EDITORIAL | When the Label Comes First

A label can change the way people see a person before they even hear what that person has to say. In the Philippines, this has particular significance due to the political labeling that has long been used as a rhetorical tool to systematically alter public perception, weaken opposition, justify the suppression of dissent and legitimize authoritarian rule. 

During Martial Law, led by Ferdinand Marcos Sr., people perceived as threats to the government could be branded as “subversives,” “communists,” or enemies of the state. As an example, the 14-year-secretary-general of the National Council of Churches in the Philippines (NCCP) Bishop La Verne Mercado of the United Methodist Church was “arbitrarily” picked up by the military, along with other NCCP staff and guests, in June 1974 and was detained for about a month. The accusation was “aiding the enemies of the State.” Ocampo (2022) highlighted that “Bishop Mercado was a respected ecumenical leader in the Philippines and abroad who worked for the release of those imprisoned with him and other political detainees, and aided families of the “disappeared” to locate their loved ones. He played an important role in bringing the dictatorship’s abuses to the attention of the world.” Decades later, a similar concern became prominent in the contemporary practice known as red-tagging. Red-tagging is the labeling of individuals or organizations as communist, communist supporters or linked to the New People’s Army. According to the Human Rights Foundation (2023), “Red-tagging isn’t new to the country: Implemented in 1969, the government-backed campaign was designed to “tag” and counter communist and Maoist groups, particularly the New People’s Army (NPA). Red-tagging has since become a destructive tool to quash dissent.” Although the political and legal circumstances are different, the underlying danger of how a label can cause the public to judge a person based on accusation before examining the person’s actual words, works, or circumstances is similar. 

During the administration of Marcos Sr., dissent was particularly viewed through the lens of national security, communism and counter-insurgency. In fact, one of the major reasons for the declaration of Martial Law was to practically “wipe out” the communist movement in the Philippines. Human rights documentation from that period and subsequent years records how activists, trade unionists, peasants, church workers and other members of civil society were accused of being “subversives” or members of communist “front organizations.” As cited by Amnesty International (2024), “A 2020 report by the Commission on Human Rights in the Philippines similarly argues that red-tagging often acts as a precursor and an “open invitation” to commit further serious human rights violations against HRDs, including surveillance, false arrests on baseless charges, and killings.” The historical lesson is therefore not simply about the labels that have existed since then, but that political labels could have consequences beyond public opinion. 

The contemporary practice of red-tagging demonstrates why this history remains relevant. For instance, Indigenous Communities (IPs) are vulnerable to crimes against humanity such as extrajudicial killings, human rights violations, militarization of their communities, land dispossession, and violence dressed in red-tagging. In a recent data cited by Manila Observatory (2026), there is a pattern of systematic and large-scale human rights violations, including extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances, arbitrary arrests, forced surrenders, bombings, and mass displacement, which makes the Philippines one of the most dangerous environments for environmental and human rights defenders.

The issue with labeling and red-tagging is that it can reverse the proper order of public judgment. Instead of asking, "What did this person actually say or do?” the public is encouraged to ask "What kind of person is this?" or “Why is she/he in the mountains?” Once someone is called a "communist" or "NPA," every subsequent action may be interpreted through that label. A student protesting tuition fee increases may no longer simply be a student demanding transparency. A journalist questioning government policy may be viewed first through an alleged political affiliation or bias. An Indigenous leader defending ancestral land may be perceived not according to the substance of the advocacy but according to an accusation of insurgent association. This is particularly dangerous because disagreement with the government is not, by itself, proof of participation and support with armed organizations. Criticism, protest, journalism, union activity, and human-rights advocacy are forms of civic participation protected within a democratic society like the Philippines. Although security concern surrounding the conflict of the government and the NPA is something that shouldn’t be ignored for the state to fulfill its responsibility to protect its people; however, national security should not eliminate the need for evidence and due process when in fact, the seriousness of an accusation should make the evidence more important and not less.

The danger of labeling become especially concrete in the case of Alyssa Alano, a 22-year-old University of the Philippines Diliman student leader who was among the 19 people killed during a military operation in Toboso, Negros Occidental, last April 19 this year. The Philippine Army described the deaths as resulting from an encounter with alleged NPA members, while the UP Diliman University Student Council and other groups described Alano as a student-leader and researcher who worked with farming communities. While circumstances surrounding the operation remain contested, Alano’s case therefore brings the issue back to the question at the heart of labeling: What happens when we decide what a person is before examining who they really are and what actually happened to them? 

History has shown the consequences of allowing labels to define people before their stories are heard. The central issue should not be whether the public should immediately believe activists or the government automatically. It should be whether the public is given enough information to make an informed judgment where they would be able to distinguish documented affiliation, political ideology, advocacy, criticism of government policy, peaceful protest and even research immersion or field study. The Philippines has already experienced what can happen when identity becomes a justification for suspicion. The contemporary debate over red-tagging therefore deserves to be viewed not merely as a dispute over terminology, but as a question about how a democratic society treats dissent.

#VoyagingTowardsVeracity
#IASParagon2627

References:

The prey of Philippine red-tagging: a look into the frontline environmental defenders of the Cordilleras and Mindanao. (2026, April 27). Manila Observatory. https://www.observatory.ph/2026/04/27/the-prey-of-philippine-red-tagging-a-look-into-the-frontline-environmental-defenders-of-the-cordilleras-and-mindanao/ 

Amnesty International. (2024, October 14). Philippines: “I turned my fear into courage”: Red-tagging and state violence against young human rights defenders in the Philippines. https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/asa35/8574/2024/en/ 

Ocampo, S. C. (2022, February 25). Martial law dictatorship red-tagged bishop, two nuns. Philstar.com. https://www.philstar.com/opinion/2022/02/26/2163485/martial-law-dictatorship-red-tagged-bishop-two-nuns 

Human Rights Foundation. (2026, March 27). Red-Tagging in the Philippines: A license to Kill. https://hrf.org/latest/red-tagging-in-the-philippines-a-license-to-kill/ 

Gregorio, A. (2026, April 28). UP: Withhold judgment on slain students’ presence in Negros clash. Inquirer.net. https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/2219554/up-withhold-judgment-on-slain-students-presence-in-negros-clash

Philippine News Agency. (2022, September 23). ML declaration ‘wiped out communists like a storm’: JPE. https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1184389