Lawyer Christian Sia (Screenshot from Facebook)

A nominee of Bagong Henerasyon (BH) Party-list is prodding the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) to initiate disciplinary proceedings against lawyer Christian “Ian” Sia, a congressional candidate in Pasig City, over the latter's recent lewd joke about single mothers.

BH Party-list 3rd nominee Redd De Guzman, who represents the National Council for Solo Parents Inc. (NCSP), described Sia's remark as constituting gross misconduct and “conduct unbecoming” of a lawyer.

In an 11-page verified petition for disciplinary action, the NCSP asked the IBP to hold Sia accountable for violating multiple provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA) and to recommend appropriate disciplinary action to the Supreme Court (SC).

"Good character is an essential qualification for the admission to and continued practice of law. Rather than modeling ethical, respectful discourse, Respondent (Sia) chose to dehumanize a vulnerable sector for personal political gain,” the group said.

The petition stemmed from statements made by Sia during a campaign rally on April 2, in which he told a live audience: “Minsan sa isang taon, ang mga solo parent na babae na nireregla pa at nalulungkot, minsan sa isang taon, pwedeng sumiping ho sa akin. ‘Yung mga interesado, magpalista na po sa mesa sa gilid."

(To the solo parents of Pasig, to those solo mothers who still get their period once a year--I want to clarify, those with their period--and who get sad, once a year they can have sex with me. Those who are interested can list up on that table on the side.)

The remarks, which were recorded and widely shared online, triggered swift condemnation from solo parent advocates, women’s groups, and the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD).

The NCSP said the language used was not only “sexually suggestive” and “unsolicited", but also targeted “a legally protected group", which amplified its harmful impact when shared across social media.

It asked the IBP to declare that Sia committed grossly immoral acts, including gender-based harassment and discrimination, by creating a hostile and unsafe environment (Canon II, Section 3); using offensive and undignified language (Canon II, Section 4); and discriminating against solo parents through sexist and harassing remarks (Canon III, Section 3).

It also urged the IBP to recommend to the SC the appropriate disciplinary action “for conduct gravely immoral and patently inconsistent with the standards of dignity, decency, and moral fitness required of members of the Bar".

“Time and again, the Supreme Court (SC) has imposed the penalty of suspension or disbarment for any gross misconduct that a lawyer may have committed, whether it is in his or her professional or private capacity,” the petition noted.

Citing Canon II, Section 3, the NCSP argued that Sia’s conduct constituted public gender-based harassment that created a hostile and unsafe environment, not only for those present during the rally but also for thousands of solo mothers who viewed the video online.

“It was made not in private or jest, but in a campaign rally; a public, political setting where the Respondent exercised authority and influence,” the group said about the joke.

They also invoked Canon II, Section 4, which mandates that lawyers must use only “dignified, gender-fair, child- and culturally-sensitive language” in all personal and professional dealings, and prohibits the use of “abusive, intemperate, offensive, or otherwise improper” language on any platform, including social media.

“The Respondent’s remarks were filled with sexual innuendo, gender stereotyping, and language that was clearly improper and offensive.These statements were not just tasteless; they were a deliberate play for laughter and attention at the expense of a marginalized group," they added.

The petition added that Sia’s defense—claiming the remarks were meant as a joke—only underscores the lack of accountability.

“Respondent’s defense that the remarks were intended as a ‘joke’ does not absolve him of responsibility. Under the CPRA, intent is irrelevant when the speech is clearly objectifying, degrading, and offensive,” the group argued.

The NCSP emphasized that membership in the legal profession is a privilege that comes with moral and ethical responsibilities beyond the courtroom.