Duterte’s Rape Comment: More Needed from the Media
Davao City Mayor Rodrigo Duterte during the CNN Philippines-sponsored Townhall in UP Diliman held on February 18, 2016. Photo by Lito Ocampo
DURING A campaign rally in Quezon City last April 12, presidential candidate Rodrigo Duterte recalled how during his first year as mayor in Davao City, a prison riot broke out in the Metrodiscom Detention Center. He recounted how Jacqueline Hamill, an Australian missionary who was ministering to prisoners, was gang-raped and killed along with other hostages. Duterte expressed his anger over Hamill’s rape. He remembered his thoughts at the time: because the missionary was so beautiful, he, the mayor, “should have been first. What a waste.” (“Nagalit ako kasi ni-rape? Oo. Isa rin ‘yun. Pero napakaganda. Dapat, ang mayor muna ang mauna. Sayang.”)
Duterte expressed anger over calls for him to apologize, and refused to do so. On April 17, a day after Youtube user Beatboxer ng Pinas uploaded the video, Duterte said in an interview outside his home in Davao City: “I am willing to lose the presidency. Do not make me apologize for something which I did which was called for at the moment.” According to him, he made the remarks out of anger, and that his being from a poor family is to blame for the way he talks. He did say he was sorry “to the Filipino people,” but refused to apologize to any particular person or entity.
The candidate’s formal apology, released by the Duterte camp two days later, on April 19, read: “I apologize to the Filipino people for my recent remarks in a rally. There was no intention of disrespecting our women and those who have been victims of this horrible crime. Sometimes my mouth can get the better of me.”On this same day, Duterte initially said he did not know about the statement. He declared much later in the evening of April 19 that he did approve it, but without reading it carefully.
Columnists and editorialists took the candidate to task, but the news accounts seemed content with reporting whatever Duterte said, without question, failing to challenge the lack of logic in his defense, that his statement had been said in anger, as this did not explain the remark, “mayor should have been first.”
One exception was CNN Philippines anchor Pia Hontiveros, whose interview on April 18 with
|
As his supporters scrambled frantically to manage the media’s take on his remark, some referred to the substantive issue of Duterte’s role during the hostage crisis in the Davao Metrodiscom Detention Center in 1989. On April 19, Inquirer.net published four reports on the Davao prison siege dated August 16 and 17, 1989. Re-telling the story, the candidate claimed that he had ordered the military assault and that he played a key role in managing the crisis.The Inquirer ran four articles about the prison episode in Davao. None of the reports mentioned then Mayor Duterte.
In a separate backgrounder, the Inquirer said: “Days after the incident, Davao City Mayor Rodrigo Duterte said the military assault was the ‘only civilized option available to government at the time.’ The decision to mount the operation, he said, was “collective.” Again, this quote cannot be found in any of the above reports. So what kind of a role did Duterte have in the prison incident? Commendably, MindaNews’ “Duterte in 1989: “Shoot-to-kill can never be shoot-to-live” published on April 18 narrated in detail what transpired in the August 1989 hostage taking. While Duterte claimed in the April 17, 2016 interview that, upon seeing Hamill’s lifeless body, he took out his Uzi and emptied his magazine on the perpetrators, he was actually prevented by the police and military from negotiating in the August 1989 incident because Metrodiscom “was not in the line of sight.” The autopsy performed on Hamill also indicated that she was killed during the firefight and not afterwards. The MindaNews article also reported that Duterte offering himself as a hostage happened not in the August 1989 incident but in an earlier hostage taking that happened four months earlier at the Davao Penal Colony (Dapecol).
|
Senator Aquilino “Koko” Pimentel III, chairman of Duterte’s political party, Partido Demokratiko Pilipino-Laban ng Bayan (PDP-Laban) insisted on clarifying what Pimentel meant.
Below is the transcript of the exchange:
Hontiveros: Can you tell us, what is the PDP Laban going to do about this? Have you spoken to Mayor Duterte about this?
Pimentel: Well, the PDP-Laban does not need to intervene because the mayor has already said that he is sorry for using gutter language. Our only contribution is to put things in proper perspective. You know what happened? Si Mayor Duterte po ay nagkuwento ng isang insidente noong 1989. Unfortunately he was so accurate in his storytelling that he also quoted himself–
Hontiveros: He repeated everything he said back in ‘89?
