By: Kim Ramos
As a hallmark of democracy, being critical and vigilant to the acts of our leaders in the government is crucial in view of the fact that sovereignty is within the hands of the electorate. It is incumbent on our part to criticize whenever we see our representative projecting conduct contrary to the dictates of justice and good conscience. Gone are the days when people yield to the disposition of capricious leaders who have self-serving interests and ill-motives to serve their constituents.
.
Various expressions have been recognized by the Constitution and jurisprudence to portray our dismay against these unreasonable acts of our corrupt authorities who have taken a heavy toll on the nation. The beauty of democracy is seen, not in the sheer compliance of the majority to the wills of whoever sitting on the throne, but in acts of constructive dissent from the people who are politically aware of the social acts that desecrate our freedom. To openly express our beliefs without any fear of prosecution will be a perfect latitude for the people to participate in the development of the country. However, what if our government officials, instead of listening to the voice of the majority, misconstrue these expressions as a way of terrorism act? What if our dream of having good governance resulted in red-tagging?
.
Red-tagging is a means of misinterpreting our ideals and belief for a better government into some sort of rebellion act. Red-tagging, according to the court, is the meta-legal version of proscription and designation; one need not go through the formal processes but could still achieve some of their desired effects.1 In the case of Zarate v. Aquino, Justice Leonen, in his dissenting opinion, said that this phenomenon of implicating progressive civil group leaders in heinous crimes. These groups are stereotyped or caricatured by the military as communist groups, making them easy targets of government military or paramilitary units.2 Red-tagging is also defined as “the act of labeling, branding, naming and accusing individuals and/or organizations of being left-leaning, subversives, communists or terrorists (used as) a strategy.3
.
There are several acts by the legislature to impede this practice of unilateral tagging of a person as a member of a communist group without sufficient basis. Senator Franklin Drilon filed a Senate Bill No. 2121 or An Act Defining and Penalizing Red Tagging. This Bill will eventually bestow a proper legal recourse and safeguard upon those victims who are left amid coercion and vilification from authorities. This practice is technically not a new scheme for our government officials. History is a witness to some of the many horrendous events that the practice of red-tagging distorts the lives of innocent people.
.
During the Spanish time, the term red-tagging was not yet born, but the practice of it was rampant. After the revelation of Teodoro Patino to Father Mariano Gil regarding the existence of Katipunan, many innocent souls were tortured by the Spanish authorities in view of their alleged involvement in Katipunan. Dr. Jose Rizal himself was also a victim of this scene. Dr. Rizal was supposed to be in Cuba to serve as a doctor under the Spanish regime. However, he was accused of being a leader of Katipunan. As a result, he was arrested and imprisoned behind bars at Fort Santiago. The Spaniards used the two famous Novels of Rizal, Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo, pictures of Rizal in the KKK Headquarters, and the password of some Katipunero which was ‘Rizal’. Despite his specific denial of the accusation, Rizal was still ordered to be executed in Bagumbayan by Governor General Polavieja. The accusation of Rizal of being a member of Katipunan, who aimed to fight through the armed struggle against the abuses of the Spanish government, was similar to red-tagging. But, the so-called “red” to refer to an insurgency group was not invented in the Philippines.
.
After World War 1, there was a term “red scare” that promoted a rapid hysteria in response to the perceived threat posed by Communists in the United States. The person who was included in this Communist group was tagged as “red” because the Soviet flag was the color red. One of the early investigations into communist activities took place in the United States. In 1938, the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) was established. Following World War II, HUAC received new vigor with its investigations, which frequently focused on exposing Communists working for the federal government or subversive groups operating in the Hollywood film business. Moreover, probably one of the Anticommunist movements was most strongly linked with McCarthyism, named after Senator Joseph R. McCarthy. McCarthyism is the act of maliciously persecuting or accusing someone as a member of a communist group who aims to destroy the government. Senator McCarthy became a well-known and reviled figure in American politics because of his intimidation and innuendo against academics, celebrities, and everyone who quarreled with his political inclination.4 This McCarthyism dismantled the reputation and career of those who were being tagged as members of the subversive organization.
.
In the present time, however, it seems that the battle against this McCarthyism is far from over. In the executive branch, probably one of the popular victims of red-tagging was former Vice President Leni Robredo. Before or during her presidential bid, disinformation regarding his affiliation with the CPP-NPA-NDF was circulating on all social media platforms and it was peddled by the staunch supporters of President Bongbong Marcos. Pro-Marcos Vlogger’s worst assertion was that Robredo was not fit to be a president as communist groups would begin to rise after she assumes office. In the legislative branch, Bayan Muna Representative, Kabataan Partylist, and Anakpawis were top on the list.5 The former administration was contending that these were the legal front of the communists in Congress. The Judiciary was likewise not exempted from this red-baiting. Judge Marlo Magdoza-Malagar once dismissed a petition filed by the Department of Justice to consider the CPP-NPA as a terrorist group. As a result of this dismissal, attack dogs of the former and present administrations had been branding Judge Magdoza-Malagar as the protector of the said group. Furthermore, last 2021, Judge Monique Quisumbing-Ignacio of the Regional Trial Court of Mandaluyong had been targeted as she dismissed the case filed against Lady Ann Salem and trade unionist Rodrigo Esparago.6 The higher court, however, sternly warned any person who will red-tag our honorable Judges will be cited in contempt. This labeling by the government is done for a purpose.
.
In line with the government’s aim to protect the citizenry against these insurgency groups, tagging a person for these acts is part of the faithful execution of the law. During the Oral Argument of the Anti-Terror Law, The Office of the Solicitor General argued that they were not involved in the action of red-tagging because, instead, what they were doing was considered ‘truth-tagging’. Those persons being tagged as the communist group were in reality, according to the government, really part of said groups.7 According to Justice Secretary Remulla, the act was not technically red-tagging, but a way for our state leader to criticize some critics for helping the wrong people. The Government, according to him, was just responding to the critics of the government.8
.
