By Ninez Cacho-Olivares | Daily Tribune
Instead of wanting to get to the bottom of the 2016 vice-presidential poll fraud by supporting the move of a former congressman who had presented poll audit logs from a municipality in Vice President Leni Robredo’s bailiwick, she and her lawyers quickly moved to get the Supreme Court (SC), acting as the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET), to quickly resolve their plea to probe the leakage of election data to the former House member.
So, why does Robredo insist on having a probe on the presenter of the leakage of poll audit documents that may prove fraud, instead of welcoming such inquiry to discover the deceit, especially if she truly believes that there was no wrongdoing committed during the 2016 vice presidential polls, and that she won fair and square over her rival, former Sen. Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos?
The lawyers of Robredo want PET to probe how the former Biliran congressman Glenn Chong was able to secure the audit logs from the municipality of Ragay in Camarines Sur.
These copies of the election logs were presented before a Senate hearing on electoral reforms last August.
Also questioned by Leni and her lawyers was how Chong obtained copies of pleadings and resolutions of the PET on the protest lodged by Marcos against Robredo.
It will be recalled that in at least two separate privilege speeches by now Senate President Tito Sotto, he also came up with an expose on the 2018 poll fraud, saying the audit logs were questionable and that some sitting senators were the beneficiaries of the poll fraud.
Sotto, however, never mentioned any names in his privilege speech.
However, the Senate, as a body, never acted on this privilege speech, nor even bothered to call for a probe, despite the reputation of the Senate to quickly hold probes — despite the lack of evidence — for media exposure and grandstanding purposes.
Clearly, Leni does not want to have the truth bared over the 2016 poll fraud, since most of the fraudulent poll audits and even ballots, once probes and manual recounts are finished — that is, if PET ever finishes on time getting the real choice of the electorate to sit in his proper seat instead of waiting it out for another presidential election to throw out the protest as it becomes moot as the elected term is over — would show that she may have been the beneficiary of a massive electoral fraud.
To date, there has been no time at all when the PET resolved protest cases — presidential or vice-presidential protests lodged before the SC acting as the PET. Always, PET is such a slowpoke, whether deliberately being one, or indirectly being one. This ensures that protesters would lose all hope of gaining the seat that truly belongs to them by just waiting it out until the next elections for the protester to dump the complaint as the PET itself comes up with a ruling that he has abandoned his protest, since he has chosen to run for a lower seat. This is one of the delaying tricks of the PET that refuses to rock the electoral boat, so to speak, which is the reason electoral fraud — made even easier with automated polls — continues to this day as these protests are never really probed and finished.
This is fact. The late Sen. Miriam Santiago filed a presidential protest against then proclaimed President Fidel Ramos whom she accused of having cheated her to enable him to sit in Malacañang.
It should also be recalled that it took over a month for the Comelec and its quick count partner, the media and the Namfrel, to come up with the results of the presidential winner and there certainly was some kind of blackout and fraud accusations.
But the High Court waited until the next senatorial election to trash the protest, knowing that Santiago would run for the Senate seat. Shortly after, the SC ruled that Santiago had abandoned her protest as she chose to run for a lower seat.
The same ruling was applied to then vice-presidential protestant, Sen. Loren Legarda.
And it isn’t just the PET waiting it out for former presidential and vice-presidential losers to give up in three years’ time their protest by running for a lower seat and losing all the tens of millions they had given the SC-PET for their complaints.
In the case of then vice-presidential candidate Mar Roxas, he waited out the term which is six years. Did PET do anything by way of resolving the protest? After all, six years are too long a time for any election court to resolve a protest as they are few and far between.
The same seems to be happening in the case of the protest filed by Marcos against Robredo.
The three-year senatorial term has passed and Marcos chose not to seek a senatorial seat.
In much the same way, PET even after close to three years of non-resolution, appears to want to wait it out until the next presidential polls to declare the Marcos protest moot and academic and all the tens of millions as fees to the SC are wasted, knowing that nothing but nothing comes out of such protests — perhaps done deliberately by PET.