Press freedom is a foundational element of any functioning democracy, as it allows individuals to express their views freely and holds those in power accountable. However, this democratic right is increasingly threatened by red-tagging, a practice in which journalists, activists, and dissenters are falsely labeled as communists or terrorists. This tactic is commonly used to suppress criticism of government policies and discourages public discourse by instilling fear among those who speak out. Through targeting dissenting voices, red-tagging weakens democratic accountability and undermines the role of the media in exposing corruption and injustice. Journalists are particularly vulnerable, because their work often involves analyzing and critiquing those in power, making them perceptible targets for intimidation. This results in widespread self-censorship and a chilling effect on investigative reporting. In countries like the Philippines, critics of the government frequently risk being red-tagged (Human Rights Foundation, 2024). Although the Philippine Constitution guarantees freedom of expression under Article III, Section 4, individuals continue to be red-tagged without due process, undermining constitutional protections in holding a fair balance on limiting government power abuse (Khan, 2022). This harmful tactic creates a climate of fear within the media landscape, directly conflicting with the principles of press freedom. Beyond damaging reputations, red-tagging can result in physical harm, harassment, and even extrajudicial killings. For instance, during former President Rodrigo Duterte’s “War on Drugs,” an estimated 12,000 individuals were killed, and journalists reporting on these abuses were frequently red-tagged, harassed, or falsely charged with spreading misinformation. Such actions not only endanger lives but also erode the foundations of a free and democratic society.

The Philippine government has been accused of failing to protect journalists from the consequences of red-tagging. In fact, red-tagging is one of the primary threats to press freedom in the country. As a symbol of the democratic right to speak freely, press freedom must consistently be upheld. It has become a tool used by those in power to silence opposition and intimidate those who stand up for their rights. When those who report on government corruption and social injustice become targets of red-tagging, society loses its ability to hold the powerful accountable. While it is justified by authorities as a necessary measure for national security, it is frequently weaponized without evidence, undermining legitimate dissent and violating constitutional protections.

The dangers of red-tagging are not limited to reputational harm. It also violates international law, particularly the principles of International Humanitarian Law (IHL). According to Chua (2024), red-tagging is an immoral act of deceiving the media with disinformation to label an individual as a threat to the country or an enemy of the state, potentially resulting in physical punishments. Red-tagging violates both press freedom and IHL, which protects civilians from being wrongly targeted in conflicts. IHL includes the principle of distinction, which seeks to protect civilians from being attacked in warfare. By labeling journalists and human rights defenders as enemies of the state, red-tagging blurs the line between militants and civilians, placing innocent lives in danger (Tugade, 2023).

Human rights defenders, specifically journalists and media workers, are vulnerable to red-tagging. These individuals often work to expose corruption, support marginalized communities, and hold governments accountable. Journalists, in particular, are regarded as "the fourth estate," an independent institution that investigates and corrects the misuse of power in democratic societies (Tumber, 2001., as cited by Nivera, 2023). Red-tagging has spread rapidly, through social media platforms such as Facebook and X, where misinformation and disinformation are easily circulated. In the Philippines, nearly half of Filipino adults get their political news from the internet (Macaraeg, 2021). This makes them more susceptible to misinformation and harmful narratives. It is often perpetuated by social media algorithms, which tend to empower those spreading misinformation. This results in a sense of fraud, leading to greater damages, including security threats. In addition, the National Task Force to End Local Communist Armed Conflict (NTF-ELCAC), a government body formed under former President Duterte, has played a key role in spreading disinformation and justifying violence against human rights defenders (Castelo, 2024). Using digital platforms and a flawed anti-terrorism law (Republic Act No. 11479), the NTF-ELCAC has created an atmosphere of fear and intimidation, particularly among young activists and human rights defenders (Hapal & Serafica 2021., as cited by Paras, 2024).

