By Chong Ardivilla
Caricature is an implement of exaggeration dependent of the intention, target, effect, and focus or message. There is that caricature to infantilize, that is to make cute and agreeable. The other one is to enflame, that is to attack, to insult, to mock, to highlight and worsen by way of monumentalizing a lack, a severity, a tick, or a physical attribute.
Akbayan Partylist Representative Perci Cendaña issued a statement on possible legal actions against an online post of his caricature. The drawing is in graphite, greyscale copied from an official portrait of his. The mouth is slanted and gaping monstrously to clearly mark a perceived deficiency. Cendaña is a stroke survivor whose one side of his face is lopsided as a result. The caricature is a visual culmination of social media chides against Rep. Cendaña’s “ngiwi” or a smirk, or in this physiological case, imbalanced slanted lips. The physicality of the stroke should demonstrate survival, but it became a focus of attacks every time he issues a statement of whenever he comments on an issue. Rep. Cendaña’s politics align himself countering the rightwing fascist DDS (Duterte Die-Hard Supporters came from the original Davao Death Squad who allegedly murdered at the behest of Rodrigo Duterte). The ngiwi attacks usually come from the DDS. Rep. Cendaña insists that this caricature focusing on the effects of his stroke is an attack against his person with a disability. His partylist Akbayan posted online (20 August 2026) with the lede “Do foolish things, and reap the consequences.”
This lends to the question: is an elected official, a member of Congress with perceived and actual proximity to power, a member of the protected segment due to their disability? I begrudgingly say yes. However, I would like to give a troubling proposition. Protected from what? Insults? In the realm of political rhetoric where insults are expected and managed?
POWER IMBALANCE
Caricature is about power dynamics wherein the target is diminished, that is, cut down through visual mockery. Rep. Cendaña’s assertion (while in power) belongs to a rich line of people with power and their reactions against the art of slight.
Napoleon Bonaparte famously wanted to conquer England. Part of the perk if he successfully invaded England would be to deal with the British caricaturist James Gillray who portrayed Bonaparte as a petulant child/puny man. Bonaparte does not appreciate the visual depiction of the Napoleonic complex. However, is being short a disability?
How about the French cartoonist Charles Philipon who drew King Louise-Philippe I as a pear. The cartoonist was persecuted by authorities for drawing the sequence of the king’s corpulent and wrinkled face transforming into a sad pear. Is being fat and old a disability?
It must be said that these two examples are of powerful people who were attacked for their questionable character through their physicality. Of course, I am not equating Rep. Cendaña to European royalty, but this is a demonstration on how insults revolve around the physical. The difference is that Rep. Cendaña’s physical features used by the caricaturist came from a disability.
Disability discrimination isn’t simply the act of saying something nasty about a disabled person’s body. Its deeper violence lies in turning disability into evidence of incapacity—using the body to argue that someone is less competent, less productive, less worthy of participation, or less entitled to occupy public space.
I think we need to understand that certain sectors are impeded because of who they are. Is the insult of a lopsided face so egregious an attack that will prevent Rep. Cendaña in their job? The vilification against PWD’s would situate that their condition is argued as a massive hindrance to their contribution, production, and presence to society. That their disabled condition is pre-conceived as an inadequacy, ergo it must be an obstacle to their presence and dignity.
VERTICAL, NOT HORIZONTAL
It is not just the question of disability but also of positionality. Political rhetoric is verticality: are you punching up or punching down? Who gets to gain from this? Though it must be said that Rep. Cendaña has every right to feel attacked and to insist upon a legal corrective action, one must wonder if Rep. Cendaña is “equal” to the original poster who cannot and will not even post their real name as a defiant act of ownership. What precedence will this set when politicians, influential people will use this incidence with impunity to attack and silence dissent or difference in opinion, no matter how personal, petty, and idiotic the attack may be?
Arguably, Rep. Cendaña‘s ngiwi has been mercilessly used as mockery, which is truly a deplorable ableist behavior. Is this fair? Depends. As lawmakers, speech is the currency of being seen and heard, and caricaturists would use this against as counter-utterance. Is the caricature a low blow? Without a doubt. Is the caricature a cheap, stupid shot? Of course. Should it be penalized? I would be wary about that.
VISUAL SHORTHANDS
The wheelchair and the neck brace are visual shorthands for certain politicians, particularly those with allegations of corruption against them, to suggest that they are feeble and should be pitied (kaawaan). This is to appeal to pity and emotions which many of us see through as a cheap ploy. A former president in a wheelchair has put the figure of the disabled or afflicted politician as fraught and as a victim. The question is not whether Cendaña deserves humiliation. It is whether political power changes the ethical and political meaning of an insult directed at the body.
I can only answer this via a nuanced approach: are we going to police insults? By whom? Are we to decide which insults are alright? This defeats the purpose of insults. Are we going to situate the joke to focus on our disability as the main argument for us being an elected official — or is disability the defining attribute of your person? Or how you can still perform despite and inspite of it?
I close this essay to say that I am person with disabilities (plural) with both mobility and vision limitations. In so many ways, I am politically aligned with Rep. Cendaña. I am also a political cartoonist who understands the weaponization of caricatures by people with perceived less power to attack upwards (How many of us here laughed at ugly caricatures of our teachers or other authority figures?) Who has more actual power and authority: the caricaturist or the member of Congress? The caricature can wound, has wounded. One has summoned the mockery with a pencil. In reaction, another summoned the law with authoritative weight. Which one can wound more?
— Jose Santos “Chong” P. Ardivilla, PhD
Assistant Professor II
Department of Visual Communication
College of Fine Arts
University of the Philippines
Diliman, Quezon City