[] The treasurer-turned-politician/vlogger from Cebu may soon define the brand of her commentary, whether she’s a hardcore defender of a political leader or she picks defense, and offense, on the basis of what she believes is true and just. Her ‘apologia’ didn’t tell us that.
[1] VLOG ATTACK A BETRAYAL? DUTERTE LOYALISTS THINK SO. Regal Oliva said it was not. She didn’t mean to attack the Duterte clan in her internet comment on the International Criminal Court (ICC) rejection of the petition for former president Rodrigo Duterte’s interim release.
Yet the comment turned out to be, or was publicly seen as, an attack, intended or not.
And Atty. Regal -- government treasurer-turned-politician/vlogger -- impliedly acknowledged that her October 17, 2025 vlog was an “attack” on Rodrigo Duterte and his family. She implied that when publicly she (a) listed the reasons for her adverse comment and (b) apologized for hurting the Dutertes and their followers.
Digong supporters had promptly waved the “panumboy” or ingratitude card.
They recalled that FPPRD and his daughter Vice President Sara endorsed Atty. Regal’s candidacy for Mandaue City congresswoman in the May 2025 election. The Duterte camp counted Oliva as a Duterte ally and politician who owed Digong and his flock of supporters a favor. Oliva lost the election but the help was given, right?
“Who do you think you are?” Cebu Governor Pam Baricuatro lashed out for Duterte loyalists who regarded the October 20 vlog a betrayal. A few commentators, with no known political tag or label, weighed in, calling the “Regal POV” edition a turnaround, a “hypocrisy” if not turncoatism.
There was no betrayal, Atty. Regal said. Because, she said, she “will never betray the Dutertes.” She didn’t do it because she’ll never do it.
[2] WHAT ATTY. REGAL SAID. In effect, she had talked about the dim prospect of Duterte’s acquittal of the charges of crime against humanity for deaths of illegal-drug traffickers and users when he served as Davao City mayor (2013-2016) and later as president of the country (2016-2022).
Citing Digong’s “defiant record” and “thousands of deaths under his administration,” Atty. Regal was far from helping protect the Duterte public image. With that record, she commented, the ICC “may find it difficult to grant him the benefit of the doubt.”
She spoke of true justice and supreme irony, which must apply to Duterte, her leader if not mentor: “And perhaps 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… And in the end, ang batas hindi natatakot, hindi napapagod, at higit sa lahat, hindi nakakalimot.” That line is much better watched and heard than just read.
Vlogger Oliva didn’t deny the remarks. Instead, she explained in her apology, she was merely quoting the ICC prosecutor’s reasoning and argument, with no intention to insult and inflict pain.
[3] ANY LEGAL ERROR OR FACT IN THAT VLOG? There has been little or no discussion on the law and facts that Atty. Regal cited or referred to in that attack on the Dutertes.
Many reactions have focused on the accusation of betrayal:
-- that FPPRD and daughter Sara raised Oliva’s arm in the ritual of endorsement during the 2025 election campaign and she defended the ex-president against the “illegal arrest,” and
-- that now lo and listen to an “offensive” commentary, in which she no longer defended, instead she implied, if didn’t directly allege FPPRD is seeking refuge from the rule of law he once cast aside.
[4] DEFENSE OF IMPROPER CHOICE OF WORDS, INSENSITIVITY. Atty. Regal didn’t deny the attack or, to be precise, what resulted from the attack.
Instead she raised the defense of being “misunderstood,” “no intent to hurt,” “improper choice of words,” and need for more sensitivity on her part.
To most of that -- sloppy work due to lack of time or resources, or not doing one’s best on a bad day -- some professional broadcasters have disagreed.
“Regal POV” shows appear to be thoroughly scripted and edited, with facts and law well-researched and conclusions carefully laid, pauses and emphases studied and done. Indications and marks of top-notch preparation and production -- complete with background graphics and other images, including “heavy makeup,” one review teased -- are evident.
[5] SPECULATIONS ON MOTIVE. Cause or motive of the alleged culprit could be something else, which may have nothing to do with prepping for and presenting the show.
It could be because Atty. Regal:
(a) herself didn’t think it was a turnaround;
(b) knew that it was a flip but believed that it wouldn’t be obvious to most of her audience, and if noticed, few people would mind;
(c) sensed dire results could happen but she could handle any backlash.
The apology meant the consequence was a lot more than she could manage without doing anything. (“Be still, said the Lord.”) Atty. Regal reportedly lost hundreds of thousand “followers” (from 200,000 to 400,000 and still counting, said one after-incident report). Three days after the vlog aired, she gave a “mea culpa” in another POV.
[6] OLIVA WATCHERS CAN’T BE SURE if the “he-his” pronouns used with each of in-defense-of-Duterte reactions to her vlog came after or have there all along. Are the pronouns used out of spite, fueled by impulse to hit back when FPPRD was attacked by LGBTQ+?
Have people just started “weaponizing” pronouns in referencing Oliva, seizing her choice to be a transgender woman as a chink in the armor?
Concerning usage in media news, most news organizations are governed by the rule to use preferred pronouns of a public figure when they are known, in order “to be accurate and respectful.” When a person’s gender is unknown or when referring to a group of people -- the rule goes -- media use gender-neutral language, “widely considered a way to avoid perpetuating stereotypes.”
I saw some internet comments switch from “she/her/hers” to “he/his/him” when Atty. Regal was being bashed.
[7] WOULD ATTY. REGAL DEFINE HER BRAND? Would she come out and declare the kind of Duterte supporter she is? A political ally but not hardcore? A Duterte defender on legal issues but only on the basis of interpretation that she thinks is right and valid?
Or would she eventually morph into, without carrying a label or tag, the kind of commentator who takes sides but only when the POV conforms with and fits into the cracks of what she believes in justice and truth?
Otherwise, the point of view wouldn’t be authentic, much less regal POV.