
By DOMINIC GUTOMAN
Bulatlat.com
MANILA – Broadcast journalist Atom Araullo and his legal counsels from Movement Against Disinformation (MAD) said that their legal victory may be used as a reference for future cases against red-tagging, especially for activists and journalists.
In a 27-page court decision dated Dec. 12, 2024, Judge Dolly Rose Bolante-Prado of the Quezon City Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 306 said that the right to free speech was abused by the defendants, Lorraine Marie T. Badoy-Partosa and Jeffrey Celiz, by red-tagging the plaintiff, Araullo.
Read: Journalist Atom Araullo wins civil case vs redtaggers Badoy, Celiz
“We want to use this case as a potential defense mechanism for journalists who experienced the same kind of attacks and harassment,” said Araullo in a press conference, Dec. 19 in Quezon City.
Work as a journalist
Araullo recounted that after being subjected to the red-tagging spree of Badoy and Celiz, the effect rippled to the communities that he covered.
“There were times that I had to visit a certain community, but it came to the point that they were already discouraging me, because they cannot vouch for my safety. It affected me as a member of the press and as an individual,” said Araullo in a mix of English and Filipino.
The court held that red-tagging violates the abuse of rights doctrine under Article 19 of the Civil Code, which requires individuals to act with justice, respect others’ rights, and observe good faith. It further upheld Article 26, which protects a person’s dignity, privacy, and peace of mind.
Judge Bolante-Prado stated that red-tagging extends beyond defamation. She also cited the recent ruling of the Supreme Court this year, the Deduro case, reiterating that red-tagging threatens the right to life, liberty, and security. “In the case of the plaintiff, the statements implicate him in terrorism, putting his safety and security at risk.”
Araullo hoped that this court decision would make people who commonly practice red-tagging to think twice.
A mere technicality?
Meanwhile, Badoy addressed the media on Friday, saying that she lost the case “on a mere technicality.”
Araullo’s legal counsels from MAD debunked this, saying that the decision of the court is both aligned to substantive (determining what is lawful) and procedural (fairness in the legal process) laws.
“They were given the opportunity. They did not take that opportunity. It is not true that they were deprived of due process,” said Tony La Viña, head of the legal counsel. “I honestly think that if they were to present their case, they would become more liable because of their repetitive statements.”
He also added that the defendants were given the chance to present their evidence, even an “intelligence list” but to no avail. “They were also given the chance to present anyone who can prove their statements, but no one appeared.”
The Court said that both the defendants failed to file their respective pre-trial briefs on time or at least three days before the date of the pre-trial, pursuant to Section 6, Rule 18 of the Rules of Court.
“The burden of proof falls on the defendants, who are the accusers, not on the plaintiff, the one being accused. The plaintiff, a victim of red-tagging, should not be burdened with the duty of proving malice when in the first place, the defendants have not established or offered proof of their claims,” the decision reads.
MAD also said that even before the court win, Badoy filed a petition for certiorari against the judge and Araullo, which was denied by the Court of Appeals (CA). This petition sought to nullify the order and resolution of the judge, for allowing Araullo to present evidence due to her failure to file a pre-trial brief.
“The Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the public respondent (Prado) when it issued the assailed order and resolution,” CA decision stated.
“No such persuasive reason exists here to warrant the issuance of the extraordinary writ of certiorari. We instead echo the public respondent’s observation: the petitioner cannot arbitrarily choose when to rigidly or liberally apply the rules; she cannot cry rigidity when relaxation is requested by the private respondent and then call for relaxation when it suddenly fits her agenda,” it added.

Deferring from the libel route
From the beginning, Araullo and his legal counsels were careful on filing the case against the red-taggers, especially that it might be used as a regulation of any kind of speech by the government.
“Libel is being used against us, against activists. As human beings, we have to act fairly, firmly, and justly. Everyone has the right to be treated with dignity,” said La Viña.
Journalists, media freedom watchdogs, and even the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) have been pushing for the decriminalization of libel, reporting that it is being used to clamp down on press freedom, free speech, and people’s right to information.
La Viña added, “MAD stands very strongly for press freedom and freedom of information. What we want is responsibility, self-regulation, and accountability of what people posts on social media.”
One of the recommendations of UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression Irene Khan is to amend the laws on libel. She said that the cyber libel in the Cybercrime Prevention Act (online) and the Articles 353 and 355 of the Penal Code (offline), are fundamentally at odds with international human rights standards.
“I firmly believe that decriminalizing libel would send a strong signal nationally and internationally of the Philippines’ commitment to accept criticism and debate, even against prominent personalities. Taxpayer funds should not be spent to protect private interests,” said Khan.
Landmark ruling
One of the legal counsel, Cris Yambot-Tanesco said that Araullo’s win is a landmark case. “This is the first time that red-tagging is penalized in a civil case.”
The decision also specifies red-tagging as a form of disinformation, she added.
“Red-tagging is, by itself, a manifestation of bad faith. By engaging in red-tagging, the defendants acted grossly and recklessly without regard for truth,” the court decision stated.
MAD said in a statement that the decision is not only a victory for Araullo but for all the victims of red-tagging. “It affirms the right to free speech while emphasizing the boundaries of that right when weaponized to spread disinformation and incite harm. The ruling serves as a strong deterrent against red-tagging, condemning it as defamatory and a violation of fundamental rights.”
The group also applauded the courage of Araullo in pursuing the case, and commended the judiciary for its principled, efficient, and thorough decision.
“This landmark ruling paves the way for greater accountability and safeguards against baseless accusations and harassment,” they added. (RVO)