Associate Justice Benjamin Caguioa, the member-in-charge of the namesake of former President Ferdinand Marcos’ electoral protest, writes the en banc to take the case off from him and re-raffle. The Supreme Court rejects it unanimously. On the other hand, Bongbong Marcos requests the Supreme Court to inhibit Caguioa from the case. These are two different things according to Atty. Glenn Chong. The Supreme Court’s decision to junk Caguioa’s request would mean that there is still a chance that Marcos’ plea would be favored. This is for the alleged biased magistrate to be excluded in the voting and other en banc decision makings.
Youtube video by Radyo Pilipinas 738
[VIDEO]: Muling pag-raffle sa protesta ni dating Sen. Marcos, hiniling ni Justice Caguioa
The Rejected Request by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has unanimously rejected the request of Associate Justice Caguioa. He requested for a re-roll on who will be the member-in-charge on the poll protest after Marcos raised issues of bias.
Two Different Motions
Caguioa’s and Marcos’ requests are two different things, however, according to a court insider. Caguioa was asking for a re-raffle of the case and wrote an internal memo to ask the PET. Meanwhile, Marcos is asking the associate justice to inhibit from the entire case because of the alleged bias.
Caguioa Does Not Want to Lose Voting Rights
Caguioa is asking for a re-raffle wherein the lead would be transferred to another justice. He doesn’t want to lose his voting rights so he would not want to inhibit from the case. Whoever will be in charge will have control of the direction of the case as he will have control of the pace of the case.
The attacks against Caguioa according to the camp of VP Leni Robredo is just a delaying tactic. Robredo however, is appealing to apply a 25% shading threshold. This, despite the PET rejecting this earlier in favor of a 50% shading threshold. Robredo’s appeal is clearly an attempt to delay the proceedings.
Some media labels the re-raffle rejection of the Supreme Court as unfortunate for Marcos. This is why Atty. Glenn Chong explains that it does not affect Marcos’ stand and progress on the protest. It can actually be beneficial because Caguioa can still lead the proceedings but could only rely on the en banc for its direction and decisions without the right to influence it or simply vote on his judgment. This is so if Marcos’ motion for Caguioa to inhibit from the protest is granted.