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”

2. 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

3. 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.

-------------

[2] The Manila Times (MT) 2016-2022 opinion column pieces of veteran journalist (and admitted former CPP Manila-Rizal Regional Committee secretary) Rigoberto D. Tiglao on front organizations and personalities of the CPP-NPA-NDFP, to name 15 of many such pieces:

— “The ideological bankruptcy of the Communist Party and its fronts,” MT, November 30, 2016

— “Communists in Duterte’s gov’t: Good or bad?” MT, January 6, 2017

— “Sara tells it like it is: 6 party-list groups are communist fronts,” MT, October 26, 2018

— “Duterte: Bayan Muna, KMU, Gabriela are communist fronts,” MT, December 7, 2018

— “The communists’ most successful strategy – but don’t Red-tag it,” MT, June 3, 2019

— “Shameless prostitution of academe: The communist party’s martial law course at UP,” MT, September 26, 2019

— “Sison, with his huge ego, red-tagged his communist fronts long ago,” MT, September 14, 2020

— “The Communist Party and Sison’s greatest trick,” MT, November 9, 2020

— “Communist Party’s greatest trick: Shocking examples,” MT, November 11, 2020

— “How communists gained control of UP Student Council, Philippine Collegian, and most campus organizations,” MT, January 11, 2021

— “Communists’ continuing infiltration of media a reality,” MT, June 11, 2021

— “Stop exposing communist fronts? That’s nuts,” MT, July 13, 2022

— “Court ruling that CPP-NPA not terrorists astonishingly absurd,” MT, October 3, 2022

— “Judge uses the usual communist propaganda line in CPP-NPA decision,” MT, October 5, 2022

— “ ‘Husband of judge in terrorist case a member of CPP front organization’,” MT, October 17, 2022

A long sample passage from the above-listed Tiglao opinion column piece “The communists’ most successful strategy – but don’t Red-tag it” (MT, June 3, 2019), citing his own personal experience and knowledge, reads as follows:

This strategy is its use of fronts and of organizations it had infiltrated and whose leadership it had captured. These are exploited not just to recruit people into their ranks but to disseminate its propaganda and to acquire finances, especially from gullible Western do-gooder NGOs and foundations.

… Even media had hesitated to expose these Red fronts and puppet organizations for fear of being called Red-baiters, afraid that they could be targeted by the New People’s Army assassination teams….

The process, which I myself experienced, was as follows. Either excited over the huge youth demonstrations in Washington and Paris, or seeking an organization defying the mimic-America culture of that period and championing nationalism, students, mainly from UP, Lyceum, and the Philippine College of Commerce (now the Polytechnic University of the Philippines) – schools where Sison or his first comrades taught – joined the KM [Kabataang Makabayan].

After enjoying the KM’s camaraderie — it had a penthouse headquarters in Quezon Avenue where you could hang out and sleep — and more importantly, after experiencing “police brutality” — and consequently radicalized — in demonstrations, its members would be ripe for their introduction to Mao Zedong Thought and communist dogma.

Its most active members — almost all in their teen-age years or early 20s — would be invited to apply as “candidate member” of the Communist Party, and a young man would almost always be flattered to be invited to join some kind of elite secret society. Indeed, it was nearly a religious ritual when a candidate becomes a full-member, raises his fist, swears to the party constitution with the hammer-and-sickle flag hanging on the wall, and is given a .45 or an Armalite bullet as a souvenir.

Many would be invited to join the NPA, romanticized as already liberating peasants in their mountain “bases” in Isabela. Many of them would be killed in a few months in firefights with the police or town militias, who thought they were bandits….

It was the KM template that Sison and the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) used to expand the communist ranks throughout martial law. Just as KM was the recruiting venue for the youth, the party set up mass organizations for several “sectors” — among them workers, peasants, teachers, artists and even for OFWs….

One kind of organization that advances the CPP’s agenda are those it had infiltrated and captured the leadership of, which includes the Rural Missionaries of the Philippines, one of three groups that filed a case in the Supreme Court to stop the military’s alleged “red-tagging.” Most of the members of such organizations are not CPP members but its leaders are, who convince the members that their political activism is for some noble goal, for instance, fighting for human rights.

There are dozens now of such organizations. The website Bulatlat for instance posts nothing but news articles and opinion pieces critical of government since it was set up, expounds on the same propaganda line the party undertakes in different periods of time, and even covers on the ground the CPP and NPA’s anniversary celebration. I get very regular emails from a “Children’s Rehabilitation Center,” which report only on alleged abuses of the Armed Forces of the Philippines.

The other two kinds of CPP organizations are, first, those which are “underground,” completely controlled by the party, but called “allied organizations” of the National Democratic Front of the Philippines (NDFP) in order to portray it as an alliance of independent revolutionary organizations representing various sectors of Filipinos. The NPA and even the first mass organization that Sison set up, the KM, are such NDFP member organizations.

While these organizations recruit their own members, these also act as the command centers of the second type of CPP-controlled entities, the legal organizations, which include the “party-lists.”

This may as well segue to a shorter sample passage from a later above-listed Tiglao opinion column piece “The Communist Party and Sison’s greatest trick” (MT, November 9, 2020), also citing his own personal experience and knowledge, which reads as follows:

These Red party-lists don’t even have an organizational structure or officials. It is the Communist Party that tells all these parties who their representatives will be in Congress.

I know that for a fact. When I asked for a meeting with these party-list representatives in early 2004 to try to secure their support for President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo [sic] election, I and my late deputy Renato Velasco, went to the assigned meeting venue, a steakhouse in Quezon City.

We were surprised that it was Rafael Baylosis whom Quimpo’s book mentioned above said was one of the two top leaders of the party’s highest body, the executive committee of the central committee, who met with us. A comrade from the University of the Philippines days, it was Baylosis who negotiated with us for the party-lists’ support for Arroyo (which we didn’t get).

In a separate table were Teodoro Casiño and two other party-list representatives; they said absolutely nothing at the meeting, they were focused only on the T-bone steaks they ordered. They were there to convince us that it was the party through Baylosis who called the shots.

And so as regards such Tiglao opinion column pieces on front organizations and personalities of the CPP-NPA-NDFP, it should again be asked: were they 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 opinion column pieces constitute protected speech and media commentary? Both anti-CPP statements like those of Tiglao as well as pro-CPP statements are to be protected under the constitutional freedoms of speech and of the press[3] but these are qualified by “the legitimate exercise thereof” in p. 14 of Badoy-Partosa.[4] The qualification “legitimate” must be understood to mean “for purposes not contrary to law”[5] nor for means not contrary to law, stated otherwise lawful purposes (ends) and means. Badoy-Partosa in p. 17 likewise speaks of “a right to publish the truth”[6] All these under our constitutional “regime of truth.”[7] And so, telling the truth (truth-telling)[8] would appear to make a difference also in issues of red-tagging.

