Such incident of "red-tagging" which had often resulted in dangers for those named, are no longer new coming from Parlade, who is the armed forces' commander for southern Luzon.
Recently, he had rehashed his unsubstantiated claim that 18 schools in Metro Manila are breeding grounds for the CPP-NPA, an allegation that universities rebuked. For this and many other documented cases, he is facing criminal and administrative charges before the Ombudsman.
And while Parlade did not name Carpio or Carpio Morales, he did mention lawmakers from the Makabayan bloc in Congress who are contesting as well as the legality of the anti-terror law.
"Petitioners believe this is a matter of serious concern that requires judicial remedy as the post, if indeed made by a state actor, construes the [anti-terror law] to be able to penalize the right to seek judicial relief before the Honorable Court," the petition read. "Designed to intimidate, the post also amounts to interference with the [court's] power to administer justice, as it is directed to the parties and their counsel days before the matter is heard."
Among those joining the petition are former Supreme Court spokesperson Theodore Te, UP professor Jay Batongbacal, Dante Gatmaytan, Victoria Loanzon, Anthony Charlemagne Yu, Francisco Ashley Acedillo and Tierone James Santos.
Together, they asked the high court to direct Calida to turn in a written explanation before February 2, when oral arguments are set for the anti-terror law, "confirming whether or not the social media post" is an official government messaging, including the circumstances behind it and its intent.
"The post is a clear threat to Petitioners Carpio, Carpio Morales, et al. for seeking redress before the Honorable Court. Though some portions directly name specific persons, the post also groups together petitioners as part of "individuals, groups and organizations" who should be monitored for "opposing a law that will protect citizens from terrorists," the petition added.
Enacted in July 2020, the anti-terror law is facing 37 petitions before the Supreme Court to strike it down as unconstitutional. The oral arguments were originally set on January 19, but had since been moved to February 2 after Calida said his staff had contracted the coronavirus.
Many groups have long contested the measure, even before it was signed into law, warning that its provisions and the vagueness of how it defines "terrorism," could be used to stifle dissent and run after government critics.
Since its enactment, two Aetas have already been charged for supposed violation of the measure, while only recently, the defense department ended its accord with state-run University of the Philippines after the CPP-NPA was named a terrorist group by the Anti-Terrorism Council which was created under the said law.
The oral arguments in February will see legal luminaries, eight lawyers in particular, including ex-solicitor general Jose Anselmo Cadiz and former law dean Chel Diokno, presenting their case in a bid for the court to strike down the highly contested legislation. — Christian Deiparine with reports from Kristine Joy Patag and Gaea Katreena Cabico