The Philippine government has not been truthful with the United Nations (UN) Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) during its session on the country’s compliance with its human rights obligations. Its claims of not red-tagging, supposedly well-founded prosecutions and lack of civil society engagement with the state on the issues they raise are contradicted by on-going vilification of activists and non-government organizations (NGOs), case dismissals and acquittals, and numerous engagements with the State.
Responding to queries by the UN CESCR about red-tagging and the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) of 2020 during the 77th session of the CESCR on February 18, 2025, officials of the National Security Council (NSC), Presidential Human Rights Committee (PHRC) and National Task Force to End Local Communist Armed Conflict (NTF-ELCAC) made statements that were evidently inaccurate and meant to mislead the Committee.
NTF-ELCAC executive director and undersecretary Ernesto Torres, Jr said that “There is no state policy to attack, harass and intimidate human rights defenders” and asserted “The Philippine government has consistently rejected the word red-tagging due to the absence of any policy or jurisprudence sustaining such claims.”
However, he immediately contradicted himself with the admission that “We provide accurate information about individuals involved in terror-grooming – empowering people to make informed choices that protect themselves and their communities.” While not conceding the term “red-tagging,” Torres in effect admitted this albeit portraying the vilification as innocuous information campaigns.
Torres also cannot feign ignorance of the Supreme Court (SC) en banc decision declaring that red-tagging, vilification, labelling and guilt by association threaten a person’s right to life, liberty or security (G.R. No. 254753, Deduro v. Maj. Gen. Vinoya, July 4, 2023) nor the recent Quezon City Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 306 ruling on the red-tagging of a journalist and his family and awarding Php2 million in damages as the first application of that SC decision.
NSC assistant director-general Jonathan Malaya meanwhile said that “All cases filed for violation of the ATA are a result of extensive investigation and evidence gathered by law enforcement agencies” and moreover claimed that “The courts conducted their own judicial review of probable cause and concurred with the findings of the Department of Justice [and], as a result, warrants of arrest were issued. If there was no basis or misuse of the law the courts would’ve dismissed the cases outright.”
However, Malaya must certainly be aware of many instances of such dismissals he insinuates do not happen. These include cases of:
- Financing terrorism, dismissed in court
- Rhonel Alconera – Motu proprio dismissed on April 2, 2024 for insufficiency of evidence, no probable cause (so no warrant of arrest)
- Paul Tagle and Fritz Labiano – Motu proprio dismissed on June 5, 2024 for insufficiency of evidence, no probable cause (so no warrant of arrest)
- Evelyn Muñoz (Motu proprio dismissed on January 10, 2025 for insufficiency of evidence, no probable cause (so no warrant of arrest)
- Terrorism, dismissed in court
- Japer Gurung and Junior Ramos – dismissed on demurrer on June 17, 2021
- Nathanael Santiago, et al – Motu proprio dismissed on September 3, 2024 for insufficiency of evidence, no probable cause (so no warrant of arrest)
- Desiree Jaranilla, et al – Motu proprio dismissed on November 25, 2024 for insufficiency of evidence, no probable cause (so no warrant of arrest)
- Miguela Piniero – dismissed on demurrer on January 10, 2025
- Terrorism, dismissed during preliminary investigation
- Rev. Glofie Baluntong – dismissed on October 6, 2022
- Kenneth Rementilla and Jasmin Yvette Rubia – dismissed on November 3, 2023
- Hailey Pecayo – dismissed on November 20, 2023
PHRC Secretariat executive director and undersecretary Severo Catura claimed that the reports the UN CESCR are receiving have not been given to the government, and appealed the Committee to “kindly ask those NGOs and CSOs that have brought up cases of violations of the ATA to kindly refer this to the State so that there could be engagements.”
However, Catura cannot be unaware that IBON Foundation, human rights group Karapatan and others filed separate complaints about red-tagging and terrorist-labelling with the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) since at least as early as March 4, 2019. Dozens of individuals and groups also actively participated in the CHR’s National Inquiry on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders conducted on September 9-12, 2019, and again in the CHR’s Public Inquiry on Red-tagging on July 29-30, 2024. These are aside from the constant filings of individual complaints which were what triggered these hearings to begin with.
The government’s attempt to obfuscate its systematic human rights violations are rife with inconsistencies and omissions. They do not reflect the legal record and are inconsistent with well-documented instances, especially at the CHR, of civil society organizations filing complaints. This pattern of official denial even before the CESCR tends to indicate insincerity and does not augur well for progress in terms of upholding civil and political rights, nor promoting economic, social and cultural rights.
IBON Foundation is a member of the Defend NGOs network composed of 105 civil society organizations, including the country’s largest NGO networks, in response to increasing judicial attacks on development and humanitarian NGOs.