By Joanne B. Benitez
Layout by: Lou Margaret S. Nebit
In today’s political climate in the Philippines, we have witnessed several public officials — some of whom are lawyers — deliver dismissive, inflammatory, sexist, or insensitive remarks during hearings, press briefings, and online exchanges. Such conduct undermines public trust and erodes the integrity of the legal profession. Worse, some shamelessly hide behind the immunity afforded by political office.
Should lawyer-politicians not be more circumspect, considering that they carry dual responsibilities: serving the people and upholding the rule of law?
Under the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability, lawyers are not only advocates but also officers of the court, bound to uphold dignity, fairness, and integrity in all their dealings. This obligation does not disappear when they assume public office. Public office does not lessen a lawyer’s ethical responsibilities; if anything, it places them under greater scrutiny.
But what happens when the very people expected to uphold the law are the ones who, at times, break it? Are they ever truly held accountable, or do they simply get away with it?
One example is the incident in which Quezon City Representative Bong Suntay made remarks referencing actress Anne Curtis in a sexually suggestive analogy. The comments drew backlash from the public, specifically women’s groups and media watchdogs, which emphasized that women should not be objectified in public discourse. Representative Suntay defended his remark, saying that it referred to a fictitious situation and that it was not his intention to make it appear offensive.
Meanwhile, lawyer Ferdinand Topacio came to the defense of Rep. Suntay by invoking parliamentary immunity and dismissing the criticism as “constitutionally baseless.” While parliamentary immunity serves an important constitutional purpose in protecting legislative independence, it should never be used as a blanket excuse for irresponsible or degrading speech.
The controversy surrounding Suntay’s remarks is not merely an isolated incident. Rather, it reflects a broader pattern in today’s political discourse, where inflammatory statements are increasingly normalized and often brushed aside as jokes, exaggerations, or political rhetoric.
This pattern became even more apparent when Vice President Sara Duterte publicly stated that she had allegedly arranged for someone to kill President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., First Lady Liza Marcos, and Speaker Martin Romualdez should anything happen to her. Regardless of political affiliation, statements of such gravity coming from a public official — especially a lawyer — demand greater prudence and accountability.
Public platforms should never shield officials from accountability. Rather, they should demand greater responsibility from those who use them.
When such behavior becomes normalized, it teaches the public that legal processes are negotiable, fairness is optional, and authority excuses impropriety. More troublingly, it sets a dangerous precedent for the next generation.
Lawyer-politicians must remember that their words carry the weight of the institutions they represent. Even casual remarks from public officials can shape how people view justice, fairness, and the rule of law. To speak carelessly is not merely to offend; it is to weaken the very system they have sworn to uphold.
Public office is a public trust, and lawyers, of all people, should understand this. Hence, lawyer-politicians must lead by example. They must be the first to embody respect, restraint, and recognition of every person’s fundamental dignity.
NOTE TO THE READERS: Volume XIX, Issue 2, penned and published by The Red Chronicles, is a Back Issue for the Publication Year 2025-2026. Note that the article contents thereof align with the events relevant to the previous Academic Year 2025-2026.
