ELECTION PROTEST

Weekly Updates

Week 229: November 16 – 22, 2020

No significant developments

No significant developments

After 229 weeks (or roughly 1,607 days) :

We are still waiting for some semblance of closure in BBM’s election protest.

On 5 March 2019, the PET finished the MANUAL recount of ballots in all the clustered precincts in BBM’s three (3) pilot provinces, namely Camarines Sur, Iloilo and Negros Oriental. Since the MANUAL recount began on 2 April 2018 and ended on 5 March 2019, it took the PET 11 months to complete the MANUAL recount of the said 3 provinces.

The PET likewise concluded the PRELIMINARY APPRECIATION (“PA”) of votes. During the PA stage, the parties are supposed to submit their OBJECTIONS to the ballots which were MANUALLY counted so that the PET can REVIEW the same. In reality, however, this NEVER happened because on 9 September 2019, Justice Caguioa SUDDENLY and UNILATERALLY released his UNOFFICIAL report and recommended that the election protest be DISMISSED because of Rule 65 of the PET Rules.

Had BBM been ALLOWED to present his objections during the PA stage, he would have been able to point out the prevalence of UNREADABLE ballots because they were :

wet
covered with dried fish & garbage
 burned with cigarette butts
had battery fluids in them
and so much more!

When it came to the READABLE ballots, BBM’s revisors discovered that :

 majority of the ballots contained SHADINGS of 25% or less
there were FAKE BALLOTS in the audit logs

Rule 65 states that “upon examination of such ballots and proof, and after making reasonable allowances, the Tribunal is convinced that, taking all circumstances into account, the protestant or counter- protestant will most probably fail to make out his case, the protest may forthwith be dismissed, without further consideration of the other provinces mentioned in the protest.”

Rule 65 also says that “the preceding paragraph shall also apply when the election protest involves correction of manifest errors.”

On 15 October 2019, the Supreme Court (voting 11-2) released a Resolution directing the parties to submit a Memorandum on the following matters within 20 working days :

1. To give their comments on the revision report in BBM’s 3 pilot provinces, namely, Camarines Sur, Iloilo and Negros Oriental; and

2. To explain their position on BBM’s Third Cause of Action, which is the Annulment of election resultsin Basilan, Lanao del Sur and Maguindanao.

Since neither BBM or Robredo were allowed to participate in the “appreciation [of votes] stage, the Supreme Court, on 5 November 2019 allowed the parties to photocopy the voluminous annexes (approx 16,000 pages) which formed the basis of the Caguioa report. Invoking due process, the Supreme Court informed the parties that they could submit their Memorandum 20 days AFTER they finished viewing and photocopying the said annexes.

On 19 December 2019, both BBM and Robredo filed their respective Memoranda.

The protest remained in limbo for almost 10 months. Then, on 30 September 2020, the Supreme Court issued a Press Briefer directing the COMELEC and the OSG to report to the PET various incidents which transpired during the 2016 elections in the provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur and Maguindanao. The Tribunal further directed the COMELEC and the OSG to comment on the Constitutionality of the annulment vis-a-vis failure of elections.

– – – – –

Listed below are the “sensitive” and important issues surrounding BBM’s protest :

1. Whether or not to apply the 25% shading threshold percentage or the 50% shading threshold percentage in the recounting of votes

Robredo’s Motion to Direct the Head Revisors to Apply the 25% threshold percentage in the revision, recount and re-appreciation of ballots

• In a Resolution dated 10 April 2018, the PET denied Robredo’s Ex Parte Motion.

(click here to see the 10 April 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 24 April 2018, the PET required BBM and the COMELEC to comment on Robredo’s Urgent Motion for Reconsideration.

(click here to see the 24 April 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 2 May 2018, Robredo filed an Urgent Motion for Reconsideration.

(click here to see the 2 May 2018 Urgent Motion from Robredo)

• On 28 May 2018, BBM filed his Opposition to Robredo’s Motion

(click here to see the 28 May 2018 Opposition from BBM)

• On 6 July 2018, BBM received a Manifestation from the Office of the Solicitor General.

(click here to see the 6 July 2018 Manifestation from the OSG)

• In a Resolution dated 24 July 2018, the PET resolved to note the OSG’s Manifestation and Motion

(click here to see the 24 July 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 26 July 2018, BBM received a Comment from the COMELEC

(click here to see the 26 July 2018 Comment from the COMELEC)

N.B.
Although the PET did not CATEGORICALLY decide on the 25% versus 50% shading threshold, they instructed the revisors – on 25 September 2018 — to just refer to the Election Returns :

• On 25 September 2018, BBM received a Notice from the PET directing Head Revisors to refer to the election returns to verify the total number of votes as read and counted by the voting counting machine.

(click here to see the 25 September 2018 Notice from the PET)

2. What to do with the wet & unreadable ballots 

• In a Resolution dated 5 June 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 5 June 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 26 June 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 26 June 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 6 July 2018, BBM filed a Strong Manifestation with Motion regarding regarding the use of decrypted ballot images in the revision proceedings.

(click here to see the 6 July 2018 Strong Manifestation from BBM)

•  In a Resolution dated 10 July 2018, the PET resolved to note BBM’s Strong Manifestation but deny his Motion to hold in abeyance the use of decrypted ballot images in the revision proceedings.

(click here to see the 10 July 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 19 July 2018, BBM filed a Strong Opposition regarding the use of decrypted ballot images in the revision proceedings.

(click here to see the 19 July 2018 Strong Opposition from BBM)

• In a Resolution dated 24 July 2018, the PET resolved to direct the COMELEC to comment on BBM’s Strong Opposition regarding the use of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 24 July 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 31 July 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 31 July 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 14 August 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 14 August 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 17 August 2018, BBM received a Motion from the COMELEC asking for an extension of time within which to file its Comment.

(click here to see the 17 August 2018 Motion from the COMELEC)

• In a Resolution dated 28 August 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the  28 August 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 30 August 2018, BBM received COMELEC’s Comment stating that the ballot images are not faithful reproduction of the original ballots but are instead the “true and genuine representation and captured images of the official ballots themselves.

(click here to see the 30 August 2018 Comment from the COMELEC)

• In a Resolution dated 4 September 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 4 September 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 11 September 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 11 September 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 18 September 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 18 September 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 25 September 2018, BBM received a Notice from the PET denying his Strong Opposition regarding the use of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 25 September 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 5 October 2018, BBM filed a Manifestation of Appreciation with Omnibus Motion for partial reconsideration of the denial of his Strong Opposition.

(click here to see the 5 October 2018 Manifestation with Omnibus Motion from BBM)

• In a Resolution dated 9 October 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 9 October 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 16 October 2018, the PET resolved to note BBM’s Manifestation with Omnibus Motion and direct Robredo and the COMELEC to comment.

(click here to see the 16 October 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 16 October 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 16 October 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 6 November 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 6 November 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 6 November 2018, BBM recieved the COMELEC’s Motion for extension of time within which to file a comment.

(click here to see the 6 November 2018 Motion from the COMELEC)

• In a Resolution dated 13 November 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 13 November 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 22 November 2018, BBM received Robredo’s Comment and Oppostion.

(click here to see the 22 November 2018 Comment from Robredo)

• In a Resolution dated 4 December 2018, the PET resolved to note the COMELEC’s Comment and required BBM to reply thereon.

(click here to see the 4 December 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 5 December 2018, BBM received the COMELEC’s Comment, stating BBM’s claim has “no leg to stand on.”

(click here to see the 5 December 2018 Comment from the COMELEC)

• On 20 December 2018, BBM filed his Consolidated Reply.

(click here to see the 20 December 2018 Consolidated Reply from BBM)

• In a Resolution dated 8 January 2019, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 8 January 2019 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 29 January 2019, the PET resolved to note BBM’s Consolidated Reply.

(click here to see the 29 January 2019 Resolution from the PET)

N.B.
From Day 1, BBM’s position has always been as follows: because of the presence of squares instead of ovals in the ballot images, the same are no longer faithful images of the original paper ballots. Since these “decrypted” images have been compromised, they do not reflect the true will of the voting public.

3. COMELEC’s request to lift the Precautionary Protection Order (PPO) with respect to the Election Management System (EMS) Servers

• In a Resolution dated 17 April 2018, the PET required BBM and Robredo to comment on COMELEC’s request.

(click here to see the 17 April 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 25 May 2018, BBM filed his Opposition to COMELEC’s request.

(click here to see the 25 May 2018 Opposition from BBM)

• On 20 July 2018, BBM received a Reply from the COMELEC.

(click here to see the 20 July 2018 Reply from the COMELEC)

• To date, Robredo has NOT yet filed any comment regarding the above issue.

N.B.
The Election Management System (EMS) is the “brain” of any election system. It is here where the ballot images are generated and where the SD cards and computers for the different provinces are programmed. It is important to preserve the data in the EMS so the parties can easily track down any “hanky panky” that was done during the May 2016 elections.

