1. Concept

In an article published by the International Peace Observers network (IPON)”,” red tagging” or “red baiting”

“describes the practice of state actors to publicly and detractively classify government-critical individuals and organisations as state enemies, communist terrorists or members of communist front organisations with the purpose of overthrowing the democratically legitimized state authority. Furthermore, state actors create an atmosphere of insecurity to indoctrinate the belief in an internal or external threat to national security in order to receive societal legitimation for the implementation of a legal framework that establishes a “state of exception”. Finally, state actors take concealed actions against these government-critical individuals and organisations.

The term Red-Baiting stems from the McCarthy era in the USA during the 1950s.x x x x[1]

In his Dissenting Opinion in the case of Zarate, et al. vs. Aquino, et al., [2] Philippine Supreme Court Associate Justice Marvic Leonen opined that “red tagging” or “red-baiting” as described in this case, was the Philippines’ version of McCarthyism:

“To make it easy for military and paramilitary units to silence or cause untold human rights abuses on vocal dissenters, government agents usually resort to stereotyping or caricaturing individuals. This is accomplished by providing witnesses who, under coercive and intimidating conditions, identify the leaders of organizations critical of the administration as masterminds of ordinary criminal acts. Not only does this make these leaders’ lives and liberties vulnerable, a chilling effect on dissent is also generated among similar-minded individuals.”

Further, Justice Leonen went on to say:

“The phenomenon of implicating progressive civil group leaders to heinous crimes is called”red baiting.“As stated by Alston, it is the”’vilification’, ’labelling’, or guilt by association“of various democratic organizations. These groups are stereotyped or caricatured by the military as communist groups, making them easy targets of government military or paramilitary units. Alston described this in detail in the Report of the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial Summary or Arbitrary Executions, Philip Alston, on His Mission to Philippines (12-21 February 2007).”[3]

This was made in reference to the Preliminary Note on the Visit of the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions, to the Philippines (12-21 February 2007)[4] by Prof. Philip Alston which in turn spoke of the underlying causes of the extra-judicial killings.

In the said document, Alston noted, among others, the underlying causes of the extra-judicial killings in the Philippines, thus:

“Those causes constitute the second level at which an effective national response is required. The first cause has been variously described as “vilification”, “labelling”, or guilt by association. It involves the characterization of most groups on the left of the political spectrum as “front organizations” for armed groups whose aim is to destroy democracy. The result is that a wide range of groups – including human rights advocates, labour union organizers, journalists, teachers unions, women’s groups, indigenous organizations, religious groups, student groups, agrarian reform advocates, and others – are classified as “fronts” and then as “enemies of the State” that are accordingly considered to be legitimate targets. The second cause is the extent to which aspects of the Government’s counter-insurgency strategy encourage or facilitate the extrajudicial killings of activists and other ‘enemies’ in certain circumstances. x x x x[5].”

Gleaned from the foregoing and based on abundant experience over the years, the concept of “red-tagging” or “red baiting” can be simply understood in essence as the practice engaged by the government, military, police or its agents and proxies of profiling, labelling, branding, smearing, vilifying, accusing and charging an individual or an organization as a member, front or as associated, connected or involved in the underground armed communist movement and/or its activities primarily because such individual or organization is openly critical of government policies and programs or takes positions on issues of public interest that are disfavored by the government.

Worse, the practice has even expanded to labeling such an individual or organization as “terrorists” and as such, are enemies of the state.

2. Purpose.

The practice of red-tagging has no other real purpose but to silence dissent and criticism and repress opposition and counter-narratives against government policies and actions. With the present Philippine government’s avowed goal of ending the communist insurgency through a so-called “whole of nation approach” in tandem with draconian measures like the Anti-Terrorism Law, without however effectively addressing the root causes of such armed resistance, the State continues to turn its forces and machinery towards such unarmed civilians and groups who are exercising their basic rights and fundamental freedoms in a democratic society.

