PET Case 005 Bongbong Marcos Vs Leni Robredo

~epublic of tbe IDlbilippines'
!)resibential <!Electoral 'Otrihunal

1jaguio ~itp
NOTl!CE
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the ' Tribunal issued a Resolution

dated APRIL 10, 2018, which reads asfollqws:
"PET Case No. 005 - FERDINAND "~ONGBONG" R. MARCOS, JR.,

protestant, versus MARIA LEONOR ~'LENI DAANG MATUWID" G.
ROBREDO, protestee.
x--------------------------------------------------x
RESOLUTION
Protestee's Urgent Ex Parte Motion to Direct the Head Revisors to Apply

the Correct Threshold Percentage as Set iby the Commission on Elections in
the Revision, Recount and Re-Apprec~ation of the Ballots, in Order to
Expedite the Proceedings dated April 5, 2018 (Ex Parte Motion)
'
In her Ex Parte Motion, protestee ¢!aims that the threshold percentage
in determining the validity of votes during the 2016 National ·and Local
Elections was 25% and not 50%. 1 Protrstee thus moves that the Tribunal
direct its Head Revisors to use the 25% threshold percentage in determining
valid votes. 2 •'
In support of her claims, proteste~ cites the Random Manual Audit

Visual Guidelines and the Random M~nual Audit Report. 4 Protestee also
3
claims that Rule 43(1) of the 2010 PET i Rules has been superseded by the
2018 Revisor's Guide. Rule 43(1) of the ZOIO PET Rules states:
RULE 43. Conduct of the revisiok. - The revision of votes shall be
done through the use of appropriate P~OS machines or manually and
visually, as the Tribunal may determine, and according to the following a
procedures: /
x xxx
Ex Parte Motion, par. 13.

Ex Part.e Motion, p. 7.
Id. at par. 14.
ld.atpar.15.
.·-· . . .
'
·~ ~.\I~·
~
"', ;.~· .. " ......
Notice of Resolution -1- P.E.T. Case No. 005
April 10, 2018
(I) In looking at the shades or marks used to register votes, the RC

shall bear in mind that the will of the voters reflected as votes
in the ballots shall as much as possible be given effect, setting
aside any technicalities. Fu1ihermore. the votes thereon arc
presumed to have been made by the voter and shall be
considered as such unless reasons exist that will justify their
rejection. However, marks or shades which are less than 50%
of the oval shall not be considered as valid votes. Any issue as
to whether a certain mark or shade is within the threshold shall
he determined by feeding the ballot on the PCOS machine. and
not by human determination.
Protestee's Ex Parte Motion is denjed.
Protestee's claim that the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), as

purportedly confirmed by the Random Manual Audit Guidelines and Report,
applies the 25% threshold percentage in determining a valid vote is
inaccurate.
The Court is not aware of any COMELEC Resolution that states the
applicability of a 25% threshold; and the Tribunal cannot treat the Random
Manual Audit Guidelines and Report as proof of the threshold used by the
COMELEC. In fact, COMELEC Resolution No. 8804, as amended by
COMELEC Resolution No. 9164, which is COMELEC's procedure for the
recount of ballots in election protests within its jurisdiction, does not
mention a 25% threshold. Prior to the amendment in Resolution No. 9164,
Rule 15, Section 6 of Resolution No. 88:04 states that any shading less than
50% shall not be considered a valid vote. The wording is in fact the same as
Section 43(1) of the 20 I 0 PET Rules. COMELEC Resolution No. 9164,
however, removed the 50% threshold but did not impose a new threshold.
This is the same with the 2018 Revisor's Guide and the 2010 PET
Rules. Although Rule 43(l) of the 2010 PET Rules states the 50% threshold,
the 2018 Revisor's Guide did not impose a new threshold. In this regard,
Rule 62 of the 2018 Revisor's Guide provides that any issue on whether a
mark or shade is within the threshold is to be resolved by the assigned
Revision Supervisor in the following mat1ner:
RULE 62. Voles <~l the Parties. -·· After the segregation and
classification of ballots, the Head Revisor shall count the total number of
ballots for the Protestant. Protestee, Other Candidates, and with Stray
Votes and record said matter on the appropriate spaces of the Revision
Report.
In examining the shades or marks used to register the votes. the

