HRDs and seek to actively protect and promote the right to defend rights."
"Despite these recommendations, we continue to receive reports and monitor incidences of unabated red-tagging from high officials especially the National Task Force to End Local Communist Armed Conflict (NTF-ELCAC),” it lamented.
It noted how a government spokesperson, whose name it did not divulge, "incorrectly re-worded" a Supreme Court (SC) decision by saying that "mere labelling of a group as a communist front is not an actual threat to one's right to life, liberty, and security."
The CHR clarified that in the SC decision, the High Court said that “mere membership in these organizations or sectors cannot equate to an actual threat that would warrant the issuance of the writ of Amparo" (a special constitutional writ to protect or enforce a right other than physical liberty).
It must be referring to Presidential Communications Undersecretary Lorraine Marie Badoy of NTF-ELCAC.
In defending red-tagging, Badoy insisted that the SC has ruled that “there is no danger to life, liberty and security when one is identified as a member of the CPP-NPA-NDF."
"How is it possible that our own legislators ignore what the Court of Appeals (CA) and the Supreme Court have already made clear: that there is no such thing as ‘red-tagging’?" she questioned.
However, the CHR begged to differ as "the current repressive political climate and prevailing impunity" prove otherwise.
"And as incidences show, red-tagging should not be taken lightly for it has serious repercussions, including the downplaying of legitimate dissent and making persons and organizations tagged open for further harm," it stressed.