Incidentally, the last three above-enumerated columns pertained to the Resolution dated 21 September 2022 by RTC Manila Branch 19 Judge Marlo A. Magdoza-Malagar in Civil Case No. R-MNL-18-00925-CV (Department of Justice vs. CPP and NPA) which dismissed the DOJ Petition to proscribe or declare the CPP-NPA as terrorist groups under Section 17 of the Republic Act No. 9372 (the Human Security Act of 2007), even as this was already repealed by R.A. 11479 (the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020). Tiglao severely lambasted Judge Magdoza-Malagar for her court decision, as had broadcast journalist Dr. Lorraine Marie T. Badoy-Partosa, a former spokesperson of the National Task Force to End Local Communist Armed Conflict (NTF-ELCAC), in several social media posts. This precisely was the subject of the afore-mentioned Badoy-Partosa cases finding her guilty of indirect contempt of court for, among others, “the harmful, vicious, and unnecessary manner in which respondent launched her criticism” and “vitriolic statements and outright threats against Judge Magdoza-Malagar.” It remains to be seen whether Tiglao’s opinion column criticism against her could or would be similarly sanctioned judicially, as there do not appear to have been red-tagging cases filed against him so far unlike with Dr. Badoy-Partosa and other NTF-ELCAC-related personalities.

-----------------

[3] Excerpt from the Resolution dated 21 September 2022 by RTC Manila Branch 19 Judge Marlo A. Magdoza-Malagar in Civil Case No. R-MNL-18-00925-CV (Department of Justice vs. CPP and NPA) which dismissed the DOJ Petition to proscribe or declare the CPP-NPA as terrorist groups under Section 17 of the Republic Act No. 9372 [hereinafter the “Judge Magdoza-Malagar Resolution”].

Having already mentioned the Judge Magdoza-Malagar Resolution as a subject of three Tiglao opinion column pieces on front organizations and personalities of the CPP-NPA-NDFP, we may as well point out (what Tiglao and Dr. Badoy-Partosa missed) that the Resolution, as part of its findings of fact, extensively discusses with detailed information in pp. 37-48 the “Revolutionary Dual Tactics in the Recruitment Process” of the CPP-NPA-NDFP based mainly on the testimonies of petitioner DOJ’s witnesses Noel Minoto Legaspi, Joy James Alcoser Saguino, and Jeffrey Luces Celiz. They are all former CPP-NPA cadres who once operated at increasingly high levels in the movement aboveground and underground in the Visayas and Mindanao, and as such are considered “insider witnesss.” To quote the Resolution: (boldface and italics in the original)

Legaspi elaborates on the inseparable link among the CPP-NPA-NDF by connecting it to the inseparable link between the armed struggle espoused by the underground movements (UGMOs) and the unarmed urban revolutionary mass movements espoused by the unarmed movements, the National Democratic Mass Organizations (NDMOs) or the “open” or “above-ground organizations”… Unarmed parliamentary or legal struggle[9] has a symbioltic relationship with the NPA’s armed struggle. Legal fronts or NDMOs have the component tasked to organize UGMOs such that these legal forms usually have an urban core force that supports the armed struggle. The “symbiotic relationship” or “mutualism” between the armed struggle and the unarmed urban revolutionary mass movements complement each other as they share the same end of seizing control of the government and establishing the People’s Democratic Republic of the Philippines.

As a basic principle, armed struggle is the primary and decisive form of struggle to overthrow the government. In essence, it is illegal. This is not to say however, that the field of unarmed struggle can be classified as primarily “legal;” arguably, it can still be classified as illegal because it implements the revolutionary dual tactics, defined as the combination of both “legal” and “illegal” tactics of the CPP. Moreover, within legal organizations or NDMOs or front organizations are secret organizations or UGMOs that support the first form of struggle of the CPP, i.e., the armed struggle….

x x x

Witness Joy Sanguino corroborated Legaspi’s testimony and further identified the NDMOs targeting specific groups or sectors and their corresponding UGMOs as follows:

Sector	UGMO	NDMO
Youth and Student	Kabataang Makabayan (KM)	- Anakbayan - League of Filipino Students (LFS) - National Union of Students of the Philippines (NUSP) - College Editors Guild of the Philippines (CEGP) - Student Christian Movement of the Philippines (SCMP)
Women	Malayang Kilusan ng Bagong Kababaihan (MAKIBAKA)	- Gabriela Youth - Gabriela Women’s Party
Farmers, Fisher folks and Peasants	Pambansang Katipunan ng Magbubukid (PKM)	- Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas (KMP) - Unyon ng Magsasaka sa Agrikultura (UMA) - Pambansang Lakas ng mga Mamamalakaya (PAMALAKAYA)
Workers	Revolutionary Council of Trade Unions (RCTU)	- Kilusang Mayo Uno (KMU)
Urban Poor	Katipunan ng mga Samahang Manggagawa (KASAMA)	- Katipunan na Damayang Mahihirap (KADAMAY)
Transport	Pambansang Samahan ng mga Makabayang Tsuper (PSMT)	- Pinagkaisang Samahan ng mga Tsuper at Opereytor Nationwide (PISTON)
Teachers	Katipunan ng mga Gurong Makabayan (KAGUMA)	- Alliance of Concerned Teachers (ACT) - Congress of Teachers and Educators for Nationalism and Democracy (CONTEND)
Government	Makabayang Kawaning Pilipino (MKP)	Confederation for Unity and Advancement of Government Employees (COURAGE)
Health	Makabayang Samahang Pangkalusugan (MASAPA)	- Alliance of Health Workers (AHW) - Health Alliance for Democracy (HEAD)
Lawyers	Lupon ng Manananggol para sa Bayan (LUMABAN)	- National Union of People’s Lawyers (NUPL)
Scientists	Liga ng Agham para sa Bayan (LAB)	AGHAM
Church	Christians for National Liberation (CNL)	- Promotion of Church Peoples’ Response (PCPR)
Artists	Artista at Manunulat ng Sambayanan (ARMAS)	- National Union of Journalists in the Philippines (NUJP) - Concerned Artists of the Philippines - Musika Alay sa Bayan

[Author’s note: AGHAM refers to Alyansa ng Agham para sa Mamamayan, while Concerned Artists of the Philippines goes by the acronym CAP. The above listing of NDMOs does not appear to be exhaustive or complete, in terms of sectors and organizations, and any such listing is bound to be contested. Manila Times columnist Rigoberto D. Tiglao for example writes of “the party’s over a hundred front organizations.”[10]]

In the recruitment process, the members of the NDMOs are recruited to join the UGMOs. Members of the UGMOs are recruited to become cadres and members of the CPP-NPA….

x x x

… there is no direct recruitment into the CPP from the “open organizations” or NDMOs. Each possible recruit is first recruited into the NDMOs before being considered for membership in the UGMOs and ultimately in the CPP-NPA. Arguably, it can be said that underneath the seemingly legal status of NDMOs is a hidden process of recruitment into the armed struggle to overthrow the government.

