‘PI’ curse is not slander, said an old Supreme Court ruling

  • The Supreme Court earlier ruled that saying “p*******na” is not a form of slander
  • They said that it is a common Filipino expression to express anger
  • The ruling was on a case between a mad sacked employee who issued threats to his superior

The world was taken aback when the Philippines’ tough-talking President Rodrigo Duterte threw the common FIlipino expletive “pu******a”, assumingly, to the United States President Barack Obama.

The statement, which contained the curse had led to the US’ cancellation of the Obama and Duterte meeting. The ‘curse’ has been loosely translated by foreign media as “your mother is a whore”; flaming a heated debate.

But while this polarized opinions, the Supreme Court (SC) has earlier ruled that the “p word” is not intended to defame anyone’s mother.

GMA News Online said in its story that a decision penned by former Associate Justice Querube Makalintal said that the expletive is a common Filipino expression when one is deeply enraged.

“This is a common enough expression in the dialect that is often employed, not really to slander but rather to express anger or displeasure. It is seldom, if ever, taken in its literal sense by the hearer, that is, as a reflection on the virtues of a mother,” said the SC.

This was the High Court’s decision involving an enraged employee of the Sangley point Naval Exchange in Cavite City named Rosauro Reyes against his superior Agustin Hallare.

Reyes, who led protests together with other employees after being sacked, went to his superior’s house and warned him that he will kill him.

“Agustin, [expletive] mo. Agustin, mawawala ka. Lumabas ka, papatayin kita,” Reyes was quoted by the court records.

[Agustin, you son of a b***h. Agustin, you’ll vanish. Get out here, I’ll kill you.]

Hallare filed a case against Reyes, who was then convicted by a lower court and the Court of Appeals for grave threat and defamation.

Reyes escalated his appeal to the SC. The top court acquitted him for slander but upheld the lower court’s conviction of grave threat.