• In a Resolution dated 24 July 2018, the PET resolved to lift the Precautionary Protection Order (PPO) on the Election Management System (EMS) servers.

(click here to see the 24 July 2018 Resolution from the PET)

4. BBM’s Third Cause of Action

• In a Resolution dated 29 August 2017, the PET directed BBM to submit a new list of witnesses for the provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur and within five (5) days.

(click here to see the 29 August 2017 Resolution from the PET)

• On 11 September 2017, BBM filed his Compliance and submitted his list of witnesses.

(click here to see the 11 September 2017 Compliance from BBM)

• In a Resolution dated 19 September 2017, the PET required BBM to “STRICTLY COMPLY with their directive that he identify his witnesses in the corresponding clustered precincts within a FINAL and NON-EXTENDIBLE period of five (5) days from notice.”

> It is worth mentioning that on 11 September 2017, BBM had already submitted 171 names of potential wirtnesses to the PET.

(click here to see the 19 September 2017 Resolution from the PET)

• On 9 October 2017, BBM complied with the PET’s directive and submitted 7,356 names of witnesses for the provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur & Maguindanao.

(click here to see the 9 October 2017 Compliance from BBM)

• In a Resolution dated 7 November 2017, the PET “noted” BBM’s Compliance.

(click here to see the 7 November 2017 Resolution from the PET)

• On 12 December 2018, BBM filed his Extremely Urgent Manifestation of Grave Concern with Omnibus Motion requesting for the issuance of subpoena duces tecum to the COMELEC-ERSD to produce and submit the dactyloscopic and questioned document reports and such other relevant documents involving the technical examination conducted on the Voter’s Registration Records (VRRs) against the Election Day Computerized Voter’s List with Voting Records (EDCVLs) of 508 established precincts in the provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur, and Maguindanao relative to the protest of Tan vs. Hataman. BBM stated that he intends to use the said results as part of his evidence in support of his third cause of action, which is the Annulment of votes for the position of Vice President in the provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur, and Maguindanao.

(click here to see the 12 December 2018 Extremely Urgent Manifestation from BBM)

• On 18 January 2019, BBM received Robredo’s Counter-Manifestation with Comment and Opposition to BBM’s Extremely Urgent Motion.

(click here to see the 18 January 2019 Counter-Manifestation from Robredo)

• On 25 January 2019, BBM received a Supplemental Manifestation from Robredo.

(click here to see the 25 January 2019 Supplemental Manifestation from Robredo)

• On 28 January 2019, the PET directed Robredo and the COMELEC to comment on BBM’s Extremely Urgent Manifestation.

(click here to see the 28 January 2019 Resolution from the PET)

• On 11 February 2019, BBM received a Manifestation and Compliance from Robredo stating she previously filed her Comment and Opposition prior to the PET Resolution directing her to comment to BBM’s Extremely Urgent Manifestation.

(click here to see the 11 February 2019 Manifestation from Robredo)

• On 13 February 2019, BBM received a Manifestation [in lieu of Comment on BBM’s Extremely Urgent Manifestation of Grave Concern with Omnibus Motion] from the COMELEC, stating the Second Division is yet to issue a Resolution or Order regarding the results of Sakur Tan’s Motion for Technical Examination. The COMELEC further said as this is the case, they are invoking the sub judice rule.

(click here to see the 13 February 2019 Manifestation from the COMELEC)

• On 26 March 2019, BBM filed his Consolidated Reply with Urgent Motion to Resolve Protestant’s Motion wherein he reiterated his Extremely Urgent Manifestation with Omnibus Motion, which was filed in December 2018.

(click here to see the 26 March 2019 Consiladated Reply with Urgent Motion from BBM)

• On 17 July 2019, the PET resolved to “defer action” on BBM’s Extremely Urgent Manifestation with Omnibus Motion and Consolidated Reply with Urgent Motion “until such time that an initial determination has been made on the protest” in accordance with Rule 65 of the 2010 PET Rules.

(click here to see the 17 July 2019 Notice from the PET)

N.B.
Despite the lapse of 10 months, and the submission of 7,356 potential witnesses, we are respectfully waiting for the PET to issue a directive on BBM’s Third Cause of Action (ie: “Annulment of votes for the position of Vice-President in the provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur, and Maguindanao)

Week 228: November 9 – 15, 2020

On 9 November 2020, BBM filed a Strong Manifestation with Extremely Urgent Omnibus Motion for the:

On 9 November 2020, BBM filed a Strong Manifestation with Extremely Urgent Omnibus Motion for the:

I. Inhibition of Associate Justice Mario Victor F. Leonen;

II. Re-raffle of this election protest;

III. Resolution of all the pending incidents in the above entitled case.

In his Motion, BBM pointed out that from the time the case was raffled to Justice Leonen in October 2019, “it has remained in limbo.” After sitting on the case for over eleven months, Justice Leonen decided to delay the case further by asking the OSG and the COMELEC to submit their Comments on the election protest. He could have easily done this a year ago and yet he just sat on the case.

BBM also pointed out that Justice Leonen’s scathing remarks and ill will against the Marcos family were no secret. He “candidly expressed how much he loathed the late President Ferdinand E. Marcos” and his family” and “he grouped the Marcos family into a single entity of human rights violators, regardless of the age, status and obvious absence of involvement of the family members.”

BBM kept reiterating that time was of the essence because the May 2022 elections was only 1 ½ years away. He also prayed that the “victory of the protestant would not become an empty victory since nothing would be left to the real winner.”

(click here to see 9 November 2020 Motion from BBM)

On 9 November, BBM received an Omnibus Motion (Motion for Inhibition of Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen and reraffle) from the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG).

In its Motion, the OSG commented that the people have been in  “suspended in animation for close to a year” since BBM’s protest was re-raffled to Associate Justice Leonen.  The OSG stated that this, “among other reasons, not only suggests bias, but actually proves partiality of Justice Leonen against protestant Ferdinand R. Marcos, Jr.” x x x The inaction of the current Member in Charge x x x for the past 11 months, coupled with his expressed disdain to the members of the Marcos family, duly recorded in his opinions as Associate Justice, compel us, with due respect, to move or his inhibition.”

As the People’s Tribune, the OSG reiterated that justice would be served if the PET resolved  the election protest as soon as possible.

(click here to see 9 November 2020 Omnibus Motion from the OSG)

After 228 weeks (or roughly 1,600 days) :

We are still waiting for some semblance of closure in BBM’s election protest.

On 5 March 2019, the PET finished the MANUAL recount of ballots in all the clustered precincts in BBM’s three (3) pilot provinces, namely Camarines Sur, Iloilo and Negros Oriental. Since the MANUAL recount began on 2 April 2018 and ended on 5 March 2019, it took the PET 11 months to complete the MANUAL recount of the said 3 provinces.

The PET likewise concluded the PRELIMINARY APPRECIATION (“PA”) of votes. During the PA stage, the parties are supposed to submit their OBJECTIONS to the ballots which were MANUALLY counted so that the PET can REVIEW the same. In reality, however, this NEVER happened because on 9 September 2019, Justice Caguioa SUDDENLY and UNILATERALLY released his UNOFFICIAL report and recommended that the election protest be DISMISSED because of Rule 65 of the PET Rules.

Had BBM been ALLOWED to present his objections during the PA stage, he would have been able to point out the prevalence of UNREADABLE ballots because they were :

wet
covered with dried fish & garbage
 burned with cigarette butts
had battery fluids in them
and so much more!

When it came to the READABLE ballots, BBM’s revisors discovered that :

 majority of the ballots contained SHADINGS of 25% or less
there were FAKE BALLOTS in the audit logs

Rule 65 states that “upon examination of such ballots and proof, and after making reasonable allowances, the Tribunal is convinced that, taking all circumstances into account, the protestant or counter- protestant will most probably fail to make out his case, the protest may forthwith be dismissed, without further consideration of the other provinces mentioned in the protest.”

Rule 65 also says that “the preceding paragraph shall also apply when the election protest involves correction of manifest errors.”

On 15 October 2019, the Supreme Court (voting 11-2) released a Resolution directing the parties to submit a Memorandum on the following matters within 20 working days :

1. To give their comments on the revision report in BBM’s 3 pilot provinces, namely, Camarines Sur, Iloilo and Negros Oriental; and

2. To explain their position on BBM’s Third Cause of Action, which is the Annulment of election resultsin Basilan, Lanao del Sur and Maguindanao.

Since neither BBM or Robredo were allowed to participate in the “appreciation [of votes] stage, the Supreme Court, on 5 November 2019 allowed the parties to photocopy the voluminous annexes (approx 16,000 pages) which formed the basis of the Caguioa report. Invoking due process, the Supreme Court informed the parties that they could submit their Memorandum 20 days AFTER they finished viewing and photocopying the said annexes.

On 19 December 2019, both BBM and Robredo filed their respective Memoranda.