The indispensability of the UGMOs and NDMOs to the recruitment process of the CPP-NPA and to the armed struggle to overthrow the GRP [Government of the Reoublic of the Philippines] is pursuant to the strategic political line of the CPP-NPA-NDF which has remained unchanged for more than five (5) decades…

Now, the Judge Magdoza-Malagar Resolution, particularly its above-quoted passage and especially table, can hardly be deemed as red-tagging. The Resolution was done in the legitimate exercise of constitutional, more precisely judicial, power and duty.[11] As a judicial decision, the final unappealed Resolution is already “a part of the legal system of the Philippines.”[12] Futhermore, the Resolution has been reaffirmed by the CPP in this way: “…we welcome the September 21, 2022 decision of the Manila RTC dismissing the said petition of the DOJ in which it failed to establish any basis for declaring the CPP and NPA as terrorists…. On initial reading, we found the 135-page decision penned by Judge Marlo Magdoza-Malagar reasonable and fair.”[13] Ironically though, the aforesaid three “insider witnesses” whom Judge Magdoza-Malagar relied on as credible enough for the subject of “Revolutionary Dual Tactics in the Recruitment Process” of the CPP-NPA-NDFP are among the “top Red-taggers” as identified by the CPP.[14]

What if an ordinary citizen said or wrote what Judge Magdoza-Malagar said in writing in the above-quoted passage and table from her Resolution? Would it be treated as protected speech or would it be a different matter of being treated as red-tagging? In Deduro at p. 35, the SC said “We consider a tarpaulin connecting a judge to the CPP as a threat. With equal fervor, we hold that a similar tarpaulin harping on alleged ties between civilians and the CPP is also a threat.” Perhaps, it like manner of equal protection of the law,[15] the above-said ordinary citizen’s statements similar to the quoted Judge Magdoza-Malagar Resolution passage and table should not be treated as red-tagging in the likewise absence of the use of threats, of the malicious purpose of impeding constitutional rights and liberties, and of being unfounded.

-------------

[4] Table on Major Leftist Parties [of Communist/National Democratic (ND) Tradition] in the Philippines in Figure 2.2 at p. 64 of Nathan Gilbert Quimpo, Contested Democracy and the Left in the Philippines After Marcos (Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press, 2008).

Quimpo is currently an associate professor of political science at the University of Tsukuba in Japan, but was formerly a high-level CPP cadre in Mindanao and Western Europe.[16] He knows whereof he speaks. The above-said Table is as follows:

Marxist-Leninist-Maoist	Marxist-Leninist
Underground party: CPP (Communist Party of the Philippines) Guerrilla army: NPA (New People’s Army) Allied legal parties: Bayan Muna, Anakpawis, Gabriela	Legal party: PKP (Partido Komunista ng Pilipinas)
Underground party: MLPP (Marxist-Leninist Party of the Philippines) Guerrilla army: RHB (Rebolusyonaryong Hukbong Bayan) Allied legal party: None	Underground party: PMP (Partido ng Manggagawang Pilipino) Guerrilla army: None Allied legal parties: PM (Partido ng Manggagawa), Sanlakas
	Underground party: RPM-P (Rebolusyonaryong Partido ng Manggagawa – Pilipinas) Guerrilla army: RPA-ABB (Revolutionary People’s Army[17] – Alex Boncayao Brigade) Allied legal party: Alab Katipunan
	Underground party: RPM-M (Rebolusyonaryong Partido ng Manggagawa – Mindanao) Guerrilla army: RPA-M (Revolutionary People’s Army – Mindanao)[18] Allied legal party: AMIN [until 2007, note from the editor] (Anak Mindanao)

(Data from interviews and discussions with leaders of leftist parties)

This table is obviously part of an academic work in the legitimate exercise of constitutional academic freedom,[19] including when presented and discussed in the classroom for political science courses. Though legal political electoral parties are publicly linked here to underground Communist parties and some guerrilla armies, this hardly amounts to red-tagging. Besides, there is clearly no use of threats, no malicious purpose to impede constitutional rights and liberties, and no unfounded information.

-----------------

[5] “Philippine Left Political Map: A Working List” in the Rebolusyonaryong Partido ng Manggagawa-Pilipinas (RPM-P) political tract “The Philippine Left Milieu” (2022)

The above-said RPM-P “Philippine Left Political Map: A Working List” follows in full: [words in brackets are added]

Reaffirmists

CPP

NDMOs [Sector]

Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (BAYAN) Political Org

Gabriela Women

League of Filipino Students (LFS) Youth

Kilusang Mayo Uno (KMU) Trade Unions

Anakbayan Community Youth

Anakpawis Urban Poor

National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers (NUPL) Lawyers

Confederation for Unity Recognition and Advancement

of Government Employees (COURAGE) Government Employees

AMIHAN Peasant Women

Alay Sining Artists

KALIKASAN Environment

Kabataan Youth

Alliance of Concerned Teachers (ACT) Teachers

Kalipunan ng Damayang Mahihirap (KADAMAY) Urban Poor

KATRIBU Indigenous People

Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas (KMP) Peasant

MIGRANTE OFWS

PAMALAKAYA Fisherfolk

Karapatan Human Rights

Panday Sining Artists

NPA

NDF

Moro Resistance Liberation Organization (MRLO) Moros

Kabataang Makabayan (KM) Youth

Revolutionary Council of Trade Unions (RCTU) Trade Unionists

Pambansang Katipunan ng Magbubukid (PKM) Peasants

Malayang Kilusan ng Bagong Kababaihan (MAKIBAKA) Women

Christians for National Liberation (CNL) Church

Katipunan ng Gurong Makabayan (KAGUMA) Teachers

Makabayang Samahan Pangkalusugan (MASAPA) Health Workers

Liga ng Agham Para sa Bayan (LAB) Scientists

Lupon ng Manananggol para sa Bayan (LUMABAN) Lawyers

Artista at Manunulat para sa Sambayanan (ARMAS) Artists

Makabayang Kawaning Pilipino (MKP) Government Employees

Revolutionary Organization of Overseas Filipinos

and their Families (COMPATRIOTS) OFWs

Cordillera People’s Democratic Front (CPDF) Cordilleran

Rejectionists

PMP

Sanlakas Political Org

Bukluran ng Manggagawang Pilipino (BMP) Trade Unions

Partido Lakas ng Masa (PLM) Political Org

Oriang Women

Samahan ng Progresibong Kabataan (SPARK) Youth

Alyansa ng Magsasaka sa Amulung (AMA) Peasants

Zone One Tondo Organization (ZOTO) Urban Poor

Kongreso ng Pagkakaisa ng Maralitang Lungsod (KPML) Urban Poor

Philippine Movement for Climate Justice (PMCJ) Environment

People 4 Power Coalition (P4P) Energy Sector

PMP

Partido [ng] Manggagawa Political Org

Others

[Ideology]

