ONE of the most enduring tropes is the “haunted house” story. In the recent commemoration of Nov. 1 and 2 as All Saints’ and All Souls’ Days, Filipino Catholics blend veneration of one’s ancestors with human interest in spirits and the ways the world of the living converges with the afterlife.
In these stories, people are plagued by supernatural forces that subvert and manipulate their lives for purposes beyond human comprehension and compassion.
A contemporary reworking of spirit-haunting was created by the clash between President Rodrigo Duterte’s official and unscripted statements made regarding the Catholic celebration of Nov. 1 and 2.
According to the Nov. 1 message released by the Malacañang Palace, President Duterte said he was “one with the Christian faithful” in celebrating the holidays when “... we remember our saints and our dearly departed loved ones”.
He enjoined Filipinos to reflect on the relevance of this tradition for facing the present and the future: “May their deeds inspire us to become advocates of peace and solidarity as we do our part in building our nation and in alleviating the suffering of others.”
However, on the evening of Nov. 1, the president remarked to officials gathered for a disaster management briefing in Cauayan, Isabela that he thought the Catholics are “tarantado (crazy)” for observing two successive holidays to venerate saints, with many of the faithful not even knowing which ones were “gago (fools)” and “lasenggo (drunkards)”.
To audience laughter, the president suggested that Filipinos can just simply put his photo on their altar and pray to “Santo Rodrigo”.
The day after the president’s disjointed messages, Caloocan Bishop Pablo Virgilio David asked Roman Catholics to pray for the president and the nation, both of which manifest signs of “sickness”.
David, vice president of the Catholics Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines, observed that “to be a Christian is to be ready to be branded as a ‘fool for Christ’,” according to a Nov. 4 report on rappler.com.
The latest discourse involving Duterte and Roman Catholic leaders reprises the president’s brand of “hate speech,” which he wields consciously and consistently against critics and other targets of his ridicule, contempt, and hatred.
Last Oct. 17, University of the Philippines (UP) Diliman professors Maria Diosa Labiste and Yvonne Chua presented the findings of their study on “Duterte’s polemic versus the Catholic Church as examples of hate speech” at the College of Mass Communication (CMC) Auditorium in the UP Diliman campus.
Both journalists and Journalism academics, Labiste and Chua studied the messages embedded in 13 policy-related speeches President Duterte directed at the Roman Catholic Church, including their historical and social context, particularly the timelines connecting his statements and those made by Church officials criticizing Duterte and the Marcoses
The UP academics established that, contrary to the perception that the presidential “irreverence” is spontaneous and impulsive, there is a “pattern” and “consistency” in the use of profanity and other slanted statements that “dehumanize, impute a crime, create a social wedge, and advocate hostility” against the Church, an outspoken and persistent critic of Duterte’s War on Drugs and the spike in extrajudicial killings during his administration.
Church officials’ responses, which generally focus on issues and deflect criticisms against personalities, fail to counter the “amplification” of the president’s “hate speech” by government media and social media influencers magnifying the “sensational, antagonistic, and manipulative” messages and tone of the president’s pronouncements.
The overall effect is to create a perlocutionary effect, which occurs when a communicative act persuades the audience to take action. When echoed by the powerful, hate speech can be “weaponized” against social critics.