Two members of the Philippine Bar could be stripped of their licenses over public comments about women, after the Supreme Court decided to treat their statements as a formal disbarment case rather than let the matter rest with lower disciplinary bodies.
In a resolution promulgated June 3, 2026, the Court’s En Banc directed Quezon City Representative Jesus “Bong” Suntay and Atty. Ferdinand Topacio to explain within 10 days why they should not lose the privilege to practice law. The tribunal acted motu proprio — on its own initiative — folding the accusations against both men into a single proceeding it re-docketed as a regular disbarment case, A.C. No. 14934.
The period given to the two respondents was described in the ruling as non-extendible.
Suntay drew scrutiny for statements he made on March 3, 2026, while the House Committee on Justice was tackling the impeachment complaints against Vice President Sara Z. Duterte. According to the resolution, the lawmaker was attempting to characterize as a joke a past remark by the Vice President — one in which she spoke of “imagining” the beheading of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. — when he offered his own analogy involving actress and social media figure Anne Curtis-Smith.
The Court reproduced Suntay’s words in full, quoting him as saying: “Alam mo, minsan, nasa Shangri-la ako, nakita ko si Anne Curtis, ang ganda-ganda pala niya. You know, may desire sa loob ko na, nag-init talaga. Na-imagine ko na lang kung ano ang pwedeng mangyari. Pero siyempre, hanggang imagination na lang ‘yon. Hindi naman siguro ako pwedeng kasuhan dahil kung anu-ano ‘yong na-imagine ko.”
The panel that heard the matter voted 13-2-2 to strike the comment from the record. Suntay opposed the deletion, warning that erasing his statement set what he called “a dangerous precedent” and amounted to “censoring manifestations which [are] neither illegal [nor] immoral.” He afterward defended the remarks in separate media and online interviews, including one with OneNews, insisting they were meant as an analogy and ought to be received by the actress as flattery.
Topacio entered the controversy two days later. On his DWIZ 882.4 program Yes… Yes…Yo! Topacio, the resolution states, he backed Suntay and turned his criticism toward Curtis’s sister, Jasmine Curtis-Smith, who had denounced the lawmaker. He questioned why she posted bikini photographs on social media, disputed that such images could be defended as art or as brand endorsements, and framed the practice as a bid for attention and views. During the same broadcast, according to the Court, he openly acknowledged having once felt desire for Gabriela Party-list Representative Sarah Elago upon encountering her at a Department of Justice hearing, declaring that he says what he means and means what he says.
The push for Supreme Court intervention came from within the bench and from outside it. In a letter dated March 16, 2026, Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, together with Associate Justices Amy C. Lazaro-Javier and Maria Filomena D. Singh, called on the Court to move against Suntay and Topacio and to require them to justify why disciplinary proceedings should not follow. Weeks later, on March 31, the UP Women Lawyers’ Circle emailed the Court urging it to open an investigation into Topacio’s broadcast conduct and what the group characterized as his admission of lust toward Elago.
The two matters — one carrying the show cause order, the other the appeal on gender-based misconduct in the legal profession — were merged by order of the En Banc on April 8, 2026.
In laying out its reasoning, the Court leaned on the principle that admission to the bar is reserved for those of good moral character and can be withdrawn from those who show, through a pattern of behavior, that they do not live by such standards. It cited In Re: Atty. Lorenzo G. Gadon’s Viral Video Against Raissa Robles, reiterating that a lawyer is expected not only to possess good moral character in fact but to be seen leading a life consistent with the community’s highest ethical standards.
Alongside the show cause directives, the ruling instructed the Office of the Bar Confidant to turn over an updated inventory of pending administrative cases against the two men, and ordered the Integrated Bar of the Philippines to submit a status report on the complaints before it — both within 10 days. The Court framed the standard of conduct expected of lawyers as higher than that demanded of ordinary citizens, binding them to act with dignity and honor in both speech and action.
