By Rod Kapunan | Manila Standard
"All we can do now is to stretch our imaginative mind."
A deeper analysis of the petition for recount seems to appear that Leonora “Leni” Robredo won against Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. The overtly legalistic demagogue failed to apply the basic procedure that it is PET that has to prove the allegation of the petitioner, and not to demand from the latter to prove his allegation. The decision miserably ran out of argument saying instead “Basta” that one has to accept the verdict because it’s an edict made by one who is presumed to be infallible and omniscient.
All we can do now is to stretch our imaginative mind that a foreign hand manipulated and influenced the judgment of the PET to ensure the victory of Robredo. The decision may appear to have been sanctified by their Almighty. The only hitch is for the hypocrites to hurdle the towering popularity of President Duterte. He now stands as a stumbling block to her ambition of becoming another celebrated icon.
Many could sense the decision of the PET could put the opposition in a quandary. The Supreme Court may have been tricked in legitimizing the political swindling although things are working differently. Robredo’s rating has terribly sunk that political aficionados now avoid betting for her candidacy.
Some suggest the idea of her abandoning the presidency. Her influential media apparatus has boomeranged that some are saying she is beginning to look like a lunatic. The opposition is likewise affected that many are scrambling for a replacement. It is a unique case of a political party not having to field its own candidate. In fact, her rant against the President has become her greatest drawback, which is why her rating refuses to gain momentum.
This has caused a serious dilemma because her unabated attacks on President Duterte went too far to accuse the President of not doing anything with many asking, what about you? Even the Senate President has surpassed her rating which is the reason why the entire opposition is rearranging its slate to make their entire ticket palatable to our people.
Many are inclined to believe the idea of not letting BBM win was orchestrated by foreign interest groups. The country’s leading political stakeholders made up of the greedy oligarchs, the hypocritical Church, the terrorist communist, and the misguided middle class are against BBM.
American lackeys in the judiciary say that to allow BBM to win would be a disaster. Even the surefooted political gamblers or “seguristas” are contemplating scouting an alternate candidate. Robredo has become a liability and a reluctant candidate that she has become more like Venezuela’s Juan Guiado, an out-and-out puppet of Uncle Sam.
Even if Duterte does not endorse BBM as his candidate in the 2022 presidential election, he has no choice. BBM is determined to run for president to test just how far the Filipino people could accept the continuing travesty to our electoral system. Besides, BBM has fixated on his candidacy, sensing that most of his supporters are out to redeem their lost victory. Most important, Robredo cannot drag anew the Church to commit another blasphemy in her name.
Specifically, US interest in this country is for the Philippines to disengage from our close relations with China. The Filipino-Chinese business community is very much united in its support for BBM. That stems from their loyalty to President Marcos who opened the country’s diplomatic relations with China in June 1975. What Duterte did not only widened our relations with China; it deepened it.
Notably, it was Marcos who initially settled our problem in the South China Sea applying the Treaty of Paris signed by Spain and the US, and later by our subsequent ratification of UNCLOS that extended to us a 200-mile limit of exclusive economic zone (EEZ). What the Aquino administration did was to retouch our history to open the way for the US to intervene.
The issue now for our candidates is on how the US can strictly tell the opposition candidates to fall in step with the anti-China policy which sine qua non would mean the retention of the US military bases in the Philippines. Pro- Americans still romanticize the belief that the presence of US armada could defend this country.
Even if one has to avoid talking about the merits of the case, it appears that the PET wrongly went on to exercise its prerogative without giving a logical explanation why BBM’s petition should be dismissed. Many are shaking their heads because the electorate knows that the PET has an obligation to perform a duty in satisfying their quest for a recount which has become mandatory in return for the whooping P37 million deposit with a threat to dismiss the petition should it fail to post the required bond.
In his 93-page decision, the magistrate has lost his sense of equanimity. Maybe the duty of the petitioner is to prove and/or submit evidence to his petition. But in this case, the petitioner is the one that has been aggrieved by the alleged massive electoral fraud.
More than that, the petitioner is required to post a bond as a condition for PET to perform its work of conducting an honest recount of the ballots. To quote what this magistrate said: “Any election protest challenging the results of an election must clearly and specifically allege, and then prove, the irregularities that occurred. Specifying the precincts where each violation occurred, and how it transpired, is critical. Failure to do so warrants the protest’s dismissal,” he said.
To remind the magistrate of PET, the petitioner is a captive prisoner such that he is required to post cash deposit or else his petition will be dismissed. When PET gave a shabby alibi that petitioner failed to prove his allegation when clearly it was duty to verify the allegations instead of merely rebutting the petitioner. Effectively, PET merely extorted a huge amount from the petitioner, and that placed our judicial system in bad light. In other words, Leonen short-circuited the whole argument raised by BBM in his petition. Leonen merely repeated in rejecting the allegation of the petitioner which should not be the case for as said, the burden is already on PET like its summary dismissal of the petition.
Moreover, any argument that the PET raised against the petitioner is rather argumentum ad hominem. PET should have given its thorough explanation why the petition should not be dismissed based on procedure applicable to other forms of petition like a petition for recount. Petitioner has already posted a bond as required. In that sense, the petitioner already stood as the aggrieved party by the electoral fraud that happened, doubly compounded by the fact that he was made to post a costly bond only to make that sham decision. The costly bond is the circumferential turning point that instead of the PET, acting as an independent body, the petitioner himself is made to do the counting for the satisfaction of our people.