Caguioa to PET: Why not dismiss protest vs. Robredo after Marcos failed to prove case?

Supreme Court Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa has questioned why the Presidential Electoral Tribunal has not dismissed former senator Ferdinand "Bongbong" Marcos, Jr.'s election protest against Vice President Leni Robredo despite its "clear and unmistakable lack of basis."

Caguioa was one of only two justices who dissented in a new resolution by the court, sitting as the Presidential Electoral Tribunal, ordering the parties to comment on the results of a recount of votes from Camarines Sur, Iloilo, and Negros Oriental.

The other was Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio, who had warned against the PET changing its rules in midstream to "accommodate" Marcos.

"Undoubtedly, protestant failed to make out his case. Why not apply Rule 65 now?" Caguioa said in a 7-page dissenting opinion released Friday, noticing a "hesitation" on the part of the PET to "strictly apply" what he said was a clear rule.

"The results of the revision and appreciation are likewise clear. Had this case been before any of the electoral tribunals, the protest would have been dismissed. What is stopping the majority from applying Rule 65? Why is this Protest being treated as sui generis?" he said.

Rule 65 of the 2010 PET Rules allows a protestant to choose not more than three provinces that "best exemplify" the fraud that he alleges happened in an election. Once ballots there are examined, the tribunal may dismiss the case if it is convinced that the protestant will "most probably fail to make out his case."

Marcos had selected Robredo bailiwicks Camarines Sur, Iloilo, and Negros Oriental as his pilot provinces -- "his own legal gamble," as the former senator could have chosen any three provinces, Caguioa said.

After conducting a recount and ruling on the claims and objections by the parties, the PET found that Robredo's lead over Marcos widened by some 15,000 votes.

Instead of dismissing the case as Caguioa and Carpio wanted, the majority of the PET voted last Tuesday to release the report on the results of the recount to the parties and ordered them to comment.

Additionally, the tribunal told Marcos and Robredo to submit their position on Marcos' bid for the annulment of election results for vice president in Maguindanao, Lanao del Sur, and Basilan.

"This Protest is a thorny and divisive issue that is of paramount importance to the nation, not just to the parties. And this is where the numbers are decisive," Caguioa, originally the justice in charge of the case, wrote in his opinion.

"Numbers do not hold any feelings or political leanings. Numbers do not lie. They state things simply as they are. And when the numbers reveal a definite conclusion, the Tribunal would do a disservice to the public and to the nation not to heed the conclusion they provide," he added.

He described the order for comments as "an exercise in futility" as he insisted that the protest should be dismissed under Rule 65.

The PET raised a number of issues, including jurisdiction, on Marcos' attempt for the nullification of votes in the three Mindanao provinces, but Caguioa said the answers to these "are already obvious."

"By this failure to recognize the mandate, public purpose and wisdom of Rule 65 's unequivocal directive, all the hard work and effort put into the revision and appreciation for the past three years are wasted," he said.

"The Protest lives or dies by the results of the determination under Rule 65 of the PET Rules. Protestant is bound by his choice of pilot provinces. The Tribunal cannot accommodate protestant at the expense of violating its own rules." —NB, GMA News