Vice President Ma. Leonor “Leni” Robredo on Friday, July 2, said former Sen. Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. “needs to concede and accept his defeat with grace.”
In her comment and opposition filed with the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET) which is composed of all Supreme Court (SC) justices, Robredo said Marcos’ motion to reconsider the tribunal’s decision that dismissed his election protest “must be denied for utter lack of merit.”
Last Feb. 16, in a unanimous vote of 15 justices, the PET upheld the victory of Robredo in the 2016 vice presidential election as it dismissed Marcos’ protest.
Seven justices voted to dismiss Marcos’ protest while eight justices voted in the result – the dismissal of the protest. The decision was written by Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen.
Marcos filed a motion for reconsideration last May 6.
Acting on the motion, the PET directed Robredo to file her answer or comment.
Among other issues, Marcos --in his motion for reconsideration -- pleaded the PET to “proceed with the presentation of evidence for the third cause of action" – the annulment of election results in the provinces of Maguindanao, Lanao del Sur and Basilan on the ground of alleged terrorism, intimidation and harassment of voters as well as pre-shading of ballots in all of the 2,756 protested clustered precincts.
He also asked the PET to conduct another preliminary conference and proceed with the presentation of evidence for his third cause of action.
At the same time, Marcos said the tribunal erred in dismissing his third cause of action without affording him the opportunity to present evidence.
In its decision, the PET said: “Based on the final tally after revision and appreciation of the votes in the pilot provinces (Camarines Sur, Negros Oriental and Iloilo), protestee Robredo maintained, as in fact she increased her lead with 14,436,337 votes over protestant Marcos who obtained 14,157,771 votes. After the revision and appreciation, the lead of protestee Robredo increased from 263,473 to 278,566.”
In her comment, Robredo said that Marcos’ motion is “a mere rehash of arguments previously passed upon by the Honorable Tribunal....”
Robredo said that since Marcos, himself, chose the three pilot provinces where he failed to get substantial recovery of votes, the PET “did not err in dismissing the election protest.”
“Now that he was proven wrong, protestant Marcos now wants to change the Rules so he can keep fanning the flames on his unsubstantiated allegations,” she said.
She added: “Protestant Marcos has no one to blame but himself for the dismissal of his election protest. Now, having failed to show any substantial recovery, protestant Marcos is now insisting on proceeding to his Third Cause of Action.”
She pointed out that the “importance of protestant Marcos being able to show substantial recovery in his pilot provinces cannot be brushed aside and just swept under the rug.”
“Simply put, based on the result of the revision, recount and re-appreciation of ballots, protestant Marcos must not only be able to show substantial recovery but also a probability that he will be able to overcome the margin of protestee Robredo,” she stressed.
On Marcos’ plea on his third cause of action to annul the elections in Maguindanao, Lanao del Sur and Basilan on the ground of alleged terrorism, intimidation and harassment of voters, Robredo said he “failed to make out a prima facie case for annulment of elections.”
Citing a previous ruling of the SC and echoing the stand of the Commission on Elections (Comelec), Robredo said “an additional requisite for the annulment of elections is that there must be clear and convincing evidence to show that the protestee (Robredo) is the one responsible for the acts complained of.”
“A cursory glance at the Election Protest will readily show that there is no allegation made by protestant Marcos or even by his witnesses, that protestee Robredo is directly responsible for the alleged incidents complained of,” she stressed.
“Thus, how can protestant Marcos prove a fact that was not alleged in his Election Protest?” she asked.
Finally, Robredo said that the PET, in its decision pointed out: “Suffrage is at the heart of every democracy. Election results must not be tainted by unnecessary doubt by losing candidates who cannot accept defeat."
The comment was filed for Robredo by lawyers Romulo B. Macalintal and Maria Bernadette V. Sardillo.