Congressman Bong Suntay wanted to make a point. That you cannot punish someone simply based on what’s inside their head. 

His plan was to defend a vice president who was facing impeachment for voicing out how she “imagined” killing the President. It would’ve been an interesting point. If only he didn’t get in the way. 

The congressman used both venue and platform to share his innermost thoughts regarding a famous actress he allegedly saw in a mall. There’s no need to repeat the words used. He left little doubt about what he had in mind. 

Congresswoman Ysabel Maria Zamora immediately registered a blistering objection. She also moved to have the remarks stricken from the record. In a surreal display of lack of awareness, Suntay objected, arguing there was nothing “sexual” about what he said, adding that it wasn’t illegal, and that it wasn’t immoral. 

One wonders about the psychology of public officials who aren’t deterred from sharing such thoughts in an official hearing. Even more troubling is the emerging defense. Free speech.

This “free speech” defense is now all over social media, spreading with troubling alacrity. So, in the interest of correcting disinformation, let’s face the question squarely: Does the right to free speech really protect misogyny? 

If the congressman kept the thoughts to himself then he would be correct; no law punishes thoughts no matter how lewd. But he didn’t. He broadcast them in an official hearing for the entire nation to hear. Once ideas manifest in the physical realm, they trigger analysis. And the first step is to check if what was said falls within the protection given by the Constitution. 

Protected speech

This might come as a surprise, but when the Constitution speaks of freedom of speech, it refers to a certain class of speech. That class is called “protected speech.” It sounds trite but, yes, only protected speech benefits from constitutional protection. The Constitution is a document of promises riddled within hidden exceptions. 

If “free speech” only applies to protected speech, this means that there is a class of “unprotected speech.” The misogyny demonstrated by Suntay firmly falls within this class. It wasn’t a generalized academic point for purely ideological purposes. It was speech that was specific, graphic, and directed at a named person. It left little doubt that the said person was objectified by the public official in a public and humiliating manner. 

Laws that punish sexual harassment and similar conduct remain in place. The Supreme Court has not struck them down. Which is why the number of those who parrot Suntay’s “free speech” defense trigger curiosity. Listening to and reading these posts, the rhetoric seemed familiar. It appears these people may have gotten ideas from the “manosphere” influencers of the US and other countries. Andrew Tate and his ilk often use “free speech” as a license. I’ve seen how posts by “bros” tend to bully minorities and women, claiming that “free speech” is absolute. 

It’s important to note though that Philippine jurisprudence has never tracked that kind of thinking. In this country, speech has always carried concomitant responsibilities. I may be wrong, but none of our justices are advocates of absolute free speech. Which is a fortunate thing. In the age of disinformation and algorithmic amplification, it’s quite difficult to uphold the utopian principles espoused by those like Hugo Black. 

Higher standard

Moreso, public officials are held to an even higher standard than private citizens. Because of the power they hold, they are given more obligations. Since their words carry authority, they have a duty to uphold dignity and public trust. Public officials can be held liable for ethical charges under various codes of conduct applicable to them (ie. RA 6713). As such, even assuming Suntay’s speech is protected from criminal sanction, he may still be disciplined for grave misconduct, conduct unbecoming or considering the kind of words he used, gender-based harassment (RA 11313). 

Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences. The right to imagine is absolute. Yet history taught us that some thoughts should not be given form, some should never be encouraged. The list of such thoughts is quite short. Speech that targets minorities, women and other races or religions are not mere “abstract opinions.”

This kind of speech is dangerous. It has led to real world violence. It has emboldened oppressors and rapists. It has engendered fatal conflicts. It has fueled genocide. The realm of political discourse is not threatened by its exclusion.

Should the congressman be sanctioned? That is up to the wisdom of Congress, the authorities and ultimately, the voters of his district. For our purposes, it should be clarified that “free speech” is not a license for sitting public officials to practice misogyny. It never was, and it never should be. – Rappler.com

John Molo teaches in UP Law and UA&P Law. He practices litigation and alternative dispute resolution and has argued several landmark cases before the Philippine Supreme Court.