Liberal Party senators scored former Senator Ferdinand Marcos Jr. for questioning the credibility of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal, who he accused of being unfair in his election protest against Vice President Leni Robredo.
LP president Senator Francis Pangilinan said it is not good to question PET if its decision was not in his favor.
LP vice president Senator Franklin Drilon said Marcos must learn to accept the decision of the PET, whether adverse or in his favor.
“It’s part of our judicial process. Sometimes, we may get the short end of the stick, but that’s the way court processes go and as a former lawmaker, he should know better,” said Drilon.
Senator Bam Aquino, for his part, said it is unfair for Marcos to cast doubt on the integrity of the PET, which is composed of Supreme Court justices, when decisions do not go his way.
In September, Marcos’ camp lauded the PET after it denied with finality the bid of Vice President Robredo to reverse its earlier ruling finding sufficiency in Marcos’ election protest.
But on Wednesday, Marcos bewailed the “obvious bias” of Supreme Court Associate Justice Benjamin Caguioa, the ponente of his election protest which is now pending before the PET against him and in favor of former Camarines Sur Rep. Leni Robredo.
Marcos said the series of decisions issued by the PET on his election protest clearly demonstrated the bias of Caguioa against him.
“It has now become fairly obvious that his resolutions are biased against me and biased in favor of my oppositor,” he said.
Caguioa was appointed by former President Benigno Aquino III. They were classmates from elementary to college at the Ateneo De Manila University.
While the PET is a collegial body composed of 15 justices of the Supreme Court, Marcos said it is Caguioa, who was assigned to the case, who decides and issues the minute resolutions regarding his protest.
Marcos then enumerated some of the orders issued by Caguioa which showed his alleged one-sidedness in favor of Robredo.
Marcos said that as early as April 2017, the PET gave him only two working days to pay his initial P36-million protest fee and the order was made during Holy Week of last year when all the banks were closed.
Despite this, he managed to comply with the required fee because under the PET Rules, his protest would be dismissed if he failed to pay on time.
Robredo, on the other hand, failed to pay on the deadline set by the PET but Marcos claimed that Caguioa gave her an extension.
He added that to this day — or nine months later, Robredo has still not managed to fully complete the payment of her deposit.