LENI ROBREDO was sworn in as vice president of the Philippines after winning in the 2016 elections, defeating her political rival Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. by just 263,473 votes.
This prompted the son of the deposed dictator to allege that he was “cheated” and therefore filed an electoral protest against her, the widow of the popular and beloved late DILG Secretary Jesse Robredo.
As Rappler reported on Tuesday, October 15, the Supreme Court of the Philippines, which sits as the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET), released the report on how it had dealt with Marcos’ second cause of action in the protest, including the results of the recount of votes in the three pilot provinces picked by Marcos. These areas are Robredo’s territory — Negros Oriental, Iloilo, and Camarines Sur — where Marcos claimed Robredo did some “hocus pocus” to steal the votes and the election victory from him.
Unfortunately for Marcos, the results of the recount failed to support his allegations. In fact, the numbers boomeranged against him with Robredo’s lead widening with 15,093 additional votes.
The latest tally now shows Robredo won the vice presidential race with 1,510,178 votes from the three provinces compared to Marcos’ 204,512 votes.
Prior to the recount, Robredo got 1,493,517 votes in 2016 in these areas against Marcos’ 202,136 votes.
“The Tribunal retrieved thousands of ballot boxes from three provinces, revised millions of ballots, and ruled on each and every objection and claim of the parties on these millions of ballots. After all these, the Tribunal eventually arrived at a final tally,” explained Associate Justice Benjamin Caguioa in his dissenting opinion the high court released Friday as reported by ABS-CBN News, along with the resolution revealing vote recount results.
Citing Rule 65 of the 2010 PET Rules, Caguioa asserted that the election protest filed by Marcos should be dismissed.
As ABS-CBN News reported, Caguioa argued that under Rule 65, the protest may be dismissed “without further consideration of the other provinces” if the protestant will most probably fail to make out his case after the initial recount involving the three provinces.
Caguioa contended that “it is a disservice to the PET Rules to refuse to dismiss the protest despite ‘clear and unmistakable lack of basis’.”
Citing due process however, the High Court with many justices appointed by Duterte ruled, voting 11-2, to require both parties to comment on the report and to submit their memoranda on Marcos’ third cause of action, that sought to annul the elections in the provinces of Lanao del Sur, Basilan and Maguindanao.
The Supreme Court’s two dissenting votes came from Associate Justice Benjamin Caguioa and Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio, who said PET Rules are clear that the pilot provinces should not be more than three.
Marcos wanted to look into the three provinces in Mindanao, but according to ABS-CBN News, Carpio argued that even Marcos’ third cause of action on annulment of elections in three Mindanao provinces requires revision and recount of ballots, and these provinces should have formed part of the pilot provinces.
“The last thing that this Tribunal should do is to change its rules in midstream to accommodate a party who has failed to comply with what Rule 65 of the 2010 PET Rules expressly requires,” Carpio explained.
Robredo’s camp said this new development only confirmed her victory in 2016, urging Marcos to “respect the decision of the Filipino people and don’t confuse the public with misinformation and lies.”
“Tapos na ‘yong eleksiyon…Prinoclaim tayo ng Kongreso, panalo tayo. Nagkaroon ng recount, panalo ulit tayo. So ilang panalo pa ang kailangan para maniwala siya na hindi siya ‘yong nanalo? (The election was done… We proclaimed by the Congress, we won. A recount was conducted, we still won. So how many more victories are needed before [Marcos] believes that he didn’t win?)” Robredo said in a press conference on Tuesday, October 15, following the release of the results of the recount.
It is important to remember that the Marcos family had been pushed out of Malacañang after the late dictator was ousted from the presidency by the People Power Revolution of 1986 for their oppressive regime, abuse of power, corruption, plunder, and election fraud.
Last year, the special anti-graft Sandiganbayan court found former First Lady Imelda Marcos guilty of graft and sentenced her to serve six to 11 years in prison for each of the seven counts of violating an anti-corruption law when she illegally funneled about $200 million to Swiss foundations in the 1970s as Metropolitan Manila governor.
President Rodrigo Duterte had been very open about siding with Marcos in his electoral protest, even addressing the young Marcos the “VP” of the Philippines in several public events.
Reuters even reported in 2018 that “Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte could step down if the son of former President Ferdinand Marcos succeeds in overturning his 2016 vice-presidential election defeat”, citing Duterte’s spokesperson then Harry Roque.
The South China Morning Post reported in 2017 that “The son and namesake of late Philippine dictator Ferdinand Marcos declared Thursday he was confident of ousting the current vice-pre
