The Supreme Court has declared that red-tagging, vilification, labelling, and guilt by association threaten a person’s right to life, liberty, or security, which may justify the issuance of a writ of amparo.
This was the ruling of the Supreme Court En Banc in a Decision penned by Associate Justice Rodil V. Zalameda, where it granted the writ of amparo in favor of Siegfred D. Deduro (Deduro).
Deduro is an activist and former representative of the party-list Bayan Muna in the House of Representatives. He claimed that on June 19, 2020, in a meeting of the Iloilo Provincial Peace and Order Council, military officers gave a presentation where Deduro, among others, was explicitly identified as part of the Communist Party of the Philippines-New People’s Army (CPP-NPA) hierarchy. The military officers were under the command of Maj. Gen. Eric C. Vinoya (Maj. Gen. Vinoya), the Commanding Officer of the Philippine Army’s 3rd Infantry Division.
This was later reported by Bombo Radyo Iloilo and the Philippine News Agency.
Deduro further claimed that posters were put up in different locations in Iloilo City with his image labeled as a criminal, terrorist, and member of the CPP-NPA-National Democratic Front (NDF). The captions in the poster state:
“MGA KAMPON SANG CPP-NPA-NDF SA SYUDAD! NAGAPANG-INTO KAG NAGA-BUTUG SA PUMULUYO! RALLY DIRI, RALLY DIDTO! WALA MAY NAUBRAHAN PARA SA BANWA!”
(“DISCIPLES OF THE CPP-NPA-NDF IN THE CITY! FOOLING AND DECEIVING THE PEOPLE! HOLDING RALLIES HERE AND THERE! THEY HAVE DONE NOTHING FOR THE COUNTRY!”)
Deduro also said there were instances where unidentified men followed him.
He thus filed a petition for a writ of amparo before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to enjoin Maj. Gen. Vinoya and his subordinates from red-tagging and harassing him.
The RTC dismissed Deduro’s petition, finding his allegations of red-tagging insufficient to be considered threats to his life, liberty, and security.
The Supreme Court found prima facie evidence in Deduro’s petition warranting the issuance of a writ of amparo. It ruled that red-tagging, vilification, labelling, and guilt by association constitute threats to a person’s right to life, liberty, or security.
Under A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC or the Rule on the Writ of Amparo (Rule), the petition for a writ of amparo is a remedy available to any person whose right to life, liberty, or security is violated or threatened by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity.
One form of such threats is the act of red-tagging, acknowledged by international organizations as a form of harassment and intimidation. Labelling a person “red” often comes with frequent surveillance, direct harassment, and in some instances, eventual death.
As being associated with communists or terrorists makes the red-tagged person a target of vigilantes, paramilitary groups, or even State agents, it is easy to understand why a person may fear that being red-tagged puts their life and security at risk.
In Deduro’s case, the supposed meeting where he and other activists were identified, when viewed together with the killings of some of these identified persons, may, if true, justify the issuance of the writ of amparo.
Further, the posters with Deduro’s image contained statements implying his alleged association with the CPP. These posters were placed in locations easily visible to the public.
As Deduro’s petition was not groundless nor lacking in merit, the RTC should not have dismissed the case without requiring Maj. Gen. Vinoya to first file a return. Under the Rule, within 72 hours after service of the writ, the respondent shall file a verified written return stating their lawful defenses, the actions they have taken to determine the fate or whereabouts of the aggrieved party, and all other information in their possession relevant to the threat against the aggrieved party.
In this case, by dismissing the petition without requiring Maj. Gen. Vinoya to first file a return, the RTC effectively denied both parties due process.
The Court further stressed that although it is uncertain whether such “red-baiting” threats ripen into actual abduction or killing of supposed “reds,” Deduro should not be expected to “await his own abduction, or worse, death, or even that the supposed responsible persons directly admit their role in the threats to [his] life, liberty, or security…”
The Court reversed the RTC’s dismissal order and required it to conduct a summary hearing to ensure that Deduro’s cause of action and Gen. Maj. Vinoya’s defense are fully heard.
Deduro was also ordered to submit to the RTC a Supplemental Petition to implead the Alliance of Victims of the CPP-NPA-NDF and Western Visayan Alliance of Victims of the CPP-NPA-NDF which allegedly caused the circulation of posters red-tagging Deduro.
📸✍️ Courtesy of the Supreme Court Public Information Office
Read the full text here
Full text of the Concurring Opinion of Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen at:
REALATED
In an amparo petition, proof of disappearance alone is not enough. It is likewise essential to establish that such disappearance was carried out with the direct or indirect authorization, support or acquiescence of the government. |
The disappearance must be attended by some governmental involvement. This hallmark of State participation differentiates an enforced disappearance case from an ordinary case of a missing person |
Note:
A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC or The Rule on the Writ of Amparo was promulgated to arrest the rampant extralegal killings and enforced disappearances in the country. Its purpose is to provide an expeditious and effective relief "to any person whose right to life, liberty and security is violated or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity."
But lest it be overlooked, in an amparo petition, proof of disappearance alone is not enough. It is likewise essential to establish that such disappearance was carried out with the direct or indirect authorization, support or acquiescence of the government. This indispensable element of State participation is not present in this case. The petition does not contain any allegation of State complicity, and none of the evidence presented tend to show that the government or any of its agents orchestrated Ben’s disappearance. In fact, none of its agents, officials, or employees were impleaded or implicated in Virginia’s amparo petition whether as responsible or accountable persons.51
Thus, in the absence of an allegation or proof that the government or its agents had a hand in Ben’s disappearance or that they failed to exercise extraordinary diligence in investigating his case, the Court will definitely not hold the government or its agents either as responsible or accountable persons.
We are aware that under Section 1 of A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC a writ of amparo may lie against a private individual or entity. But even if the person sought to be held accountable or responsible in an amparo petition is a private individual or entity, still, government involvement in the disappearance remains an indispensable element.
Here, petitioners are mere security guards at Grand Royale Subdivision in Brgy. Lugam, Malolos City and their principal, the Asian Land, is a private entity. They do not work for the government and nothing has been presented that would link or connect them to some covert police, military or governmental operation. As discussed above, to fall within the ambit of A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC in relation to RA No. 9851, the disappearance must be attended by some governmental involvement. This hallmark of State participation differentiates an enforced disappearance case from an ordinary case of a missing person.
EDGARDO NAVIA,1 RUBEN DIO,2 and ANDREW BUISING, vs. VIRGINIA PARDICO, for and in behalf and in representation of BENHUR V. PARDICO, G.R. No. 184467, June 19, 2012
Read the full text here:
Comments