Former Senator Bongbong Marcos Jr. urges the Supreme Court that sits as the Presidential Electoral Tribunal or PET to stick to its junking the bid of supporters of Vice President Leni Robredo to pay for her counter-protest balance in a form of a donation.
Youtube video by; GMA Public Affairs
[VIDEO]: Vice President Leni Robredo shares the effort of the people supporting her to raise and solicit funds for her campaign. She also disclosed the final amount of her SOCE and the list of her top donors.
The VP’s Incapacity to Pay
Robredo has yet to pay the P7.439 million out of the P15.4 million required by the PET. She asks for more time to raise the amount. The tribunal granted it. Marcos said that the appeal of the Piso Para Kay Leni Movement would be “highly unprocedural.” The group must not intervene in the poll protest.
PET Rules and Jurisprudence
The former Senator cites Rule 15 of the 2010 PET Rules and jurisprudence. It emphasizes that an election protest is “strictly a contest between the defeated and the winning candidates. This is based on the grounds of electoral fraud or irregularities.” “Besides it would appear that the only purpose of the movants in intervening in the case is to provide financial assistance to the Protestee. This may be achieved by the movants without intervening in this protest,” said Marcos.
Piso Movement Donation
Marcos said the Piso Para Kay Leni Movement may donate the fund they have raised directly to Robredo “should they see fit.” “Clearly, there is no legal and factual basis to justify their intervention in this case,” the comment stated. Robredo, for her part, left the matter for the PET to decide. “This matter is best left to the wisdom and full discretion of the Honorable Tribunal,” the manifestation stated. The vice president stressed though that her supporters’ appeal was “hinged on their right to suffrage.”
Bitterness Towards PET
The Piso Para Kay Leni Movement argues that the PET Rules do not prohibit the payment of filing of fees directly by the voters. The petitioners also said they have the legal standing in the election protest being taxpayers. The payment of the balance will “achieve a just and expeditious disposition of the case.” The group criticizes the PET’s junking their petition without explaining the basis for it.