The protest remained in limbo for almost 10 months. Then, on 30 September 2020, the Supreme Court issued a Press Briefer directing the COMELEC and the OSG to report to the PET various incidents which transpired during the 2016 elections in the provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur and Maguindanao. The Tribunal further directed the COMELEC and the OSG to comment on the Constitutionality of the annulment vis-a-vis failure of elections.

– – – – –

Listed below are the “sensitive” and important issues surrounding BBM’s protest :

1. Whether or not to apply the 25% shading threshold percentage or the 50% shading threshold percentage in the recounting of votes

Robredo’s Motion to Direct the Head Revisors to Apply the 25% threshold percentage in the revision, recount and re-appreciation of ballots

• In a Resolution dated 10 April 2018, the PET denied Robredo’s Ex Parte Motion.

(click here to see the 10 April 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 24 April 2018, the PET required BBM and the COMELEC to comment on Robredo’s Urgent Motion for Reconsideration.

(click here to see the 24 April 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 2 May 2018, Robredo filed an Urgent Motion for Reconsideration.

(click here to see the 2 May 2018 Urgent Motion from Robredo)

• On 28 May 2018, BBM filed his Opposition to Robredo’s Motion

(click here to see the 28 May 2018 Opposition from BBM)

• On 6 July 2018, BBM received a Manifestation from the Office of the Solicitor General.

(click here to see the 6 July 2018 Manifestation from the OSG)

• In a Resolution dated 24 July 2018, the PET resolved to note the OSG’s Manifestation and Motion

(click here to see the 24 July 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 26 July 2018, BBM received a Comment from the COMELEC

(click here to see the 26 July 2018 Comment from the COMELEC)

N.B.
Although the PET did not CATEGORICALLY decide on the 25% versus 50% shading threshold, they instructed the revisors – on 25 September 2018 — to just refer to the Election Returns :

• On 25 September 2018, BBM received a Notice from the PET directing Head Revisors to refer to the election returns to verify the total number of votes as read and counted by the voting counting machine.

(click here to see the 25 September 2018 Notice from the PET)

2. What to do with the wet & unreadable ballots 

• In a Resolution dated 5 June 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 5 June 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 26 June 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 26 June 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 6 July 2018, BBM filed a Strong Manifestation with Motion regarding regarding the use of decrypted ballot images in the revision proceedings.

(click here to see the 6 July 2018 Strong Manifestation from BBM)

•  In a Resolution dated 10 July 2018, the PET resolved to note BBM’s Strong Manifestation but deny his Motion to hold in abeyance the use of decrypted ballot images in the revision proceedings.

(click here to see the 10 July 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 19 July 2018, BBM filed a Strong Opposition regarding the use of decrypted ballot images in the revision proceedings.

(click here to see the 19 July 2018 Strong Opposition from BBM)

• In a Resolution dated 24 July 2018, the PET resolved to direct the COMELEC to comment on BBM’s Strong Opposition regarding the use of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 24 July 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 31 July 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 31 July 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 14 August 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 14 August 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 17 August 2018, BBM received a Motion from the COMELEC asking for an extension of time within which to file its Comment.

(click here to see the 17 August 2018 Motion from the COMELEC)

• In a Resolution dated 28 August 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the  28 August 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 30 August 2018, BBM received COMELEC’s Comment stating that the ballot images are not faithful reproduction of the original ballots but are instead the “true and genuine representation and captured images of the official ballots themselves.

(click here to see the 30 August 2018 Comment from the COMELEC)

• In a Resolution dated 4 September 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 4 September 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 11 September 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 11 September 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 18 September 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 18 September 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 25 September 2018, BBM received a Notice from the PET denying his Strong Opposition regarding the use of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 25 September 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 5 October 2018, BBM filed a Manifestation of Appreciation with Omnibus Motion for partial reconsideration of the denial of his Strong Opposition.

(click here to see the 5 October 2018 Manifestation with Omnibus Motion from BBM)

• In a Resolution dated 9 October 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 9 October 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 16 October 2018, the PET resolved to note BBM’s Manifestation with Omnibus Motion and direct Robredo and the COMELEC to comment.

(click here to see the 16 October 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 16 October 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 16 October 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 6 November 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 6 November 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 6 November 2018, BBM recieved the COMELEC’s Motion for extension of time within which to file a comment.

(click here to see the 6 November 2018 Motion from the COMELEC)

• In a Resolution dated 13 November 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 13 November 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 22 November 2018, BBM received Robredo’s Comment and Oppostion.

(click here to see the 22 November 2018 Comment from Robredo)

• In a Resolution dated 4 December 2018, the PET resolved to note the COMELEC’s Comment and required BBM to reply thereon.

(click here to see the 4 December 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 5 December 2018, BBM received the COMELEC’s Comment, stating BBM’s claim has “no leg to stand on.”

(click here to see the 5 December 2018 Comment from the COMELEC)

• On 20 December 2018, BBM filed his Consolidated Reply.

(click here to see the 20 December 2018 Consolidated Reply from BBM)

• In a Resolution dated 8 January 2019, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 8 January 2019 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 29 January 2019, the PET resolved to note BBM’s Consolidated Reply.

(click here to see the 29 January 2019 Resolution from the PET)

N.B.
From Day 1, BBM’s position has always been as follows: because of the presence of squares instead of ovals in the ballot images, the same are no longer faithful images of the original paper ballots. Since these “decrypted” images have been compromised, they do not reflect the true will of the voting public.

3. COMELEC’s request to lift the Precautionary Protection Order (PPO) with respect to the Election Management System (EMS) Servers

• In a Resolution dated 17 April 2018, the PET required BBM and Robredo to comment on COMELEC’s request.

(click here to see the 17 April 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 25 May 2018, BBM filed his Opposition to COMELEC’s request.

(click here to see the 25 May 2018 Opposition from BBM)

• On 20 July 2018, BBM received a Reply from the COMELEC.

(click here to see the 20 July 2018 Reply from the COMELEC)

• To date, Robredo has NOT yet filed any comment regarding the above issue.

N.B.
The Election Management System (EMS) is the “brain” of any election system. It is here where the ballot images are generated and where the SD cards and computers for the different provinces are programmed. It is important to preserve the data in the EMS so the parties can easily track down any “hanky panky” that was done during the May 2016 elections.

• In a Resolution dated 24 July 2018, the PET resolved to lift the Precautionary Protection Order (PPO) on the Election Management System (EMS) servers.

(click here to see the 24 July 2018 Resolution from the PET)

4. BBM’s Third Cause of Action

• In a Resolution dated 29 August 2017, the PET directed BBM to submit a new list of witnesses for the provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur and within five (5) days.

(click here to see the 29 August 2017 Resolution from the PET)

• On 11 September 2017, BBM filed his Compliance and submitted his list of witnesses.

(click here to see the 11 September 2017 Compliance from BBM)

• In a Resolution dated 19 September 2017, the PET required BBM to “STRICTLY COMPLY with their directive that he identify his witnesses in the corresponding clustered precincts within a FINAL and NON-EXTENDIBLE period of five (5) days from notice.”

> It is worth mentioning that on 11 September 2017, BBM had already submitted 171 names of potential wirtnesses to the PET.

(click here to see the 19 September 2017 Resolution from the PET)

• On 9 October 2017, BBM complied with the PET’s directive and submitted 7,356 names of witnesses for the provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur & Maguindanao.

(click here to see the 9 October 2017 Compliance from BBM)

• In a Resolution dated 7 November 2017, the PET “noted” BBM’s Compliance.

(click here to see the 7 November 2017 Resolution from the PET)

• On 12 December 2018, BBM filed his Extremely Urgent Manifestation of Grave Concern with Omnibus Motion requesting for the issuance of subpoena duces tecum to the COMELEC-ERSD to produce and submit the dactyloscopic and questioned document reports and such other relevant documents involving the technical examination conducted on the Voter’s Registration Records (VRRs) against the Election Day Computerized Voter’s List with Voting Records (EDCVLs) of 508 established precincts in the provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur, and Maguindanao relative to the protest of Tan vs. Hataman. BBM stated that he intends to use the said results as part of his evidence in support of his third cause of action, which is the Annulment of votes for the position of Vice President in the provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur, and Maguindanao.

(click here to see the 12 December 2018 Extremely Urgent Manifestation from BBM)

• On 18 January 2019, BBM received Robredo’s Counter-Manifestation with Comment and Opposition to BBM’s Extremely Urgent Motion.

(click here to see the 18 January 2019 Counter-Manifestation from Robredo)

• On 25 January 2019, BBM received a Supplemental Manifestation from Robredo.

(click here to see the 25 January 2019 Supplemental Manifestation from Robredo)

• On 28 January 2019, the PET directed Robredo and the COMELEC to comment on BBM’s Extremely Urgent Manifestation.

(click here to see the 28 January 2019 Resolution from the PET)

• On 11 February 2019, BBM received a Manifestation and Compliance from Robredo stating she previously filed her Comment and Opposition prior to the PET Resolution directing her to comment to BBM’s Extremely Urgent Manifestation.

