Regal Oliva’s faux pas

“No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances” – Section 4, Article III, Bill of Rights, Philippine Constitution

There’s no doubt that freedom of speech is a constitutionally protected right. But our utterances, particularly when made public, become subject to public scrutiny. Such is the case of Atty. Regal Oliva.

“It was poorly written. Maybe I was tired. Maybe I wanted to sound poetic. Maybe I just wanted to stir a conversation, and yes I got what I wanted.”

That’s how Oliva tried to convince the public, particularly Duterte Diehard Supporters (DDS) enraged by his video discussing the detention of former president Rodrigo Duterte at The Hague. He has apologized.

While some chose to rebut the legal arguments Oliva presented, many more considered some of his statements as subtle attacks against Duterte under the mantle of legal points. To them, the real purpose was to denigrate Duterte.

Oliva’s apology was followed by a long lecture on how one should make comments. “The discussion happened but most of it sadly became personal. It became a flood of adhominem attacks,” he lamented. His lecture comprised a big chunk of his supposed apology. That’s why many people see him justification as an indirect attempt to turn the table against his critics.

But in fairness to Oliva, let us try to dissect some of his statements that caused the uproar.

1.) “How can the court be at ease when even his own family, the sitting vice president herself has publicly denounced the ICC's jurisdiction, when words like we will never surrender him echo louder than the pleading of his counsel?”

Oliva implied the words uttered by Vice President Sara Duterte influenced the decision of the International Criminal Court. Oliva must have thought that Sara should have been silent.

2.) “When a man's record is one of defiance, when his legacy is marked by thousands of deaths without trial, the court may find it difficult to grant him the benefit of the doubt.”

Oliva’s justification: “I was quoting the prosecution's argument, not stating a fact.” Sadly, nowhere in the context of his video statement did he say he was quoting the prosecution. Noticeably, the word “alleged” is absent.

I believe what deepened his critics’ anger is the fact that once upon a time he sought the endorsement of FPRRD. Did Oliva want to tell the DDS that he only knew of “thousands of deaths without trial” after the endorsement, not before?

3.) “To his supporters, this is a crusade against foreign meddling. To the victims, it is a fight for long denied justice, and to the law, it is simply the next step in a due process that he himself once denied to others.”

4.) “The irony is almost poetic. Noong siya ang nasa Malacañang marami ang ikinulong na walang pagkakataong magpaliwanag.”

5.) “And perhaps that is the true justice of it all that the man who built his power on fear must now rely on the very rule of law he once dismissed because in the end ang batas hindi natatakot, hindi napapagod, at higit sa lahat hindi nakakalimot.”

They are plain statements, so they are easy to understand. Oliva cannot conveniently attribute them to the prosecution without indicating in the video that he quoted the prosecution. Phrases such as “built his power on fear” and “rule of law he once dismissed” are straightforward. Does Oliva want to persuade that these are poetry lines, and that he was merely being poetic? But he used plain, not poetic, language.

One way to understand a statement is to know its context --meaning what comes before and after it. A careful review of each of the five statements shows nothing that supports Oliva’s justifications.

Many are afraid that Oliva wasn’t tired.