3. Who are the targets of “red-tagging” or “red-baiting”?

Hence, any such person or organization who openly, critically and assiduously
asserts the basic human rights as enshrined in the Philippine Constitution, existing laws and international covenants and other instruments to which the Philippines is a party are or will be tagged as “communists-terrorists”. Even in the simplest expression of disapproval of, or disagreement with a government policy or action or inaction, one is susceptible of being red-tagged.

Those who legitimately support, in one way or another, an individual or an organization that espouses human rights, social justice and good governance and accountability, can also be invariably labelled as “communist-terrorist”.

4. Forms of Red Tagging.

The forms of red tagging vary: from a simple text message to a comment or post in social media, to public statements and packaged public fora and disinformation campaigns, to memes, leaflets, posters, and tarpaulins featuring the target’s names, faces and organizations linking or labelling them as underground members or as armed combatants which are hung at strategic locations around the cities or municipalities.

It can also involve fake, forced or simulated surrenders of so-called rebel returnees and of falsely implicating individuals as armed combatants or involved in armed operations of the rebels.

Moreover, the contrived and baseless connection between such individuals and organizations maliciously labelled as “communist fronts” in terms of “indoctrination” or “recruitment” primarily of youth and students to underground organizations is peddled in public by the military, police, their dubious assets and even by public officials.

This disingenuous narrative of recruitment and the imagined nexus has recently been categorically debunked as baseless by the Department of Justice and similarly by the Supreme Court in a criminal complaint and in an amparo petition, respectively, filed by misinformed mothers of activists who are goaded by security officials and by enablers, including lawyers, against labelled progressive individuals and youth and women’s groups.

These forms, singly or collectively, are taken as a subtle or brazen warning to both the victim and the public: for the victim to stop whatever she or he is doing, otherwise, she or he shall face dire consequences not only to her or his life, but also to that of her or his family and colleagues in the organization; and to the public, to not to trust, follow or listen to the victims as they are “enemies of the state”.

5. Why is this dangerous; repercussions.

Red-tagging is dangerous because it sends a chilling effect on the people’s exercise of basic rights and fundamental freedoms. Because of red-tagging, one may think twice to speak up on an injustice, or to support a legitimate cause or to assert one’s legitimate rights for fear of being tagged as a communist-terrorist. In this sense, red-tagging deprives the people of their very humanity of caring for each other and in striving to achieve a social order that is just and free from oppression.

When one is red-tagged, she or he is subjected to many forms of threats, harassments, intimidation and public scorn and stigma. It also impacts on one’s profession or advocacy.

Moreover, being tagged as a “communist” or “terrorist” is dangerous not only because it closes legal avenues to productive discourse and public participation.

But it also deliberately blurs the line between an active combatant and a legitimate activist or ordinary critic and thus places the victim on unfair grounds, as one who is labelled a terrorist can then be attacked as if she or he is an armed combatant.

If not gunned down or summarily killed, she or he faces judicial harassment in the form of trumped-up charges of usually non-bailable offenses so that she or he would languish in jail meanwhile or for an indefinite period.

6.Conclusion.

Prof. Alston recommended, way back in 2008[6], in the context of widespread extrajudicial killings, as well as of disappearances, torture and arbitrary arrests of activists and progressive organizations:

“The Government should immediately direct all military officers to cease making public statements linking political or other civil society groups to those engaged in armed insurgencies. Any such characterizations belong solely within the power of the civilian authorities. They must be based on transparent criteria, and conform with the human rights provisions of the Constitution and relevant treaties.[7]”

In closing, what is wrong with the ongoing vicious, relentless and wholesale red-tagging?

“Red-tagging violates the principle of presumption of innocence, of the freedom of association and is equivalent to guilt by mere association. In essence, it is a “done process” instead of “due process” because red-tagging condemns before it hears and is based on “evidence” that is not credible, competent or admissible & even on no evidence at all. And aside from these constitutional grounds also recognized in international human rights instruments, it is contrary to the principle in international humanitarian law that civilians and non-combatants are not legitimate objects of attack or should not be targets of reprisal.[8]”

National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers (NUPL)