By: Elena Grace Flores
The lawyer of Bongbong Marcos, Atty. George Garcia confirms to a recent interview that Marcos is indeed the winner of the Vice Presidential race in 2016 elections. He cannot say approximately how many ballots his camp won over because of the gag order. He also clarifies that the current update on the electoral protest refers to Marcos asking the PET for the revision of results outside of the 3 pilot provinces due to the evidence taken from another protest related to the case. The presumptive VP vehemently opposes this.
[VIDEO]: The camp of former Sen. Bongbong Marcos is hoping the Presidential Electoral Tribunal will finally decide this year on their electoral protest against Vice President Leni Robredo.
The Marcos camp earlier motions to subpoena the Comelec to issue a handwritten report on their initial findings. This is an area outside of the 3 pilot province. It is also under protest by another candidate. It was found that 70% of the returns are not from real legible voters. Only one person did such an entry, it turns out. Robredo of course opposes this said plea through her lawyer, Atty. Romulo Macalintal.
A video shows the alleged cheating that occurred in ARMM. This results in the petition of Marcos. He asks the PET to subpoena relevant documents in connection with the technical examination in the area. The election protest is by the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao gubernatorial candidate Sakur Tan against ARMM Regional Governor Mujiv Hataman. This is outside of Marcos’ 3 pilot provinces. Therefore, Macalintal opposes this on behalf of Robredo.
Robredo’s Attempt to Hide the Truth
The camp of Robredo criticizes the latest petition for a technical examination of votes in parts of Mindanao by Marcos. Macalintal said that he is “desperately trying to save his dying election protest.” Robredo’s lawyers Macalintal and Bernadette Sardillo released to the media their counter-manifestation to Marcos’ petition. They filed this on January 14.
Macalintal decries the use of the examination from an election protest to the one filed by Marcos apart from the pilot provinces. He said: “That case has nothing to do with the election protest of Marcos now being heard by the PET.” “Robredo was not a party thereof nor was Marcos.” The pilot provinces petitioned and approved for an ongoing vice presidential recount only include precincts in Camarines Sur, Iloilo and Negros Oriental. However, in every sense of the world, if the majority of voters in the area are fake, chances are, the results are incorrect. This can generate a substantial lead for Marcos.
Bongbong Marcos Won the Vice Presidency
The recount of the said pilot provinces, where Marcos’ alleges voting fraud took place, began last April. The electoral protest itself is now on its third year. It is the first election protest of the PET to reach the recount level under the 1987 Constitution. Marcos’ election fraud allegations coincide with the findings of the clean election advocate, Atty. Glenn Chong. The people await the finality of this case to know if the real VP is indeed Bongbong Marcos and not the presumptive one, Leni Robredo. Atty. Garcia’s confirmation of Marcos’ victory made a lot of people more anxious to see the real VP sit on his post very soon.
Vice Presidential Protestant Bongbong Marcos’ lawyer agrees with Chief Presidential Legal Counsel Salvador Panelo that President Rodrigo Du30’s decision to declare void ab initio (void from the beginning) the amnesty granted to Senator Antonio Trillanes IV is constitutional. He should surrender himself to authorities because an amnesty is a conditional pardon. He must stay loyal to the current government and not to the previous one. All he has to do is present the proof of acceptance for his application which he failed to do so. He can stay in jail while fighting for his case. The same with the former senators Jinggoy Estrada and Bong Revilla. His can is somewhat similar to the quo warranto petition of the former Supreme Court Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno when after investigation, her SALN was incomplete.
[VIDEO]: Marcos’ Lawyer Atty. George Garcia Explains the Constitutional Process of Voiding Trillanes’ Amnesty
The Presidential Defense
Panelo is coming to the defense of President Du30’s decision of declaring void ab initio, Trillanes’ amnesty. He is arguing that the President’s decision is constitutionally allowed. Furthermore, Panelo is saying that Trillanes is abusing the grant of amnesty by not complying with the terms and conditions.
Proclamation No. 572
With the signing of Proclamation No. 572 by President Du30, the amnesty granted to Trillanes is declared void ab initio. This is due to Trillanes failing to submit his original amnesty application to the Department of National Defense. This was for the crimes he has done in 2003’s Oakwood Mutiny and 2007’s Manila Peninsula Siege.