Pimentel: Sinabi niya ‘yun in 1989. He quoted himself verbatim and very accurately so if people got mad, actually they got mad at Duterte in 1989. A 44-year-old Mayor Duterte, dun po sila nagagalit, but–
Hontiveros: What are you saying, Senator? That as a 44 year-old man, that would explain why he spoke that way?
Pimentel: No, it was the situation. He was really mad, gutter language nga daw ‘yun pero the point is, all this condemnation that people in social media are dishing out, they’re really…because this happened in ’89, he did not say those words na, ‘yung desire ng Mayor na mauna. Hindi ‘yan…that’s not the 2016 Duterte. He was quoting himself during that incident in 1989. So, okay lang pong magalit kayo pero nagagalit po kayo sa 1989 Mayor Duterte, a 44-year-old mayor who was faced with such a crisis during the time.
Hontiveros: But why would he repeat those words?
Pimentel: Ganun po talaga siya mag-storytelling eh. Very, very… he takes time in retelling stories. He’s very accurate, he wants to be accurate and sa tingin niya walang masama so inulit niya. That is really, Pia, the proper perspective. Hindi po ‘yun inserted as a joke, hindi ‘yun inserted as a side comment. He was just telling a story. Sinabi niya ‘yun when he was mayor and he was about to attack the hostage-takers.
Hontiveros: Well, Senator, you explained and he (Duterte) explained that when he said that, he was angry. So he was angry at the hostage-takers and those who raped this Australian national. But if he was angry at them, then why would he say, “Dapat mauna ang Mayor”? The mayor should have had her first?
Pimentel: Sabi nga niya, that’s his mouth. That is the way he thinks, that is the way he talks. But he was angry and that was the result of his anger. Nasabi niya ‘yun tapos… ang mas importante yata dun ‘yung susunod niyang sinabi na, “Tapusin na ‘yan, lulusubin na ‘yan.” ‘Yun ang sinabi niya. So finally the decision was made to act and then save whoever they can save. And then there was a firefight and then all of the hostage-takers got killed. That is the proper perspective of the story. Nag-sorry na po. Nag-sorry na po si Mayor Duterte for using the gutter language way back in 1989 and sorry for repeating verbatim, in an accurate way, what he said in 1989.
Hontiveros: Has anyone on the campaign team or from PDP-Laban told him that, in so many words, “Mayor Digong, it’s not all right to talk that way even if you are recalling an old story?”
Pimentel: Of course nobody knew that this was coming, he was recalling an incident so all the words he said during the incident siya lang po ang nakakaalam. Story-telling niya po ito, but this is not a 2016 comment. This is a 1989 comment. Unfortunately, na-capture ng tape, spread in social media, people have reacted. In the end, that’s the use of gutter language. So general apology na rin because up to now siguro sinasabi naman ni Mayor na up to now he uses gutter language.
Hontiveros: All right. Salamat po, Senator Koko Pimentel. Thank you.
This was not the first of Duterte’s gaffes, which have ranged in degrees of crudeness. The media have relished quoting the tough-talking mayor since his candidacy was suggested by supporters, recording every single flip-flop about his running for president. This latest offensive remark has crossed the line, so to speak, as more voices have come forward to suggest a consensus that rape is so heinous a crime that it can no longer be considered a subject matter for jokes. The number of reported crimes may be central to this judgment: Compared to 9,887 cases recorded in 2014, the Philippine National Police (PNP) reported 10,298 cases of rape based on police blotter reports in 2015.
With the elections only a few weeks away, the media should check the accuracy of the candidates’ claims, to prove them false, unreasonable, or exaggerated as necessary. Letting them off on some utterance or sound byte can leave strong impressions of acceptance or approval.
The easy pass given by media to candidates lowers the bar for evaluating the conduct of those seeking the highest office. In this case, the failure to question Duterte’s rationalization encourages the trivialization of atrocities like rape and violence against women, even murder. (Duterte’s remark was in fact greeted with laughter from his audience.)
The easy dismissal that what was said was just a slip of the tongue or was due to his “masa”-like conduct should not be accepted but questioned. This was a thought (about “being first” to rape) that surfaced in his memory as he recounted an incident that happened 27 years ago – and for media to allow the Duterte camp to spin this out of context would be to share in the politician’s flaws and weaknesses.
Pareho lang lahat ng media, ngayon pa lang takot kay digong. Anong nangyari sa mga media personnel na nakabuntot sa lahat ng activities ni duterte? Bat di nila nireport ito? Kung di pa nagviral sa social media di pa ninyo irereport sa mga news nyo. Siguro sagana sa padulas yung mga nakaassign na media kay duterte.