Bandilang Itim Anarchism

PKP1930 Marxism-Leninism

Pandayan para sa Sosyalistang Pilipinas Democratic Socialism

Bukluran sa Ikauunlad ng Sosyalistang Isip at Gawa

(BISIG) Democratic Socialism

AKBAYAN Democratic Socialism

The RPM-P, as a “rejectionist” faction that split from the “reaffirmist” CPP, knows of where it came from, well enough to identify its national-democratic mass organizations (NDMOs), elsewhere referred to as “legal fronts,” as part of the regular political mapping done by revolutionary organizations. Is this red-tagging? Hardly. Again, there is clearly no use of threats, no malicious purpose to impede constitutional rights and liberties, and no unfounded information.

---------------------

[6] Excerpts from the historical works of academic Joseph Paul Scalice (currently assistant professor of history at the Hong Kong Baptist University) on the history of the two Communist Parties in the Philippines, particularly on their Front Organizations

One sample academic historical discussion of the front organization of the old Lava family-led Partido Komunista ng Pilipinas (PKP) and its successor Sison-led Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) is found in the following passages of Chapter 18 “Split in the Front Organizations” of Joseph Paul Scalice, Crisis of Revolutionary Leadership: Martial Law and the Communist Parties of the Philippines, 1959-1974, A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in South and Southeast Asian Studies in the Graduate School of the University of California, Berkeley, Summer 2017: (underscorings supplied)

As the 1967-68 school year opened, the split which had taken place in the PKP exploded the campus front organizations of the Communist Party, beginning with the Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation [BRPF]. The split in the PKP was the expression of the Sino-Soviet split; the split in the BRPF of that in the PKP. The intractable fault lines running through the front organizations of the Communist Party were never probed, however; they were depicted exclusively as the result of the personal perfidy of individual rival leaders. These tensions reft the movement and by late November they exploded the Kabataang Makabayan [KM] into multiple opposed organizations, each denouncing the other in language that was both strident and vague. (pp. 320-21)

xxx

At the beginning of the first semester of the new school year – in late July 1967 – the expulsion of the Sison group from the PKP and the imported politics of the Cultural Revolution found open expression in an explosion of political conflict at UP Diliman.[20] A strained calm hung over the campus as the semester convened; the expelled and the expellers both had their hands on the reins of the party’s front organizations, and they eyed each other nervously, waiting to see who would make the first move. On July 13, Joma Sison chaired a meeting at up Town Hall to plan a joint seminar on nationalism which was to be held at the end of the month. The meeting involved the Plebeians – who were sponsoring the seminar; Sanduguang Kayumanggi [Brown Blood Brotherhood] (SK); BRPF; SCAUP [Student Cultural Association of the University of the Philippines]; Humanist Association; and KM. The article announcing the meeting concluded “Observers anticipate the formation of a federation among the six groups. According to one of the leaders, it is high time that nationalist organizations unite to thwart the anti-nationalist elements in the University.”[21] This move toward federation, which involved bringing loosely nationalist organizations such as the Plebeians and Sanduguang Kayumanggi into an alliance with the front organizations of the PKP, precipitated a fierce battle for control of the BRPF, SCAUP and KM.

Over the coming semester the pages of each week’s Collegian carried the allegations, counter-allegations and denunciations made by the rival parties within the various Stalinist front organizations in a battle which would culminate in the explosion of the KM into a host of rival groups. Throughout this period, the one unmentionable yet all determining feature of the struggle within the front organizations of the PKP was that their internal factions were shaped by the split within the party itself. Despite its centrality, no one discussed the PKP or its split. When the PKP expelled the Sison group in April 1967, the rival sections did not openly discuss within the Philippines the question of loyalty to Moscow or Beijing, but in a deliberately subjective manner focused on the personal treachery of their rivals which manifested itself seemingly without any political basis. So too now, as the various front organizations of the PKP fell upon each other in a vicious faction fight, they focused on personal treachery and subterfuge, never once mentioning that the fault lines in the various front groups corresponded to the fault lines within the party, and that these, in turn, followed the fault lines of Stalinist geopolitics. The leadership of these organizations were aware that the roots of this dispute rested in the split within the PKP, and the highest echelons of leadership knew that it was rooted in the Sino-Soviet split. The majority of the membership, however, were told that what was at stake was not a political dispute whose roots and logic could be analyzed and assessed, but rather the individual rottenness of certain leaders. All told, the manner in which both the PKP and Sison’s group handled the split ensured that the students, youth and workers were systematically politically miseducated. (pp. 325-26)

Surely, this historical exposition publicly naming certain front organizations of the PKP and naming Jose Maria Sison for his key role there and later the breakaway CPP does not pass for red-tagging. This is clearly a legitimate exercise of academic freedom, just like in the previous sample from Quimpo. Besides, there is clearly no use of threats, no malicious purpose to impede constitutional rights and liberties, and no unfounded information.

In the book version of the above-cited Scalice dissertation, i.e. Joseph Scalice, The Drama of Dictatorship: Martial Law and the Communist Parties of the Philippines (Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University, 2023), the narrative from the above-quoted historical account is continued in the following p. 108 passage: (underscoring supplied)

The CPP and its front organizations aggressively accosted the PKP in their publications, denouncing them as tools of the Soviet Union. Its back pressed to the wall, the PKP responded, decrying the KM and its allies for “splittism,” “left extremism,” and “anarchism;” Moscow had nothing to do with the matter, they claimed. The initial salvo in the increasingly vicious war of words were fired by the CPP. In May 1970, the NPA released a leaflet denouncing the “Monkees-Armeng Bayan-MASAKA (Lava) Gang.”[22] The NPA claimed that Lava’s group had “degenerated into a handful of out and out agents of the reactionary government,” and then proceeded to name the lot of them.[23] From the perspective of the PKP, the CPP had just publicly named almost the entire membership of the Central Committee.[24] In July the Diliman election statement of the KM attacked the PKP as “relics of the Old Left” now defending Marcos.