Panelo is saying that Trillanes is essentially committing the same crime again. He is bombarding President Du30 with accusations that he has no proof of. Now, that he is called to answer his own crimes, he’s taking refuge at the Senate.
The Right of the President
To protect itself from assault, the government has the right to protect itself through the President. To quote Panelo, “As Chief Executive and Head of Government, he has the power to issue orders protective of the State and its people. This is in line with the prime duty of the government to serve and protect the people under Article II, Section 4 of the 1987 Constitution.”
Warrant of Arrest
Panelo further adds that even without the concurrence of Congress, the amnesty can be voided. As he says, “Senator Trillanes has abused a grant of amnesty, albeit void, and it compels its nullification by the President – official authority who is considered by the 1987 Constitution as the grantor of executive clemencies.”
Bongbong Marcos recently filed the motion for reconsideration after the PET allowed Robredo to have copies of decrypted ballots. These are from the secured digital (SD) cards of Camarines Sur, Iloilo and Negros Oriental. VP Leni Robredo’s lawyer, Romulo Macalintal calls this “unnecessary.” He added that if Marcos really wants to get a speedy resolution of his electoral protest, he should refrain from doing so. However, professionalism dictates that if something is not agreeable, a motion must be filed for the record. Abuses of the law can then be very clear in the end. Media stunts come and go but official records stay.
[VIDEO]: In this video clip, Bongbong Marcos’ lawyer, Atty. George Garcia laid out how they can prove a one million voting discrepancy generated by PCOS machines.
Passing the Blame
“By doing this, they have no one to blame but themselves for any delay,” Romulo Macalintal said. The lawyer refers to the partial motion for reconsideration filed by Marcos. He questions the decision dated Nov. 7, 2017, of the Supreme Court that sits as the Presidential Electoral Tribunal or PET.
Normal Practice by Spirit
“Like in any other case, both camps are given copies of all documents. This is the standard practice in the spirit of transparency and fairness,” Macalintal said. He explains that the soft copies can help both parties protect their rights. Marcos earlier questions such explanation because if Robredo’s Camp really believe in it, why did they block it and not help pay for the process?
The PET approves the urgent ex-parte motion filed by Robredo’s camp last Oct. 23. That she be furnished soft copies of the ballot images and reports in a decrypted format from the three pilot provinces of Marcos for his election protest. This despite the latter’s disagreement.
Stop Robredo’s Abuses
Meanwhile, Atty. George Garcia of the Marcos Camp can only shake his head on the many cases of abuse done by its rival Camp. First, Robredo expressed her fear that Marcos might steal her seat. Demonizing him once more using his father’s black media propaganda initiated by her party. Second, she has not paid fully for her counter-protest against Marcos but SC tolerates her so far. Lastly, but not the least or limited to it, she has the most motions filed dubbed as a dilatory tactic to drag the protest further. Macalintal is obviously just passing the blame on to Marcos.
Bongbong Marcos’ lawyer George Garcia said that the Comelec should start to conduct a bidding process for the next election in 2019 already for suppliers of automated election machines. He adds that the result of Marcos’ electoral protest against Leni Robredo can even help in determining if there are no revisions to the actual vote counts compared to the machine-generated results. Atty. Romulo Macalintal of Robredo’s is obviously uncomfortable upon hearing this.
[VIDEO]: VP Leni Robredo’s lead counsel, Atty. Romulo Macalintal frowns when Atty. George Garcia of the Marcos Camp calls for an early automated election bidding process. This is for Comelec to decide if a Smartmatic replacement is necessary.
Early Resolution of Election Protest
The early resolution of the Marcos-Robredo election protest can affirm the credibility of Comelec and even Smartmatic if Robredo wins. If it is the other way around, then it’s about time to change the supplier. Garcia stresses that it’s better to look for options already early on so that decisions won’t be last minute. That can end up in selecting only the available choice and not the best if Comelec won’t move now.
