[] Had Suntay kept the story about his sexual desire in his mind, as he must have in his pants -- and VP Sara didn't publicize her self-confessed plan to have the president killed, the question of liability for wild imaginings wouldn't have come up.
BASHING SUNTAY ON REMARKS. Representative Bong Suntay made remarks in Tuesday's (March 3, 2026) hearing by the House committee on justice regarding the impeachment complaints against Vice President Sara Duterte-Carpio.
Jesus Manuel Angel "Bong" Suntay, 51 and married, is Quezon City fourth district congressman and a lawyer-businessman.
He has been verbally castigated since his remarks about Anne Curtis at Tuesday's hearing.
Suntay's comments at the hearing were variously described as:
-- "lewd";
-- "offensive and objectification of women";
-- "sexist" and "shameful";
-- "disrespect to women's dignity";
-- "using free speech as free pass for misogyny";
-- "a transgression requiring full apology."
To which, Suntay responded: Nothing wrong with his "manifestation." Only a dirty mind "can impute something that is dirty."
FALLOUT. Immediate consequences: (a) The House justice committee decided to strike Suntay's comment from the record. In effect, removing it as argument in the impeachment deliberation.
(b) The House committee on women and gender equality asked Suntay to apologize.
WHAT SUNTAY DID. Suntay was defending the earlier (November 23, 2024) declaration of VP Sara that she had designated a hitman to kill President Bongbong Marcos "IF" she were killed.
He was in Shangri-La, Suntay said, when he saw movie actress Ann Curtis. "Ang ganda pala niya. You know, my desire sa loob ko, na nag-init talaga. Na-imagine ko na lang kong ano'ng puweding mangyari, pero siyempre hanggang imagination na lang 'yon."
Translate or have that translated. But something, in flavor if not in meaning, is usually lost in the translation.
In sum, Suntay said he cannot be accused of a crime for whatever he imagined.
He was "sexually fantasizing" Anne Curtis, 41 and married, in effect, imagining what he could do physically, sexually with her.
SUNTAY'S POINT EXACTLY. The congressman in effect told the committee on justice this:
VP Sara could not be held criminally liable for evil thoughts against BBM -- and his wife and other enemies she had named -- just as he, Cong Suntay, could not be held criminally liable for imagining how it would feel to bed Anne Curtis.
CURRENT NOISE IS NOT OVER PRO-SARA ARGUMENT. House members and other critics are not in uproar over the logic that imagining evil is not punishable criminally. Which argument seems to be used to justify VP Sara "wanting to kill" if BBM and others if she herself would be assassinated.
The controversy is about what Suntay said about what he imagined.
Had the congressman not told the story in Congress -- or if he had told it more "delicately" or "sensitively" -- he wouldn't face this kind of bashing.
DIRTY OR NOT, WHERE IT'S SAID MATTERS. Cong Suntay said his tale was not dirty, as if listeners with "clean" minds filter such stories and regard them as inoffensive.
The story would've easily passed in a locker room or a cocktail bar. Surely not in a House committee hearing in a room with women, along with men who won't miss the chance to look gender-appropriate on nationwide video streaming. And on Women's Month (March 1 to 31, 2026) to boot.
REALITIES TO FACE. The House committee can strike out comments and remarks uttered before the body if they are, among others:
-- "Language that's irrelevant, inflammatory, or unbecoming of a public official";
-- "Unparliamentary language: offensive, vulgar, or disruptive language that insults another member or the committee/House."
The second reality is that the committee or the House in assembly decides whether a comment or remark falls under the list of utterances that may be removed from its records.
Suntay's declaration can be tucked under "unbecoming," a subjective category.