High court refers ‘red-tagging’ raps to rights panel

The Supreme Court through its Committee on Human Rights will take appropriate action on the concerns raised by several cause-oriented groups and individuals seeking protection against red-tagging and the filing of trumped-up charges by state security forces.

“Re: Letter urging the Court to formulate and issue preventive and remedial steps to address the worsening state of human rights  in the country.” The Court resolved to note and refer to the Committee on Human Rights for appropriate action, the Letter dated May 18, 2021 of various organizations and individuals, urging the Court to undertake measures to address the worsening state of human rights in the country,” the SC said in a single-page notice released recently.

The committee is chaired by Associate Justice Marvic Leonen.

The letter was signed by representatives of Bagong Alyansang Makabayan, Karapatan Alliance Philippines, Alliance of Concerned Teachers, Kilusang Mayo Uno, Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas, Confederation for Unity , Recognition and Advancement of Government, Cordillera People’s Alliance, Gabriela and several individuals.

Renato Reyes Jr., secretary general of Bayan and one of the signatories to the letter, said the group welcomes the Court’s referral of their letter to the Committee on Human Rights and noted that some of the issues raised have been addressed through the new rules on the issuance and service of search and warrants, which include compelling police authorities to use body-worn cameras in the enforcement of these warrants.

“Other issues such as red-tagging and the filing of trumped-up charges in remote towns still need to be substantially addressed,” Reyes stressed.

In a nine-page letter  sent to SC Chief Justice Alexander Gesmundo last May, the groups  sought judicial safeguards against alleged ongoing human rights violations under the Duterte regime.

The groups specifically asked  the Court to  review of existing rules on the writ of amparo, the writ of habeas data, the writ of habeas corpus, and other pre-detention and pre-trial remedies in order to determine whether these measures are still efficient in safeguarding fundamental rights.

According to them, an assessment  should also be conducted on  how courts have appreciated and ruled upon, in amparo and habeas data proceedings, the discharge of the burden of proof by petitioners as well as compliance with the required standard of diligence by respondents.

The group also pleaded the SC magistrates to consider the inclusion of groups or associations of persons sharing a common advocacy or cause as aggrieved parties who may file a petition for the writ of amparo or habeas data.

Likewise, the groups are also pushing for the mandatory issuance of a Temporary Protection Order (TPO) simultaneously with the issuance of the  writ of amparo to be served on the respondents together with the writ, which may include an injunction on acts of red-tagging, both online and offline.

They also asked the high court to abandon its rule established in Ilagan v. Enrile case that declares moot and academic a habeas corpus petition of a person deprived of liberty with the filing of criminal charges against her or him by law enforcement authorities.

Other requests from the groups include the promulgation of rules that will ensure the proper and timely receipt of subpoenas and criminal complaints by respondents; establishment of a central repository of criminal charges by which the people can be informed of cases filed against them; the promulgation of uniform rules for pre-trial remedies that uphold the accused’s constitutional right to due process; requiring the active presence of independent witnesses during implementation of search warrant to ensure strict compliance with constitutional requirements and due regard for constitutional rights; inventory and investigation of serially issued search warrants by alleged “search warrant factories; and issuance of new rules that are more responsive in providing urgent and  practical reliefs for victims of rights violations.