“I’m worried for you.”

These are not the words anyone—including myself—would expect to hear after winning a contest. Those words came from my mother as her concerned eyes met my eager, jubilant ones.

At that time, I had been a student journalist for seven years, but the distinction of winning a national contest was always an elusive goal. Until then, my writing never managed to breach the local level of competition, so participating in an essay contest commemorating the 50th Anniversary of Martial Law in the Philippines was  not with an expectation of victory.

My essay was a critical discourse on the present implications of Martial Law under Ferdinand Marcos Sr. While a peaceful popular revolution in 1986 reinstated democratic ideals eroded by a 21-year kleptocracy it created, its systems of oppression continues to persist. Such oppression, emboldened to an industrial scale by well-funded disinformation and historical denialism on social media, has become an urgent issue in recent times (Salazar, 2022; Chua et al., 2022).

Back then, against the backdrop of a change in administration from Rodrigo Duterte to Ferdinand Marcos Jr., the weight of fear when writing something critical about the government was especially heavy.

“She worries because it’s a sensitive topic,” my dad would say about my mother’s uneasiness. Winning this essay contest was a watershed moment, and for all the wrong reasons. For myself, and my family, the fear of the mere act of speaking the truth had become my first tangible, bitter taste of injustice.

Rule by Fear

Fear is the antithesis of freedom.

It stands against the very life, liberty, and security of a person. Thus, the mere presence of fear is symptomatic of a fundamental flaw in any democratic society. In the Philippines, such fear is born out of systemic and organised silencing of dissent by authority and state actors. This local brand of red-baiting is known as ‘red-tagging’ and has been maliciously used against scores of individuals, including journalist and Nobel laureate, Maria Ressa (Thongyoojaroen, 2023).

Red-tagging is indiscriminate: it targets journalists, congressmen, students, indigenous peoples, teachers, community leaders, and celebrities, alike (Galang, 2021). Likewise, there is no one way for someone to be red-tagged.

On a more wide-reaching and visible scale, personalities are publicly red-tagged on television broadcasts, speeches, and social media posts. Such was the case for the aforementioned Maria Ressa and journalist Alfonso Araullo who have been alleged to be members of the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) and its armed wing, the New People’s Army (NPA) without any evidence (Buan, 2022; Torres-Tupas, 2023). Accusations of communist ties stem from their independent reporting which often runs against government messaging (Elemia, 2020).

Another journalist, Leonardo Corrales, was subject to regular harassment for the reporting he had done in his local area (Human Rights Watch, 2022). In 2023, an anonymous Facebook account released his personal details, a practice otherwise known as doxing (Chi, 2023). Meanwhile, in 2019, flyers falsely claiming a P1 million bounty on his head and linking him to the CPP-NPA had been distributed in his locality. The use of leaflets and posters alleging communist ties has also been used against other progressives, from local youth council representatives to opposition politicians (Cordero, 2020; Sitchon, 2023).

In a threat to academic freedom, many universities in the Philippines - both public and private - have been identified by top military officials to be “recruitment havens for the New People’s Army” in public statements (Carreon, 2021). The political targeting of schools happens on both an institutional and individual level, including the naming of students and professors.

But the hardest hit academic institutions are schools run by Filipino indigenous peoples or Lumad schools. The past administration of Rodrigo Duterte has made assertions that Lumad schools have been used as NPA training grounds and at least 176 of such schools have been shut down, depriving about 5,500 Lumad children of education (Al Jazeera, 2021). Government operations under Duterte’s watch specifically targeted Lumad communities and land rights activists supporting their cause, at a hefty price: over a hundred Lumad advocates have died since Duterte took office (Al Jazeera, 2020).

Red-tagging takes a tangible, heavy toll on society. It is fundamentally undemocratic and is geared specifically to stun individuals to silence, sometimes by death. However, its implications are more wide-reaching, with sweeping implications on the state of constitutional rights and inherent freedoms accorded to every Filipino. Its outcome is a terrified nation, with many succumbing to the looming threat of red-tagging and a stunted democracy, with severely inhibited freedoms of speech, expression, and assembly.

Folding Paper Tigers

            The practice of red-tagging traces its roots to the communist witch hunt of McCarthyism that took place in post-war America. Thus, many vestiges of the hallmarks of McCarthyism can be found in red-tagging in the Philippines: most notably the incommensurate response to an overestimated threat, causing more damage than the very problem it addresses.

             Taking after the House Committee on Un-American Activities, the Philippine Congress established its own Committee on Un-Filipino Activities, primarily to address the Hukbalahap guerillas in 1949 (Tan, 2021). The communist fighters convened to create resistance against occupying Japanese forces in World War II but soon turned against the government in Manila after growing ideological distrust (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2024). However, suspicion and distrust from the government also fell on perceived sympathizers: anyone who dissented from American policies and interests (Tan, 2021).

            A fundamentally transformative time of the government's anti-communist effort came in the administration of President Ferdinand Marcos, Sr. Seeking to be the first reelected post-war president, Marcos made a strong push in mobilising his campaign and public image - eventually bringing the country into crisis (Abinales & Amoroso, 2017, 198). The deeply dissatisfied and disillusioned youth in the country turned to activism, some into radicalisation, eventually leading to the establishment of the CPP-NPA.

