Distortion of Facts- is Aliping Guilty, is Vergara Guilty?

Distortion of Facts- is Aliping Guilty, is Vergara Guilty?

March 28, 2015

A lot of people must be jumping with joy with the recent pronouncements on the charging of Cong. Nicasio Aliping for violation of PD 705 or Illegal Logging and the recent inclusion and accusations against the former Cong. Bernardo Vergara and company for an election criminal offense case. It is such that our political system encourages us to relish and to bring out the worst in our politicians principally for black and negative propaganda purposes for use during the election campaign period and instead not for fiscalization or accountability purposes. The negative reports against Congressman Aliping have continuously been ongoing from day one allegedly conducted and funded by those at the other side of the political fence, they apparently have not ceased from vilifying the Congressman at every turn they can get. What is funny though is that the facts on the alleged environmental destruction are easily verifiable and can be ascertained with the use of ones reasonable time and effort, however, that has not been the case. The ramblings, the vilification and condemnation and other sensational spins have been ongoing based mostly on sloppy unverified reporting by certain media persons financed by the Congressman’s political opponents, likewise with a good number of fence sitting “ride on the issue” media reporters who don’t give a damn and/or who simply don’t have the capacity and ability to get to the bottom of things and/or simply tell things as truthfully as possible. This paper has in the past, brought out some of the touchy issues on this case, based of course on available and verifiable facts. Allow us then to reiterate three (3) basic and undisputable facts: Fact No. 1- The portions where the alleged tree cutting were conducted are not part of the Congressman’s property. Fact No. 2- The portions where the alleged tree cutting were conducted are supposed to be a road leading to gardens/farms that have been around way back, so the question is who would benefit from the road? Fact No. 3- The portions where the alleged tree cutting were conducted are supposed to be a road that does not directly lead to the property of the Congressman as there already exists another road that leads directly into his property with another road that had been planned and partially in existence since way back. Fact No. 4- The water springs are located way –way below the property of the Congressman and also from the alleged tree cutting areas, as to how come those responsible for the upkeep, safety and maintenance of those springs are only raising a hoot now that there appears to be a convenient political personality involved who is an easy target to lay down all or most of the blame when in fact they should have controlled the rampant ongoing pocket mining and farming in the area that have been the cause of water contamination (if at all there has been any water contamination/pollution) of the springs ? Any simple minded Juan dela Cruz would ask himself , why will the Congressman have a road built wherein he stands not to benefit from it ? Why will the Congressman commit acts that may jeopardize the existing water resources? Facts are facts and no matter how much financing from sour grapping loosing political candidates there may be will not change these facts. In like manner, the complaint against highly placed loosing candidates from Senator Margarita Cojuangco and former Cong. Bernardo Vergara smack of extremely serious criminal wrongdoing that are worth keeping a close eye on. As we have not yet heard from the side of the alleged perpetrators of the crime(s) we cannot at this point form any reasonable conclusions, however, we cannot help but wonder out loud on the following : Question No. 1- When the news of the serious allegations on theft and tampering of ballot boxes came out , did one of the accused (Baguio City Treasurer Onoza) bother to raise a finger to request for the NBI and/or the PNP for an investigation and to ensure that the alleged crime scene (ballot boxes warehouse) will be guarded 24 hours and not be further compromised? Question No. 2- What possible motive and/or benefit would the whistle blower
( Worthy Acosta, who is now under the witness protection program) gain from his expose? Question No. 3- Are two (2) of the accused former Congressman Bernardo Vergara and his PR Man Ferdie Balanag willing to take a lie detector (polygraph) test in order to help dispute the serious allegation of Mr. Acosta? In the meantime, all we can do is wait and ask is Vergara and Company Guilty?


Visitor Counter