Any Result is Acceptable for Marcos
Marcos may want to win the protest but if it won’t work in his favor, it’s also acceptable. What’s important is to expedite the recount to know the real score. Comelec should take advantage of having this opportunity to clear their name from doubts that they have a hand in the alleged fraudulent 2016 elections.
Macalintal mocks the IT experts who give their expert opinions on the transmission trend and server behavior when the immediate twist of fate started on the night of the May 16, 2016, VP race. This is in contrast with Clean Elections advocate, Atty. Glenn Chong’s statement that says that the fraudulent activities during the latest national elections were not only manual but digital in nature. Aside from being a lawyer, he also has some IT background. Not to mention the witnesses of Pastor Boy Saycon in the Senate on the alleged rigging incidents involving system redirecting for questionable servers.
Assessment And Evaluation
Section 33 of RA 9369 states that the JCOC must monitor and evaluate the digital election system within six months from the date of the election. Comprehensive assessment and evaluation of the AES technologies must be the basis for the appropriate recommendations to Congress.”
The PET ordered the initial recount of votes in Camarines Sur, Iloilo, and Negros Oriental first. This is to prove whether or not the rest of Marcos’ protest has merit. Bongbong Marcos said that it is about to start in November and is expected to be completed in December this year.
Youtube video by; the dutchman
[VIDEO]: Marcos names provinces for pilot manual recount of ballots.
No Witnesses for Anomalies
Marcos’ lawyer George Garcia told the Supreme Court that Marcos will no longer present witnesses. This is for the annulment part of his petition. It’s because their allegations of electoral fraud can best be proven through a ballot recount. Their camp no longer plans to present testimonial evidence or witnesses to support his allegations of widespread cheating. Particularly in 3 provinces where Vice President Leni Robredo won.
Marcos Drops Nullification of Votes
In his electoral protest against the Vice President, Marcos wants votes to be nullified in Basilan, Lanao del Sur, and Maguindanao. He cites the “widespread presence of terrorism, violence, threats, coercion, force, and intimidation.”
Not Abandonment of Election Fraud Protest
Atty. Garcia clarifies that; “The waiver of testimonial evidence in so far as the 3rd cause of action is concerned is not an abandonment of the electoral frauds, anomalies, and irregularities alleged in the electoral protest. These may be proven by the ballots which are ‘the best repository of the sovereign will,'” Garcia added.
Unaccounted Votes in Pilot Provinces
He also explained that the “unaccounted votes” for the position of vice president can be verified through the judicial and manual recount. This goes with the revision of election paraphernalia in 36,465 clustered precincts under 27 provinces and 5 highly urbanized cities as well.
Bongbong Marcos’ counsel George Garcia, said that the designation of hearing officers will improve the order, simplify and expedite Supreme Court procedures for the electoral protest considering that there are three causes of action raised in the case.
Youtube video by; GMA News
[VIDEO]: UB: Dating Sen. Marcos, naghain ng mosyon sa PET para mapabilis ang kanyang election protest
3 Issues Raised
Marcos’ protest raises the following issues:
– anomalous Automated Election System (AES);
– failure of elections in various provinces in Mindanao; and,
– the unauthorized editing by Smartmatic’s Marlon Garcia using a new hash code into the Transparency Server on election day.
Efficient Process of the Supreme Court
Marcos’ camp stressed the importance of a hearing officer assigned for each cause of action to not confuse the proceedings. Marcos intends to present witnesses and matching documentary support for each cause of action. He also added that assigning hearing officers will resolve the protest in a timely manner.
Marcos stated in the resolution; “Public interest demands that this electoral controversy be resolved with dispatch to determine once and for all the genuine choice of the electorate for the contested position. Assigning 3 hearing commissioners as suggested can surely aid the Tribunal in achieving its mandate to ensure a prompt and efficient resolution for the election protest.
Not Fair for Namesake
Marcos explained this in the motion; “Moreover, it is neither fair nor just to keep in office for undetermined period one whose right to it is under suspicion. It is imperative that his claim is immediately cleared not only for the benefit of the real winner but for the sake of public interest, which can only be achieved by setting aside technicalities of procedure which can delay and complicate ordinary action.” Will the Supreme Court hear this out?