“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.”
Quezon City Rep. Bong Suntay uttered these statements during House justice committee deliberations on the impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte. Suntay claims he used this analogy to illustrate that the vice president’s admission that she had fantasized about decapitating the President was not an impeachable offense.
The committee immediately moved to strike his statement from the record but Suntay could not be deterred.
“There is nothing sexual in what I said. Nothing immoral. I just said I imagined something. I think there is nothing wrong,” he said. He insisted he could not be censured for saying something that was neither illegal nor immoral.
I wondered where Suntay got his education from. But soon enough, I found out. Because San Beda University alumni immediately and rightfully demanded the revocation of the Distinguished Alumnus award given him just a few days before he uttered his startlingly sickening statements.
After rapid backlash and calls for Suntay to issue a public apology to Anne Curtis, he did. Still, he would not let up. His remarks were not uttered with malice or intention to offend and Curtis should actually consider his remarks a compliment, he said.
Suntay should really just shut up. Because he seems completely clueless as to how revolting, not to mention, illogical, his statements are.
It’s not illegal to imagine. True. But he did not simply imagine. He told everyone what he imagined. Could he not tell the difference between keeping his thoughts inside his mind and actually uttering them out loud?
He said there was nothing sexual in what he said. No one uttered the word, “sexual.” Only he did. If he didn’t think there was anything sexual in what he said, then, why did he use a denial of such as his first line of defense?
Freudian slip there.
Suntay said he could not be censured for something that was neither illegal nor immoral. Poor defense.
It’s not illegal to break someone’s heart but it’s something you should still be held accountable for. To use only the law as a standard for how you conduct yourself on a daily basis is a pretty low bar. Because not everything legal is moral.
“Immoral” means not conforming to accepted standards of morality. Reducing a woman to an object for amusement is immoral but Suntay did not understand this. By insisting that he committed nothing immoral, he revealed his deplorable accepted standards of morality.
And that deserves censure.
He did not intend to offend. There may be no intent to offend but if one’s words and actions offend, one must accept the transgression and be accountable for it.
Suntay says it was a compliment. No person of whatever gender would consider it a compliment when their body is fodder for comedy or commentary.
There were no extenuating circumstances that could have justified his poor judgement and choice of analogy. No heightened emotions (except lust, perhaps?). No influence of drugs or alcohol. No ill health at the time of willful utterance.
Suntay said what he said because that is who he is. A misogynist. He commits gender-based violence through sexual harassment and treats it like a joke because that is his norm.
And his constituents should take note of this.