LEADER: Owen Baylon

MEMBERS: Caitlin Llanera and Jemille Manabat

BA Polsci 1A Group 5
Narrative Report
Philippine Social Movements, Red Tagging, and Social Action
Social movement is a collection of individuals engaging in an organized manner to affect social
or political change. Protests, rallies, marches, strikes, and other acts with the objective of
influencing the general public or the government's decisions are representations of social
movements.
These movements tend to focus on a wide range of issues, including civil rights, environmental
preservation, gender equality, rights for LGBTQ+ individuals, labor rights, and more. They can
arise in response to observed societal injustices or frustrations. Social movements can be small
or global in scope, organized at a local level or by well-known institutions.
Another topic would be brought to light, and it would be about social action. Well, Social action
is the term used to describe deliberate activities made by people or groups with the intention of
bringing about social, political, or cultural change. It can take many various forms, such as
community organization, advocacy, or legal reform, and can involve attempts to change laws,
standards, or social institutions.
Social movements and social action both aim to promote social change and solve problems with
society, but social movements are more concerned with long-term, systemic change, while
social action is more concerned with immediate, localized impacts. To accomplish their
objectives, social movements frequently combine several different types of social action, such
as protests, advocacy, and community organization. The scope of the effort is one significant
distinction between social action and social movement. Social movement entails a broader
collective effort, while social action often focuses more on the individual or small group. Social
action, on the other hand, frequently focuses on particular concerns or problems, but social
movements frequently aim to transform larger cultural or political systems.
So why are these social movements still relevant historically and up until this day? Well, they
provide an opportunity for people or organizations with similar concerns to band together and
demand change. Social movements can influence institutions or governments to solve social,
cultural, or political challenges by enlisting the public's support, increasing public awareness,
and organizing support. They are also one of the main methods that individuals may voice their
concerns and advocate for social, cultural, or political change in a social environment. They can
result from a wide range of complaints or problems, from political corruption and economic
inequality to environmental degradation and human rights violations.
The idea of social movements having the power to oppose existing power structures and
promote a more just and equal distribution of resources and power is one of their most
important accomplishments. They can attempt to create a more inclusive and varied society by
giving voice to underrepresented or underprivileged groups. Social movements often advocate
for legislative changes or other types of action while also raising public awareness of crucial
concerns. Challenges to the status quo and efforts to create fair and equitable institutions and
structures can be achieved through social movements, which can be a powerful force for social
change.
With social movements being given meaning, we can better understand their immense ability to
persuade the public of the injustices they are suffering from and to create a more just system.
But having this kind of power, comes with a great price, as a result of our demands, our
complains, our wishes, we are being branded as "terrorists" by the government rather than
receiving favorable treatment and support.
Social movements that support progressive change may occasionally be viewed as threatening
by individuals in positions of authority, who may see them as a possible threat to their
legitimacy. They could utilize red tagging to delegitimize, weaken, or put an end to these
movements. In an oppressive regime where freedom of assembly and speech are restricted, red
tagging can also be used to prevent opposition and intimidate critics. Governments can exploit
terrorism as justifications for using force and repression in order to hold onto power.
Given a brief description of their method, we are to provide the concept of red tagging so it can
be fully understood. So, red tagging is the act of designating people, teams, and organizations
as supporters of terrorism or communism without sufficient evidence or due process. The
government and military frequently use it as a means of intimidation and repression against
political opponents, activists, human rights advocates, and civil society organizations.
Red tagging in the Philippines has expanded in recent years and now targets a wider variety of
people and organizations. A portion of this can be linked to the government's counterinsurgency
effort, which aims to put an end to the communist insurgency throughout the nation. However,
detractors claim that this campaign has been used as justification for harassing, arresting, and
even killing people and groups who are thought to be critical of the administration or its
decisions. They use it as a tool to suppress criticism. The Anti-Terrorism Act, which was enacted
in July 2020, has drawn criticism for its vague and broad definition of terrorism, which might be
used to justify red-tagging and other human rights abuses.
The Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 is only one of the steps President Rodrigo Duterte has put in
place to combat terrorism in the nation. The Anti-Terrorism Act is a law that aims to give the
government the resources it needs to stop and mitigate acts of terrorism. It defines terrorism as
any act carried out with the objective of inflicting casualty, serious injury, or significant property
or infrastructure damage in order to instill widespread fear among the public or to overthrow the
government.
The Anti-Terrorism Act additionally established a high-ranking government official-led Anti-
Terrorism Council to monitor and coordinate the government's counterterrorism initiatives. The
Council has the authority to label people or organizations as terrorists and impose asset freezes
and other measures on them. The Anti-Terrorism Center (ATC) is in charge of carrying out the
nation's anti-terrorism policies and plans, coordinating the work of various government
organizations engaged in counterterrorism, and supervising the Anti-Terrorism Act's
implementation.
Before the signation of the Anti-Terrorism Act, NTF-ELCAC was first established by our Former
President Rodrigo Duterte, he established the NTF-ELCAC in 2018 with Executive Order No. 70
in an effort to solve the country's armed communist insurgency's underlying issues. It is charged
with carrying out development initiatives in regions afflicted by the communist insurgency. It is
made up of several government organizations, including the military and the police.
The Anti-Terror Law and the NTF-ELCAC are connected since both are components of the
government's initiatives to fight terrorism and insurgency. The Anti-Terror Law gives the
government greater legal means to pursue suspected terrorists, while the NTF-ELCAC adopts a
more comprehensive strategy for tackling the underlying causes of conflict. Critics of the
legislation argue that it may be exploited by the government to suppress criticism and violate
human rights, and that it can be used to target people and organizations who aren't really
supporting terrorism.
The passing of the Anti-Terror Act of 2020 has alarmed the citizens and a number of
organizations for several reasons. Since the legal definition of terrorism is wide and open to
interpretation, which opens up possibilities for abuse and exploitation by the government. The
public fear that the law may be applied to suppress conflict and silence the objection of the
masses.
The law also permits the longer-term detention and arrest of people without a warrant. This
provision may cause people' constitutional rights to be violated and law enforcement
organizations to misuse their authority. Similar to this context it also raised concerns about its
impact on human rights, specifically the right for freedom of expression and peaceful assembly.
This has sparked worries about the possibility that the law may be used to target activists,
journalists, and other government opponents who could be charged with terrorism for no other
reason than to voice their disagreements.
To sum up all that has been stated, red tagging is a serious human rights issue that has led to
multiple violation of fundamental rights and freedoms. The government’s use of this method or
tactic to silence the opposition and dissatisfaction has drawn heavy criticisms, and the Anti-
Terrorism Act’s implementation has raised tensions about the potential abuse of power in the
future. The government must ensure that human rights are protected, due process is followed,
and that no one or group is irrationally marked out for criticism or attacked without solid
justification.