By: Elena Grace Flores
Lawyer Bernadette Sardillo said that the problem on the alleged transfer of votes from Bongbong Marcos her client Leni Robredo was between the Comelec and Smartmatic – and she added that it should not be taken against the vice president. “Surely, this could not be a ground to contest the election of Robredo since an election protest is a contest between two candidates,” as seen in the 536-page affidavit of Robredo.
This is their response to Marcos’s claims that the vote counting machines of Smartmatic, which was the company hired by the Commission on Elections or Comelec to manage automated polls, have no “demonstrated capability” on the alleged transfer votes from him to Robredo.
Sardillo further explained that annulling the results of an election of one precinct, more than half of the ballots must be found as illegal. “It must be shown that the illegality of the ballots must affect more than fifty percent (50%) of the votes cast on the specific precinct or precincts sought to be annulled, or in case of the entire municipality, more than fifty percent (50%) of its total precincts and the votes cast,” the lawyer added.
Marcos’ protest cites only nine of 88 municipalities and cities in the three provinces. “Surely, this does not comply with the 50% affected-ballot requirement laid down by the SC to justify the annulment of the results of the election,” Sardillo tried to lead people astray here because the law says, more than have of the ballots in one precinct or 50% of the votes casts but even though it’s only 9 precincts cited in Marcos’ electoral protests, many of those precincts’ voters were affected because not even one were allowed to vote, So, it can easily justify the 50% of to total number of voters. These were the places complained by the Iglesia ni Kristo that their votes must have been stolen because it was impossible that their members did not vote for Marcos which was mandated by their church. Most of those precincts 9 reported zero votes for Marcos.
If the “cheating” problem is only between Comelec and Smartmatic – who’s the direct beneficiary then? Why would they tamper election results?
Robredo’s lawyey was also wrong in saying that the NBOC, did not use the data collected in the tampered Comelec’s transparency server but the compiled canvass certificates from different regions – because the purpose of the transparency server is to reflect the actual votes to show that there’s no cheating involved. Since they more or less gave the same results, they obviously have only the same sources. Plus the fact that there was a hidden server not disclosed to the public which is clearly illegal. So since she has replied, PET will now have the benefit of making a ruling as to which side is more or less telling the truth.