[Just Saying] 10 reasons QC congressman Bong Suntay should not get immunity

Making an actress, like Anne Curtis, a “prop” for sexual imagination and publicly announcing her as the object of Quezon City 4th District Representative Bong Suntay‘s prurient desire is the lowest form of objectification of that woman. It is my opinion that it is a sexual slur and a misogynist remark, making it a crime under the Safe Spaces Act.

If a legislator made a public statement about his prurient desire about a woman, not related to the issue at hand and even identifying her by name, in an investigative proceeding, should that legislator be immune from suit on the basis of the constitutional provision that “no member shall be questioned nor be held liable in any other place for any speech or debate in the Congress or in any committee thereof” (Section 11 Article VI of the 1987 Constitution)?

In my opinion the answer is NO. There should be no immunity for the following reasons:

FIRST: The Safe Spaces Act (Republic Act No. 11313) makes it a crime, among others, for anyone committing any act constituting a “misogynistic” remark and/or “sexist slur,” or “any statement that has made an invasion on a person’s personal space or threatens the person’s sense of safety.”

SECOND: The phrase “any speech or debate” in Section 11, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution applies only to any comment related to the issue at hand — which is whether the act described is an impeachable offense. The privilege of speech and debate is intended to protect the office, not the individual’s prejudices.

THIRD: The personal statement of a person’s own prurient desire about a woman has absolutely no use or bearing on the national issue of an impeachable offense.

FOURTH: The actress was treated as a “prop” for sexual imagination. It constitutes a “sexist slur” or a statement that invades personal space and threatens a person’s sense of safety.

FIFTH: The alluded sexual appeal of the actress was made front-and-center, which may have placed her in a dangerous situation as the target of anyone’s prurient desire.

ALSO ON RAPPLER

• Bong Suntay draws flak for suggesting sexual fantasy about Anne Curtis 
• Sorry not sorry? Suntay regrets ‘pain’ caused by Anne Curtis remark but says analogy ‘effective’ 
• House OKs ethics probe into Bong Suntay’s remarks vs Anne Curtis
• [Pastilan] When a congressman’s ‘thought crime’ goes public
• Order in the Court: Mr. Congressman, lewd remarks are not a compliment

SIXTH: Describing one’s bastos “desire” for an actress does not help the House committee on justice to determine if an impeachable offense was committed.

SEVENTH: The statement therefore is no longer legislative, investigative, or argumentative relevant to the national issue of impeachment.

EIGHT: It is a purely and unadulterated predatory comment objectifying a woman not even connected to the issue of investigation.

NINTH: Parliamentary privilege was never intended to override the fundamental human rights of private citizens who are not parties to the legislative inquiry.

TENTH: A sexist slur or a misogynist remark — both sexual and an objectification of a woman — can never be used as a defense against an accusation of an impeachable offense that involves national security.

A criminal act committed on the floor of Congress that is entirely unrelated to the legislative/investigative process should not enjoy the shield of immunity.

Safe Spaces Act, Republic Act No. 1131, is mala prohibita. Good faith is not a defense. The mere perpetuation of the act is the crime, and is punishable.

Constitutional provisions do not exist in isolation. The highest law of the land as a matter of state principle mandates, “The State values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect for human rights.” ( Section 11, Article 2 of the 1987 Constitution).

Accordingly, the immunity of a legislator regarding speech or debate made in Congress is not an unlimited one. It cannot be sustained at the expense of demeaning the dignity of a person and violating her human right to privacy. – Rappler.com

(This thought piece was first published by the author as a Facebook post on March 4, 2026.)

Mel Sta. Maria is former dean of the Far Eastern University (FEU) Institute of Law. He teaches law at FEU and the Ateneo School of Law, hosts shows on both radio and Youtube, and has authored several books on law, politics, and current events.