Television journalist Atom Araullo and his lawyers said his landmark legal victory against Red-tagging can be used by other journalists and activists similarly victimized to thwart this dangerous labelling that opens them to various forms of harassment and intimidation.

Araullo, 41, a multiawarded documentarist, won a P2-million civil lawsuit for damages against ex-anticommunist task force spokesperson Lorraine Badoy-Partosa and Jeffrey Celiz at the Quezon City Regional Trial Court (RTC) on Dec. 12, a little more than a year after he sued the pair for defamation.

The court said Badoy-Partosa and Celiz made unsubstantiated defamatory statements in their SMNI television program that Araullo is an “enabler, supporter and member” of the outlawed Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP), its armed wing, the New People’s Army (NPA), and the National Democratic Front (NDF).

It applied the doctrine established in the landmark July 2023 Supreme Court ruling in the Deduro v. Maj. Gen. Vinoya writ of amparo case which declared that Red-tagging is a threat to fundamental rights, including the right to life, liberty and security.

In that case, the high court said Red-tagging is “a likely precursor to abduction or extrajudicial killing,” turning a Red-tagged person into a target for vigilantes, paramilitary groups, and even state agents. It noted that some individuals who had been thus labelled were eventually killed.

“This must end,” the high court said.

Struggle for press freedom

“I am very happy,” Araullo said in a news conference a week after Judge Dolly Rose R. Bolante-Prado of Quezon City RTC Branch 306 handed down her decision.

“I hope it contributes in a small way to the struggle for press freedom,” he said. “I am very happy that I was part of the team that secured this decision.”

Araullo said he did not expect the relatively early decision. “I want to stress that,” he said. “Even that component is unusual in the context of the Philippines, but it’s a pleasant surprise, and also I feel it illustrates how strong the case is.” 

According to Araullo, the court ruling may be used as a “possible potential defense mechanism” by journalists who have experienced the same kind of attacks and harassment from the likes of Badoy-Partosa and Celiz, whom he described as “unrepentant” and “committed” to what they are doing.

Badoy-Partosa is a physician and former spokesperson for the National Task Force to End Local Communist Armed Conflict. Celiz claims to be a former ranking CPP-NPA-NDF member, but this has been debunked by a former classmate.

In a statement she issued after the court handed down its decision, Badoy-Partosa said she expected it “from the very start” because she and Celiz were “prevented” from presenting their evidence when her lawyer failed to submit her pretrial brief on time.

“I lost this case on a mere technicality,” she said.

Later in a text message to reporters, she said: “To be clear, I am not paying [the P2-million award] at this point [because] this is under appeal.” 

Substantial decision

Cris Yambot, one of Araullo’s volunteer lawyers from the Movement Against Disinformation (MAD), said the decision was substantial and not only based on a technicality in which the defendants defaulted in presenting evidence.

Yambot said the Court of Appeals dismissed their petition on presenting their evidence because court rules on evidence “should not be belittled.” 

MAD convener Antonio La Viña believes that the camp of Badoy-Partosa and Celiz is either extremely negligent or does not have the evidence.

He said the pair would still be found liable if they had presented evidence because they would have just repeated the same defamatory statements they made against Araullo. 

Yambot said Red-tagging is “a form of disinformation.”

“As a species of disinformation, it is seen as a threat to fundamental rights of people. That’s why it must be stopped. It must be reined in, and penalties must be imposed on such actions,” she said. 

Yambot described Bolante-Prado’s decision as a landmark decision because, she said, it was the first time that the Deduro doctrine was applied by a regular court in a civil case for damages. 

Legal route

Araullo said the legal route is “an important option for many, especially those who directly feel the threat to their life and liberty by doing their work as journalists.” 

He said the attacks from Badoy-Partosa and Celiz did not stop him from doing his work because “I understand that it is part of our job in media that from time to time we would experience those kinds of challenges, especially if our stories hit powerful people.”

“This just means that you must be prepared for such risks,” he said.

Asked if the court decision has emboldened him to pursue his work and to make more documentaries and investigative reports, Araullo said: “As far as giving me more courage, I guess the answer is yes, only as far as this feeling that we secured a very important decision from the court. And I hope that it will make others think twice before they Red-tag, because this is very harmful especially to the work of journalists.” 

La Viña, recently appointed to the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague and a former dean of the Ateneo de Manila University School of Government, said he and his colleagues in Araullo’s legal team did not want a criminal libel suit as they are against it as a matter of principle, especially after it has been used to harass journalists.

The National Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP) also backed the civil case for defamation against Badoy-Partosa and Celiz instead of libel, which it described as the “archaic and anachronistic law that has been often used to silence critical reporting, criticism and dissent.”

The NUJP said the court was correct in pointing out that the right to free speech is not absolute and does not protect defamatory statements.

“The theory of the case is human relations,” La Viña said. “As a human being you have to act fairly, justly. You have to treat people with dignity.”

He added: “It is a very simple case … If you do something harmful to a fellow human being, there are consequences.” 

In July 2023, Araullo’s mother, Dr. Carol Araullo, one of the leaders in the resistance against the dictator Ferdinand Marcos Sr. and now chair emeritus of the activist group Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (Bayan), filed a similar suit against Badoy-Partosa and Celiz.

The pair said she was a member of the CPP central committee and the head of its National United Front Commission. They called her son, who is also a national goodwill ambassador for the United Nations High Commission for Refugees, a “spawn” of a rebel leader.

That case is still pending.

Strong deterrent

In a statement, MAD said all victims of Red-tagging would benefit from the court’s decision as it would serve as a strong deterrent against the practice.

“It affirms the right to free speech while emphasizing the boundaries of that right when weaponized to spread disinformation and incite harm,” MAD said. “This landmark ruling paves the way for greater accountability and safeguards against baseless accusations and harassment.”

Read more: ‘Sigh of relief’ for high court ruling on grave threat posed by Red-tagging