(click here to see the 11 February 2019 Manifestation from Robredo)

• On 13 February 2019, BBM received a Manifestation [in lieu of Comment on BBM’s Extremely Urgent Manifestation of Grave Concern with Omnibus Motion] from the COMELEC, stating the Second Division is yet to issue a Resolution or Order regarding the results of Sakur Tan’s Motion for Technical Examination. The COMELEC further said as this is the case, they are invoking the sub judice rule.

(click here to see the 13 February 2019 Manifestation from the COMELEC)

• On 26 March 2019, BBM filed his Consolidated Reply with Urgent Motion to Resolve Protestant’s Motion wherein he reiterated his Extremely Urgent Manifestation with Omnibus Motion, which was filed in December 2018.

(click here to see the 26 March 2019 Consiladated Reply with Urgent Motion from BBM)

• On 17 July 2019, the PET resolved to “defer action” on BBM’s Extremely Urgent Manifestation with Omnibus Motion and Consolidated Reply with Urgent Motion “until such time that an initial determination has been made on the protest” in accordance with Rule 65 of the 2010 PET Rules.

(click here to see the 17 July 2019 Notice from the PET)

N.B.
Despite the lapse of 10 months, and the submission of 7,356 potential witnesses, we are respectfully waiting for the PET to issue a directive on BBM’s Third Cause of Action (ie: “Annulment of votes for the position of Vice-President in the provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur, and Maguindanao)

Week 227: November 2 – 8, 2020

On 2 November 2020, BBM received the Comment from the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) in compliance with the PET’s Resolution dated 29 September 2020.

On 2 November 2020, BBM received the Comment from the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) in compliance with the PET’s Resolution dated 29 September 2020.

It will be recalled that in its September 2020 Resolution, the PET directed the COMELEC and the OSG to comment on the following:

1. Whether the PET is empowered by the Constitution to declare:

1.1 the annulment of elections without ordering special elections; and

1.2 the failure of elections and then subsequently order special elections

2. Whether the PET’s declaration of failure of elections and subsequent ordering of special elections would infringe upon the COMELEC’s constitutional mandate under Article IX, C, Section 2.

Regarding the first issue, the OSG emphasized that under Section 4 (7), Article VII of the 1987 Constitution, “The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of the President or Vice-President, and may promulgate its rules for the purpose.”  It cited a number of cases stating that the PET shall have the “sole and exclusive power to hear election protests.

According to the OSG, the 1987 Constitution allows the PET to promulgate its own rules for the purpose of deciding election contests.  This power can also be found in the 2010 Rules of the Tribunal which grants the PET “such other powers as may be inherent, necessary or incidental thereto for the accomplishment of its purposes and functions.”

As aptly explained by the OSG, “Surely, the framers of the Constitution did not intend the PET to operate in vacuo, that is why when the Constitution vested it with the exclusive authority, it means that it is also empowered to promulgate whatever rules are needed in order to fulfill its mandate.”

The OSG likewise said that the PET does not have the power to call for special elections. Although it is true that the Tribunal is the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of the President and Vice President, the term “contests” refers post-election scenarios  (or after the proclamation of the presumptive winner).

The OSG also pointed out that the Omnibus Election Code does not give the COMELEC the power to call for special elections in case of a vacancy in the Presidential or Vice-presidential seats.  Under our Constitution, only Congress can do this. With regard to BBM’s protest, the OSG said, “even if the votes cast in the provinces of Maguindanao, Lanao del Sur, and Basilan are declared null and void, there is no failure to elect to speak of.  On the contrary, the ultimate winner, or the one with the majority (or plurality) of the valid votes cast, is easily determinable.”

The OSG concluded that the PET has the power to declare the annulment of elections or a failure of elections without infringing upon the COMELEC’s authority, but it has no concomitant power to order the conduct of special elections.  The OSG likewise asked the PET to immediately resolve the election protest after it receives the respective Replies of BBM and Robredo

(click here to see 2 November 2020 Comment from the OSG)

On 3 November 2020, BBM received the Comment from the COMELEC in compliance with the PET’s Resolution dated 29 September 2020.

The COMELEC agreed with the OSG’s Comments.  It also said that all the cases for failure of elections in the provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur, and Maguindanao relative to the 2016 elections were dismissed by the COMELEC en banc and that no special elections were conducted in these ARMM provinces at that time.

One of the issues raised in the 29 September 2020 PET Resolution were the results of the technical examination in the case of Abdusakur M. Tan v. Mujiv S. Hataman.  BBM raised this issue in his Extremely Urgent Manifestation of Grave Concern with Omnibus Motion which he filed on 12 December 2018.  According to the COMELEC, the Tan v. Hataman case was dismissed for being moot and academic in view of the BARMM Organic Law as well as the expiration of term of office for the position under protest.  On the other hand, while they “did not have the opportunity to rule upon such findings or pass upon its validity, merit and probative value,” the documents that were submitted became part of the records of the case.

The other issues raised and answered involved the following  :

1. The Tribunal asked whether the results of the revision and appreciation of votes in BBM’s pilot provinces had a bearing on the annulment of election results in Basilan, Lanao del Sur and Maguindanao and, in connection with this, whether or not the Tribunal had the competence to resolve the annulment of election results in the 3 ARMM provinces. The COMELEC stated that the “PET or the Supreme Court, sitting en banc, shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of the President or Vice-President.” Therefore, the Tribunal has the competence to resolve all questions relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of the President or Vice President.

(click here to see 3 November 2020 Compliance from the COMELEC)

After 227 weeks (or roughly 1,593 days) :

We are still waiting for some semblance of closure in BBM’s election protest.

On 5 March 2019, the PET finished the MANUAL recount of ballots in all the clustered precincts in BBM’s three (3) pilot provinces, namely Camarines Sur, Iloilo and Negros Oriental. Since the MANUAL recount began on 2 April 2018 and ended on 5 March 2019, it took the PET 11 months to complete the MANUAL recount of the said 3 provinces.

The PET likewise concluded the PRELIMINARY APPRECIATION (“PA”) of votes. During the PA stage, the parties are supposed to submit their OBJECTIONS to the ballots which were MANUALLY counted so that the PET can REVIEW the same. In reality, however, this NEVER happened because on 9 September 2019, Justice Caguioa SUDDENLY and UNILATERALLY released his UNOFFICIAL report and recommended that the election protest be DISMISSED because of Rule 65 of the PET Rules.

Had BBM been ALLOWED to present his objections during the PA stage, he would have been able to point out the prevalence of UNREADABLE ballots because they were :

wet
covered with dried fish & garbage
 burned with cigarette butts
had battery fluids in them
and so much more!

When it came to the READABLE ballots, BBM’s revisors discovered that :

 majority of the ballots contained SHADINGS of 25% or less
there were FAKE BALLOTS in the audit logs

Rule 65 states that “upon examination of such ballots and proof, and after making reasonable allowances, the Tribunal is convinced that, taking all circumstances into account, the protestant or counter- protestant will most probably fail to make out his case, the protest may forthwith be dismissed, without further consideration of the other provinces mentioned in the protest.”

Rule 65 also says that “the preceding paragraph shall also apply when the election protest involves correction of manifest errors.”

On 15 October 2019, the Supreme Court (voting 11-2) released a Resolution directing the parties to submit a Memorandum on the following matters within 20 working days :

1. To give their comments on the revision report in BBM’s 3 pilot provinces, namely, Camarines Sur, Iloilo and Negros Oriental; and

2. To explain their position on BBM’s Third Cause of Action, which is the Annulment of election resultsin Basilan, Lanao del Sur and Maguindanao.

Since neither BBM or Robredo were allowed to participate in the “appreciation [of votes] stage, the Supreme Court, on 5 November 2019 allowed the parties to photocopy the voluminous annexes (approx 16,000 pages) which formed the basis of the Caguioa report. Invoking due process, the Supreme Court informed the parties that they could submit their Memorandum 20 days AFTER they finished viewing and photocopying the said annexes.

On 19 December 2019, both BBM and Robredo filed their respective Memoranda.

The protest remained in limbo for almost 10 months. Then, on 30 September 2020, the Supreme Court issued a Press Briefer directing the COMELEC and the OSG to report to the PET various incidents which transpired during the 2016 elections in the provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur and Maguindanao. The Tribunal further directed the COMELEC and the OSG to comment on the Constitutionality of the annulment vis-a-vis failure of elections.

– – – – –

Listed below are the “sensitive” and important issues surrounding BBM’s protest :

1. Whether or not to apply the 25% shading threshold percentage or the 50% shading threshold percentage in the recounting of votes

Robredo’s Motion to Direct the Head Revisors to Apply the 25% threshold percentage in the revision, recount and re-appreciation of ballots

• In a Resolution dated 10 April 2018, the PET denied Robredo’s Ex Parte Motion.

(click here to see the 10 April 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 24 April 2018, the PET required BBM and the COMELEC to comment on Robredo’s Urgent Motion for Reconsideration.

(click here to see the 24 April 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 2 May 2018, Robredo filed an Urgent Motion for Reconsideration.

