“These are arguments that would stretch incredulity.”
I continue the series, co-written with Atty. Christian Laluna, on the Marcos v. Robredo case by addressing the mistakes of the petitioner, made under the pressure of voluminous evidence in a high-profile case. The protestant camp may likely argue in favor of reconsideration that these were mere oversights on data specific enough that these blanks could easily be filled in by reference to context, or logical inference. And that due process would have demanded such inference.
But these are arguments that would stretch incredulity. In such a high-profile case, for one of the two highest executive positions in the land, counsels for both Marcos and Robredo would have been expected to act very carefully. This isn’t a spat between two bickering neighbors over some mango tree, but two politicians with their coterie of staff, supporters, and supernumeraries behind them. And while the courts are expected to lean in favor of due process, of giving parties every opportunity to make their case, and even to be proactive in the questioning of witnesses, probing matters hitherto unforeseen by either party, that does not go as far as filling in blanks on pertinent, material evidence. That would certainly invite withering criticism from the opposite camp of judges trying to argue the case of one party over the other.
It is not for want of trying, either. Beyond moving on with the case instead of going with dismissal, “when protestant’s allegations were insufficient, this Tribunal resolved to direct him to allege with specificity.” When allegations required the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) to materially comment, the Tribunal directed the Commission to do so. “At every step, this Tribunal did not shirk its duty and afforded the parties due process to make and defend their arguments in the proper forum.”
Criticism greeted the Tribunal initially when it chose to continue with the case instead of dismissing it after the conclusion of the recount. It was, to many colleagues, lending legitimacy to a dangerously Quixotic effort undermining confidence in our national elections. Marcos’ supporters would have obviously seen things differently, as they would now that the case had been resolved against their standard-bearer. Perhaps it was for the best that the Tribunal continued beyond the recount, however (we will revisit this topic later). If history had been made by Marcos v. Robredo being the first PET case resolved fully on the merits, then the Tribunal’s efforts to exact specificity from the parties, whether they could present it or not, was precisely what was needed to resolve the matter definitively.
Therein is the first lesson for future electoral protests, which is one of the lessons not only lawyers but even journalists learn: when one alleges or accuses, when one describes, one must be specific. Specific enough that a court can picture, from the pleadings and the evidence, what happened where, when, how, and even with who. While electoral fraud tends to be, by their nature, “in the dark” skullduggery evading scrutiny and accountability, it does not prevent a grieving candidate from being able to point out the exact causes of his grievance. Enough at least to give an electoral tribunal justifiable reason to doubt the results of a given election.
And if certain personalities or sectors continue to doubt this portion of the Decision, it may be their right to do so, but we have the hindsight of recent history warning them of that dangerously Quixotic effort, by pointing across the Pacific Ocean. For these efforts, perhaps not ironically, mirror similar efforts of the Trump camp in the 2020 American elections: loudly proclaiming irregularities and fraud in various electoral districts, but when brought to account on the merits in a lawful process (e.g., before an independent referee like the courts, and not by partisan action such as the GOP-driven “audit” of Maricopa County in Arizona), in nearly every case an embarrassing failure to substantiate allegations.
Despite that, however, perhaps the protestants there had gotten their wish by poisoning both faith in elections and good-faith relations across the political spectrum, making bad faith hyperpolarized entrenchment a profitable enterprise. God help the Philippines if our politicians reach, or have long reached this conclusion. The blood tide would be irresistible, as it would be tragic.
If previous PET electoral protests had died prematurely before their meritorious resolution, the time it took to get there is a factor. National-level protests involve a regional if not national effort, at assembling evidence from multiple and diverse locations and events to state their respective cases. Marcos v. Robredo is no exception, the protestant originally contesting 92,509 clustered precincts; the respondent counter-protesting 7,547. Given Marcos’ objective of overturning Robredo’s 263,473 vote lead in the 2016 elections, in effect, he was demanding the Tribunal toss out as many votes as each precinct, or even each vote, could be assailed, to nullify that lead.
Website: tonylavina.com Facebook: deantonylavs Twitter: tonylavs
