EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In recent years, the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) has noted an increase in reported cases involving the vilification and labeling of human rights defenders—particularly those perceived to be associated with progressive or left-leaning movements—as being anti-democratic or linked to armed insurgency.

These concerns were examined in the 2019 National Inquiry on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders, which found that “red-tagging” constitutes a serious threat to the life, liberty, and security of affected individuals.

Despite prior findings and recommendations, such practices have persisted and continue to affect civic space and human rights protection, prompting the CHR, through Resolution CHR (VI) No. AM 2024-072, to initiate the National Inquiry on the Current Situation of Human Rights Defenders in the Philippines with a Focus on Incidents of Red-Tagging (2025 National Inquiry). The 2025 National Inquiry is in line with the CHR’s mandate as an independent National Human Rights Institution (NHRI) established under the 1987 Philippine Constitution to investigate human rights violations, monitor compliance with international human rights standards, and uphold the dignity and rights of all individuals.

The CHR conducted the 2025 National Inquiry to identify acts and practices that constitute red-tagging and the corresponding patterns of human rights violations, to understand the phenomenon from the perspectives of various sectors of society, and to assess government measures addressing the issue. It further seeks to examine existing accountability mechanisms for perpetrators and to propose appropriate remedial and redress mechanisms for victims of human rights violations resulting from red-tagging, while recognizing limitations in time, resources, and participation that may affect the full capture of all experiences.

The 2025 National Inquiry adopted a participatory approach through public hearings, sworn statements, and expert inputs from government, legal scholars and practitioners, and civil society, including human rights defenders who have personal accounts of red-tagging, conducted across Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao. However, its findings remain limited by the scope of participation and may not fully reflect all experiences within the broader socio-political landscape.

At the outset, the Commission noted varying terms used to describe the phenomenon, including “red-tagging,” “truth-tagging,” and “terrorist-tagging,” reflecting differing perspectives among State and civil society actors. However, the term “red-tagging” has been recognized in official issuances and documents by different branches of the Philippine government and by international organizations such as the United Nations.

The key findings of the 2025 National Inquiry show that red-tagging is characterized by recurring patterns of labeling individuals and groups, particularly human rights defenders, as communists, terrorists, or enemies of the State within counter-insurgency and counter-terrorism frameworks disseminated through print, broadcast, online media, and public fora, and that such practices threaten fundamental rights including life, liberty, security, privacy, expression, association, and due process and may serve as precursors to grave violations such as arbitrary detention, enforced disappearances, and extrajudicial killings.

The victims of red-tagging include a wide range of actors engaged in legitimate civic and human rights work, such as labor leaders, farmers, Indigenous Peoples, students, educators, religious workers, journalists, lawyers, and community organizers, who are actively lobbying on issues affecting their respective sectors and voicing legitimate dissent against existing government policies.

While various legal remedies exist, such as criminal, civil, administrative, and extraordinary writs, there is no specific law defining or penalizing red-tagging as a distinct offense. This results in fragmented protection, limited accountability, and barriers to access to justice, compounded by challenges such as impunity and the misuse of legal processes. Despite policy recognition of the issue, including executive pronouncements and issuance, red-tagging persists, underscoring the gap between existing safeguards and effective protection of human rights defenders.

The National Inquiry highlighted the need to ensure comprehensive protection against red-tagging through statutes and regulations. In crafting these policies, the Commission proposes the following elements as guideposts in defining and addressing the practice of red-tagging, to wit:

a. That, without observing the right to due process of law, a person, a group of persons, or an organization is implicated or accused of being involved in acts of terrorism, armed rebellion, violent uprising, or any other criminal acts or wrongdoings and is labeled, branded, named, or vilified as:
i. A ‘subversive’,
ii. An ‘insurgent’,
iii. An ‘enemy of the state’,
iv. A member or supporter of a non-state armed group engaged in armed conflict with the State,
v. A ‘communist’ or an adherent to any ideology or political belief system other than popular democracy or the existing governmental system, or
vi. Affiliated, connected, or related in any way to the abovementioned individuals or groups.

b. That the person, group, or organization was targeted by reason of their advocacy, opinion, or exercise of their right to defend rights.

c. That the act was carried out by a public officer, or with the authorization, support, or acquiescence of the State.

d. That the act was published, communicated, distributed, or disseminated through traditional and non-traditional means, such as but not limited to newspapers, radio, television, posters, flyers, streamers, and social media posts.

e. The act engenders a well-founded belief that some harm may come to the person or group being labeled, branded, named, or vilified. The harm may take any of the following forms:
i. Reputational harm,
ii. Physical harm,
iii. Psychological and social harm,
iv. Economic harm,
v. Structural harm,
vi. Institutional harm, and
vii. Other harms not covered by any of the above.

The Commission noted proposals that red-tagging may be presumed to cause harm once its elements are established, thereby penalizing the act regardless of intent. Thus, the Commission suggests that penalties may be staggered according to the gravity of resulting human rights violations.

To address and mitigate adverse human rights impacts, the Executive Department must adopt a comprehensive policy prohibiting the practice of red-tagging and strengthen existing administrative and other non-judicial mechanisms to ensure effective access to remedies. The CHR stresses the need for a human rights-based approach to countering terrorism, violent extremism, and insurgency. This includes addressing the root causes of the conflicts by implementing sustained socio-economic, policy, and governance reforms that respond to structural inequalities and conditions that contribute to conflict.

In line with its legislative agenda, the CHR calls for the passage of a law penalizing the practice of red-tagging and the review of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 and the Terrorism Financing Prevention and Suppression Act of 2012. The CHR likewise calls for the adoption of its Charter that would strengthen its investigative and protective functions.

Noting the observation that judicial remedies need to be strengthened, the CHR also calls on the Supreme Court to revisit and strengthen the rules governing the issuance of special protective writs, such as amparo and habeas data. The Supreme Court is also asked to promote proactive legal assistance to human rights defenders, particularly those who are marginalized and vulnerable. These recommendations will ensure the speedy disposition of cases involving human rights defenders.

Finally, the CHR reiterates that the elimination of red-tagging is essential to the full enjoyment of human rights and the protection of civic space in the Philippines. While the State retains the duty to ensure peace and security, such measures must always be carried out in accordance with its obligations to respect, protect, and fulfill human rights. Addressing red-tagging requires sustained, coordinated, and rights-based actions across all branches of the government, as well as the meaningful participation of civil society and other stakeholders. Ultimately, upholding the dignity, safety, and freedom of human rights defenders is integral to strengthening democratic space and the rule of law.