Fishing expedition

Bencyrus Ellorin .

IN one interview, Supreme Court Associate Justice Marvic Leonen said the high court is listening to social media on the vice presidential election protest of former senator Bongbong Marcos.

This is a good sign as the high court has not insulated itself from public opinion. On the other hand, the high court could also be playing to the crowd in making its decision. I have high trust though that the rule of law will prevail in the election protest.

When 15 or so minds analyze an issue, said Leonen, the views would not be a simple dichotomy, but 15 or so diverse views.

Later in justifying the action on the recount result of the pilot areas chosen by the protestant, the good justice said that in deciding not to apply Rule 65 of the Presidential Election Tribunal (PET), the high court applied substantive due process. It wanted to delve more on the election protest.

Many legal minds disagree with the decision of the high court acting as PET for sidelining Rule 65. In gist, the rule gives the protestant the choice of three pilot provinces for recount. And in that recount, to show cause that there indeed was election fraud, the protestant will have substantial recovery of votes. The protestant Marcos chose Camarines Sur, Iloilo and Negros Oriental as the pilot provinces where he asserted in his protest as the probable areas where he can have substantial recovery to prove he could have won as vice president and not Vice President Leni Robredo.

The results however showed that instead of gaining votes or getting substantial recovery, Robredo’s votes increased by 15,000 or a reduction of 15,000 votes for Marcos. Now you do not need to be a rocket scientist to understand there was no substantial recovery.

But the high court majority thought that the failure of protestant Marcos to prove substantial recovery did not merit outright dismissal of his protest. It instead flanked and asked the parties, Robredo and Marcos, to comment on the latter’s separate motion before the court to nullify the election results in three Mindanao provinces — Basilan, Lanao del Sur and Maguindanao — for alleged failure of election.

This to me is a wild assertion. What is special with Marcos for the sovereign votes of the people in the three provinces to disenfranchise? Doing so would be an extension of the savage war his father, the late dictator Ferdinand Marcos, waged against the Bangsamoro people during the dark years of martial law. Having this considered in the context of the case provides a strong narrative for our Muslim brothers to really be concerned.

Justices Afredo Benjamin Cagiuoa and Antonio Carpio dissented to the majority opinion giving a new lease of life to the protest of Marcos. They thought the PET Rule 65 established and applied since 2010 should have been applied to the election protest of Marcos.

Election protest is not a free and handy remedy of losing politicians. It is basic that the protestant should show convincing substantial evidence that he or she has been defrauded victory. Failure to prove like this case where there is monumental failure to show substantial recovery should spare election protest tribunals the hassles of going through these tedious trials.

Politicians also have to learn to respect the voice of the sovereign people. If Marcos cannot respect the outcome of the 2016 election, how on earth can we expect him to respect the people and uphold their democratic rights?

Marcos was smiling when the high court voted to give his fishing expedition a new lease of life.

Should we be happy? I think not, especially from a high court that basically rewrote law books when it decided to dismiss Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno in an unprecedented quo warranto case.

And more concerning is that the macho man up there has no love or whatsoever to both ladies, Leni and Maria Lourdes.

Trying times indeed for our democracy.

Why have we come to this? No need to look far, Tatay Nene Pimentel said, these things reflect on the people.

***

Daghang salamat, Tatay Nene, for your life dedicated to service of the Filipino people. You have not departed as you live in the hearts of every Filipino who enjoyed democracy you defended so much.