‘Vilifying’ Chiz Escudero

The problem when one tries to run rings around people is that there is no assurance he will not end up confounding himself either. And frankly the Inquirer appears as confused as we all are, with its unbridled yet misplaced attempt at vilifying Sen. Chiz Escudero.

Is Senator Escudero a puppeteer or a loose cannon, a Svengali or a Palin (“Poe’s Palin?” Opinion, 9/19/15) or both, despite the ocean that divides these two characters? The Inquirer should make up its mind, as its vain attempts at being literary betray only its contempt for our intelligence.

To our regret, the Inquirer has traded its balanced news and fearless views for myths and gossip designed to tarnish everything that is not yellow and cite facts not in the context of truth but for convenience.

1. “In the 2010 presidential election, he [Escudero] initially declared support for the Aquino-Roxas tandem but eventually campaigned for Binay as VP.” Escudero never supported Aquino-Roxas. He supported Aquino only at first, then Aquino-Binay later.
2. “He [Escudero] has been credited for Binay’s upset win.” After five years the Inquirer finally admitted a truth it refused to express since 2010. Now, only after all the negative publicity on Binay’s cases, does it conveniently “credit” Escudero to emphasize his then-support for the electoral victory of the now-accused Binay.
3. “Now he and Binay are no longer on good terms, because he has once again jumped fences…” As he was never on Roxas’ side in 2010, he didn’t jump fences then. As for again jumping fences after Escudero and Binay were “no longer on good terms,” that’s wrong: Binay’s UNA party dropped Escudero from their Senate slate in 2013.
4. “… [Escudero has] latched on to someone [Poe] who has made a dent in the public consciousness. Disingenuous. Escudero has been with Poe and her family as far back as FPJ’s 2004 presidential campaign.
5. “He [Escudero] stood by Joseph Estrada throughout the revelations of the latter’s corruption and perfidy as president.” The Inquirer conveniently forgets that Estrada’s impeachment trial and Edsa 2 depended on that second envelope, which was opened only until after Edsa 2 was over. Escudero stood not “by Estrada” but against a rush to judgment in the face of incomplete evidence during the Senate trial.
6. The Inquirer takes Escudero to task for his participation in the House impeachment effort against Hilario Davide Jr. but conveniently overlooks his verdict of “guilty” in the Senate impeachment/conviction vote on Renato Corona.

The editorial takes the above-discredited allegations as proof that “… [Escudero] is a politician’s politician, apparently cold-blooded and ruthless in pursuit of his interests.” Unfortunately, the vitriol behind it has blinded the Liberal Party and the Inquirer from seeing its accusatory fingers pointing back at the LP’s presidential candidate—a man who has jumped from Erap to Arroyo to P-Noy, and has even gone so far as to woo the daughter of the man the LP belittled in 2004—Mar Roxas.

—CECILIO R. LAURENTE, Jaromay Laurente Pamaos Law Offices