A joke can reveal as much about the person telling it as the person being targeted. The backlash against Machong Chismisan over its remarks about Josh Aquino, Kris Aquino’s eldest son, puts that distinction under scrutiny.

In their podcast episode Ang Pagbabalik ni Kris Aquino published on October 5, podcast participants compared Josh with his younger brother, Bimby Aquino. One host called Josh “walang kuwenta,” while another questioned what he supposedly did after hearing a claim that he received a ₱3,000 school allowance. The discussion drew laughter from participants.

Josh, who is on the autism spectrum, became the subject of public criticism directed at the podcast after clips circulated online.

The remarks reduced Josh’s worth to assumptions about his abilities and productivity. That framing is troubling when directed at a person with a developmental disability, given the misconceptions autistic people already face about communication, independence, and everyday life. Josh should not have to be exceptionally kind, intelligent, or helpful to deserve respect. His dignity does not depend on how well he meets other people’s expectations.

Fashion designer Michael Leyva condemned the remarks, saying Josh deserved love and support rather than ridicule.

“Making Kuya Josh the subject of your so-called ‘Machong Chismisan’ podcast and mocking his disability is not something that I or any of us should simply let slide,” he said.

Television host Boy Abunda also criticized the comparison with Bimby, noting the hurt such comments could cause Josh, his family, and other families raising children with disabilities.

“What you did goes against both God’s law and human law. It is deeply painful. It is deeply painful not only for the family, but also for all families, children and parents whose children have disabilities,” Abunda stated during an episode of his talk show.

The Autism Society Philippines likewise challenged the use of disability as entertainment, reminding content creators that freedom of expression does not remove their responsibility toward persons with disabilities.

Comedy can be irreverent and provocative. Not every joke needs to be agreeable, and creators should be able to challenge social conventions. But criticizing public figures and humiliating someone over a disability are different propositions.

Calling a remark “comedy” does not settle whether it reinforces prejudice. Audiences can question a joke’s premise without demanding that all humor be sanitized. They can also decide which creators deserve their attention.

The issue is not whether comedians should avoid controversy. It is whether the joke depends on treating someone as inherently inferior.

Following the backlash, Machong Chismisan removed the episode and apologized to those hurt by the remarks, including the PWD community. The podcast acknowledged that some comments were “inexcusably insensitive and hurtful” and said it would review future episodes more carefully.

The Pod Network also apologized before announcing on October 15 that it had terminated its contract with the podcast, effective immediately.

These developments show that the controversy carried consequences beyond online criticism. They do not, on their own, establish what the people involved will learn from the incident. That will depend on their actions after the apologies.

Josh’s right to dignity should not depend on his famous family, the number of people defending him, or whether he can prove his worth to strangers. The same respect should extend to people with disabilities who do not have a public platform or influential friends speaking on their behalf.

Comedy can challenge power, expose absurdity, and make people uncomfortable. But a microphone does not make every remark worth publishing. The question is not who can take a joke. It is why someone’s disability had to become one in the first place.