COMMENTARY: A Preliminary Sampling of What is Not Red-Tagging (First of 8 Parts)

This preliminary sampling of what is not red-tagging is guided by our study of the two 2024-uploaded 2023 Supreme Court (SC) Decisions in Deduro vs. Vinoya[1] and in two consolidated Badoy-Partosacases[2] in so far as these, especially the former, characterize or define red-tagging, short of a Republic Act of Congress defining and penalizing or otherwise prohibiting red-tagging.  Our study of the said two SC Decisions, esp. Deduro, has led us to formulate the following proposed synthesis definition of red-tagging as:

the malicious and/or unfounded publicly-made connection, linking or association of aboveground open and legal organizations and individuals as cohorts or partisans of the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP), New People’s Army (NPA) and/or the National Democratic Front of the Philippines (NDFP), including but not limited to calling or labelling them as “reds,” “communists,” “(communist) terrorists,” “subversives,” or the like, to silence, discourage or delegitimize their legitimate exercise of various constitutional freedoms, especially of political dissent, critical discourse and human rights advocacy, in ways or under circumstances that constitute threats to a person’s right to life, liberty or security, such as by intimidation, harassment and surveillance, on the part of State agents or   civilian proxies of the State’s counter-insurgency efforts against the CPP-NPA-NDFP.   

In this proposed synthesis definition of red-tagging, it is not merely the publicly-made connection, linking or association of aboveground open and legal organizations and individuals as cohorts or partisans of the CPP-NPA-NDF or its “front organizations.”  For this to constitute red-tagging, we glean from the two above-said SC Decisions these three crucial elements:

1. Most crucial, accompaniment by “threats to a person’s right to life, liberty or security,” including but not limited to “intimidation, harassment and surveillance”

• Malicious purpose or motive to “silence,” “discourage” or “delegitimize” the legitimate exercise of various constitutional freedoms, especially of political dissent, critical discourse and human rights advocacy

• Unfounded, “without showing any factual basis,” “not grounded in truth and facts”

One or more of these three crucial elements, esp. “the use of threats and intimidation,” would make the said publicly-made connection, etc. red-tagging.  Otherwise, in the absence of these three crucial elements, it is not red-tagging.

To illustrate what is not red-tagging as properly defined above with three crucial elements, we provide below a preliminary sampling from some actual documents, events and cases since the founding of the CPP-NPA in 1968-69.  The sampling below is not chronological but arranged by the kind of activity, speech or writing presumed to be in the legitimate exercise of various constitutional freedoms, rights and duties.

[1]  Excerpt from “Human rights group calls out to radio broadcasters for Red-tagging and malicious accusations” (English version),  Ang Bayan (CPP), July 03, 2024, https://philippinerevolution.nu/angbayan/2-brodkaster-sa-radyo-kinastigo-sa-red-tagging-at-malisyosong-akusasyon/.  This Ang Bayan news report presents the view of Karapatan-Central Luzon, without presenting the side of the two veteran DZRH radio broadcasters Angelo Palmones and Cheska San Diego-Bobadilla whom it called out for red-tagging:

Karapatan-Central Luzon called out Radyo Natin Nationwide broadcasters Angelo Palmones and Cheska San Diego-Bobadilla, for Red-tagging and spewing malicious accusations during their radio program on July 1. According to the group, the broadcasters spread misinformation, defamation and uninformed opinions against Karapatan after it assisted the families of slain Red fighters killed in Pantabangan, Nueva Ecija on June 26.

The broadcasters spoke after a report by journalist Armi Carranza of Radyo Natin Guimba. Carranza reported that the remains of one of those killed in Pantabangan have been brought home to the town of Guimba, Nueva Ecija. The group said Carranza objectively reported the side of the families and friends, as well as the military side, before Palmones and San Diego-Bobadilla spread their malicious accusations.

xxx

According to Karapatan-Central Luzon, the two broadcasters also stated that the group should advise its comrades in the mountains and inform them that the government has programs so there is no more reason to go to the mountains. Palmones and Sandiego-Bobadilla maliciously linked Karapatan to the armed revolutionary movement.

“It is important to correct Angelo Palmones and Cheska San Diego-Bobadilla and other journalists that Karapatan-Central Luzon, [and chapters] in various regions and nationally, is a legal organization of human rights defenders,” it said.

They said the statements of Palmones and San Diego-Bobadilla that Karapatan are comrades with those who chose to join the armed struggle are dangerous to the life, freedom and security of volunteers and human rights defenders. “Such statements put targets on our backs, and label us as enemies of the government, who can then be abducted and killed,” Karapatan-Central Luzon added.

And so, it must be asked: Were the reported radio broadcast statements of Palmones and San Diego-Bobadilla made with the use of threats and intimidation?  With the malicious purpose or motive to silence, discourage or delegitimize the legitimate exercise of various constitutional freedoms?  Unfounded, i.e., not grounded in truth and facts?  Or do such radio broadcast statements constitute protected speech and media commentary?  But surely, being called out for “red-tagging” thru the CPP organ Ang Bayan must have had a “chilling effect” on the press freedom of the said two radio broadcasters.

SOLIMAN M. SANTOS, JR. is a retired Judge of the RTC of Naga City, Camarines Sur, serving in the judiciary there from 2010 to 2022.  He has an A.B. in History cum laude from U.P. in 1975, a Bachelor of Laws from the University of Nueva Caceres (UNC) in Naga City in 1982, and a Master of Laws from the University of Melbourne in 2000.  He is a long-time human rights and international humanitarian lawyer; legislative consultant and legal scholar; peace advocate, researcher and writer; and author of a number of books, including on the Moro and Communist fronts of war and peace. Among his authored books are The Moro Islamic Challenge: Constitutional Rethinking for the Mindanao Peace Process (UP Press, 2001);  How do you solve a problem like the GRP-NDFP peace process? Part 2 (Sulong Peace, 2022); and his latest, Tigaon 1969: Untold Stories of the CPP-NPA, KM and SDK (Ateneo Press, 2023). He also has a trilogy of books on his court work and practice:  Justice of the Peace (2015), Drug Cases (2022), and Judicial Activist (2023), all published by Central Books, Inc., Quezon City.

[1]  G.R. No. 254753, July 6, 2023, uploaded May 7, 2024, penned by Associate Justice Rodil V. Zalameda; Concurring Opinion by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen.

[2]  A.M. No. 22-09-16-SC and G.R. No. 263384, August 15, 2023, uploaded February 28, 2024, penned by SAJ Leonen.