What began as a disparaging online exchange about the celebrity Kris Aquino’s elder son has become an investigation into possible violations of disability-rights laws. Beyond the apologies and public outrage lies a larger question about the responsibility of those who turn other people’s lives into entertainment.
It took 26 seconds for the conversation in “Machong Chismisan” to turn ugly. The men were discussing Kris Aquino and her two sons when one of them compared the brothers, pronouncing the elder as no good. “Si Bimby, sobrang okay na anak. Si Josh, walang kuwenta, eh,” said the cohost known as Tito Patrioto aka Tito P. The remark was followed by more disparaging comments about Joshua “Josh” Aquino, who is on the autism spectrum, and laughter from the other men.
Ten days after the Oct. 5 episode was released, the podcast had lost its distribution partnership with The Pod Network. Its hosts had apologized. By Oct. 16, the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) had confirmed that subpoenas were issued to five individuals who appeared in the episode.
What began as an attempt at humor had become a possible legal matter. The controversy raises questions that extend beyond the Aquino family: When does a joke become public ridicule? What responsibility does a platform carry for remarks made by its creators? And what happens when the consequences of someone’s words are felt by a community far larger than the person being discussed?
What started it
“Machong Chismisan,” which says it has operated since 2014, describes itself as a comedy podcast built around conversations about popular culture, public personalities and everyday Filipino experiences. Its Oct. 5 episode, titled “Ang Pagbabalik ni Kris Aquino,” followed that format until the discussion turned to Aquino’s children.
According to reports documenting the deleted episode, Tito P. dismissed Josh while praising his younger brother, Bimby. Guest RJ Carbonell then brought up an unverified claim about Josh’s daily school allowance. Another disparaging remark followed, suggesting that Josh did little despite the supposed big allowance.
There was no independently verified basis for the allowance claim, nor did the exchange establish anything meaningful about Josh’s daily life. Cohost Lawrence Vivar was heard describing the earlier remark as a “low blow,” although laughter continued during the discussion.
The distinction matters. The five participants did not make identical statements, and Vivar’s objection is part of the recording. But he later acknowledged that his participation, including his laughter, contributed to the controversy.
A short clip circulated widely on social media on Oct. 14, drawing condemnation from viewers, disability advocates and public figures. The podcast subsequently removed the episode from its platforms. But deleting a recording does not erase what was broadcast, or settle the questions raised by its contents.
Beyond a famous surname
Josh’s identity as the son of Kris Aquino, the youngest daughter of the late former president Corazon Aquino, and a sister of the late former president Benigno Aquino III, made the episode especially visible. It was his disability, however, that gave the controversy wider implications.
Autism is a neurodevelopmental condition associated with differences in communication, social interaction, behavior and sensory processing. It is not a measure of intelligence, character, or human worth.
The World Health Organization emphasizes that autistic people’s abilities and support needs vary considerably. Some live independently, while others require continuing assistance. Reducing an autistic person’s value to outward behavior or assumptions about productivity ignores that diversity.
The Autism Society Philippines (ASP) responded to the controversy on Oct. 14 in a statement titled “Patawang Hindi Nakakatawa.” It challenged the idea that presenting a remark as comedy automatically removes responsibility for its consequences. It also cautioned against treating every offensive joke as a criminal offense, while emphasizing that disability-based ridicule may cross a boundary established by law.
Similarly, the Department of Social Welfare and Development warned that exploiting disability for entertainment reinforces damaging stereotypes.
The problem is not simply that Josh was insulted. The problem is the suggestion embedded in the remarks: that an autistic person’s behavior can be treated as evidence of lesser value, and that such judgments are suitable material for public amusement.
Ridicule as legal question
There is Philippine legislation specifically addressing public ridicule of persons with disabilities. Republic Act No. 9442, which amended the Magna Carta for Persons with Disability, introduced provisions prohibiting ridicule and vilification linked to a person’s impairment.
Under Section 39, public ridicule includes making fun of, contemptuously imitating or mocking persons with disabilities through words, writing, or actions because of their impairment. Section 40 prohibits such conduct when it could intimidate or undermine the self-esteem of the person concerned. Sections 41 and 42 separately address vilification, including abusive statements and public activities inciting hatred or serious contempt.
For a first violation, the law provides penalties ranging from ₱50,000 to ₱100,000 in fines, imprisonment of six months to two years, or both, depending on the court’s determination. These provisions are not an automatic criminal judgment against the podcasters.
Investigators must establish the applicable legal elements, including the nature and context of the remarks. The individuals concerned retain their rights to due process and to contest the allegations.
The NBI is now examining that question. On Oct. 16, NBI Director Melvin Matibag confirmed that subpoenas had been sent, directing those summoned to appear at the bureau’s Cybercrime Division on Oct. 20. Matibag said investigators were considering possible violations of disability-rights legislation and cyberlibel provisions.
