IN 2017, the Supreme Court upheld the integrity of the 2016 elections. Despite this, former senator Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. filed an election protest against Vice President Leni Robredo.
In the initial parts of the protest, Marcos questioned the integrity of the elections. It was followed by a second issue – Robredo won only by a slim margin of over 260,000 votes. Thus, a cause of action for a recount was raised. It was a blessing in disguise for Robredo. It enabled her to even widen her lead against Marcos.
But it didn’t stop there. The Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET) moved to deliberate on Marcos’ third cause of action – to annul the votes in Lanao del Sur, Basilan and Maguindanao.
The protest continued for the past five years. Finally, on Feb. 16 this year it was put to rest. The PET issued an official pronouncement. The High Court unanimously voted to dismiss Marcos’ electoral protest.
I have received a lot of questions regarding it, and the role of the PET in election protests.
The Supreme Court sits as the PET. It is the sole arbiter of all contests “relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of the President or Vice President of the Philippines.”
The election protest is governed by Administrative Matter (A.M.) No. 10-4-29-SC of the Supreme Court. It is also known as the 2010 Rules of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal.
This is not an easy task. It should be noted that only the candidate for president or vice president who placed second or third in the polls may contest the results within 30 days after the proclamation. Usually, the PET issues a precautionary protection order. This is to secure the ballot boxes and other election paraphernalia.
In an election protest, the PET calls for a preliminary conference after the submission of final pleadings. What happens in the “precon” is to simplify the issues, to limit the number of witnesses, and a schedule to expedite the case.
There will be revision of votes. Concerned ballot boxes will be opened and the votes are recounted and tallied.
For your information, Rule 65 says that either camp may be required to present at most three provinces “best exemplifying the frauds or irregularities alleged in [the] petition.”
If one can make out his or her case in these three provinces, the protest will prosper. Otherwise, it could be dismissed. This is what exactly happened in the case of Marcos and Robredo.
There are scheduled hearings where evidences will be received by commissioners who are lawyers. Both camps must file a memorandum for their final arguments and refutations.
All these proceedings (in the Marcos election protest) happened. The PET deserved to be applauded for settling the protest, especially that the next national election is fast approaching.
On the other hand, Marcos is still hopeful. For him, it is not yet over. Sometimes in life, we should accept losses and failures. You cannot have it all, as they say./PN