Red-tagging has been more common in recent years, which has led to attacks on individuals, organizations, and groups, especially those defending the rights of marginalized and vulnerable groups. Red-tagging frequently targets outspoken government critics, which makes it simple to categorize them as an enemy of the State.9 These staunch critics of the government are now subjected to unfair discrimination and undue treatment by some sectors due to their alleged involvement in the communist insurgency. Members of the media, government officials, groups like Makabayan, teachers, lawyers, and even judges are being identified as subversive and leftist. While it is true that terrorism is both dangerous and a crime against the state, it is equally dangerous if our state leader, who is supposed to represent and protect us, can no longer draw a line between activism and terrorism. Dissent cannot be construed as a threat against the man in power. The government should invigorate, not inhibit, the voice of the electorate to denounce the acts of representatives as this right is embedded and written in black and white of our fundamental laws of the lands. The state authorities should know the wide distinction between terrorism and activism.
.
Activism is within the ambit of freedom of expression. Freedom of expression, as the name implies, is the right to express one’s thoughts, ideas, and visions. This freedom carries with it the duty to be fully aware of our societal problems to provide alternative solutions to these dilemmas and criticize our officials for their ineptitude to solve the said crisis. This right would be ideal if people could exercise the same without fear of repercussion. Free speech, like free press, may be identified with the liberty to discuss publicly and truthfully any matter of public concern without censorship or punishment.10 In the case of the Diocese of Bacolod v. Commission on Elections, the court said that the theory of deliberative democracy may evolve to the right of the people to make the government accountable. Necessarily, this includes the right of the people to criticize acts made pursuant to governmental functions.11 The jurisprudence is crystal clear that activism, as long as it is not linked to terrorism, is recognized and within the scope of freedom of expression. The Government should not promote fear by tagging someone as a communist when they are merely exercising their freedom of speech. Their alleged ‘truth-tagging’ should not be covered under the blanket of police power.
.
In the exercise of police power, the government should execute laws like the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 to prevent the recurrence of terrorist attacks in the country. Our penal system considered this terrorist attack as heinous and detrimental to the life of the people in the community. However, the highest court already settled in numerous cases that police power should pass the two tests: lawful subject and lawful means. While it is true that there is a lawful subject, the lawful means should not be in the form of red-tagging. Government officials should not resort to red-baiting or McCarthyism as a way of preventing the surge of terrorism, as this will embed fear in the populace and violate the rights of others.
.
Activism and terrorism are not the same word that can be used interchangeably; the two words contain distinct definitions and are not synonymous with each other. The former is recognized as a right formulated in our Constitution and rooted in our collective effort to fight for what is just. The latter is the product of wrongful intent to overthrow the government by means of force, intimidation, and threat, which is legally punishable under Philippine Law. Dissent, protest, and criticisms are not tantamount to terrorism as long as being observed within the bounds of law. A so-called license to harass in the guise of executing a law would not be and should not be a new norm on the part of the military. A fight against a wide crusade to trample our democratic rights under the pretext of protecting the same should continue to prevail.
.
References:
- Calleja v. Executive Secretary, G.R. Nos. 252578, 252579, 252580, 252585, 252613, 252623, 252624, 252646, 252702, 252726, 252733, 252736, 252741, 252747, 252755, 252759, 252765, 252767, 252768, 16663, 252802, 252809, 252903, 252904, 252905, 252916, 252921, 252984, 253018, 253100, 253118, 253124, 253242, 253252, 253254, 254191 & 253420, December 7, 2021
- Zarate v. Aquino III, G.R. No. 220028 (Notice), November 10, 2015
- Karapatan: Red-tagging is a threat, not simple freedom of expression.https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2022/10/12/2216209/karapatan-red-tagging-threat-not-simple-freedom-expression (Last visited November 19, 2022)
- Red Scare: https://www.history.com/topics/cold-war/red-scare (Last visited November 19, 2022)
5.Sarao, Z. (2022, March 30). Bayan Muna: Duterte’s red-tagging a ‘desperate election squid tactic’ Inquirer. https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1575858/bayan-muna-dutertes-red-tagging-a-desperate-election-squid-tactic (Last visited November 19, 2022) - Tupas, T. (2021, March 17). Mandaluyong judge gets red-tagged after dismissing case vs 2 activists. Inquirer. https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1407871/mandaluyong-judge-who-freed-2-activists-gets-red-tagged (Last visited November 19, 2022)
- Buan, L.(2021, May 4). Without grilling, OSG tells Supreme Court pantries were ‘truth-tagged. Rappler. https://www.rappler.com/nation/office-solicitor-general-tells-supreme-court-community-pantries-truth-tagged/ (Last visited November 19,2022)
8.Tupas, T (2022, October 12).Gov’t responding to criticisms, including red-tagging, is essence of democracy. Inquirer. https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1679146/govt-responding-to-criticisms-including-red-tagging-is-essence-of-democracy (Last visited November 19, 2022)
9Statement of the Commission on Human Rights on the attempt to trivialize and justify the dangers of red-tagging.https://chr.gov.ph/statement-of-the-commission-on-human-rights-on-the-attempt-to-trivialize-and-justify-the-dangers-of-red-tagging/#:~:text=The%20harms%20linked%20to%20red,enforced%20disappearance%2C%20and%20even%20killings. (Last visited November 19, 2022) - Reyes v. Bagatsing, 210 Phil, 457 (1983).
- The Diocese of Bacolod v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 205728, January 21, 2015.