LIPA City – “THERE’s nothing malicious, discriminatory or tantamount to harassment in my remark, as response to an interview,” Mataasnakahoy vice mayor and gubernatorial candidate Jay M. Ilagan told the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) in response to the Show Cause Order the Commission issued last April 7.
Prior to this, the COMELEC, thru the Task Force on Safeguarding Against Fear & Exclusion in Elections (Task Force SAFE) has issued on said date a Show Casue Order asking Ilagan to respond within three (3) days why he should not be penalized on the supposed violation of laws related to his remarks contained in a video clip that circulated in the social media since the last week of March.
In the said controversial video clip, Ilagan remarked as:
“Kung ang aking kalaban ay si Kathryn Bemardo pero ang aking kalaban ay isang Vilma Santos laang na laos na. Hindi ako takot. Kung sa Kathryn Bemardo at Andrea Brillantes ay takot ako. Pero Vilma Santos, marami naman sa mga fans niya ang namamahinga na rin… ang iba rin naman ay yempre nasa edad yan. At saka lagi ang sasabihin ko sa inyo ay iba ang governor na nahihipo…”
In his response dated April 8, Ilagan said that the remark “must be understood as a combination of figurative speech and humor, typical of political commentary, and not as discriminatory or malicious attacks on women or the elderly. The use of the term “laos” was directed at perceived political and pop culture relevance, not personal dignity or gender.
“COMELEC Resolution No. 11116 and the pertinent laws (R.A. Nos. 9710 and 11313) define violations in terms of explicit, unwanted acts targeting a person’s gender or sexuality. The statements in question: 1. Did not involve unwanted sexual remarks; 2. Did not pose psychological threats; 3. Did not contain lewd jokes, catcalling, or gender slurs; (and) 4. Did not deny access to rights, benefits, or opportunities based on gender or age. The language used was political in nature, not aimed at demeaning women or elderly individuals, and should not be construed as harassment or discrimination under the legal standards.”
Ilagan also maintained that his remarks should be views as a simple and plain utterance protected by the Freedom of Expression clause of the 1987 Constitution, Article III, Section 4.
“To penalize satire, metaphors, or commentary involving public figures such as Ms. Vilma Santos – herself a seasoned politician and public personality may amount to viewpoint-based discrimination, which the Constitution does not allow,” he said.
“There is no showing of actual malice, nor is there any indication that Ms. Santos has filed a personal complaint. The remarks were made in the context of political conversation and not as part of any systematic or targeted effort to harass or exclude anyone from political participation,” his answer continued.
Moreover, the interview was made on March 25, 2025 or three days before the official campaign period started on March 28.
Citing the case of Penera v. Commission on Elections (COMELEC), G.R. No. 181613, Ilagan maintained that the Supreme Court affirmed the principle that a person does not become a candidate until the official campaign period begins.
In that case, the Court ruled that while the filing of a Certificate of Candidacy (COC) expresses a person’s intent to run for public office, it does not yet confer the full legal status of a candidate until the campaign period officially commences.
“This distinction is vital because campaign-related rules, prohibitions, and liabilities do not attach until one is formally deemed a candidate under the law. The ruling in Penera protects individuals from premature application of campaign restrictions and underscores that statements or actions made prior to the campaign period are not to be judged by the same standards applicable to official candidates,” Ilagan said.| – Joenald Medina Rayos
