The Truth They Buried: How Rolando Bonilla’s Abuse Case Was Whitewashed by San Jose Spotlight's Jana Kadah
- Miguel Alvarez
- Mar 29
- 3 min read
Updated: Apr 8
Original Article from San Jose Spotlight: https://sanjosespotlight.com/san-jose-council-candidate-denies-decades-old-abuse-allegations/
Despite the existence of a court-issued domestic violence restraining order, San José Spotlight chose to ignore the facts and the voice of the survivor — while Bonilla’s current wife, Perla Rodriguez, sat on their board.
In a case that should have been clear-cut, local media chose to cloud the truth. Rolando Bonilla, once a San Jose Planning Commissioner and City Council candidate, was the subject of court documented domestic violence dating back to 1999. These weren’t mere accusations whispered in private disputes — they were confirmed by a formal court-issued restraining order, signed and sealed by the Superior Court of California, San Francisco County, to protect his then-wife, Jennifer Bonilla, from ongoing abuse.
Yet, when the story resurfaced in 2022, two articles published by San José Spotlight downplayed the gravity of this court-backed order. Instead of conducting even the most basic journalistic due diligence — like contacting the victim or verifying public court records — the outlet handed Bonilla a free pass to control the narrative.
But the truth is even more disturbing. Bonilla’s current wife, Perla Rodriguez, sits on the board of San José Spotlight, giving her direct access to one of the region’s most powerful media platforms. While she publicly defended Bonilla, describing the abuse allegations as part of a “smear campaign,” the outlet failed to disclose her role prominently — only slipping it in as a quiet editor’s note at the bottom of the articles. This connection was not just incidental. It shaped the entire framing of the story.
The court documents are not ambiguous. The restraining order, buried and unmentioned in these media pieces, established clear findings: Bonilla’s ex-wife provided sworn testimony of physical and verbal abuse, which led the court to grant protective measures. Bonilla was ordered to stay at least 100 yards away from her, to avoid any form of contact, and to stay away from their child’s school and her workplace. This is not hearsay. This is not rumor. This is law.
However, in the March 2022 article, “San Jose council candidate denies decades-old abuse allegations,” the story was framed as an old, emotional spat between two young people. Bonilla dismissed the allegations as “verbal jousting” and political smear tactics. Shockingly, the publication repeated his claims unchallenged, glossing over the court’s findings. Not once did they reference the restraining order, nor did they reach out to the victim to balance the account.
The April 2022 follow-up article, “San Jose Democrats want candidate to end City Council campaign,” followed the same pattern. Despite widespread circulation of the original restraining order across social media and activist networks, the outlet portrayed the issue as “resurfaced allegations” from a custody dispute, not a substantiated case of domestic violence backed by the court.
Let’s be clear:
This wasn’t an unresolved he-said-she-said. The restraining order is a matter of public record. It’s the legal system’s recognition of the danger posed by Bonilla to his ex-wife at that time. Yet both articles omitted this fact, misleading readers and erasing the victim’s reality from the public conversation.
More than a simple oversight, this editorial failure points to an abuse of influence. With Perla Rodriguez embedded inside the very organization reporting on her husband, a direct line existed between the accused and the coverage itself. It's hard to imagine that her presence at the board level would not ensure a favorable spin, but also protection from accountability. The result: the victim’s voice was completely shut out, and a court-documented survivor was silenced while the accused enjoyed sympathetic press.
This isn’t just journalistic negligence. It is active silencing.
Readers of San Jose Spotlight seem to share the same sentiment as evident through the many comments in the original article.
In failing to verify basic facts, refusing to contact the victim, and framing the issue through Bonilla’s lens — all while harboring a clear conflict of interest at the heart of their editorial leadership — San José Spotlight buried the truth. They allowed a man with a documented history of abuse to paint himself as the victim of political opportunism. Meanwhile, the actual survivor of Bonilla’s violence was erased from the narrative — once again made invisible by the very system that should have amplified her voice.
For every survivor who has ever fought to be heard, this coverage sends a chilling message: even when the courts believe you, the media may not.
