The camp of Vice President Maria Leonor “Leni” Robredo has vowed to question before the Supreme Court (SC), sitting as Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET), the participation of the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) in the election protest of former Sen. Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr.
(OVP / Facebook / FILE PHOTO / MANILA BULLETIN)
“We will file the necessary pleading po to raise our objections regarding, number one, the participation of the solicitor general and, second po, the actual merit the solicitor general has filed,” Atty. Emil Marnon, one of the legal counsels of Robredo, said during an interview on CNN Philippines.
On Monday, Nov. 9, Solicitor General Jose Calida and Marcos separately filed a motion asking the PET to inhibit Associate Justice Marvic Leonen from handling the election protest the former lawmaker filed against Robredo.
“This is a very abnormal circumstances na hindi po dapat (That shouldn’t be). It should be questioned,” Maranon pointed out.
The lawyer explained the election protest “a private suit between the vice president and Bongbong Marcos.”
“There is no government agency involved here so bakit po siya nakikisawsaw sa kaso ni vice president natin po (so why is the solicitor general is getting involved in the case),” asked Maranon.
The lawyer explained that the OSG is “the tribune of the people” and shouldn’t be siding with someone who was not chosen by the people in the 2016 polls.
Maranon expressed belief that Marcos has been colluding with the OSG.
“What we can conclude on is on the basis of their filings. You simply have to check and read the documents that both camps have filed and you can see similarities in argument. Exactly the same and even similarly worded po yung sentences,” he explained.
“We connect this as well with the prior actions of the solicitor general,” he added.
The lawyer reminded that the OSG should be representing the Commission on Elections (Comelec) in the election protest.
Maranon recounted that the PET previously tackled the question of the ballot shading threshold concerning the Marcos election protest.
“There was a threshold issue before where the solicitor general abandoned its client. The solicitor general abandoned its client, Comelec, to actually favor with Mr. Marcos which is very unusual and very abnormal,” the lawyer said.
Maranon said the Comelec’s stance was that there should be a 25 percent shading threshold, while, the OSG sided with Marcos that it should be at 50 percent.
On the other hand, the lawyer reminded the camp of Marcos the warning made by the PET when he sought the inhibition of SC Associate Justice Alfred Bejamin Caguioa who previously handled the election protest prior Leonen.
After Caguioa inhibited himself from handling the case, Maranon said the PET told Marcos that “if your still file a motion to inhibit on the basis of conspiracy theories and baseless accusations, we will deal with you severely next time.”
“Yung finile ni Mr. Marcos ngayon is also on the basis of a conspiracy theory at tsaka ang masama pa nga doon on the basis po ng isang newspaper clipping poof this case because hindi po niya nakukuha ang gusto niya dito (The motion to inhibit Marcos filed is also on the basis on a conspiracy theory and what’s worse is that it is based on a newspaper clipping),” Maranon said.
Both the Marcos and OSG motions cited the reports that came out in the Manila Times which reported that Leonen has written his reflections on the election protest which has been circulated among members of the PET whom the magistrate is convincing to dismiss the case.