Marcos camp asserts PET set a ‘bad precedent’ in junking VP poll protest

THE camp of former senator and losing vice presidential candidate Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. said on Tuesday the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET) have set a “bad precedent” in dismissing Marcos’s election protest without hearing all the evidence they presented.

Marcos’s lawyer Vic Rodriguez issued the statement after the Supreme Court, sitting as the PET, officially released on Monday afternoon, or after more than two months, an official copy of its 92-page decision on Marcos’s election protest, which was promulgated on February 16, 2021 and penned by Associate Justice Marvic Leonen.

“This is a bad precedent because in the future, no one in their right mind would dare question the results of an election. It is expensive and time-consuming,” said Rodriguez.

Former Senator Marcos had this to say: “I read the 92-page decision penned by Justice Leonen and it is unfortunate that he dismissed my election case without even allowing us to present proof about the massive cheating that occurred in Mindanao. In effect, what was supposed to be a separate, distinct and independent cause of action was rejected because of a plethora of rules.”

He noted that the “power of the PET is plenary. The third cause of action, like annulment, should not pose a problem even in the absence of rules because the will of the electorate is of paramount importance. When asked for their opinion regarding election rules, both the Commission of Elections [Comelec] and the Office of the Solicitor General [OSG] were one in saying: What is important in any election is that the will of the people is paramount.”

The Marcos camp wondered aloud “if the PET was going to dismiss our election protest without hearing all the evidence, then why didn’t it dismiss our third cause of action from day 1? Instead they made us pay P66 million for the protest...made us wait for almost five years...made us believe that the annulment was a separate, distinct and independent cause of action—only to decide the case without affording us due process?”

It took the PET five years to resolve the Marcos election protest, and the first election protest case that the PET successfully concluded.

The first four election protests were dismissed for mootness due to abandonment and failure to substitute the deceased protestant, and expiration of term.

‘Due process’

THE SC, however, maintained that it did not shirk on its duty and afforded the parties due process and a chance to defend their arguments in the proper forum.

In its ruling, the SC held that Marcos’s election protest appeared “bare, laden with generic and repetitious allegations, and lack of information as to the time, place, and manner” of the alleged irregularities.

In his election protest, Marcos identified three pilot provinces as Iloilo, Negros Occidental and Vice President Leni Robredo’s Camarines Sur home province.

After the revision and appreciation of votes in the 5,415 clustered precincts, the protestant Marcos got 14,436,337 while the protestee Robredo received 14,157,771.

This showed that Robredo even increased her lead over Marcos from 263,473 votes to 278,566 votes in these three provinces.

The PET said it could have dismissed the electoral protest under Rule 21, but decided to “painstakingly” hear every argument to afford due process to the parties.

Rule 21 refers to the “summary dismissal of election contest” wherein the tribunal can summarily dismiss the petition without requiring the protestee to answer.

In failing to prove his case through his designated pilot areas, Marcos, the PET said, cannot insist on annulling election results in Lanao del Sur, Maguindanao and Basilan, which was his third cause of action.

The PET said the rules direct the immediate dismissal of the election protest without further consideration of the other provinces.

Nevertheless, the tribunal noted that for a full disposition of the election protest, it scrutinized Marcos’s allegations and assessed evidence he presented to support his claims under the third cause of action. The evidence was lacking, however, it said.

True will of electorate

“SO long as there is a ray of hope, I will continue to fight. I owe this to the more than 14 million loyalists who voted for me. I owe this to our youth who will be casting their ballots in 2022,” Marcos declared.

Rodriguez said the existence and non-existence of procedural rules should not be an obstacle in knowing the true will of the people.

“Rules are just secondary in nature. What is important is the true will of the electorate,” Rodriguez asserted.