Posted on Leave a comment

The Supreme Court Cannot Dismiss Marcos’ Protest after Recount Due to Fraud


By: Elena Grace Flores
YouTube Video by Rappler

Supreme Court moves in VP protest, Comelec to weigh in on Mindanao votes

The Supreme Court Cannot Dismiss Marcos’ Case Due to Fraud

The Supreme Court did not make a decision after the recount. It did not answer Bongbong Marcos’ motion to rule on the appreciation of votes. The PET moves to the third cause of action. This is the annulment of votes in Mindanao where physical evidence is required. Meaning to say that the more than 15,000 excess votes of Leni Robredo after the recount are questionable. So, fraud is more likely.

Revision and Appreciation of Votes

The revision of the ballots in pilot provinces had the following
objectives: verify the actual physical count of the ballots; recount the votes of the parties; record the parties’ objections and claims thereon; and mark the ballots objected to and/or claimed by the parties in preparation for their examination by the Tribunal and for the reception of the parties’ evidence.

After the revision, the revised ballots were then subjected to
appreciation wherein the Tribunal verified the physical count and ruled on the objections and claims of the parties. The final tally after the revision and the appreciation of the votes in the pilot provinces resulted in a net increase of votes by 15,093 in favor of the protestee. However, the SC did not dismiss the case. It can only mean that there’s basically fraud.

Dissenting Opinion that Prevents the Dismissal

The word “may” in Rule 65 refers to the discretion of the Tribunal to
dismiss or not the protest, and if the Tribunal does not dismiss the protest, to require the protestant to designate “not more than three” pilot provinces, a mandatory ceiling. The word “may” recognizes that the Tribunal may summarily dismiss the protest, in which event there will be no reason to require the designation of pilot provinces. But if the Tribunal does not dismiss the protest, there will be a need to designate “not more than three” pilot provinces. The word “may” has never been interpreted to pertain to the number of pilot provinces, which must be “not more than three,” a language which is a clear mandatory command that the number of pilot provinces shall not exceed three.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.