One of the most high-profile cases of red-tagging involves Alfonso Tomas Pagaduan Araullo, also known as “Atom Araullo”, a Filipino journalist, TV anchor, and documentarist. He currently works as an anchor in GMA Network (Cayaga, 2023). In September 2023, he filed a civil suit against former anti-insurgency task force spokesperson Lorraine Badoy and television host Jeffrey Celiz for spreading defamatory attacks linking him to the the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP), the New People’s Army (NPA), and the National Democratic Front (NDF). The case was filed under the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, specifically invoking Articles 353 to 362, which define and penalize libel, public and malicious imputation that tends to dishonor or discredit a person (Supreme Court E-Library, n.d.). Statements from the court firmly stated that the defendants “deliberately sought to discredit and inflict harm” to Araullo as a person and as a journalist, by “associating him with the CPP-NPA-NDF without proof.” Following advice from the Quezon City Regional Trial Court, the judge implied that the labels and remarks went beyond mere editorial opinion or fair commentary and worse, incited backlash, threats, and public hatred toward Araullo, while showing samples of notably vile comments from viewers and followers of Celiz and Badoy. Consecutively, the court made it clear that the statements labeling Araullo as an enabler, supporter, and member of the CPP-NPA-NDF, identified by the government as a communist and terrorist group, clearly exemplifies red-tagging (Gatchalian, 2024). The court determined that the defendants’ statements went beyond protected speech or fair commentary, and instead amounted to malicious and unfounded accusations that endangered Araullo’s safety and reputation. The judge ruled that these remarks were not only defamatory but also constituted a form of state-aligned harassment. These false accusations led to harassment, threats, and public hatred directed at Araullo. In December 2024, he won the case and a compensation of ₱2 million in damages (Commission on Human Rights, 2024).

The Araullo ruling sets an important legal precedent, showing that red-tagging can be challenged in court when framed within the bounds of libel. However, its impact is still limited by the absence of laws specifically criminalizing red-tagging. Without structural legal reform, future victims may continue to face barriers in seeking justice, especially when accusations are made by government officials or institutions. The case emphasizes the need for stronger legal protections and clearer boundaries between legitimate state security efforts and harmful, baseless accusations that violate fundamental rights.

While Araullo’s legal victory was a step forward for accountability, it also revealed limitations in current legal frameworks. The case was tried under libel laws—not a specific anti-red-tagging law—highlighting a major gap or limitation in Philippine legislation. Red-tagging differs from traditional defamation like libel or slander, because it carries state-level implications and physical risks, including surveillance, arrest, or violence. Moreover, red-tagging often lacks legal remedy, as it is typically framed under national security narratives that make prosecution difficult. Statistics of records regarding this issue may be inaccurate due to its subtle approach. Courts may hesitate to restrict speech tied to state interests unless the statements clearly incite harm or violate existing defamation statutes.

Despite the repercussions against him, Araullo’s influential figure as a journalist and a broadcaster reflects his commitment to the gospel’s core values such as courage, service, and integrity. He speaks the truth despite the risks and challenges that come with his profession. Throughout his career, Araullo has shown a deep commitment to public service, particularly in helping communities vulnerable to disasters and strife. His passion for journalism and courage for the truth is driven by his desire to help others and make a positive impact on society. With his life’s values, he poses integrity in human life. From a sociological perspective, Atom Araullo’s work aligns with conflict theory, which emphasizes how societal structures often favor dominant groups while marginalizing others. Conflict theory states that tensions and conflicts arise when resources, status, and power are unevenly distributed between groups in society and that these conflicts become the engine for social change (Crossman, 2024). This theoretical lens is useful for understanding how red-tagging operates as a tool of power and control, swaying public image and inducing psychological effects such fear and anxiety. Araullo’s journalism exposes systemic inequalities, corruption, and social injustices—issues preferred by those in power be swept under the rug. By speaking out, he challenges the status quo. Araullo’s case illustrates how individuals who push back against unjust systems are often penalized, reaffirming the core ideas of conflict theory, that power is preserved through the suppression of resistance.

Red-tagging has far-reaching consequences, not only for the individuals targeted but also for society as a whole. It exacerbates social inequalities and undermines efforts to achieve SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities. By targeting journalists, human rights defenders and activists, red-tagging creates an environment of fear and repression that prevents individuals from speaking out against injustice. Specific groups that are most affected are marginalized groups such as indigenous leaders, labor union organizers, rural activists, and youth human rights defenders who are often at the frontline of advocating for social justice. Red-tagging contradicts SDG 10.2 by hindering social, economic, and political inclusion, silencing critics, and targeting human rights defenders. It undermines SDG 10.1 by restricting voices and participation in society and violates SDG 10.3 by limiting press freedom and enabling discrimination.

In conclusion, red-tagging is a powerful and dangerous tool that destroys press freedom and targets individuals who stand up for justice. It not only violates individual rights but also undermines efforts to create a more just and equal society. Atom Araullo’s case serves as an important reminder that red-tagging can be battled legally, offering hope and justice for other victims of this harmful practice. As Araullo himself has stated, “This case opens up a legal option for anyone who has been a victim of red-tagging and harmful disinformation, particularly journalists.” It is crucial for society to continue advocating for the protection of press freedom, the elimination of red-tagging, and the promotion of equality and justice for all.

Related Stories: