Lorraine Badoy. (INQUIRER FILE PHOTO)
MANILA, Philippines — The United States Department of the Treasury sanctions on televangelist Apollo Quiboloy, including a freeze order on his US-based assets, are all part of the sacrifice needed to end communism, according to Lorraine Badoy, a former spokesperson for the government’s anti-insurgency body.
“I’m not surprised by it at all. It’s the price that you pay. We’re all ready to pay that price just to end this 54-year scourge of the Communist Party (of the Philippines, or CPP) —the terrorists,” said Badoy, who served as a mouthpiece of the National Task Force to End Local Communist Armed Conflict (NTF-Elcac) during the Duterte administration.
She is now an anchor at SMNI News Channel, a network owned by Quiboloy.
Badoy said news of the latest US sanctions on Quiboloy, founder of the Kingdom of Jesus Christ (KOJC) and self-proclaimed appointed “Son of God,” was no longer surprising because, according to her, he was a leading figure in the fight against the communist rebellion.
‘Systemic, pervasive rape’
Quiboloy is accused in the US of engaging in “serious human rights abuse, including a pattern of systemic and pervasive rape of girls as young as 11 years old, as well as other physical abuse.”
“You know these terrorists, they’re all over … because the CPP-NPA-NDF (New People’s Army-National Democratic Front of the Philippines) is very much into propaganda. So of course you expect something like that,” Badoy told the Inquirer.
When still serving under the NTF-Elcac, Badoy came under fire from militant groups and human rights watchdogs for Red-tagging activists or critics of the government, or linking them to the communist movement, often without basis.
In October, the Supreme Court ordered her to explain why she should not be cited in contempt over her social media posts allegedly threatening Manila Regional Trial Court Judge Marlo Magdoza-Malagar. This was after the judge issued a decision rejecting the government’s move to declare the CPP and NPA as terrorist organizations.
In response, Badoy invoked freedom of expression, arguing that her statements were on a matter of public interest and constituted “fair comment” protected by law.