Marcos asks SC to dismiss Robredo’s counter-protest


VICE PRESIDENT Maria Leonor “Leni” Robredo’s counter-protest is in danger of being junked by the Supreme Court because of her failure to pay protest fees.

This was the contention of former senator Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. who asked the court, sitting as the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET), on Monday to dismiss the counter-protest in connection with the May 2016 vice-presidential race.

In a six-page omnibus motion, the former senator stressed that his election protest should be the only one allowed to proceed following his initial payment of the election protest fee.

Robredo failed to comply with the tribunal’s order last March 21 for payment of the first installment required of both parties. The last day of payment was last Monday. Only Marcos complied.

“[T]he protestee/counter-protestant (Robredo) did not pay the required initial installment of the cash deposit in the amount of eight million pesos (P8 million) by 17 April 2017, she opted instead to file a manifestation with urgent ex-parte omnibus motion (1) for clarification; and (2) reconsideration of the resolution dated 21 March 2017.

“In view of the failure on the part of the protestee/counter-protestant to pay the first tranche of the cash deposit for her counter-protest within the deadline set by this honorable tribunal, protestant Marcos is now constrained to move for the immediate dismissal of the counter-protest in accordance with Rule 34 of the 2010 Rules of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal,” the motion stated.

‘Delaying tactic’?

Robredo’s lawyer, Romulo Macalintal, said they filed a motion on Wednesday explaining a request for a clarification as to the timing of the payment for the counter-protest, “that it could be done if and when Mr. Marcos has already established his case as protestant.”

“We will wait for the PET to resolve the matter,” Macalintal said in a statement. “If the PET decides we should pay now, we will make the necessary payment.”

Rule 34 provides that “[i]f a party fails to make the cash deposits or additional deposits herein required within the prescribed time limit, the tribunal may dismiss the protest or counter-protest, or take such action as it may deem equitable under the circumstances.”

The Marcos camp quoted the cases of Perla Garcia, et al. vs the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal and Rep. Harry Angping; and Bienvenido William D. LLoren vs Commission on Elections and Rogelio Pua Jr., where the high court upheld the dismissal of the protests for failure to make the required cash deposit.
Marcos accused Robredo’s camp of delaying the recount .

“The filing of [Robredo’s] manifestation with urgent ex-parte omnibus motion cannot excuse Robredo from the payment of the required cash deposit since the same is obviously dilatory,” the Marcos motion stated.

“Robredo’s intention to further delay the proceedings in this case is evident from the arguments raised in her latest submission. Protestant Marcos finds it quite ironic that Robredo would ask for the deferment of the payment of her cash deposit even though she had already expressed her conformity and willingness to pay the same in her [manifestation],” it added.

Marcos, through his lawyer George Erwin Garcia, asked the PET for the setting of the preliminary conference on the protest, as mandated by Rule 29 of the PET Rules.

The PET had ruled that the case deposit for Marcos amounted to P66,223,000, or P500 for each of the 132,446 voting precincts.

In his protest, Marcos assailed the election results in 39,221 clustered precincts. He wants a recount in 36,465 precincts, and the annulment of results in the remaining 2,756. Based on Commission on Elections data, the 39,221 clustered precincts are composed of 132,446 precincts.

Marcos lost to Robredo by only 263,473 votes.


Please follow our commenting guidelines.


  1. dating magna-nakaw on

    Different cases, different circumstances, and different time cannot be related with this case, and it seems like the Marcos camp is getting frustrated and will say or do anything just to counter the other camp. It will be interesting to see how PET will handle and solve this issue.

    • Marcos would just like the recount to proceed in a timely fashion but what he and the people get is over a year of stalling tactics filing motion after motion to slow any resolution of the case from Robredo and her lawyers.

      The forensic investigation should of happened after it was discovered that smartmatic accessed the system while the election was in progress but of course Comelec refused to conduct a real investigation.

      This is the Philippines where the people have to wait for years while the government ties up any investigation with their usual incompetence and corruption.

    • Aphetsky Lasa on

      Bongbong is not countering the other camp. It appears that It is the other way around: the delaying tactics that Robredo et al is staging. All Bongbong wants is to know the presence of cheating, if there was, that’s why he is adamant in getting the recount done ASAP. If the recount proves in favor of Leni, then she is definitely the legitimate VP. Otherwise, if Leni and her camp have nothing to hide, let the recount proceed orderly and put closure to this issue once and for all. Justice delayed is justice denied..