By: Elena Grace Flores
Atty. Vic Rodriguez, spokesperson of Bongbong Marcos said that the former senator made substantial recovery in the initial recount of 3 pilot provinces. This is under his electoral protest but the number of votes recovered is still unknown. The Supreme Court that sits as the Presidential Electoral Tribunal voted to release the report on the initial recount of ballots. This is only Marcos’ second cause of action, and it requires parties to comment.
YouTube video by ABS-CBN News
Atty. Vic Rodriguez, Bongbong Marcos’ spokesperson said that they got substantial recovery.
Marcos’ Substantial Recovery
Atty. Rodriguez, however, did not divulge the figures. He said that this would violate the sub judice rule.”If you’re gonna ask us, of course we have made substantial recovery. In the revision, both parties had copies of their respective tallies. But it does not have evidentiary value. This is because their list favors their own interest. My list favors me. That’s why the tribunal has to decide.
The Supreme Court Seeks Comments
The high court gives Marcos and Robredo 20 days to submit a memoranda on the motion to nullify votes for the 2016 vice-presidential election in the provinces of Lanao del Sur, Basilan, and Maguindanao. Former poll commissioner Gregorio Larrazabal said the SC must act on Marcos’ second action before moving on to his third one that seeks “wholesale” nullification of votes in provinces.
Robredo’s Counter-Protest May Be Dismissed
Rodriguez also said that the high court could tackle both causes of action at the same time. He added that the Supreme Court earlier ruled the two were “separate and distinct.” He rejected PET Rule 65, which the Robredo camp has been mentioning. That states the court may dismiss an election protest “if upon examination of such ballots and proof. After making reasonable allowances into account, the protestant or counter-protestant will most probably fail to make out his case.”Robredo on the other hand still has not paid her balance for the counter-protest. So, this may also face dismissal if that’s the basis of Robredo Camp’s reasoning.
A Matter of Understanding the Law
We know how to understand the law, the law says ‘may.” It’s permissive. Rodriguez also denied claims that their camp has been changing tactics to delay the proceedings. He explains that they filed 3 causes of action from the start. Why would we want to delay this case we have been building for 3 years? The term is only for 6 years. “Why would we seek for a delay? It’s not going to be advantageous to us. It’s not in our best interest and we stand to gain nothing if we have this case because this is much delayed already.