Matibag also said public apologies would not necessarily remove potential criminal liability. That does not mean charges are inevitable.
The National Anti-Poverty Commission’s Persons with Disabilities Sectoral Council, in an Oct. 16 statement, supported accountability and corrective action while explicitly calling for assessment based on the evidence, applicable law and due process.
By Oct. 14, the podcast and several participants had issued apologies. Main host Makoy Pare acknowledged on behalf of the program that some statements in the deleted episode were insensitive and hurtful. He said the podcast had never intended to malign anyone and promised more careful review of future content.
Tito P. separately acknowledged making the disparaging remarks about Josh. In his public apology, he disclosed that he had been diagnosed with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), explaining that impulsivity could make filtering thoughts difficult. He expressly said he was providing context rather than excusing his behavior.
ADHD is also a neurodevelopmental disorder. But the existence of that symptom does not establish why any particular remark was made, whether the speaker intended harm or what legal responsibility might follow. Those questions cannot be answered by diagnosing someone through a podcast clip. Nor should accountability for remarks about autism require dismissing another person’s disclosed neurodevelopmental condition.
Vivar, meanwhile, reiterated that he had objected during the recording. He apologized for his laughter and participation, acknowledging that comedy has boundaries. The statements present differing levels of responsibility and explanations. What they share is recognition that the remarks caused harm.
The platform’s responsibility
The Pod Network initially acknowledged the complaints and removed the episode while reviewing its internal processes. It subsequently announced the immediate termination of its contract with “Machong Chismisan” on Oct. 15. The network also said it was developing editorial guidelines addressing disability, mental health, minors, and family members of public figures.
That response raises another question: How did the episode pass through production and reach audiences in the first place? An impulsive remark made during recording and the decision to distribute that recording are not necessarily the same editorial act.
A podcast episode published days before a clip becomes controversial may have passed through opportunities for review, editing and removal. Whether those opportunities existed or were used in this particular production remains unclear. The controversy illustrates why editorial judgment cannot begin only when viewers complain. The decision to terminate the partnership has already imposed a professional consequence. But whether it leads to lasting changes in production practices is a separate matter.
The same applies to the hosts’ apologies. An apology can acknowledge wrongdoing. A removed episode can prevent further distribution through official channels. Neither, by itself, establishes that the attitudes reflected in the remarks have changed.
Those beyond the recording
Other institutions have warned that the implications extend beyond one adult with a prominent surname. The Council for the Welfare of Children said on Oct. 15 that disability-related mockery reinforces stereotypes contributing to bullying and exclusion among children. The National Council on Disability Affairs also condemned the remarks and called for greater responsibility among digital content creators.
Even the TV host Boy Abunda, a longtime friend of the Aquino family, criticized the comparison between the brothers and said he would recommend legal action if Kris Aquino sought his advice. Fashion designer Michael Leyva, another family friend, publicly defended Josh and objected to his disability becoming material for ridicule.
Kris Aquino, however, chose not to enter a public confrontation. In an Instagram statement reported on Oct. 16, she described the remarks as “irresponsible” and “uninformed,” and said she did not want to give those responsible the public exchange they might have expected.
Her decision not to engage publicly does not determine the outcome of the NBI investigation. But it serves as a reminder that public figures and their families are not obligated to turn every insult into another spectacle.
After the laughter
The legal proceedings are at an early stage. Investigators have issued subpoenas, the individuals summoned have yet to appear at the scheduled proceedings, and the question of criminal liability remains unresolved. But the broader issue does not require waiting for a court judgment.
A person’s disability is not evidence of worthlessness. The ability to attract an audience does not make an unverified personal claim credible. And calling something comedy does not automatically make its consequences harmless. That principle need not end difficult humor, satire, or criticism of public figures. It requires a more basic distinction: whether the joke challenges an idea, a public action, or an abuse of power, or merely invites an audience to laugh at another person’s disability.
The hosts of “Machong Chismisan” have apologized. Their network has severed ties. Authorities are examining whether the exchange violated Philippine law. Those are developments in one controversy. The larger question is what standards audiences and content creators will apply when the next vulnerable person becomes the subject of a supposedly amusing conversation.
The law may determine whether an offense was committed. The public need not wait for that determination to recognize that a person’s dignity cannot be made a punchline. CS
Hannah L. Tabunda is a journalism graduate of the University of the Philippines Diliman and a contributor to CoverStory. Her interests include feature writing, multimedia journalism, and “stories that explore people, culture, and lived experiences.” She also engages in such combat sports as karate, Muay Thai and boxing, and has taken up bouldering and top-rope climbing.