Head Revisor shall bear in mind that the will of the voters reflected as
votes in the ballots shall. as much as possible, be given effect. setting aside
any technicalities. Furthermore, the votes thereon are presumed to have
been made by the voter and shall be considered as such unless reasons
exist that will justify their rejection. /\ny issue as to whether a certain
mark or shade is within the threshold shall be resolved by the assigned I
April l 0, 20 I 8
Revision Supervisor. Any objection ·to the ruling of the Revision

Supervisor shall not suspend the revision of a particular ballot box. The
ballot in question may be claimed or opjected to, as the case may be, by
the revisor of the party concerned.
In making mention of a threshold in the 2018 Revisor's Guide, this

was in reference to the 50% threshold in the 201 0 PET Rules. This is
because COMELEC has not provide~ any other threshold which the
Tribunal can take cognizance of. Ini fact, the Random Manual Audit
Guideline itself indicates the impossibility of using a 25% threshold if
humans were to determine the compliance with such threshold, thus:
One of the source of variance, therefore, is the difference between

humans and machines in distinguishing.if a partially shaded oval is a vote
or not. To determine with machine ex~ctitude if a mark covers 25 to 30
percent of a voting oval is impossible fqr a human eye; and to consistently
interpret such judgment over a 111j1mber of instances is another
impossibility. Presented with a situatiol} wherein a mark borders between
a vote and no-vote, the auditor is likely to decide in favor of the former. 5
All told, the Tribunal has no basis to impose a 25% threshold m

determining whether a vote is valid.
Further, protestee's claim of a systematic reduction of her votes 1s

without basis and shows a misunderstanqing of the revision process.
The 2018 Revisor's Guide enum~rates the objectives of the revision

proceedings as follows:
RULE 4. Objectives of Revision. - The objectives of revision

proceedings arc:
a. To verify the physical count of the ballots;
b. To recount the votes of the parties:
c. To record the objections or caaims of the parties with respect to

ballots under revision; and
d. To mark the ballots objecte~ to or claimed by the parties for

purposes of identification, iii preparation for their examination
by the Tribunal and for the ~eception of evidence in support of
the objections and claims of the parties, when necessary.
Thus, if there are any ballots that ;are segregated by the Head Revisor
resulting in a variance with the resl;llts in the election returns, such
questioned ballots can be objected to or claimed by protestee following Rule
4(c). These ballots will be marked accordingly and the Tribunal will
examine these ballots and the correspqnding objections and/or claims as
reflected in the Revision Reports. During the revision proceedings, there is 1
RMA Guidelines. p. 25.
April I 0, 2018
yet no final reduction or even addition of votes. Such final .reduction or

addition of votes may only take place after the Tribunal has ruled on the
objections and/or claims and after reception of evidence of the parties, if
necessary.
Issuance of Show Cause Order
In a Resolution dated February 13, 2018, the Tribunal ordered the

pa1iies to strictly observe the sub Judice rule pending the proceedings of the
instant case. This was reiterated in the Tribunal's Resolution dated March
20, 2018.
However, despite these stern directives of the Tribunal, several news

repo11s have shown that the parties, their counsels and/or representatives,
have nonetheless continued to disclose sensitive infonnation regarding the
revision process to the public, in clear violation of the aforementioned
resolutions. To be sure, the statements of the parties with respect to matters
or concerns already referred to or pending resolution of the Tribunal, as well
as statements and remarks pe11aining to ~he integrity of the revision process
are within the clear ambit of the sub Judice rule. In this regard, to preserve
the sanctity of the proceedings, both paiiies are hereby directed to show
cause and explain why they should not be cited in contempt by the Tribunal.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Tribunal resolves to:
(a) DENY Protestee's Urgent Ex Parte Motion to Direct the Head

Revisors to Apply the Correct Threshold Percentage as Set by the
Commission on Elections in the Revision, Recount and Re-
Appreciation of the Ballots, in Order to Expedite the Proceedings for
lack of merit; and
(b)DIRECT the parties to SHOW CAUSE and EXPLAIN, within ten

