📷: Dean Tony La Viña
Retired general Antonio Parlade has launched a fresh attack against Dean Tony La Viña, red-tagging the veteran lawyer and academic after Rappler published La Viña’s opinion article on the conviction of the “Talaingod 13.”
The move has drawn sharp criticism from legal advocates and civil society groups, who describe it as an attempt to silence dissent and criminalize legitimate critique.
Parlade accused La Viña of harboring sympathies for the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP), despite offering no evidence.
His remarks came after La Viña criticized the affirmation of the conviction of former Makabayan party-list representatives Satur Ocampo and France Castro, along with volunteer teachers, who joined a 2018 humanitarian mission to protect Lumad schoolchildren in Talaingod, Davao del Norte.
“Instead of engaging with the substance of my critique, General Parlade resorts to guilt by association,” NUPL said in a statement. “The evacuation of Lumad children was a humanitarian act, not a crime. To frame it otherwise is to distort both law and morality.”
NUPL stressed that La Viña’s article situated the Talaingod 13 case within the broader realities of militarization in indigenous communities, the closure of Lumad schools, and the forced displacement of children and teachers. He argued that the mission was a necessary response to documented threats, harassment, and insecurity caused by military and paramilitary presence.
“Our Constitution guarantees freedom of expression and protection for children,” NUPL emphasized. “To criminalize humanitarian work is to betray those guarantees and our obligations under international law.”
The group said, Parlade’s attack reflects a recurring pattern in Philippine politics: the use of red-tagging to delegitimize critics of state policy. By equating dissent with disloyalty, red-tagging shrinks public space for debate and exposes individuals to harassment, surveillance, and even violence.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly warned against the dangers of this practice. In Deduro v. Vinoya, the Court recognized red-tagging as a threat to life, liberty, and security, noting its role as a precursor to abduction or extrajudicial killing.
Similarly, in Gen. Bautista v. Atty. Dannug-Salucon, the Court affirmed that human rights lawyers targeted by surveillance and vilification may seek protection under the writs of amparo and habeas data.
“Red-tagging is not only unconstitutional—it is deadly,” NUPL said. “We have seen too many colleagues harassed, surveilled, and even killed after being labeled as enemies of the state. This practice must end.”
The NUPL has expressed solidarity with La Viña, describing him as a steadfast defender of human rights and environmental justice. The group underscored that intimidation will not deter lawyers and advocates from continuing their work.
“People’s lawyers will continue to stand together against every form of attack, including red-tagging. Experience should have taught Parlade and others who traffic in this practice that intimidation does not deter us from our work. It only sharpens our resolve to confront the weaponization of law, as seen in the prosecution of the Talaingod 13, and to defend those whose rights are trampled in the name of security,” NUPL concluded. (ZIA LUNA)
