The Supreme Court sitting as the Presidential Electoral Tribunal unanimously dismissed the electoral protest, which included a claim of poll fraud in Negros Oriental, filed by former Senator Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. against Vice President Leni Robredo today.
“With regard to PET Case No. 005 (Ferdinand “Bongbong” R. Marcos Jr., protestant vs. Maria Leonor “Leni Daang Matuwid” G. Robredo, protestee), the 15 members of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal unanimously dismissed the entire electoral protest,” the SC said in a statement.
The PET dismissed the election protest of Marcos for lack of merit and the counter protest filed by Robredo, it said.
The PET was reported to have noted the absence of substantial recovery of votes in the three pilot provinces Marcos had chosen, as Robredo had even gained additional votes during the recount.
Robredo defeated Marcos by 263,473 in the May 2016 polls.
The PET in October 2019 found that Robredo’s lead grew by about 15,000 votes after a recount of ballots from the 5,415 clustered precincts in Iloilo, Negros Oriental and Camarines Sur. The three pilot areas were chosen by the Marcos camp.
Former Negros Occidental governor Rafael Cococlluela, who campaigned for Robredo in 2016, said “I’m happy for VP Leni, and relieved to see it over and done with.”
But Coscolluela said he appeals to the vice president’s supporters to be magnanimous in victory and not rub salt on the wounds of the other party.
“Enough hurt has been inflicted, accusations hurled and insults thrown at each other. Let’s just thank God and the Supreme Court, and move on na,” he said.
Malacañang today said it respects the decision of the SC.
“That is the decision of the Supreme Court. We respect that and we respect also that the camp of Senator Bongbong Marcos has a further remedy of moving for reconsideration,” Presidential Spokesperson Harry Roque said.
In a separate statement, Chief Presidential Legal Counsel Salvador Panelo said the PET’s unanimous decision appears to validate Robredo’s win “on the basis of law and of the evidence presented before it by both parties.”*