By Rjay Zuriaga Castor
The Western Visayas Regional Task Force to End Local Communist Armed Conflict (RTF-ELCAC) has denied accusations of red-tagging individuals or groups by labeling them as “communist fronts” or “communist-terrorists.”
RTF-ELCAC 6 spokesperson Flosemer Chris Gonzales insisted that the task force does not engage in red-tagging and claimed that those who use the term are effectively identifying themselves as problematic.
“When they claim they are being red-tagged, it’s essentially them labeling themselves,” Gonzales said.
“Like people with problematic attitudes, they play the victim and declare they are being tagged. The government does not and will not red-tag anyone,” he added.
Gonzales emphasized that the government identifies certain individuals as threats based on their actions and affiliations, not through arbitrary tagging.
“The government does not and will not try to red-tag you,” he stressed.
He explained that when military and police personnel conduct operations under the Community Support Program, it is due to reports of Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) and New People’s Army (NPA) infiltration in local communities.
“Communities report the presence of CPP-NPA instigators and recruiters. Often, complaints about military presence come from a few individuals making noise on social media, falsely accusing the government of militarizing entire villages,” Gonzales said.
Col. Gilbert Gorero, chief of the Regional Operations Division of Police Regional Office 6, said the government is addressing these concerns through the Community Mobilization Program (CMP).
“The CMP is one way of bringing back government services to the public,” he said.
The CMP aims to mobilize communities to build sustainable defense mechanisms against crime and lawlessness.
It organizes communities into clusters, educates them on crime prevention, empowers them with training, and certifies barangay units that effectively implement community mobilization efforts.
For the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) in Western Visayas, efforts focus on increasing urban engagement with vulnerable populations, including youth and labor sectors, to improve their quality of life.
“We keep on engaging them so they can see that we are not the ones red-tagging. We are there, focused on helping them,” DILG-6 Director Juan Jovian Ingeniero said.
Ingeniero emphasized that RTF-ELCAC’s broader goal is to enhance the quality of life for communities.
RTF-ELCAC has been criticized for allegedly red-tagging various groups, including student activists, women’s organizations, environmentalists, Indigenous peoples, journalists, and teachers.
Red-tagging has been linked to serious human rights concerns, including threats, surveillance, arrests, and killings of those targeted.
The Supreme Court has ruled that red-tagging, vilification, labeling, and guilt by association threaten a person’s right to life, liberty, or security, which may justify the issuance of a writ of amparo.
In a decision penned by Associate Justice Rodil V. Zalameda, the Supreme Court En Banc granted the writ of amparo in favor of activist and former Bayan Muna party-list representative Siegfred D. Deduro.
Deduro claimed that on June 19, 2020, during a meeting of the Iloilo Provincial Peace and Order Council, military officers under the command of Maj. Gen. Eric C. Vinoya, then-commander of the Philippine Army’s 3rd Infantry Division, identified him as part of the CPP-NPA hierarchy.
The allegation was later reported by a radio station and a government-controlled news agency.
Deduro further claimed that posters were displayed in various locations in Iloilo City with his image labeled as a criminal, terrorist, and member of the CPP-NPA-National Democratic Front (NDF). The posters contained statements such as:
“MGA KAMPON SANG CPP-NPA-NDF SA SYUDAD! NAGAPANG-INTO KAG NAGA-BUTIG 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 he was followed by unidentified men.
He then filed a petition for a writ of amparo before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to prevent Maj. Gen. Vinoya and his subordinates from red-tagging and harassing him.
The RTC dismissed Deduro’s petition, ruling that his allegations were insufficient to prove threats to his life, liberty, and security.
However, 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, labeling, and guilt by association pose legitimate threats to a person’s rights.
Under A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC, or the Rule on the Writ of Amparo, the petition serves as a legal remedy for individuals whose life, liberty, or security is threatened by unlawful acts of public officials, employees, or private entities.
The Supreme Court also recognized red-tagging as a form of harassment and intimidation, often linked to surveillance, direct threats, and, in some cases, extrajudicial killings.
It emphasized that being labeled a communist or terrorist increases the risk of attacks by vigilantes, paramilitary groups, or state agents.
In Deduro’s case, the alleged meeting where he and other activists were named, combined with the reported killings of some of those identified, justified the issuance of the writ of amparo.
The Court further ruled that the RTC should not have dismissed the petition without first requiring Maj. Gen. Vinoya to file a verified written return, stating his legal defenses and actions taken regarding the alleged threats.
By dismissing the petition outright, the RTC effectively denied both parties due process.
The Supreme Court ordered the RTC to conduct a summary hearing to fully evaluate Deduro’s claims and Maj. Gen. Vinoya’s defense.
It also required Deduro to file a Supplemental Petition to include the Alliance of Victims of the CPP-NPA-NDF and the Western Visayan Alliance of Victims of the CPP-NPA-NDF, which allegedly circulated the posters red-tagging him. (With a report from the Supreme Court Public Information Office)
