Rina Jimenez-David scored for ‘apologia’ for Villanueva
This is in reaction to Rina Jimenez-David’s Sept. 20 column titled “Tarred with the same ‘pork’ brush.” I am compelled to address the patent irresponsibility with which it was written. It is truly disappointing that a “praise release” in favor of Emmanuel Joel Villanueva, poorly masqueraded as a factual albeit melodramatic piece, would pass muster and be deemed fit to see print in a newspaper of Inquirer’s caliber and status.
From the very outset, David’s column not only misleads but also ignores established facts on the involvement of Villanueva in the pork barrel scam. Even from the title itself, David already engages in wanton misdirection, implying that Villanueva is utterly unblemished hence the assertion that he has merely been “tarred” by what she asserts to be “political machinations or intrigue.”
Contrary to the pristine “packaging” promoted by David, Villanueva has been categorically, even consistently, named as one of the lawmakers in the pork barrel scam. His knowing and willful participation has likewise been confirmed in a special audit that has been reported out by the Commission on Audit and made a subject of an Inquirer story, but which appears, inexplicably, to have escaped David’s attention. Villanueva was specifically named among the 28 lawmakers whose pork was illegally diverted from 2006 to 2011. In fact, the COA Special Audit states that during his illegal stint in the House of Representatives from 2007 to 2009, he spent or allocated P154.25 million in a highly questionable manner.
These anomalies occurred during the relevant period that I was crusading for the ouster of Villanueva from the House. The Supreme Court subsequently upheld my cause by declaring Villanueva ineligible to hold office as a member of the House of Representatives (Milagros E. Amores vs. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal and Emmanuel Joel J. Villanueva, G.R. No. 189600, 6/29/10). The Court found that he had misrepresented his age and was therefore not eligible to sit as party-list representative of Cibac.
It is therefore extremely ironic that David, a regular Inquirer columnist, would unabashedly craft an “apologia” for Villanueva, knowing that its contents are not only completely at odds with the findings but would also directly undermine, even obliterate, the results of the painstaking factual investigation conducted by the very same newspaper.
David has not only deliberately ignored the established facts and misled the readers; she has shown herself to be utterly oblivious to the undeniable irony, even tragedy, of a corrupt politician representing an antigraft and corruption advocacy group. Let me remind David that in order for a free press to serve its noble role as a bulwark of democracy and freedom, it must not lend itself to irresponsibility or to irrelevant melodramatic characterizations, nor allow itself to be used to mislead, much less as a tool to protect the criminal conduct and malfeasance of politicians like Villanueva.
—MILAGROS E. AMORES,
Manila East Road,
Barangay Bagumbayan,
Pililla, Rizal, [email protected]