(click here to see the 2 May 2018 Urgent Motion from Robredo)

• On 28 May 2018, BBM filed his Opposition to Robredo’s Motion

(click here to see the 28 May 2018 Opposition from BBM)

• On 6 July 2018, BBM received a Manifestation from the Office of the Solicitor General.

(click here to see the 6 July 2018 Manifestation from the OSG)

• In a Resolution dated 24 July 2018, the PET resolved to note the OSG’s Manifestation and Motion

(click here to see the 24 July 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 26 July 2018, BBM received a Comment from the COMELEC

(click here to see the 26 July 2018 Comment from the COMELEC)

N.B.
Although the PET did not CATEGORICALLY decide on the 25% versus 50% shading threshold, they instructed the revisors – on 25 September 2018 — to just refer to the Election Returns :

• On 25 September 2018, BBM received a Notice from the PET directing Head Revisors to refer to the election returns to verify the total number of votes as read and counted by the voting counting machine.

(click here to see the 25 September 2018 Notice from the PET)

2. What to do with the wet & unreadable ballots 

• In a Resolution dated 5 June 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 5 June 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 26 June 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 26 June 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 6 July 2018, BBM filed a Strong Manifestation with Motion regarding regarding the use of decrypted ballot images in the revision proceedings.

(click here to see the 6 July 2018 Strong Manifestation from BBM)

•  In a Resolution dated 10 July 2018, the PET resolved to note BBM’s Strong Manifestation but deny his Motion to hold in abeyance the use of decrypted ballot images in the revision proceedings.

(click here to see the 10 July 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 19 July 2018, BBM filed a Strong Opposition regarding the use of decrypted ballot images in the revision proceedings.

(click here to see the 19 July 2018 Strong Opposition from BBM)

• In a Resolution dated 24 July 2018, the PET resolved to direct the COMELEC to comment on BBM’s Strong Opposition regarding the use of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 24 July 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 31 July 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 31 July 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 14 August 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 14 August 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 17 August 2018, BBM received a Motion from the COMELEC asking for an extension of time within which to file its Comment.

(click here to see the 17 August 2018 Motion from the COMELEC)

• In a Resolution dated 28 August 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the  28 August 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 30 August 2018, BBM received COMELEC’s Comment stating that the ballot images are not faithful reproduction of the original ballots but are instead the “true and genuine representation and captured images of the official ballots themselves.

(click here to see the 30 August 2018 Comment from the COMELEC)

• In a Resolution dated 4 September 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 4 September 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 11 September 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 11 September 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 18 September 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 18 September 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 25 September 2018, BBM received a Notice from the PET denying his Strong Opposition regarding the use of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 25 September 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 5 October 2018, BBM filed a Manifestation of Appreciation with Omnibus Motion for partial reconsideration of the denial of his Strong Opposition.

(click here to see the 5 October 2018 Manifestation with Omnibus Motion from BBM)

• In a Resolution dated 9 October 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 9 October 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 16 October 2018, the PET resolved to note BBM’s Manifestation with Omnibus Motion and direct Robredo and the COMELEC to comment.

(click here to see the 16 October 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 16 October 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 16 October 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 6 November 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 6 November 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 6 November 2018, BBM recieved the COMELEC’s Motion for extension of time within which to file a comment.

(click here to see the 6 November 2018 Motion from the COMELEC)

• In a Resolution dated 13 November 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 13 November 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 22 November 2018, BBM received Robredo’s Comment and Oppostion.

(click here to see the 22 November 2018 Comment from Robredo)

• In a Resolution dated 4 December 2018, the PET resolved to note the COMELEC’s Comment and required BBM to reply thereon.

(click here to see the 4 December 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 5 December 2018, BBM received the COMELEC’s Comment, stating BBM’s claim has “no leg to stand on.”

(click here to see the 5 December 2018 Comment from the COMELEC)

• On 20 December 2018, BBM filed his Consolidated Reply.

(click here to see the 20 December 2018 Consolidated Reply from BBM)

• In a Resolution dated 8 January 2019, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 8 January 2019 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 29 January 2019, the PET resolved to note BBM’s Consolidated Reply.

(click here to see the 29 January 2019 Resolution from the PET)

N.B.
From Day 1, BBM’s position has always been as follows: because of the presence of squares instead of ovals in the ballot images, the same are no longer faithful images of the original paper ballots. Since these “decrypted” images have been compromised, they do not reflect the true will of the voting public.

3. COMELEC’s request to lift the Precautionary Protection Order (PPO) with respect to the Election Management System (EMS) Servers

• In a Resolution dated 17 April 2018, the PET required BBM and Robredo to comment on COMELEC’s request.

(click here to see the 17 April 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 25 May 2018, BBM filed his Opposition to COMELEC’s request.

(click here to see the 25 May 2018 Opposition from BBM)

• On 20 July 2018, BBM received a Reply from the COMELEC.

(click here to see the 20 July 2018 Reply from the COMELEC)

• To date, Robredo has NOT yet filed any comment regarding the above issue.

N.B.
The Election Management System (EMS) is the “brain” of any election system. It is here where the ballot images are generated and where the SD cards and computers for the different provinces are programmed. It is important to preserve the data in the EMS so the parties can easily track down any “hanky panky” that was done during the May 2016 elections.

• In a Resolution dated 24 July 2018, the PET resolved to lift the Precautionary Protection Order (PPO) on the Election Management System (EMS) servers.

(click here to see the 24 July 2018 Resolution from the PET)

4. BBM’s Third Cause of Action

• In a Resolution dated 29 August 2017, the PET directed BBM to submit a new list of witnesses for the provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur and within five (5) days.

(click here to see the 29 August 2017 Resolution from the PET)

• On 11 September 2017, BBM filed his Compliance and submitted his list of witnesses.

(click here to see the 11 September 2017 Compliance from BBM)

• In a Resolution dated 19 September 2017, the PET required BBM to “STRICTLY COMPLY with their directive that he identify his witnesses in the corresponding clustered precincts within a FINAL and NON-EXTENDIBLE period of five (5) days from notice.”

> It is worth mentioning that on 11 September 2017, BBM had already submitted 171 names of potential wirtnesses to the PET.

(click here to see the 19 September 2017 Resolution from the PET)

• On 9 October 2017, BBM complied with the PET’s directive and submitted 7,356 names of witnesses for the provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur & Maguindanao.

(click here to see the 9 October 2017 Compliance from BBM)

• In a Resolution dated 7 November 2017, the PET “noted” BBM’s Compliance.

(click here to see the 7 November 2017 Resolution from the PET)

• On 12 December 2018, BBM filed his Extremely Urgent Manifestation of Grave Concern with Omnibus Motion requesting for the issuance of subpoena duces tecum to the COMELEC-ERSD to produce and submit the dactyloscopic and questioned document reports and such other relevant documents involving the technical examination conducted on the Voter’s Registration Records (VRRs) against the Election Day Computerized Voter’s List with Voting Records (EDCVLs) of 508 established precincts in the provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur, and Maguindanao relative to the protest of Tan vs. Hataman. BBM stated that he intends to use the said results as part of his evidence in support of his third cause of action, which is the Annulment of votes for the position of Vice President in the provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur, and Maguindanao.

(click here to see the 12 December 2018 Extremely Urgent Manifestation from BBM)

• On 18 January 2019, BBM received Robredo’s Counter-Manifestation with Comment and Opposition to BBM’s Extremely Urgent Motion.

(click here to see the 18 January 2019 Counter-Manifestation from Robredo)

• On 25 January 2019, BBM received a Supplemental Manifestation from Robredo.

(click here to see the 25 January 2019 Supplemental Manifestation from Robredo)

• On 28 January 2019, the PET directed Robredo and the COMELEC to comment on BBM’s Extremely Urgent Manifestation.

(click here to see the 28 January 2019 Resolution from the PET)

• On 11 February 2019, BBM received a Manifestation and Compliance from Robredo stating she previously filed her Comment and Opposition prior to the PET Resolution directing her to comment to BBM’s Extremely Urgent Manifestation.

(click here to see the 11 February 2019 Manifestation from Robredo)

• On 13 February 2019, BBM received a Manifestation [in lieu of Comment on BBM’s Extremely Urgent Manifestation of Grave Concern with Omnibus Motion] from the COMELEC, stating the Second Division is yet to issue a Resolution or Order regarding the results of Sakur Tan’s Motion for Technical Examination. The COMELEC further said as this is the case, they are invoking the sub judice rule.

(click here to see the 13 February 2019 Manifestation from the COMELEC)

• On 26 March 2019, BBM filed his Consolidated Reply with Urgent Motion to Resolve Protestant’s Motion wherein he reiterated his Extremely Urgent Manifestation with Omnibus Motion, which was filed in December 2018.

(click here to see the 26 March 2019 Consiladated Reply with Urgent Motion from BBM)

• On 17 July 2019, the PET resolved to “defer action” on BBM’s Extremely Urgent Manifestation with Omnibus Motion and Consolidated Reply with Urgent Motion “until such time that an initial determination has been made on the protest” in accordance with Rule 65 of the 2010 PET Rules.