The last footnote there copied below contains this interesting sentence: “A year later the PKP would reciprocate, naming Sison and others as members of the CPP, and Sison would denounce them for ‘red-baiting’.” Ironic. It would thus seem that the Reds both Old and New have been guilty of themselves red-tagging their intra-Left political rivals, to the extent of exposing names of rival Left leaders for government or rival Left retribution. The totality of circumstances appear to indicate threats to personal security.[25] More ironic (or moronic, for short), “subversives” are threatening and discouraging fellow “subversive” travelers.[26]

Relevant Note:

This came to the fore in more recent times when the CPP in its Ang Bayan issue of December 7, 2004 at p. 9 presented in a diagram the “Links of counterrevolutionary groups with Trotskyites and Social Democrats” which among others implicated former elements or members of certain territorial and sectoral units and special organs of the CPP that broke away from it and formed rival Marxist-Leninist party and/or political formations such as the RPM-P (Arturo Tabara, Nilo dela Cruz), RPM-M (Ike de los Reyes), PMP (Popoy Lagman), SPP (Sonny Melencio), PPD (Manjette Lopez, Liddy Nakpil), Padayon (Ric Reyes, Etta Rosales), and MLPP (Tito dela Cruz, Caridad Pascual). [The latter have since been more popularly referred to collectively as “rejectionist” (RJ) factions in opposition to the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist “reaffirmist” (RA) mainstream CPP of Jose Maria Sison.] But the matrix also showed related links of and with other, non-communist, political formations like PopDem and IPD (Walden Bello, Boy Morales, Gani Serrano), and Akbayan (Padayon, IPD + BISIG and Pandayan). The diagram purports to “show the links of [these] local petty-bourgeois reformist and pseudo-revolutionary groups with international Trotskyite and Social Democratic formations” like Socialist International, DSP-Australia, and the 4^th International.

Most of those named “rejectionist” party formations and personalities, as well as the other, non-communist, political formations, and even some of their above-identified international links, treated the said CPP matrix as a “Hit List” of sorts. This was because some of the named (Tabara, Lagman) and other unnamed (e.g. Romulo Kintanar) “rejectionist” leaders, as well as those even of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and people’s organizations (POs) associated with the named other, non-communist, political formations like Akbayan were killed, either boldly claimed by the CPP-NPA to be “punitive actions” against them, or under circumstances tending to point to the CPP-NPA as the perpetrators.[27] There was of course the usual intra-Left polemical back-and-forth on this “Hit List” issue.[28]

The point of this relevant note on intra-Left red-tagging, particularly by the CPP of its rival “rejectionist” party formation leaders, is its detraction from whatever moral ascendancy the CPP may have in itself validly raising the issue of red-tagging by state forces and proxies characterized likewise by the use of threats.

--------------------

[7] Excerpts from the Supreme Court Decision in Lansang vs. Garcia, 42 SCRA 448 (1971), which upheld the August 21, 1971 Presidential Proclamation No. 889 announced August 23, 1971 on the suspension the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shortly after the August 21, 1971 Plaza Miranda Bombing

First Excerpt (at p. 477, citation omitted, underscorings supplied)

In the language of the Report on Central Luzon, submitted, on September 4, 1971, by the Senate Ad Hoc Committee of Seven — copy of which Report was filed in these cases by the petitioners herein —

‘The years following 1963 saw the successive emergence in the country of several mass organizations, notably the Lapiang Manggagawa (now the Socialist Party of the Philippines) among the workers; the Malayang Samahan ng mga Magsasaka (MASAKA) among the peasantry; the Kabataang Makabayan (KM) among the youth/students; and the Movement for the Advancement of Nationalism (MAN) among the intellectuals/professionals. The PKP has exerted all-out effort to infiltrate, influence and utilize these organizations in promoting its radical brand of
nationalism.”

Meanwhile, the Communist leaders in the Philippines had been split into two (2) groups, one of which — composed mainly of young radicals, constituting the Maoist faction — reorganized the Communist Party of the Philippines early in 1969[29] and established a New People’s Army. This faction adheres to the Maoist concept of the “Protracted People’s War” or “War of National Liberation.”….

Note that we have here not only a judicial decision but a legislative inquiry[30] report cited favorably as part of the findings of fact of the decision, particularly referring to what amount to front organizations (“infiltrate[d], influence[d] and utilize[d]) by/ of the old PKP precursor of the new CPP, which would continue this modus operandi, as the next excerpt shows. Surely, this is not red-tagging.

Second Excerpt (at pp. 484-85, underscorings supplied)

Petitioners, similarly, fail to take into account that — as per said information and reports — the reorganized Communist Party of the Philippines has, moreover, adopted Mao’s concept of protracted people’s war, aimed at the paralyzation of the will to resist of the government, of the political, economic and intellectual leadership, and of the people themselves; that conformably to such concept, the Party has placed special emphasis upon a most extensive and intensive program of subversion by the establishment of front organizations in urban centers, the organization of armed city partisans and the infiltration in student groups, labor unions, and farmer and professional groups; that the CPP has managed to infiltrate or establish and control nine (9) major labor organizations; that it has exploited the youth movement and succeeded in making Communist fronts of eleven (11) major student or youth organizations; that there are, accordingly, about thirty (30) mass organizations actively advancing the CPP interests, among which are the Malayang Samahan ng Magsasaka (MASAKA), the Kabataang Makabayan (KM), the Movement for the Advancement of Nationalism (MAN), the Samahang Demokratiko ng Kabataan (SDK), the Samahang Molave (SM) and the Malayang Pagkakaisa ng Kabataang Pilipino(MPKP); that, as of August, 1971, the KM had two hundred forty-five (245) operational chapters throughout the Philippines, of which seventy-three (73) were in the Greater Manila Area, sixty (60) in Northern Luzon, forty-nine (49) in Central Luzon, forty-two (42) in the Visayas and twenty-one (21) in Mindanao and Sulu; that in 1970, the Party had recorded two hundred fifty-eight (258) major demonstrations, of which about thirty-three (33) ended in violence, resulting in fifteen (15) killed and over five hundred (500) injured; that most of these actions were organized, coordinated or led by the aforementioned front organizations; that the violent demonstrations were generally instigated by a small, but well-trained group of armed agitators; that the number of demonstrations heretofore staged in 1971 has already exceeded those of 1970; and that twenty-four (24) of these demonstrations were violent, and resulted in the death of fifteen (15) persons and the injury of many more.

Again, surely this judicial finding of fact is not red-tagging.

-----------------

[8] Excerpts from Bonifacio H. Gillego, “Alliance with the Left: Desirable & Necessary,” Mr. & Ms., August 30, September 5, 1985, pp. 13-14

The late former Rep. “ Ka Boni” Gillego of Sorsogon wrote this article as Director, Philippine Affairs of the U.S.-based Movement for a Free Philippines (MFP), part of the non-communist opposition to the Marcos martial law dictatorship. The excerpts follow: (underscorings supplied)

Their inherent strength stems from the synergistic combination of a disciplined cadre party (CPP), an army (NPA) and a political arm (NDF) capable of operating overtly and covertly among sectoral groups and mass organizations of their own creation or under their control. The combination is unmatched by any or all existing non-political aggrupations combined in our country today.

xxx

The premise of this proposal is that Philippine communism is not a closed system. It can be tempered and restrained by forces and conditions that it confronts in the process of the struggle. The tendencies that can be moderated are:

[1] The “totalitarian temptation” inherent in communist practice and organizational structure.

