The Commission on Human Rights (CHR) has issued a renewed and urgent plea for the passage of legislation specifically criminalizing the so-called “red-tagging” practice, following the release of its latest inquiry report on the issue.
The commission’s findings show persistent and grave threats faced by human rights defenders, journalists, activists, and other civil society actors in the Philippines due to the unchecked practice of “red-tagging” – meaning, labelling individuals, organizations, or groups as supporters of the communist insurgency or terrorists, often without evidence or due process.
The CHR’s 2025 National Inquiry adopted a participatory approach through public hearings, sworn statements, and expert input from government, legal scholars and practitioners, and civil society, including human rights defenders with personal accounts of “red-tagging,” conducted across Luzon, the Visayas, and Mindanao.
“Red- tagging,” according to the report, is an entrenched pattern that targets a wide range of individuals, including labor leaders, indigenous peoples, and dissenters, exposing them to harassment, violence, and extrajudicial killings.
The CHR pointed out that without a law that clearly defines and criminalizes “red-tagging,” protection is inconsistent and accountability is limited.
The CHR mainly recommends passing a law that clearly defines and punishes “red-tagging,” reviewing and reforming existing counterterrorism laws (especially the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020), strengthening legal protections (such as writs of amparo and habeas data), and creating a government policy that bans “red-tagging” across all sectors (not just in the labor sector as based on Executive Order No. 97).
Writs of amparo and habeas data are legal remedies in the Philippines designated to protect individuals whose rights to life, liberty, and security are threatened.
The CHR proposes a comprehensive judicial definition of “red-tagging” that includes, among others:
- Labelling or vilifying individuals as subversive, communist, or terrorist without due process, often based solely on their advocacy or opinions
- Acts carried out or supported by public officers or the state, and disseminated through any medium
- Harm that may be reputational, physical, psychological, or economic
A legally defined definition is critical, the CHR argues, to close protection gaps and provide a clear basis for prosecution and redress. Without it, “red-tagging” is still a “harmless label” in the eyes of the law, despite its real and well-founded risks.
Although there are existing legal remedies, the lack of a specific law against “red-tagging” leads to inconsistent protection and reduced accountability.
Recent executive actions, like Executive Order No. 97 (2025), only partially address the issue, focusing on labor organisations and lacking meaningful penalties for violators.
Earlier orders, like Executive Order No. 70 (2018), which created the National Task Force to End Local Communist Armed Conflict (NTF-ELCAC), have been criticized for institutionalizing “red-tagging” rather than curbing it.
The CHR calls for an independent review of Executive Order Nr. 70 and points out that government agencies remain the primary sources of “red-tagging” incidents.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Commission_on_Human_Rights_(CHR)_-_Republic_of_the_Philippines.svg