            The desire of President Marcos to seize absolute power over the Philippines had been long known prior to the declaration of Martial Law (Official Gazette, 2023). Opposition Senator Benigno Aquino Jr. revealed the top-secret “Oplan Sagittarius,” a staged takeover and bombing of Manila to justify the declaration of Martial Law. Marcos played up the fears of the middle class by emphasising the increase in the radicalisation of the youth and essentially manufactured titanic enemies in the communist party and Muslim separatists in the south (Official Gazette, n.d.).

            As a prelude to Martial Law, Marcos staged an ambush of the convoy of Juan Ponce Enrile, the Secretary of Defense (Official Gazette, 2023). A former writer for Marcos, Primitivo Mijares, recalled Marcos as saying to Enrile: “Make it look good…be sure the story catches the Big News or Newswatch and call me as soon as it is over.” When Marcos finally placed the entire country under his rule, he justified his declaration by stating:

“it is evident that there is throughout the land a state of anarchy and lawlessness, chaos and disorder, turmoil and destruction of a magnitude equivalent to an actual war between the forces of our duly constituted government and the New People’s Army and their satellite organizations….”

-Proclamation 1081, s. 1972 (Official Gazette, 1972)

            The justification of a monolithic and invincible insurgency is cast in doubt, especially considering the account of rebels numbering from an estimated 350, according to the NPA to 1,000 according to independent reports—all of whom were insufficiently armed (Martial Law Museum, n.d.).

            Nevertheless, the Marcos regime used its cloak of legitimacy and authority to act in full force, jailing and arresting individuals in support of the opposition, ranging from students and writers to unionists and politicians. Aside from justifying absolute rule using the problem of communists, Marcos rallied the country behind a Bagong Lipunan (Lit.: New Society) where he promised to “save the republic and reform our society.”

Here, he decimated any political enemies, unleashing a vast array of propaganda and material that essentially numbed the Filipino consciousness. The price of the estimated 70,000 incarcerated, 34,000 tortured, and 3,240 killed was a mere “necessity” for his reign of terror in the country.

The decline of the Marcos regime in the late 1980s culminated in the 1986 People Power Revolution, a bloodless uprising that restored democracy in the country. While it sought to reverse the mechanism of fear and oppression under Marcos, a sharp reversal in the country’s progress toward democratic goals was seen under Rodrigo Duterte.

Duterte, a populist strongman, campaigned on the promise of an iron-fisted rule over the country. Seeking full control of popular support for his policy and public image, Duterte turned to a well-funded and structured network of online trolls and disinformation (Palatino, 2017).

He also pushed back against any opposition by verbally attacking and naming his critics in public, often grouping and threatening to kill individuals he saw that sought to “destroy the nation” (Palatino, 2020). Alleged drug pushers and druglords were often murdered in extrajudicial killings which spiked under his administration (Conde, n.d.). Meanwhile, those in political opposition to him were often labeled as subversives and radicals who worked for the CPP.

It was under Duterte’s administration and by his orders that the National Task Force to End Local Communist Armed Conflict (NTF-ELCAC) was created. While its primary purpose is to implement a peaceful government approach to address the domestic rebellion and insurgency, the government agency has often been identified by activists and those in the opposition to be “either…the culprit or the instigator” of red-tagging in the country (De Mello, 2024).

Red-tagging Under Marcos Jr.

In the report of the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression, Irene Khan, after she visited the Philippines, identified strong evidence to suggest that the use of the cloak of counter-terrorism is used to stifle true dissent and instill fear in those who are in opposition to the government (De Mello, 2024). She expresses concern that red-tagging “intimidates and chills freedom of expression, and suppresses legitimate activism, journalism, debate, and criticism which are part and parcel of freedom of expression.”

While there has been a notable shift in the current administration of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. from that of the Duterte presidency, the problem of red-tagging persists, although to a lesser degree than that under Duterte.

In fact, there have been notable positive developments toward the gradual dissolution of red-tagging in the Philippines. Cabinet members of the Marcos Jr. have publicly denounced the practice of red-tagging, citing it as an “unproductive” practice (Philstar, 2022). Furthermore, the Philippine Supreme Court has officially declared red-tagging as a threat to a person’s right to life, liberty, or security, granting special legal protections in a recent landmark ruling (Philippine Supreme Court, 2024). However, the Marcos Jr. administration has shown no plans to dissolve the NTF-ELCAC amid reinvigorated calls against its continued operations (Mangaluz, 2024).

Freedom from Fear

The Philippine government continues to justify the legitimacy of its anti-insurgency and anti-communist efforts, citing the problem to be one crucial to national security. While it is indisputably so, such efforts must not come at the cost of individual freedoms, or to have it used as a cloak to justify the silencing of legitimate dissent.

A fundamental freedom guaranteed to every person is the freedom from fear. While the rule of fear over the Filipino people may have been done in the name of discipline and the restoration of the state, it must not run at the cost of a nation too scared to speak and stand by the truth. The current democracy Filipinos enjoy today is a result of courage in the name of freedom. Never must the Philippines succumb to fear again.