The Commission on Human Rights (CHR) welcomes the decision of the Supreme Court (SC) that declared "red-tagging, vilification, labelling, and guilt by association" as threats to one's right to life, liberty and security.

"In a society built on the rule of law, every citizen is entitled to the protection of their fundamental rights... against any form of unwarranted harassment or intimidation," the CHR said in a statement.

It pointed out that "red-tagging and similar practices not only violate the inherent dignity of individuals but also undermine the fabric of democracy and the rule of law," it stressed.

The SC decision also identified the Writ of Amparo as a direct remedy to address the threats being caused by these acts, which, the CHR, said covered enforced disappearances and extrajudicial killings.

It said the issuance of a Writ of Amparo in cases of red-tagging or vilification is a "vital mechanism" that would ensure accountability. Victims of such violations can also feel empowered to seek legal protection against arbitrary actions that threaten their safety and well-being, it also said.

A Writ of Amparo "is a remedy available to any person whose right to life, liberty, and security is violated or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity."

The SC decision was handed down in the petition filed by former Party-List congressman Siegfried D. Deduro who assailed the red-tagging he experienced at the hands of military officers.

Deduro first filed for a petition for a Writ of Amparo before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Iloilo but it was dismissed outright for insufficiency of evidence. He elevated his case before the SC.

In the SC decision, the High Court defined red-tagging as the "use of threats and intimidation to discourage subversive activities."

For the CHR, the SC's definition affirmed the subjective and arbitrary nature of red-tagging as a practice. In identifying red-tagging as a form of threat and intimidation, the SC acknowledged the dangers being faced by those who are labelled in such a manner, the CHR said.

"CHR is hopeful that the SC decision will set a strong legal precedent for court cases involving red-tagging. Most especially, we hope that this will fortify adherence to due process and the rule of law before making serious accusations and labels that endanger human rights and dignity," it also said.