[2] The primary reliance on armed struggle in capturing political power.

[3] The tendency to “direct the main blow” against non-communist leadership within an alliance.

[4] The resort to deception in creating front organizations for tactical reasons.

xxx

Only a strong non-communist alliance can demand parity in representation and in policy-decision making from communist groups within the larger alliance. Only on the basis of comparable organizational strength can they constitute a countervailing force within an alliance to prevent it from being a captive organization. Even as it is presently constituted, the NDF is not homogenous in its attitude toward other political group. Non-alliance with elements of the NDF will only strengthen the leadership of the hardliners within the NDF and enhance their control of sectoral groups and mass organizations.

Wise political insights in the course of an article advocating a political alliance by the non-communist opposition with the Left (i.e. the CPP-NPA-NDF) against the then common enemy Marcos dictatorship. The article’s references to CPP front organizations cannot be considered red-tagging. There is clearly no use of threats, no malicious purpose to impede constitutional rights and liberties, and no unfounded information. But how much of the wise political insights in the whole 1985 classic Gillego article still holds true in the present Marcos Jr. political conjuncture 40 years hence?

---------------

[9] Presidential Proclamation No. 404 dated 22 November 2023 Granting Amnesty to Former Members of the CPP-NPA-NDF or Their Front Organizations

The grant of amnesty for political offenses is among the executive clemency powers of the President.[31] This legitimate exercise of constitutional power cannot be considered red-tagging. There is clearly no use of threats, no malicious purpose to impede constitutional rights and liberties, and no unfounded information. The amnesty coverage of former members of front organizations of the CPP-NPA-NDF, once those former members and front organizations are identified during the amnesty process, is apparently to be done on a case to case basis. The admission of former membership in the CPP-NPA-NDF or their front organizations must come voluntarily from the amnesty applicant. As it is, the amnesty Proclamation and its Implementing Rules and Regulations dated 14 March 2024 do not even define nor name such front organizations of the CPP-NPA-NDF.

-------------------

[10] Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), Philippine National Police (PNP) and Security Sector Public Information Only on the CPP-NPA-NDFP Revolutionary Dual Tactics on the Recruitment Process and Front Organizations

The AFP and PNP as the lead security agencies or legitimate armed forces of the Philippine State have the constitutional duties, under supreme civilian authority, to be “the protector of the people and the State… to secure the sovereignty of the State and the integrity of the national territory.”[32] This is in support of the constitutional mandate for “the maintenance of peace and order, the protection of life, liberty, and property… essential for the enjoyment by all people of the blessings of democracy.”[33] In this, “The State values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect for human rights.”[34] All these and other constitutional guidelines apply when the President as “the [civilian] Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces of the Philippines and whenever it may be necessary,… call[s] out such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion.”[35] After all, rebellion, as a crime under the Revised Penal Code’s Art. 134, even if a political offense, may be considered as a “clear and present danger… where the substantive evil sought to be prevented by the restriction is destruction of life or property.”[36]

In suppressing rebellion, the security sector, although legitimate armed forces, does not employ only armed force. Just like the CPP-NPA-NDFP armed rebellion or revolution, the security sector likewise employs public information about the enemy and its modus operandi. After all, there is “the right of the people to information on matters of public concern"[37] such as on Philippine society and revolution.[38] The more the public information conforms to the truth, the better. The less it conforms to the truth, the more it partakes of propaganda. And this applies to both sides. “There is a right to publish the truth but no right to publish falsehood to the injury of others with impunity.”[39] The people have the right to know the truth because it “is the only ground upon which their [humankind’s] wishes can be safely carried out.”[40] More so, under our constitutional “regime of truth.”

It will be recalled that soon after the emergence of the CPP-NPA armed rebellion in 1969, the AFP first published in February 1970 a six volume-series entitled “SO THE PEOPLE MAY KNOW,” later compiled in one book with that title. The first Foreword by then AFP Chief of Staff Gen. Manuel T. Yan on 5 February 1970 is instructive and we quote this excerpt thereof:

In the light of these developments, I feel that we must takes [sic] steps to inform the general public about the intentions of the local Communist movement. Unless we place this Communist .threat in its proper perspective, our people may continue to be lulled by complacency and a false sense of security. On the other hand, we should avoid falling prey to unwarranted fear and panic. For these reasons, I am now making available for public consumption certain Communist Party documents now in the possession of the AFP.

The documents are part of numerous papers and materials captured in a “Revolutionary School of Mao Tsetung’s [sic] Thought” in the remote barrio of Sta. Rita, Capas, Tarlac whose camp was raided by elements of PC Tarlac, TF Lawin and Hq 1PCZ last June 9, 1969… It also confirmed previous findings of the AFP on the existence of working alliances between some so-called militant groups among the students, peasant and labor and certain dubious personalities. It is hoped that these documents, which portray the Communist Program to take over the country, will be given a careful and thoughtful study by our people, particularly those concerned with molding public opinion and with directing the affairs of our government and people…. These documents may help bring about a more sober understanding of the threats that confront our people and provide a better insight to our national problems. An involved citizenry and a more responsive government must work hand in hand. After all, national security is as much the people’s concern as it is ours in the Armed Forces.

Ironically, the AFP publication of the foundational documents of the CPP-NPA such as its “Program for a People’s Democratic Revolution” (PPDR) turned out to instead be a propaganda windfall for the CPP-NPA. Various AFP papers exposing CPP-NPA strategy and tactics, and other operational and organizational aspects, including the use of front organizations notably the KM, that were published as part of the six volume-series “SO THE PEOPLE MAY KNOW,” did little (aside from more coercive measures) to stem the red tide of CPP-NPA-KM & Co. expansion from the First Quarter Storm (FQS) of 1970 till the martial law declaration in September 1972. Perhaps it was due to the zeitgeist, the spirit or mood of that particular period of history. That was a different time, more than five decades ago.

Fast-forward to the present. Three weeks after the release of Deduro in 2024, came this Inquirer news item “ACT slams distribution of ‘Red-tagging’ leaflets”:

The Alliance of Concerned Teachers (ACT) has said it plans to make full use of the recent Supreme Court decision declaring Red-tagging as a threat to one’s life by citing it in a complaint it will file with the Commission on Human Rights (CHR).

ACT Chair Vladimer Quetua said the group was still gathering information about last month’s distribution by the military and Department of Education (DepEd) personnel of leaflets referring to students who belong to youth groups as terrorists during a seminar at Taytay Senior High School in Rizal province.

For ACT Teachers party list Rep. France Castro, the incident was a “clear case of harassment and intimidation” and a “blatant disregard” of the recent Supreme Court ruling.