(click here to see the 17 July 2019 Notice from the PET)

N.B.
Despite the lapse of 10 months, and the submission of 7,356 potential witnesses, we are respectfully waiting for the PET to issue a directive on BBM’s Third Cause of Action (ie: “Annulment of votes for the position of Vice-President in the provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur, and Maguindanao)

Week 226: October 26 – November 1, 2020

No significant developments

No significant developments

After 226 weeks (or roughly 1,586 days) :

We are still waiting for some semblance of closure in BBM’s election protest.

On 5 March 2019, the PET finished the MANUAL recount of ballots in all the clustered precincts in BBM’s three (3) pilot provinces, namely Camarines Sur, Iloilo and Negros Oriental. Since the MANUAL recount began on 2 April 2018 and ended on 5 March 2019, it took the PET 11 months to complete the MANUAL recount of the said 3 provinces.

The PET likewise concluded the PRELIMINARY APPRECIATION (“PA”) of votes. During the PA stage, the parties are supposed to submit their OBJECTIONS to the ballots which were MANUALLY counted so that the PET can REVIEW the same. In reality, however, this NEVER happened because on 9 September 2019, Justice Caguioa SUDDENLY and UNILATERALLY released his UNOFFICIAL report and recommended that the election protest be DISMISSED because of Rule 65 of the PET Rules.

Had BBM been ALLOWED to present his objections during the PA stage, he would have been able to point out the prevalence of UNREADABLE ballots because they were :

wet
covered with dried fish & garbage
 burned with cigarette butts
had battery fluids in them
and so much more!

When it came to the READABLE ballots, BBM’s revisors discovered that :

 majority of the ballots contained SHADINGS of 25% or less
there were FAKE BALLOTS in the audit logs

Rule 65 states that “upon examination of such ballots and proof, and after making reasonable allowances, the Tribunal is convinced that, taking all circumstances into account, the protestant or counter- protestant will most probably fail to make out his case, the protest may forthwith be dismissed, without further consideration of the other provinces mentioned in the protest.”

Rule 65 also says that “the preceding paragraph shall also apply when the election protest involves correction of manifest errors.”

On 15 October 2019, the Supreme Court (voting 11-2) released a Resolution directing the parties to submit a Memorandum on the following matters within 20 working days :

1. To give their comments on the revision report in BBM’s 3 pilot provinces, namely, Camarines Sur, Iloilo and Negros Oriental; and

2. To explain their position on BBM’s Third Cause of Action, which is the Annulment of election resultsin Basilan, Lanao del Sur and Maguindanao.

Since neither BBM or Robredo were allowed to participate in the “appreciation [of votes] stage, the Supreme Court, on 5 November 2019 allowed the parties to photocopy the voluminous annexes (approx 16,000 pages) which formed the basis of the Caguioa report. Invoking due process, the Supreme Court informed the parties that they could submit their Memorandum 20 days AFTER they finished viewing and photocopying the said annexes.

On 19 December 2019, both BBM and Robredo filed their respective Memoranda.

The protest remained in limbo for almost 10 months. Then, on 30 September 2020, the Supreme Court issued a Press Briefer directing the COMELEC and the OSG to report to the PET various incidents which transpired during the 2016 elections in the provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur and Maguindanao. The Tribunal further directed the COMELEC and the OSG to comment on the Constitutionality of the annulment vis-a-vis failure of elections.

– – – – –

Listed below are the “sensitive” and important issues surrounding BBM’s protest :

1. Whether or not to apply the 25% shading threshold percentage or the 50% shading threshold percentage in the recounting of votes

Robredo’s Motion to Direct the Head Revisors to Apply the 25% threshold percentage in the revision, recount and re-appreciation of ballots

• In a Resolution dated 10 April 2018, the PET denied Robredo’s Ex Parte Motion.

(click here to see the 10 April 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 24 April 2018, the PET required BBM and the COMELEC to comment on Robredo’s Urgent Motion for Reconsideration.

(click here to see the 24 April 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 2 May 2018, Robredo filed an Urgent Motion for Reconsideration.

(click here to see the 2 May 2018 Urgent Motion from Robredo)

• On 28 May 2018, BBM filed his Opposition to Robredo’s Motion

(click here to see the 28 May 2018 Opposition from BBM)

• On 6 July 2018, BBM received a Manifestation from the Office of the Solicitor General.

(click here to see the 6 July 2018 Manifestation from the OSG)

• In a Resolution dated 24 July 2018, the PET resolved to note the OSG’s Manifestation and Motion

(click here to see the 24 July 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 26 July 2018, BBM received a Comment from the COMELEC

(click here to see the 26 July 2018 Comment from the COMELEC)

N.B.
Although the PET did not CATEGORICALLY decide on the 25% versus 50% shading threshold, they instructed the revisors – on 25 September 2018 — to just refer to the Election Returns :

• On 25 September 2018, BBM received a Notice from the PET directing Head Revisors to refer to the election returns to verify the total number of votes as read and counted by the voting counting machine.

(click here to see the 25 September 2018 Notice from the PET)

2. What to do with the wet & unreadable ballots 

• In a Resolution dated 5 June 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 5 June 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 26 June 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 26 June 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 6 July 2018, BBM filed a Strong Manifestation with Motion regarding regarding the use of decrypted ballot images in the revision proceedings.

(click here to see the 6 July 2018 Strong Manifestation from BBM)

•  In a Resolution dated 10 July 2018, the PET resolved to note BBM’s Strong Manifestation but deny his Motion to hold in abeyance the use of decrypted ballot images in the revision proceedings.

(click here to see the 10 July 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 19 July 2018, BBM filed a Strong Opposition regarding the use of decrypted ballot images in the revision proceedings.

(click here to see the 19 July 2018 Strong Opposition from BBM)

• In a Resolution dated 24 July 2018, the PET resolved to direct the COMELEC to comment on BBM’s Strong Opposition regarding the use of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 24 July 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 31 July 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 31 July 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 14 August 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 14 August 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 17 August 2018, BBM received a Motion from the COMELEC asking for an extension of time within which to file its Comment.

(click here to see the 17 August 2018 Motion from the COMELEC)

• In a Resolution dated 28 August 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the  28 August 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 30 August 2018, BBM received COMELEC’s Comment stating that the ballot images are not faithful reproduction of the original ballots but are instead the “true and genuine representation and captured images of the official ballots themselves.

(click here to see the 30 August 2018 Comment from the COMELEC)

• In a Resolution dated 4 September 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 4 September 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 11 September 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 11 September 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 18 September 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 18 September 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 25 September 2018, BBM received a Notice from the PET denying his Strong Opposition regarding the use of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 25 September 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 5 October 2018, BBM filed a Manifestation of Appreciation with Omnibus Motion for partial reconsideration of the denial of his Strong Opposition.

(click here to see the 5 October 2018 Manifestation with Omnibus Motion from BBM)

• In a Resolution dated 9 October 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 9 October 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 16 October 2018, the PET resolved to note BBM’s Manifestation with Omnibus Motion and direct Robredo and the COMELEC to comment.

(click here to see the 16 October 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 16 October 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 16 October 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 6 November 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 6 November 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 6 November 2018, BBM recieved the COMELEC’s Motion for extension of time within which to file a comment.

(click here to see the 6 November 2018 Motion from the COMELEC)

• In a Resolution dated 13 November 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 13 November 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 22 November 2018, BBM received Robredo’s Comment and Oppostion.

(click here to see the 22 November 2018 Comment from Robredo)

• In a Resolution dated 4 December 2018, the PET resolved to note the COMELEC’s Comment and required BBM to reply thereon.

(click here to see the 4 December 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 5 December 2018, BBM received the COMELEC’s Comment, stating BBM’s claim has “no leg to stand on.”

(click here to see the 5 December 2018 Comment from the COMELEC)

• On 20 December 2018, BBM filed his Consolidated Reply.

(click here to see the 20 December 2018 Consolidated Reply from BBM)

• In a Resolution dated 8 January 2019, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 8 January 2019 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 29 January 2019, the PET resolved to note BBM’s Consolidated Reply.

(click here to see the 29 January 2019 Resolution from the PET)

N.B.
From Day 1, BBM’s position has always been as follows: because of the presence of squares instead of ovals in the ballot images, the same are no longer faithful images of the original paper ballots. Since these “decrypted” images have been compromised, they do not reflect the true will of the voting public.

3. COMELEC’s request to lift the Precautionary Protection Order (PPO) with respect to the Election Management System (EMS) Servers

• In a Resolution dated 17 April 2018, the PET required BBM and Robredo to comment on COMELEC’s request.

(click here to see the 17 April 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 25 May 2018, BBM filed his Opposition to COMELEC’s request.

(click here to see the 25 May 2018 Opposition from BBM)

• On 20 July 2018, BBM received a Reply from the COMELEC.

