Robredo pays P8-M poll protest fee

1

FINALLY, Vice President Maria Leonor “Leni” Robredo yielded to the Supreme Court and complied with a directive for her to make a cash deposit of P8 million in connection with her poll counter-protest against former senator Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr., whom she defeated in the May 2016 vice presidential race.

DOWNPAYMENT Vice President Maria Leonor ‘Leni’ Robredo, accompanied by counsel Romulo Macalintal, speaks to reporters after paying P8 million for her counter-protest against former senator Ferdinand ‘Bongbong’ Marcos Jr. PHOTO BY RUSSELL PALMA

Robredo personally made the payment on Tuesday before the court, sitting as Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET), which had given her an ultimatum.

Robredo had refused to make the payment on the deadline set by the PET on April 17, the same deadline given to Marcos to post a cash deposit of P36 million for his protest against Robredo.

She sought to defer the payment of the protest fee by filing a motion for reconsideration. This was questioned by Marcos, who called it a delaying tactic against a vote recount.


Rule 34 of the 2010 PET Rules 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.”

But Robredo said it was “difficult to raise P8 million for the deposit, which was why I asked the high tribunal for more time.”

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.

The Marcos camp claims the election was marred by “massive electoral fraud, anomalies and irregularities” such as pre-shading of ballots, secure digital cards pre-loaded with data, misreading of ballots, malfunctioning vote-counting machines, and an “abnormally high” unaccounted votes or undervotes for the position of vice president.

The high tribunal has set a preliminary conference for the recount on June 21.

Share.
.
Loading...

Please follow our commenting guidelines.

1 Comment

  1. dating mandaraya` on

    The complaints of Marcos to the PET Tribunal are: pre shading of ballots, secure digital cards pre-loaded with data, misreading of ballots, malfunctioning vote counting machines, and abnormally high under votes for vice president. The most thing that the PET can do is to recount the votes manually and the fees that were collected from both parties will cover the expenditures on this processes. On the pre shading of ballots, the videos or pictures presented as evidence could have made after the election and this can be challenged easily and in so many ways. This evidence can be thrown out when Robredo’s camp can establish a single doubt on this issue.

    On the issue of digital cards pre loaded with data, Marcos’ camp must hire a forensic expert, like myself, to show and document what kind of data was found on the unused SD Cards during testing. What kind of file was it? Normally, a file signature is made up of file header, metadata, and file footer. How many clusters are there in individual addressable sectors? What kind of files was it? NFTS (New Technology File System) files or FAT (File Allocation Table) files? Need to document as well, the directory entries, where specific information about a file data resides. Lastly, forensic expert should archive his casework to solidify his credibility should he called to testify in court proceedings.

    On the issue of misreading the ballots, this issue has been established from the beginning that the Optical Card Reader can read if the shaded area is covered NOT less than 70% of the area. The circle next to the name of the candidate must be shaded 70% or better in order for the OCR to read as a legitimate vote. During manual counting, a shaded circle beside a candidate’s name can be seen by naked eyes, but the condition on the OCR was not met or 70% of the area was not shaded properly, therefore, the OCR have nulled and voided that vote. If two circles were shaded beside the name of candidates, in this case Marcos and Robredo, the machine will null the vote as well.

    On the issue of malfunctioning vote counting machines, these are beyond the control of anybody. How did anybody’s vote affected by malfunctioning counting machines? These type of allegations were made up by somebody that have limited knowledge about computers and automation in general. The rest of the allegations were made up by self proclaimed IT experts, such as abnormally high unaccounted votes. I would love to cross examine these witnesses and have a live coverage, broadcasted all over the world.