She said the leaflets were distributed by the Philippine Army’s 80^th Infantry Battalion and DepEd Rizal. Using comic strips, it showed how students could avoid “recruiters of the CPP-NPA (Communist Party of the Philippines-New People’s Army)” who may be spotted in rallies, “teaching us to be angry at the government.”

“After that Supreme Court decision, we anticipated that the government would finally, finally end this kind of practice, but they are still doing it, and it’s just disappointing,” Quetua added.

He said they would soon file a complaint with the CHR, adding that they would also check if the distribution of such leaflets were also happening elsewhere.

/ No group targeted

The National Task Force to End Local Communist Armed Conflict (NTF-Elcac), however, denied the group’s accusation, saying “a careful perusal and review of the said pamphlets [would] easily prove that there [was] no ‘Red tagging’ in the said materials.”

It added that it did not target any organization, “it merely informed the students of the modus operandi of recruiters of the New People’s Army, which is factual and based on evidence.”

According to NTF-Elcac, the 80^th Infantry Battalion held the seminar as part of a civic education program to raise awareness of national security threats and promote patriotism among the youth, in line with a memorandum of agreement between it and DepEd.

“[These] seminars provided factual information that allows the youth to make informed decisions affecting their lives. The seminars were conducted transparently with the consent and cooperation of the Division of Rizal and attendance was voluntary.[41]

Though appearing in an earlier news story pre-Deduro, a quoted statement of AFP Visayas Command (Viscom) commander Lt. Gen. Benedict Arevalo, might be relevant to the foregoing incident issue of alleged red-tagging by the 80^th IB:

This is not red-tagging. This is truth-tagging. We wanted the people to know the truth about the CPP-NPA and its accomplices and allied organizations. They can sometimes pose as angels but behind the angelic smiles and alluring promises are the devils hiding their horns and tails.[42]

“Truth-tagging,” i.e. telling the truth (about the other side and for that matter one’s own side) “so the people may know” and “that allows the youth to make informed decisions affecting their lives,” is fine, if indeed it is just that. But the angels-devils metaphor unfortunately brings images of Dan Brown’s novel Angels & Demons which connotes fiction rather than fact, aside from a demonize-the-enemy frame (done by both sides actually) that militates against humane treatment and reconciliation towards the other side.

So, was the above-said 80^th IB public information dissemination incident red-tagging or not? Again, to us, it depends on the presence (thus red-tagging) or absence (thus not red-tagging) of one or more of these three crucial elements presented early on above:

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”

2. 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

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

Does the fact of the normal or usual legitimate arms-bearing by security forces — who disseminate public information “about the CPP-NPA and its accomplices and allied organizations” and “the modus operandi of recruiters of the New People’s Army, which is factual and based on evidence” — itself (the arms-bearing) constitute “the use of threats and intimidation”? Deduro at p. 34 provides this guidance: “… Neither mere membership in a nongovernment organization nor inclusion in an order of battle of the military equates to actual threats. What constitutes threats should include the totality of every individual petitioner’s circumstance.” When Deduro at p. 24 “declare[d] that red-tagging, vilification, labelling, and guilt by association constitute threats to a person’s right to life, liberty or security,” it qualified this immediately with “under the second paragraph of section 1 of the Rules, which may justify the issuance of a writ of amparo.” This second paragraph of section 1 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo[43] reads: “The writ shall cover extralegal killings and enforced disappearances or threats thereof.” In other words, not just any threat but these very serious threats.

Indeed, the totality of circumstances should be taken all together when there is a 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,” in determining whether it is red-tagging or not. It is important to get this right because life, liberty and reputation are at stake. Deduro at p. 32 said “The Rule [on the Writ of Amparo] does not preclude the filing of separate criminal, civil, or administrative actions,” citing Sec. 23 thereof. And indeed such actions have justifiably snowballed even pre-Deduro, and more so post-Deduro. Most notably, such administrative (Ombudsman), contempt (SC) and civil (RTC) cases have in fact been filed and decided against Dr. Lorraine Marie T. Badoy-Partosa.

The suppression of red-tagging as a properly defined actionable wrong is meant to protect constitutional freedoms, rights and duties, especially as legitimately exercised by political activists, human rights defenders and critical journalists. At the same time, while various measures of push-back against red-tagging are warranted, caution should also be exercised that “the high feelings of the moment”[44] against red-tagging do not result in also a chilling effect on the same constitutional freedoms, rights and duties when it comes to legitimately addressing and discussing “other equally important public interests”[45] like the local communist armed conflict. Thus, all the foregoing preliminary samples of what is not (or may not be) red-tagging for a better sense of this “in the sober afterglow.” — #

By Soliman M. Santos, Jr.

Naga City, 9 February 2025

Notes

---

[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.

[3] 1987 Constitution, Article III, Section 4 on freedom of speech, expression, the press, peaceable assembly, and grievance redress petition.

[4] Badoy-Partosa: “The Constitution provides full protection to the legitimate exercise of the freedoms of expression, speech and of the press.” (p. 14) “Nevertheless, the exercise of these freedoms is not absolute.” (p. 17)

[5] From the wording in the 1987 Const., Art. III, Sec. 8 on freedom of association.

[6] Citing the SC En Banc Decision in People vs. Godoy, 312 Phil. 977, at 1017 (1995): “There is a right to publish the truth but no right to publish falsehood to the injury of others with impunity.”

[7] 1987 Const., Preamble, penultimate phrase: “a regime of truth, justice, freedom, love, equality, and peace.”

[8] See Francis Allan Angelo, “Truth-telling a must for accountability – former Chief Justice Sereno,” Rappler.com, March 1, 2023. Here Sereno as having spoken of the Constitutional Preamble reference to “a regime of truth” as having “laid down the basis for truth-telling as both right and duty.” She also further spoke of freedom of expression, speech and the press as the foundations of truth-telling.

[9] An early martial law first mainly Leninist theorizing on legal struggle as part of the national-democratic revolution was the paper “Hinggil sa Legal na Pakikibaka” (4 Enero 1974) by the Samahang Demokratiko ng Kabataan (SDK). SDK was a NDMO pre-martial law that became a UGMO during martial law. See Patricio N. Abinales, “Fragments in History, Silhouettes of Resurgence: Student Radicalism in the Early Years of the Marcos Dictatorship,” Southeast Asian Studies, Vol. 46, No. 2, September 2008, at pp. 181-188.

[10] Rigoberto D. Tiglao, Manila Times opinion column pieces: “The Communist Party and Sison’s greatest trick” (November 9, 2020); and “Stop exposing communist fronts? That’s nuts” (July 13, 2022).

[11] 1987 Const., Art. VIII, Sec. 1.

[12] Civil Code of the Philippines, Article 8.

