Sexist remarks reveal enduring misogyny in government

IN EARLY March 2026, a series of sexist remarks by public figures drew attention during Women’s Month. Over the course of several days, House, Senate, and legal forums saw officials and public figures make comments that were widely criticized as offensive toward women. Among those involved were Deputy Minority Leader Bong Suntay, lawyer Ferdinand Topacio, and Senator Jinggoy Estrada.

Media reports noted these exchanges and included reactions from women lawmakers and advocacy groups. Coverage, however, largely focused on the immediate incidents and public backlash, with limited attention to the broader pattern of misogyny in political and public life.

These sexist remarks, irrelevant during the occasion and offensive at any time, were uttered in consecutive days in March, officially designated as Women’s Month around the world. The incident reveals so much of what needs to be done to revise the norms that seem embedded in the thoughts and, sadly, expressed openly in public by people in authority.

Cases of sexism

• On March 4, Deputy Minority Leader and Quezon City Representative “Bong” Suntay shared his sexual fantasy involving actress Anne Curtis as an analogy during a House impeachment hearing on the impeachment cases against Vice President Sara Duterte.e. Curtis responded by labeling Suntay the “poster boy” of misogyny.

• Lawyer Ferdinand Topacio went further on his March 5 radio program Yes Yes Yo Topacio! on DWIZ, defending Suntay’s remarks by arguing that men are “wired” for sexual desire and asserting that sexual thoughts alone should not be penalized. He even admitted on‑air that he once had sexual thoughts about Gabriela Partylist Representative Sarah Elago when he “smelled” her during a Department of Justice hearing.
• On March 6, 2026, Senator Jinggoy Estrada asked Gilas Pilipinas Women’s basketball player Elizabeth Jeanette Means about her relationship status during a Senate Committee on Justice and Human Rights hearing, and then teasingly suggested that a fellow senator “might want to apply” if she did not have a Filipino boyfriend.

Rappler’s Order in the Court highlighted that lawyers like Suntay could face disbarment for using misogynistic and sexist language. By recalling a prior Supreme Court case in which controversial lawyer Larry Gadon lost his license for similar conduct, the media provided a framework for accountability that extended beyond the immediate “viral” moment. Inquirer.net and other media outlets cited the Philippine Commision on Women who said Suntay’s remarks violate atleast three local laws.

In Topacio’s case, all news outlets cited Gabriela Women’s Party Representative Sarah Elago, who called out Topacio’s “long track record” of red-tagging and insulting women. This inclusion is vital; by noting that this was not an isolated incident, the media avoided treating the remark as a standalone gaffe and instead identified it as part of a recurring pattern of behavior.

In response to Estrada’s comments, the media reported extensively on the public outcry, which condemned his remarks as inappropriate and lewd, especially considering the formal setting and the power imbalance between an older lawmaker and a young athlete. Critics labeled his comments as “creepy” and indicative of “casual sexism” in governance.

Media reports, while documenting the remarks and reactions, framed the interaction through the lens of backlash and public reaction.

Context and Accountability

Many reports have documented the offensive remarks and the subsequent defenses offered by the officials involved, with some citing relevant laws such as the Safe Spaces Act (RA 11313) and the Magna Carta of Women (RA 9710) as potential grounds for penalties.

Yet by giving some space to the explanations of male officials—who often shift blame onto the victim or frame their comments as harmless—the media risks centering the perpetrator rather than the impact on the women affected.

This pattern is not new. During the May 2025 elections, sexist and misogynistic rhetoric was rampant on the campaign trail, revealing both the persistence of discriminatory attitudes in political discourse and the media’s uneven role in tracking and analyzing these trends. Even the past President Rodrigo Duterte contributed to this normalization, casually making gender-insensitive remarks in nationwide speeches and interviews.

CMFR has stressed that without firm, public sanctions and sustained pressure from both media and the public, such incidents continue to be treated as public relations crises rather than violations of women’s rights. To counter the dangerous normalization of misogyny, reporting must keep the focus on the structural violation of women’s dignity, the laws designed to protect them, and the broader pattern of recurring abuse, rather than the justifications offered by the offenders.

Such expressions can cast aside the decades of work to correct speech as well as conduct that are rooted in customs of an age when women were seen as inherently inferior, objectified with derogatory language devoid of understanding of gender equality.