SELDOM does the Supreme Court grant a writ of amparo so that not many Filipinos know about this legal recourse.
A writ of amparo protects individuals whose right to life, liberty, or security is violated or threatened by unlawful acts of public officials, employees or private entities.
It was reported only yesterday but some 10 months ago, the Supreme Court granted a petition for the issuance of a writ of amparo of Siegfred D. Deduro, a former lawmaker from the Bayan Muna party-list group in the 12th Congress who was associated by authorities with the communist insurgency.
In a 39-page decision dated July 4, 2023, the high court declared that associating red-tagging and guilt by association jeopardizes a person’s fundamental rights to life, liberty, or security, setting aside the ruling of the Iloilo Regional Trial Court in dismissing the former lawmaker’s amparo petition.
‘The significance of the Deduro petition is that it enabled the High Court to further evaluate red-tagging and define if it is patently illegal, because other lesser judicial bodies are saying otherwise.’
“Petitioner 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 or violations to his constitutional rights, before the courts can give due course to his petition,” the decision read.
“In such cases, the consummation of the threat to petitioner’s life, liberty, or security, or the commission of the abduction or killing may be the subject of proper administrative or criminal proceedings,” it added.
According to court records, military officers led by Maj. Gen Eric Vinoya, chief of the Army’s 3rd Infantry Division headquartered in Camp Jamindan in Capiz, explicitly said that Deduro and others are leaders of the Communist Party of the Philippines and its armed wing, the New People’s Army. This is tantamount to red-tagging, a controversial activity because it is considered a grey area in legal parlance.
Deduro further said in his petition 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 of the Philippines. He said unidentified men followed him on several occasions.
This prompted Deduro to file an amparo petition before the Iloilo Regional Trial Court, making Vinoya and other military officers the respondents.
The RTC, however, dismissed Deduro’s petition on Oct. 26, 2020, saying that the former lawmaker’s allegation of red-tagging was “baseless.” Deduro then elevated the petition before the SC, assailing the dismissal of the RTC.
The SC said red-tagging depicts a “likely precursor to abduction or extrajudicial killing (EJK),” citing previous cases of enforced disappearances.
“The foregoing accounts of red-tagging depict it as a likely precursor to abduction or extrajudicial killing. Being associated with communists or terrorists makes the red-tagged person a target of vigilantes, paramilitary groups, or even State agents,” the SC said.
“Thus, it is easy to comprehend how a person may, in certain circumstances, develop or harbor fear that being red-tagged places his or her life or security in peril,“ it added.
The SC then ordered the regional trial court to conduct a summary hearing regarding the amparo petition.
The significance of the Deduro petition is that it enabled the High Court to further evaluate red-tagging and define if it is patently illegal, because other lesser judicial bodies are saying otherwise.
