Assailing presidents with their own words

Politicians know only too well that what they say may be used against them. No need for an arrest to remind them of consequences from their language. Words do come back to haunt and afflict.

Then president Gloria Arroyo said on Dec. 30, 2002 she wouldn’t seek reelection to prevent a bitter fight that would divide the nation. But she ran again in 2004 and her statement she’d be “relieved of the burden of politics” was flung at her, repeatedly used by rivals and other critics.

George H.W. Bush vowed on Aug. 18, 1988, when he accepted the Republican nomination for president: “No new taxes: Read my lips.” He raised taxes soon enough, setting off anger and ridicule across the United States. To this day, the sound bite is still used to mimic broken promise.

Times, judge

Two sitting presidents just got their words thrown back at them.

-- New York Times, in its April 25 editorial titled “Let the World Condemn Duterte,” commented on the complaint filed by Filipino lawyer Jude Sabio charging President Duterte before the International Criminal Court with “mass murder and crimes against humanity.” The paper cited testimonies of two former Davao Death Squad members, findings of Human Rights Watch in 2009 and Amnesty International last January, and allegations of politicians such as Leila de Lima and Antonio Trillanes IV. And “if these are not enough evidence against him,” NYT said, “ICC may take into account the savage words of Duterte when he said he would be happy to slaughter three million drug addicts.”

-- California Judge William Orrick stopped U.S. President Trump’s executive order which would starve “sanctuary” cities of billions of dollars in federal funding. The judge cited as basis for his ruling Trump media statements that he’d use his E.O.s as “weapon against communities” that disregard his immigration policies.

Rich, lethal source

In Duterte’s case, should Sabio’s complaint not be thrown to the dustbin, as the president’s allies predict, would his “kill, kill, kill” public statements be allowed as evidence of encouraging and promoting, if not ordering, the alleged mass murder?

Few may argue that declarations of public persons, especially when reported in media, provide a rich and lethal source of ammunition in a debate over the issue or litigation on liability.

Politicians are the most vulnerable as they tend to let their guard down when they’re on stage or face a media mic or camera.

Expect no change

Duterte lapses into making threats, curses and exaggerations when he sees or otherwise senses the crowd’s adulation. Walking back, he or his communicators would explain it as gaffe, hyperbole or joke.

Trump, on the other hand, doesn’t consider any fallout from what he says except to sell his agenda, not caring for facts that don’t support his theory.

The lawsuits they’re facing may not be compelling or distressing enough for Duterte or Trump to change gear or polish language. Full speed ahead.