(click here to see the 20 July 2018 Reply from the COMELEC)

• To date, Robredo has NOT yet filed any comment regarding the above issue.

N.B.
The Election Management System (EMS) is the “brain” of any election system. It is here where the ballot images are generated and where the SD cards and computers for the different provinces are programmed. It is important to preserve the data in the EMS so the parties can easily track down any “hanky panky” that was done during the May 2016 elections.

• In a Resolution dated 24 July 2018, the PET resolved to lift the Precautionary Protection Order (PPO) on the Election Management System (EMS) servers.

(click here to see the 24 July 2018 Resolution from the PET)

4. BBM’s Third Cause of Action

• In a Resolution dated 29 August 2017, the PET directed BBM to submit a new list of witnesses for the provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur and within five (5) days.

(click here to see the 29 August 2017 Resolution from the PET)

• On 11 September 2017, BBM filed his Compliance and submitted his list of witnesses.

(click here to see the 11 September 2017 Compliance from BBM)

• In a Resolution dated 19 September 2017, the PET required BBM to “STRICTLY COMPLY with their directive that he identify his witnesses in the corresponding clustered precincts within a FINAL and NON-EXTENDIBLE period of five (5) days from notice.”

> It is worth mentioning that on 11 September 2017, BBM had already submitted 171 names of potential wirtnesses to the PET.

(click here to see the 19 September 2017 Resolution from the PET)

• On 9 October 2017, BBM complied with the PET’s directive and submitted 7,356 names of witnesses for the provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur & Maguindanao.

(click here to see the 9 October 2017 Compliance from BBM)

• In a Resolution dated 7 November 2017, the PET “noted” BBM’s Compliance.

(click here to see the 7 November 2017 Resolution from the PET)

• On 12 December 2018, BBM filed his Extremely Urgent Manifestation of Grave Concern with Omnibus Motion requesting for the issuance of subpoena duces tecum to the COMELEC-ERSD to produce and submit the dactyloscopic and questioned document reports and such other relevant documents involving the technical examination conducted on the Voter’s Registration Records (VRRs) against the Election Day Computerized Voter’s List with Voting Records (EDCVLs) of 508 established precincts in the provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur, and Maguindanao relative to the protest of Tan vs. Hataman. BBM stated that he intends to use the said results as part of his evidence in support of his third cause of action, which is the Annulment of votes for the position of Vice President in the provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur, and Maguindanao.

(click here to see the 12 December 2018 Extremely Urgent Manifestation from BBM)

• On 18 January 2019, BBM received Robredo’s Counter-Manifestation with Comment and Opposition to BBM’s Extremely Urgent Motion.

(click here to see the 18 January 2019 Counter-Manifestation from Robredo)

• On 25 January 2019, BBM received a Supplemental Manifestation from Robredo.

(click here to see the 25 January 2019 Supplemental Manifestation from Robredo)

• On 28 January 2019, the PET directed Robredo and the COMELEC to comment on BBM’s Extremely Urgent Manifestation.

(click here to see the 28 January 2019 Resolution from the PET)

• On 11 February 2019, BBM received a Manifestation and Compliance from Robredo stating she previously filed her Comment and Opposition prior to the PET Resolution directing her to comment to BBM’s Extremely Urgent Manifestation.

(click here to see the 11 February 2019 Manifestation from Robredo)

• On 13 February 2019, BBM received a Manifestation [in lieu of Comment on BBM’s Extremely Urgent Manifestation of Grave Concern with Omnibus Motion] from the COMELEC, stating the Second Division is yet to issue a Resolution or Order regarding the results of Sakur Tan’s Motion for Technical Examination. The COMELEC further said as this is the case, they are invoking the sub judice rule.

(click here to see the 13 February 2019 Manifestation from the COMELEC)

• On 26 March 2019, BBM filed his Consolidated Reply with Urgent Motion to Resolve Protestant’s Motion wherein he reiterated his Extremely Urgent Manifestation with Omnibus Motion, which was filed in December 2018.

(click here to see the 26 March 2019 Consiladated Reply with Urgent Motion from BBM)

• On 17 July 2019, the PET resolved to “defer action” on BBM’s Extremely Urgent Manifestation with Omnibus Motion and Consolidated Reply with Urgent Motion “until such time that an initial determination has been made on the protest” in accordance with Rule 65 of the 2010 PET Rules.

(click here to see the 17 July 2019 Notice from the PET)

N.B.
Despite the lapse of 10 months, and the submission of 7,356 potential witnesses, we are respectfully waiting for the PET to issue a directive on BBM’s Third Cause of Action (ie: “Annulment of votes for the position of Vice-President in the provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur, and Maguindanao)

Week 225: October 19 – 25, 2020

No significant developments

No significant developments

After 225 weeks (or roughly 1,579 days) :

We are still waiting for some semblance of closure in BBM’s election protest.

On 5 March 2019, the PET finished the MANUAL recount of ballots in all the clustered precincts in BBM’s three (3) pilot provinces, namely Camarines Sur, Iloilo and Negros Oriental. Since the MANUAL recount began on 2 April 2018 and ended on 5 March 2019, it took the PET 11 months to complete the MANUAL recount of the said 3 provinces.

The PET likewise concluded the PRELIMINARY APPRECIATION (“PA”) of votes. During the PA stage, the parties are supposed to submit their OBJECTIONS to the ballots which were MANUALLY counted so that the PET can REVIEW the same. In reality, however, this NEVER happened because on 9 September 2019, Justice Caguioa SUDDENLY and UNILATERALLY released his UNOFFICIAL report and recommended that the election protest be DISMISSED because of Rule 65 of the PET Rules.

Had BBM been ALLOWED to present his objections during the PA stage, he would have been able to point out the prevalence of UNREADABLE ballots because they were :

wet
covered with dried fish & garbage
 burned with cigarette butts
had battery fluids in them
and so much more!

When it came to the READABLE ballots, BBM’s revisors discovered that :

 majority of the ballots contained SHADINGS of 25% or less
there were FAKE BALLOTS in the audit logs

Rule 65 states that “upon examination of such ballots and proof, and after making reasonable allowances, the Tribunal is convinced that, taking all circumstances into account, the protestant or counter- protestant will most probably fail to make out his case, the protest may forthwith be dismissed, without further consideration of the other provinces mentioned in the protest.”

Rule 65 also says that “the preceding paragraph shall also apply when the election protest involves correction of manifest errors.”

On 15 October 2019, the Supreme Court (voting 11-2) released a Resolution directing the parties to submit a Memorandum on the following matters within 20 working days :

1. To give their comments on the revision report in BBM’s 3 pilot provinces, namely, Camarines Sur, Iloilo and Negros Oriental; and

2. To explain their position on BBM’s Third Cause of Action, which is the Annulment of election resultsin Basilan, Lanao del Sur and Maguindanao.

Since neither BBM or Robredo were allowed to participate in the “appreciation [of votes] stage, the Supreme Court, on 5 November 2019 allowed the parties to photocopy the voluminous annexes (approx 16,000 pages) which formed the basis of the Caguioa report. Invoking due process, the Supreme Court informed the parties that they could submit their Memorandum 20 days AFTER they finished viewing and photocopying the said annexes.

On 19 December 2019, both BBM and Robredo filed their respective Memoranda.

The protest remained in limbo for almost 10 months. Then, on 30 September 2020, the Supreme Court issued a Press Briefer directing the COMELEC and the OSG to report to the PET various incidents which transpired during the 2016 elections in the provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur and Maguindanao. The Tribunal further directed the COMELEC and the OSG to comment on the Constitutionality of the annulment vis-a-vis failure of elections.

– – – – –

Listed below are the “sensitive” and important issues surrounding BBM’s protest :

1. Whether or not to apply the 25% shading threshold percentage or the 50% shading threshold percentage in the recounting of votes

Robredo’s Motion to Direct the Head Revisors to Apply the 25% threshold percentage in the revision, recount and re-appreciation of ballots

• In a Resolution dated 10 April 2018, the PET denied Robredo’s Ex Parte Motion.

(click here to see the 10 April 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 24 April 2018, the PET required BBM and the COMELEC to comment on Robredo’s Urgent Motion for Reconsideration.

(click here to see the 24 April 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 2 May 2018, Robredo filed an Urgent Motion for Reconsideration.

(click here to see the 2 May 2018 Urgent Motion from Robredo)

• On 28 May 2018, BBM filed his Opposition to Robredo’s Motion

(click here to see the 28 May 2018 Opposition from BBM)

• On 6 July 2018, BBM received a Manifestation from the Office of the Solicitor General.

(click here to see the 6 July 2018 Manifestation from the OSG)

• In a Resolution dated 24 July 2018, the PET resolved to note the OSG’s Manifestation and Motion

(click here to see the 24 July 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 26 July 2018, BBM received a Comment from the COMELEC

(click here to see the 26 July 2018 Comment from the COMELEC)

N.B.
Although the PET did not CATEGORICALLY decide on the 25% versus 50% shading threshold, they instructed the revisors – on 25 September 2018 — to just refer to the Election Returns :

• On 25 September 2018, BBM received a Notice from the PET directing Head Revisors to refer to the election returns to verify the total number of votes as read and counted by the voting counting machine.