(10) days from receipt hereof, why they should not be cited in
contempt for violating the Resolutions dated February 13, 2018 and
March 20, 2018.
The Tribunal further resolves to:
(c) NOTE Protestee's Manifestation of Grave Concern and REFER the

same to the PET Commissioners for appropriate action." 1
,·

April 10, 2018
Sereno, CJ. and Del Castillo, J., on leave. Reyes, Jr., J., on official
leave. (1)
Very truly yours,

\
' .,;J"f!O:::;;;'_ _ _.,
.... . --.-=;
~O.ARICHETA
Clerk of the Tribunal ""Jrtric.
Atty. George Erwin M. Garcia and ~tty. Romulo B. Macalintal (x)

Atty. Joan M. Padilla (x) lead Counsel j(Jr the Protestee
Counse/f<Jr lhe ProtesliJnl Sardillo Sardillo Salom Law Otlice
G.E. Garcia Law Office Unit 802, Taipan Place
Ground Floor Laiko Building F; Ortigas A venue
372 Cabildo Street 011igas Center. Pasig City
lntramuros. I 002 Manila
(Ret.) Justice Jose C. Vitug (x)
The Chairperson (x) 373 Matienzo Street, San Miguel, Manila
Atty. Jose M. Tolentino, Jr. (x) (with copy of protestee' s Manifestation of
Executive Director Grave Concern dated April 4. 2018)
Commissioner Robert S. Lim (x)
Project Director, 2016-AES Project Atty. Angelito C. lmperio (x)
Ester L. Villaflor-Roxas (x) 17 Third Street. Saint Ignatius Village
Director IV Quezon City
Election Records and Statistics Department (with copy ofprotcstec·s Manifostation of
Engr. Julio Thaddeus P. Hernan (x) Grave Concern dated April 4, 2018)
Director IV
Administrative Services Department Ajtty. Irene Ragodon-Guevarra (x)
Commission on Elections Lpt 12, Blk 25 Carnation Street
lntramuros. 1002 Manila Primrose Hills Subdivision
Mahabang Parang, Angono. Rizal
The Solicitor General (x) (with copy of protestec's Manifestation of
134 Amorsolo Street Qrave Concern dated April 4, 2018)
Legaspi Village. 1229 Makati City
Public Information Office (x)

Supreme Cou11

PET Case 005 Bongbong Marcos Vs Leni Robredo

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PET Case 005 Bongbong Marcos Vs Leni Robredo

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PET Case 005 Bongbong Marcos Vs Leni Robredo

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

~epublic of tbe IDlbilippines'

!)resibential <!Electoral 'Otrihunal

Please take notice that the ' Tribunal issued a Resolution

"PET Case No. 005 - FERDINAND "~ONGBONG" R. MARCOS, JR.,

Protestee's Urgent Ex Parte Motion to Direct the Head Revisors to Apply

In support of her claims, proteste~ cites the Random Manual Audit

Ex Parte Motion, par. 13.

(I) In looking at the shades or marks used to register votes, the RC

Protestee's Ex Parte Motion is denjed.

Protestee's claim that the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), as

In examining the shades or marks used to register the votes. the

Revision Supervisor. Any objection ·to the ruling of the Revision

In making mention of a threshold in the 2018 Revisor's Guide, this

One of the source of variance, therefore, is the difference between

All told, the Tribunal has no basis to impose a 25% threshold m

Further, protestee's claim of a systematic reduction of her votes 1s

The 2018 Revisor's Guide enum~rates the objectives of the revision

RULE 4. Objectives of Revision. - The objectives of revision

a. To verify the physical count of the ballots;

b. To recount the votes of the parties:

c. To record the objections or caaims of the parties with respect to

d. To mark the ballots objecte~ to or claimed by the parties for

yet no final reduction or even addition of votes. Such final .reduction or

Issuance of Show Cause Order

In a Resolution dated February 13, 2018, the Tribunal ordered the

However, despite these stern directives of the Tribunal, several news

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Tribunal resolves to:

(a) DENY Protestee's Urgent Ex Parte Motion to Direct the Head

(b)DIRECT the parties to SHOW CAUSE and EXPLAIN, within ten

The Tribunal further resolves to:

(c) NOTE Protestee's Manifestation of Grave Concern and REFER the

Notice of Resolution -5- P.E.T. Case No. 005

Very truly yours,

Atty. George Erwin M. Garcia and ~tty. Romulo B. Macalintal (x)

Public Information Office (x)

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.