Election lawyer Romulo Macalintal criticizes Marcos’ move that asks the Supreme Court to speed up the election protest process as “very premature.” He said suspiciously that it only aimed at priming the public and the 15-member PET to believe his claims that he was the real winner of the VP post before it is formally heard.
Youtube video by; News5Everywhere
[VIDEO]: Pinaghahanda na ang kampo nina dating Sen. Bongbong Marcos at VP Leni Robredo ng listahan ng mga testigo at mungkahi para sa mabilis na retrieval ng mga balota na kailangan sa election protest.
Supreme Court Motion
Bongbong Marcos asks the Supreme Court to speed up the proceedings in his election protest against Leni Robredo. Marcos suggests designating at least three hearing officers to assist the Tribunal during the preliminary conference. This is basically the content of his 7-page Urgent Ex-Parte Motion,
George Erwin Garcia, Marcos’ lawyer said that doing so as suggested enables hearing commissioners to facilitate better. This can result in orderly, simplified and expeditious manner. Since there are three causes of action in this election protest, it is best to have three officers as well to avoid confusion.
Robredo’s lawyer also thinks that it is impractical for the tribunal to grant the petition of Marcos as both parties only have one lead lawyer to handle the three major issues of Marcos’ electoral protest. “Surely, the lead lawyer has to be present in every hearing and cannot be in three places at the same time. The issues also are all interconnected. It is just improper for three hearing officers to deal with the issues separately,” Macalintal explained.
Contrary to VP Leni Robredo’s lawyer, Romulo Macalintal’s press release that Marcos’ electoral protest is dismissible because he can’t make Robredo responsible for his “general” allegations of electoral frauds and irregularities, PET rules that the protest contains narrations of ultimate facts on such anomalies in the questionable clustered precincts. Marcos can now move on to prove his allegations in due time,” the PET discloses.
Youtube video by; UNTV News and Rescue
[VIDEO]: Former Sen. Bongbong Marcos files a motion to set his election protest for preliminary conference.
Deliberations on the Proofs Submitted
Since the Tribunal finds the protest sufficient in form and substance, the process can now move to the emphasis of the veracity of the Marcos’ allegations. Marcos must prove the accusations with concrete evidence. The protest gets theTribunal’s go signal to proceed and give the protestant the opportunity to prove his case according to the 2010 PET Rules.”
Questions on Certificates of Canvass
The tribunal also dismisses Robredo’s claim that Marcos improperly raises the authenticity and due execution of certificates of canvass (COCs). They are the basis for vote tallies for the vice presidential post. Robredo must contest the issue in a pre-proclamation case filed before Congress acting as the National Board of Canvassers or NBOC.
Disqualification of the Vice President
The Section 4, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution relative to Rule 13 of the 2010 PET Rules provides that the Tribunal shall be the sole judge of all elections contests relating to the election, returns, and disqualifications of the President or Vice President of the Philippines. The phrase ‘election, returns and qualifications’ refers to all matters affecting the validity of the contestee’s title. That includes questions in the validity, authenticity, and correctness of the COCs,” the tribunal explains.
Bongbong Marcos Pleased with the Development
Although the tribunal denies Marcos’ bid to set aside Robredo’s response to the poll protest due to its late response. PET records showed Robredo received the summons and election protest on August 3, 2016, and not on August 2 as stated by the vice president in her response to the protest. Robredo has until August 13, 2016 to file her answer; but since August 13, 2016 is a Saturday, the filing of verified answer and counter-protest on August 15, 2016 is timely. Marcos’ legal spokesman Victor Rodriguez announces that despite of that, Bongbong Marcos is pleased with the decision.
A tabloid online news platform called Abante that looks like an anti-administration media propaganda site wrote that Vice President Leni Robredo’s lawyer waited for an hour in front of the Manila Cathedral in Intramuros, Manila for Bongbong Marcos and his lawyer, Atty. Vic Rodriguez for allegedly signing an agreement with regards to Macalintal’s challenges.
Youtube video by; Rappler
[VIDEO]: Election lawyer Romulo Macalintal dares Bongbong Marcos to commit in writing that he would drop his election protest against VP Leni Robredo if it is not proven that SD cards were used for poll fraud.
Publicity Stunt or Losing his Mind?
Macalintal is quoted as saying that; “The absence of former Senator Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos and Atty. Vic Rodriguez is a clear admission and proof that their claimed “massive electoral fraud” on 13 Secure Digital (SD) cards from unused Vote Counting Machines (VCMs) that favored Vice President Leni Robredo and caused the defeat of Marcos was baseless, frivolous, self-serving and were merely intended as media stunt”, according allegedly to Macalintal. One thing, the Manila Cathedral is for worship and not for signing papers.
Petition Filed by Bongbong Marcos
Maccalintal’s challenges are already ignored because it can only come from a crazy lawyer. Bongbong Marcos already files a petition before the Supreme Court (SC) on Thursday, January 26. It seeks to start the preliminary conference of his election protest against Robredo. Macalintal should know the proper legal process as a veteran election lawyer and not wait in vain at the church.
Who Stages Misinformation?
Common sense tells readers how hilarious the pro-Leni Robredo supporters can become by spreading wrong information just to favor their political bet. If Macalintal really waits for Marcos at the church, when there’s no confirmed appointment made, then there’s something seriously wrong with him. If this is just a publicity stunt, the creators of this online medium involved should learn more about journalism – to be a bit credible in what they are trying to do.
Based on the comments in this specific article of Abante, it is obvious how the news create haters that immediately bashed Bongbong Marcos without fact-checking if the information is true or not. Now, who is spreading misinformation?