Quezon City Rep. Bong Suntay, in defending Vice President Sara Duterte’s public threats against President Marcos, made a shockingly inappropriate analogy. During a hearing on the impeachment complaint against the VP, Suntay used himself as an example, “Alam mo, minsan, nasa Shangri-la ako, nakita ko si Anne Curtis, ang ganda-ganda pala niya. You know, may desire sa loob ko na nag-init talaga. Na-imagine ko na lang kung ano ang pwedeng mangyari. Pero syempre, hanggang imagination na lang ‘yon. Hindi naman siguro ako pwedeng kasuhan dahil kung anu-ano ‘yong na-imagine ko.”
Members of the House of Representatives quickly asked that his statements be stricken from the record, given their impropriety. He doubled down and said there was nothing sexual and immoral about his statements. Even after the subsequent public outcry, he gave the standard non-apology: “I stand by that analogy that I made, but if some people were offended, lalo na Women’s Month, I’m sorry for those who were offended, but if you read the context talaga, there was nothing malicious in it.” His conduct is a prime example of, at its mildest, a reckless and irresponsible argument, and at its worst, the exercise of political power to condone and support the use of violent rhetoric.
The question of whether one should be responsible for their rhetoric, especially when it inspires physical violence, is playing out in different political arenas. This is at the heart of the arguments laid out in former President Rodrigo Duterte’s confirmation of charges hearing at the International Criminal Court (ICC). Violent rhetoric also plays a pivotal role in the naked aggression of countries, such as the United States, toward other sovereign nations, as well as against their own immigrants and citizens.
