Leni Was Seen To Win In Bongbong’s Election Protest, But…

Retiring Supreme Court Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio confirmed yesterday reports that the manual recount of votes in three pilot provinces chosen by former senator Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. in filing an electoral protest against Vice President Leni Robredo did not prove Marcos’ allegations of cheating in the May 2016 vice presidential race.

If the SC, sitting as the Presidential Electoral Tribunal, decided to abide by Rule 65 of the 2010 Rules of the PET, Marcos’ case would have been dismissed.

This is what Robredo and her camp have been stressing: based on the initial determination of the grounds for protest or Rule 65, the results of the recount in three pilot provinces should be enough basis to dismiss or not Marcos’ protest.

But the PET yesterday deferred ruling on the election protest of Marcos. Voting 11-2, the justices decided not to dismiss the protest, as sought by Robredo’s camp, based solely on the results of the vote recount in Camarines Sur, Iloilo and Negros Oriental.

Instead, they decided to proceed with the resolution of Marcos’ bid to nullify the votes in three provinces of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) — Basilan, Lanao del Sur and Maguindanao — due to alleged fraud.

The tribunal ordered the release to both parties of the report on the pilot provinces, which reportedly showed Robredo even gaining some 15,742 in additional votes.

It also directed the two camps to comment within 20 days on the report as well as on Marcos’ petition related to the ARMM provinces.

Carpio and Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa, the member-in-charge of the case who prepared the report on the pilot provinces, dissented from the majority decision as they voted for dismissal of the protest in favor of Robredo.

“I dissented because the protest should have been dismissed since Bongbong Marcos failed to make substantial recovery in the three pilot provinces,” Carpio told The Philippine STAR in a text message.

The two magistrates invoked Rule 65 of PET Rules. The majority, however, did not agree with them and ruled that the resolution of the issues raised by Marcos in the ARMM provinces should also be resolved. 

Caguioa has submitted a draft decision, but in previous deliberations on the case, sources bared that several justices submitted another opinion, saying the case could not be dismissed yet as Marcos also raised, even if belatedly, allegations of cheating in three other provinces in the ARMM.

Their separate opinion pushed for reception of evidence and technical examination of the election returns and Election Day Computerized Voters List (EDVCLs) from the provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur and Maguidanao.

Robredo’s camp earlier claimed that after the recount of votes from the three provinces, her lead even rose to 279,215 or an additional margin of 15,742 votes.

The recount of votes in the three pilot provinces covering a total of 5,418 clustered precincts would allow the PET to decide whether or not to dismiss the protest or proceed with the recount on a total of 132,446 precincts in 39,221 clustered precincts covering 27 provinces and cities identified in the protest of Marcos. 

The technical examination, on the other hand, involves the comparison of signatures and thumbprints of voters in the voter’s registration record as against the election day computerized voters’ list.

In his protest, Marcos contested the results in a total of 132,446 precincts in 39,221 clustered precincts covering 27 provinces and cities.

Robredo won the vice presidential race in the May 2016 polls with 14,418,817 votes or 263,473 more than Marcos’ 14,155,344 votes.

Rule 65

Robredo and her lawyers said the PET should not be changing rules in the middle of the game.

Rule 65 states that the PET “may require the protestant or counter-protestant to indicate, within a fixed period, the province or provinces numbering not more than three best exemplifying the frauds or irregularities alleged in his petition and the revision of ballots and reception of evidence will begin with such provinces.”

The same rule says that dismissal, when proper, can be done “if upon examination of such ballots and proof and after making reasonable allowances,” the tribunal “is convinced that, taking all circumstances into account, the protestant or counter-protestant will most probably fail to make out his case” without further consideration “of the other provinces mentioned in the protest.”

According to Robredo’s lawyer Romulo Macalintal, the allegations in Mindanao involved mainly the gubernatorial race in the ARMM. 

In his Dec. 10, 2018 motion, Marcos’ camp cited supposed evidence of voters’ substitution in the three provinces from a separate electoral protest filed by former Sulu vice governor Abdusakur Tan against ARMM Gov. Mujiv Hataman.

Marcos claimed that given these findings from the Tan versus Hataman case, there was a renewed need for the PET to subpoena election records from the three ARMM provinces so that a technical examination of the documents could be done immediately.

In a press conference, Robredo said she was “half-relieved” that the PET ordered the release of the results of the recount of votes in the three pilot areas, which was contained in the Sept. 9 report prepared by Caguioa and sent to the entire SC bench on Sept. 10.

The entire bench has been deferring ruling on the case since then, until Oct. 8 when a decision was expected to be released.

“This is what we’ve been waiting for,” Robredo said even as she expressed frustration over the SC decision not to dismiss Marcos’ protest outright.

“We still maintain our belief that there is no acceptable decision but to dismiss the protest in accordance with Rule 65 of the PET, and in accordance with the results of the recount,” Robredo declared.

Robredo, who filed a counter-protest against Marcos, had earlier complained of the expenses she had incurred in the course of the case. 

Marcos, for his part, welcomed the SC ruling allowing a recount of more votes, saying it would give him the chance to present evidence of cheating.