Topacio Disbarment Complaint a Warning to Other Lawyers: You Will Pay for Sexist Remarks

The complaint against lawyer Ferdinand Topacio, filed by fellow lawyer Jesus Falcis, cites Topacio’s lewd remarks as violations of Philippine laws. It also violates certain international laws and treaties on women the Philippines has signed.

A DISBARMENT complaint filed this month against controversial lawyer Ferdinand Topacio before theIntegrated Bar of the Philippines is drawing attention not just for Topacio’ provocative conduct but for what the complainants say it means for the legal profession more broadly: That lawyers who use their public platforms to demean women, trivialize sexual violence, and harass female public officials should expect to lose their license to practice law.

The complaint, filed on March 10 this Women’s Month and a copy of which was obtained by Rights Report Philippines, seeks Topacio’s disbarment and asks the IBP’s Commission on Bar Discipline to preventively suspend him, require him to issue a public apology, and mandate that he undergo gender sensitivity training. It was filed by lawyer Jesus Falcis, a barangay councilman and member of the Philippine bar, and Renato Astudillo, a private citizen.

The case centers on remarks Topacio made during the March 5 episode of his online radio program, “Yes Yes Yo Topacio!,” which was streamed publicly over YouTube through the DWIZ channel. According to the complaint and sworn judicial affidavits by both complainants, Topacio made several remarks that trivialized rape, sexualized named women — including elected officials — and blamed women for being the objects of male desire.

The broadcast was initially triggered by controversy surrounding Quezon City Rep. Jesus “Bong” Suntay, who had made lewd remarks about actress Anne Curtis during a House committee hearing. Topacio defended Suntay on his radio program, saying “He’s a man. Let’s not kid ourselves. Men have desires.” He then went further, making remarks about rape fantasies and directing comments at actress Jasmine Curtis-Smith, claiming that her bikini photos posted online were meant “to get famous and to be fantasized.”

Topacio also acknowledged on air that he had previously desired Gabriela Women’s Party Rep. Sarah Elago, stating during the broadcast that he had “smelled her” during a Department of Justice hearing. He also made sexually suggestive remarks about former Sen. Leila de Lima, according to the complaint.

Topacio is a lawyer for high-profile clients such as former president Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and Apollo Quiboloy, the religious leader currently detained for alleged human trafficking and child abuse.

Philippine Law Violations

The complaint argues these statements violated two specific provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA): Canon II, Section 3, which bars lawyers from creating a hostile or unsafe environment and from engaging in gender-based harassment; and Canon II, Section 4, which requires lawyers to use only dignified, gender-fair language in all personal and professional dealings, including over mass media.

Beyond the CPRA, complainants argue that Topacio’s remarks constitute prima facie violations of Republic Act 11313, or the Safe Spaces Act, which prohibits gender-based online sexual harassment, including  unwanted sexual remarks and misogynistic comments made online or through broadcast. The complaint also cites Republic Act 9710, the Magna Carta of Women, which requires nondiscriminatory and nonderogatory portrayal of women in media.

International Law: What CEDAW Requires

The complaint’s legal reach does not stop at domestic law. The Philippines ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women in 1981 — the first country in Southeast Asia to do so — and its obligations under that treaty are directly relevant here.

Related Stories

ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL RIGHTS

Informal Workers Reel from Impact of Soaring Oil Prices

DISABILITY RIGHTS

The Problem with the Autism Care Bill

CEDAW’s Article 2 requires states to pursue a comprehensive policy against discrimination through legislative, judicial, administrative, and other measures. But it is Article 5 that speaks most directly to what Topacio said on air: it obliges states to take all appropriate measures to modify social and cultural patterns of conduct rooted in ideas of the inferiority of women or in stereotyped roles for men and women. Article 5, according to the convention, “requires states parties and individuals to change the fundamental attitudes and stereotypes that marginalize women in public and private spheres.” Topacio’s claim that men are simply “wired” to desire and fantasize about women — and that women who post photos online are asking to be sexualized — is precisely the kind of entrenched gender stereotype CEDAW was designed to dismantle.

The CEDAW Committee’s General Recommendation No. 19, adopted in 1992, established that discrimination against women includes gender-based violence, meaning acts that inflict mental or sexual harm, threats, and coercion. The definition includes “acts that inflict physical, mental or sexual harm or suffering, threats of such acts, coercion and other deprivations of liberty.” This interpretation was significantly strengthened by General Recommendation No. 35, adopted in 2017, which confirmed that “gender-based violence against women occurs in all spaces and spheres of human interaction, whether public or private, including in technology-mediated environments such as online and other digital environments.” A radio program streamed over YouTube to thousands of viewers falls squarely within that definition.

According to UN Women, CEDAW “recognizes that discrimination is often most deeply rooted in spheres of life such as culture, family and interpersonal relations. It addresses the negative impact of gender stereotyping, working on the fundamental premise that unless change takes place at those levels, efforts to achieve gender equality will be frustrated.” The complainants’ argument — that Topacio’s remarks normalize rape fantasies and objectify women in public life — maps directly onto that framework.

The 1995 Beijing Platform for Action, which the Philippines adopted by consensus along with other UN member states, further requires governments to take action against sexist portrayals of women in media and to promote nondiscriminatory content in public communications. Topacio’s use of a broadcast platform to blame women for their own sexualization runs counter to those commitments.

Precedent and Pushback

The complaint points to a key legal precedent. In 2023, the Philippine Supreme Court voted unanimously, 15-0, to disbar lawyer Larry Gadon for misogynistic and abusive remarks he made against journalist Raissa Robles. The court said the tirade was “indisputably scandalous” and discredited the legal profession, reminding all lawyers that there is no room for misogyny and sexism in the profession. The complaint against Topacio argues his conduct follows the same pattern.

The IBP’s Human Rights Committee released a statement on the Topacio case emphasizing that lawyers are expected to demonstrate the highest commitment to respecting women and ensuring gender does not become a barrier to justice.

Topacio has not backed down. In a statement, he stood by his comments and denied allegations that he ordered a recording of the program to be hidden from the public. “I stand by what I have said. I have never been a hypocrite,” he said. He also denied owning or controlling the DWIZ YouTube channel where the broadcast was later switched to private, a move the complainants argue amounts to an indirect admission of guilt.

Elago filed a separate disbarment complaint with the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline on March 12, the day after the Falcis-Astudillo complaint. She had earlier told a radio interviewer that Topacio’s remarks were unacceptable and that she was studying all available legal remedies.

The complaint’s timing, filed at the start of Women’s Month, was deliberate. The complaint makes clear that Women’s Month is not merely symbolic, but a reaffirmation of society’s commitment to ensuring women are treated with dignity in all spaces, including public discourse. That a member of the bar would use a broadcast platform to normalize rape fantasies and publicly sexualize female lawmakers, the complaint argues, makes the case all the more egregious — and all the more in need of a clear, unambiguous response from the legal profession. (Rights Report Philippines)