[13] Marco Valbuena, Chief Information Officer, Communist Party of the Philippines, “On the Manila RTC dismissal of terrorist proscription against the CPP and NPA,” September 22, 2022, accessible thru the CPP-NPA-NDFP website www.philippinerevolution.nu.

[14] “Who are the top Red-taggers?,” Ang Bayan, May 21, 2024, accessible thru the CPP-NPA-NDFP website www.philippinerevolution.nu, naming others: “Hermogenes Esperon Jr., Colonel Harold Cabunoc, Mocha Uson, Lorraine Badoy, … , Salvador Panelo and many others. Recently, Bato de la Rosa led wholesale Red tagging in the senate along with traitors like… Kate Raca and others who now serve the AFP. The SMNI Network, owned by Duterte’s henchman and now fugitive Apollo Quiboloy…”

[15] 1987 Const., Art. III, Sec. 1, stating the due process and equal protection clauses of the Bill of Rights.

[16] See esp. Susan F. Quimpo and Nathan Gilbert Quimpo (eds.), Subversive Lives: A Family Memoir of the Marcos Years (Manila: Anvil, 2012).

[17] This article author’s footnote correction: Revolutionary Proletarian Army.

[18] This article author’s footnote correction: no “-Mindanao” suffix, thus only “RPA” as the acronym.

[19] 1987 Const., Art. XIV, Sec. 5(2) on academic freedom in all institutions of higher learning.

[20] Footnote 15 in the original: That the conflict emerged first here was an expression of the centrality of the University in the political work of the party.

[21] Footnote 16 in the original: PC, 12 Jul 1967, 2. [This article author’s note: PC refers to Philippine Collegian, official student publication of the University of the Philippines (UP) in its main campus of Diliman, Quezon City.]

[22] Footnote 210 in the original: NPA, Expose and Oppose the Vicious Crimes of the Monkees-Armeng Bayan-MASAKA (Lava) Gang, May 1970, PRP 11/15.01. This leaflet was then reprinted in AB, 1 June 1970. [[This article author’s note: PRP refers to the Philippine Radical Papers Archive in the Main Library of UP Diliman. AB refers to Ang Bayan, official publication of the CPP.]

[23] Footnote 211 in the original: They published the names of four “bureaucrats”: Francisco Nemenzo, Haydee Yorac, Ruben Torres, and Francisco Lava Jr.; three “surrenderees”: Domingo Castro, Felicisimo Macapagal, and Danny Pascual; and two “intelligence agents”: Godofredo Mallari and Antonio Santos.

[24] Footnote 212 in the original: Ken Fuller, A Movement Divided: Philippine Communism, 1957-1986 (Quezon City: University of the Philippines Press, 2011), 108. A year later the PKP would reciprocate, naming Sison and others as members of the CPP, and Sison would denounce them for “red-baiting.”

[25] Deduro at p. 34: “What constitutes threats should include the totality of every individual petitioner’s circumstance.”

[26] Deduro at p. 35: “Inherent in the practice of red-baiting is the use of threats and intimidation to discourage ‘subversive’ activities.”

[27] See esp. Pierre Rousset, “In solidarity with the Filipino progressive and revolutionary movements threatened by the CPP: A letter of concern on the threat of political killings by the Communist Party of the Philippines and its armed segment the New People’s Army,” January 18, 2005 (https://www.europe-solidaire.org/spip.php?article70); and “The CPP-NPA-NDF ‘Hit List’ – a preliminary report,” 8 March 2005 (https://www.europe-solidaire.org/spip.php?article69). Rousset identifies himself as a Fourth International execom member and manages the website of the Europe Solidaire Sans Frontiers (ESSF), www.europe-solidaire.org, where the said articles and those in the next footnote may be accessed.

[28] See e.g. Fidel V. Agcaoili, Chairperson, Human Rights Committee, National Democratic Front of the Philippines, “Rejoinder to the slanderous article of French Trotskyite Pierre Rousset,” 1 April 2005 (https://www.europe-solidaire.org/spip.php?article117); and Pierre Rousset, “What can we learn from Fidel Agcaoili’s ‘Rejoinder’?,” 10 May 2005 (https://www.europe-solidaire.org/spip.php?article72), both of which may be accessed in the ESSF website.

[29] This article author’s footnote correction: Actually in January (not December 26) 1968, as noted in the Judge Magdoza-Malagar Resolution’s review of CPP history, at pp. 2, 25-26.

[30] 1987 Const., Art. VI, Sec. 21 on congressional inquiries in aid of legislation,

[31] 1987 Const., Art. VII, Sec. 19.

[32] Ibid., Art. II, Sec. 3.

[33] Ibid., Art. II, Sec. 5.

[34] Ibid., Art. II, Sec. 11.

[35] Ibid., Art. VII, Sec. 18.

[36] Badoy-Partosa at p. 33, citing Cabansag vs. Fernandez, 102 Phil. 152, 161 (1957).

[37] 1987 Const., Art. III, Sec. 7.

[38] From the title of Philippine Society and Revolution (PSR) by Amado Guerrero (Jose Maria Sison), the nat-dem bible first published in 1969.

[39] Badoy-Partosa at p. 17, citing the SC En Banc Decision in People vs. Godoy, 312 Phil. 977, at 1017 (1995).

[40] Badoy-Partosa at p. 19 quoting from The Diocese of Bacolod vs. Commission on Elections, 751 Phil. 301, 361-362 (2015). The original Justice Holmes pronouncement was in his Dissenting Opinion in Abrams vs. United States, 250 U.S. 616, at 630 (1919). See also Eric T. Kasper and Troy A. Kozma, “Absolute Freedom of Opinion and Sentiment on All Subjects: John Stuart Mill’s Enduring (and Ever-Growing) Influence on the Supreme Court’s First Amendment Free Speech Jurisprudence,” University of Massachusetts Law Review, Vol. 15 Issue 1, 2020, Article 1, pp. 21-22.

[41] Dempsey Reyes and Frances Mangosing, “ACT slams distribution of ‘Red-tagging’ leaflets, Philippine Daily Inquirer, May 28, 2024, p. A3.

[42] Quoted in Nestie Semilla, “Military warns NGOs against aiding Reds,” Philippine Daily Inquirer, October 2, 2023, pp. A4 & A7.

[43] A.M. No. 07-0-12-SC, as amended by Resolution of the SC En Banc on October 16, 2007, effective October 24, 2007.

[44] Phrase adopted from these lines of Justice Frank Murphy’s Dissenting Opinion in Yamashita vs. Styer, 327 U.S. 1 (1946): “The high feelings of the moment doubtless will be satisfied. But in the sober afterglow will come the realization of the boundless and dangerous implications of the procedure sanctioned today.”

[45] Badoy-Partosa at p. 17, citing Garcia, Jr. vs. Manrique, 697 Phil. 157, 169 (2012).

----------------------