The following facts and conclusions, culled from the October 15 resolution of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET) handling the election protest filed by former Senator Ferdinand Marcos, Jr. against Vice-President Leni Robredo, prove that Robredo won in the recount of votes and gained substantial recovery from the three (3) pilot provinces Marcos chose for the initial determination of the merits of his protest pursuant to Rule 65 of the PET Rules, thus:
|Votes after recount of ballots from 3 pilot provinces
|Less: Votes upon proclamation
|Recovery after recount from 3 pilot provinces
With 17,520 votes recovered by Robredo from 3 pilot provinces, it means that, for every province, she recovered 5,840 (17,520/3). Since Marcos protested 30 provinces, the projected recovery of Robredo from these provinces, if Marcos’ protest continues, is 175,200 votes (5,840 x 30).
On the other hand, Marcos recovered only 2,427 from his 3 pilot provinces which he said “best exemplify” the frauds alleged in his protest which means that, for every province, he recovered 809 votes only. If he continues his protest for his protested 30 provinces, it could clearly be projected that he would only recover a total of 24,270 votes (809 x 30). This proves that Marcos’ 2,427 recovery from his chosen 3 pilot provinces was not substantial, hence, his protest should be dismissed pursuant to Rule 65 of the PET Rules.
While the rules mandates that a protestant, like Marcos, should make “substantial recovery” from his pilot provinces, the above facts and figures show Marcos’ dismal and miserable failure to make any “substantial recovery”. On the contrary, it was Robredo who made an overwhelming substantial recovery which justify the opinions of PET Members, Justices Antonio Carpio and Alfredo Caguioa, to dismiss the election protest of Marcos.
Thus, the unanimous findings of all the PET Members that Robredo won in the 3 pilot provinces chosen by Marcos since both the majority and the dissenting Justices Carpio and Caguioa agreed that “based on the final tally, after the revision and appreciation of the votes in the three (3) pilot provinces, Robredo increased her lead with 14,436,337 votes, over protestant Marcos who obtained 14,157,771 votes. After the revision and appreciation of the ballots, the lead of Robredo increased from 263,473 to 278,566.”
In other words, it was 13-0 vote in favor of Robredo after the recount and appreciation of the ballots from the three (3) pilot provinces personally chosen by Marcos as the “best provinces” that exemplify the frauds alleged in his election protest.
Thus, our position, then and now, that Marcos protest should be dismissed outright pursuant to Rule 65 of the PET Rules which provides for the dismissal of an election protest if the protestant, like Marcos in this case, fails to show any substantial recovery from his chosen three (3) pilot provinces.
Hence, we vehemently deny that Robredo does not know the details of Marcos’ election protest as frivolously claimed by his lawyer, Vic Rodriguez, which is why we were constrained to issue this statement. Contrary to his claim, the PET resolution did not resolve “to proceed with Marcos protest.” The PET has yet to study its merits after the parties have submitted their respective memoranda on various issues. The PET did not also “junk the Caguioa report” as it was the basis of the PET in holding in abeyance further proceedings in Marcos protest until the parties have submitted said memoranda.
And we should remember, that the three (3) pilot provinces selected by Marcos were supposed to be “the best provinces that exemplify (would show) the electoral frauds” alleged in his protest. Which means that the remaining 27 untouched unrevised provinces would yield less ‘recovery’ as they are not in the category of ‘best’ pilot provinces.
We reiterate that, based on the facts and figures contained in the PET resolution, Marcos did not make any substantial recovery after the revision of ballots from the three (3) pilot provinces which he personally chose. On the contrary, it was Robredo who made overwhelming and substantial recovery which justifies the dismissal of Marcos election protest for its apparent and exposed lack of merit.
ATTY. ROMULO B. MACALINTAL
Lead Counsel of VP Leni Robredo