(click here to see the 25 September 2018 Notice from the PET)

2. What to do with the wet & unreadable ballots 

• In a Resolution dated 5 June 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 5 June 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 26 June 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 26 June 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 6 July 2018, BBM filed a Strong Manifestation with Motion regarding regarding the use of decrypted ballot images in the revision proceedings.

(click here to see the 6 July 2018 Strong Manifestation from BBM)

•  In a Resolution dated 10 July 2018, the PET resolved to note BBM’s Strong Manifestation but deny his Motion to hold in abeyance the use of decrypted ballot images in the revision proceedings.

(click here to see the 10 July 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 19 July 2018, BBM filed a Strong Opposition regarding the use of decrypted ballot images in the revision proceedings.

(click here to see the 19 July 2018 Strong Opposition from BBM)

• In a Resolution dated 24 July 2018, the PET resolved to direct the COMELEC to comment on BBM’s Strong Opposition regarding the use of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 24 July 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 31 July 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 31 July 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 14 August 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 14 August 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 17 August 2018, BBM received a Motion from the COMELEC asking for an extension of time within which to file its Comment.

(click here to see the 17 August 2018 Motion from the COMELEC)

• In a Resolution dated 28 August 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the  28 August 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 30 August 2018, BBM received COMELEC’s Comment stating that the ballot images are not faithful reproduction of the original ballots but are instead the “true and genuine representation and captured images of the official ballots themselves.

(click here to see the 30 August 2018 Comment from the COMELEC)

• In a Resolution dated 4 September 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 4 September 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 11 September 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 11 September 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 18 September 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 18 September 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 25 September 2018, BBM received a Notice from the PET denying his Strong Opposition regarding the use of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 25 September 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 5 October 2018, BBM filed a Manifestation of Appreciation with Omnibus Motion for partial reconsideration of the denial of his Strong Opposition.

(click here to see the 5 October 2018 Manifestation with Omnibus Motion from BBM)

• In a Resolution dated 9 October 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 9 October 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 16 October 2018, the PET resolved to note BBM’s Manifestation with Omnibus Motion and direct Robredo and the COMELEC to comment.

(click here to see the 16 October 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 16 October 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 16 October 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 6 November 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 6 November 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 6 November 2018, BBM recieved the COMELEC’s Motion for extension of time within which to file a comment.

(click here to see the 6 November 2018 Motion from the COMELEC)

• In a Resolution dated 13 November 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 13 November 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 22 November 2018, BBM received Robredo’s Comment and Oppostion.

(click here to see the 22 November 2018 Comment from Robredo)

• In a Resolution dated 4 December 2018, the PET resolved to note the COMELEC’s Comment and required BBM to reply thereon.

(click here to see the 4 December 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 5 December 2018, BBM received the COMELEC’s Comment, stating BBM’s claim has “no leg to stand on.”

(click here to see the 5 December 2018 Comment from the COMELEC)

• On 20 December 2018, BBM filed his Consolidated Reply.

(click here to see the 20 December 2018 Consolidated Reply from BBM)

• In a Resolution dated 8 January 2019, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 8 January 2019 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 29 January 2019, the PET resolved to note BBM’s Consolidated Reply.

(click here to see the 29 January 2019 Resolution from the PET)

N.B.
From Day 1, BBM’s position has always been as follows: because of the presence of squares instead of ovals in the ballot images, the same are no longer faithful images of the original paper ballots. Since these “decrypted” images have been compromised, they do not reflect the true will of the voting public.

3. COMELEC’s request to lift the Precautionary Protection Order (PPO) with respect to the Election Management System (EMS) Servers

• In a Resolution dated 17 April 2018, the PET required BBM and Robredo to comment on COMELEC’s request.

(click here to see the 17 April 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 25 May 2018, BBM filed his Opposition to COMELEC’s request.

(click here to see the 25 May 2018 Opposition from BBM)

• On 20 July 2018, BBM received a Reply from the COMELEC.

(click here to see the 20 July 2018 Reply from the COMELEC)

• To date, Robredo has NOT yet filed any comment regarding the above issue.

N.B.
The Election Management System (EMS) is the “brain” of any election system. It is here where the ballot images are generated and where the SD cards and computers for the different provinces are programmed. It is important to preserve the data in the EMS so the parties can easily track down any “hanky panky” that was done during the May 2016 elections.

• In a Resolution dated 24 July 2018, the PET resolved to lift the Precautionary Protection Order (PPO) on the Election Management System (EMS) servers.

(click here to see the 24 July 2018 Resolution from the PET)

4. BBM’s Third Cause of Action

• In a Resolution dated 29 August 2017, the PET directed BBM to submit a new list of witnesses for the provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur and within five (5) days.

(click here to see the 29 August 2017 Resolution from the PET)

• On 11 September 2017, BBM filed his Compliance and submitted his list of witnesses.

(click here to see the 11 September 2017 Compliance from BBM)

• In a Resolution dated 19 September 2017, the PET required BBM to “STRICTLY COMPLY with their directive that he identify his witnesses in the corresponding clustered precincts within a FINAL and NON-EXTENDIBLE period of five (5) days from notice.”

> It is worth mentioning that on 11 September 2017, BBM had already submitted 171 names of potential wirtnesses to the PET.

(click here to see the 19 September 2017 Resolution from the PET)

• On 9 October 2017, BBM complied with the PET’s directive and submitted 7,356 names of witnesses for the provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur & Maguindanao.

(click here to see the 9 October 2017 Compliance from BBM)

• In a Resolution dated 7 November 2017, the PET “noted” BBM’s Compliance.

(click here to see the 7 November 2017 Resolution from the PET)

• On 12 December 2018, BBM filed his Extremely Urgent Manifestation of Grave Concern with Omnibus Motion requesting for the issuance of subpoena duces tecum to the COMELEC-ERSD to produce and submit the dactyloscopic and questioned document reports and such other relevant documents involving the technical examination conducted on the Voter’s Registration Records (VRRs) against the Election Day Computerized Voter’s List with Voting Records (EDCVLs) of 508 established precincts in the provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur, and Maguindanao relative to the protest of Tan vs. Hataman. BBM stated that he intends to use the said results as part of his evidence in support of his third cause of action, which is the Annulment of votes for the position of Vice President in the provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur, and Maguindanao.

(click here to see the 12 December 2018 Extremely Urgent Manifestation from BBM)

• On 18 January 2019, BBM received Robredo’s Counter-Manifestation with Comment and Opposition to BBM’s Extremely Urgent Motion.

(click here to see the 18 January 2019 Counter-Manifestation from Robredo)

• On 25 January 2019, BBM received a Supplemental Manifestation from Robredo.

(click here to see the 25 January 2019 Supplemental Manifestation from Robredo)

• On 28 January 2019, the PET directed Robredo and the COMELEC to comment on BBM’s Extremely Urgent Manifestation.

(click here to see the 28 January 2019 Resolution from the PET)

• On 11 February 2019, BBM received a Manifestation and Compliance from Robredo stating she previously filed her Comment and Opposition prior to the PET Resolution directing her to comment to BBM’s Extremely Urgent Manifestation.

(click here to see the 11 February 2019 Manifestation from Robredo)

• On 13 February 2019, BBM received a Manifestation [in lieu of Comment on BBM’s Extremely Urgent Manifestation of Grave Concern with Omnibus Motion] from the COMELEC, stating the Second Division is yet to issue a Resolution or Order regarding the results of Sakur Tan’s Motion for Technical Examination. The COMELEC further said as this is the case, they are invoking the sub judice rule.

(click here to see the 13 February 2019 Manifestation from the COMELEC)

• On 26 March 2019, BBM filed his Consolidated Reply with Urgent Motion to Resolve Protestant’s Motion wherein he reiterated his Extremely Urgent Manifestation with Omnibus Motion, which was filed in December 2018.

(click here to see the 26 March 2019 Consiladated Reply with Urgent Motion from BBM)

• On 17 July 2019, the PET resolved to “defer action” on BBM’s Extremely Urgent Manifestation with Omnibus Motion and Consolidated Reply with Urgent Motion “until such time that an initial determination has been made on the protest” in accordance with Rule 65 of the 2010 PET Rules.

(click here to see the 17 July 2019 Notice from the PET)

N.B.
Despite the lapse of 10 months, and the submission of 7,356 potential witnesses, we are respectfully waiting for the PET to issue a directive on BBM’s Third Cause of Action (ie: “Annulment of votes for the position of Vice-President in the provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur, and Maguindanao)

Week 224: October 12 – 18, 2020

No significant developments

No significant developments

After 224 weeks (or roughly 1,572 days) :

We are still waiting for some semblance of closure in BBM’s election protest.

On 5 March 2019, the PET finished the MANUAL recount of ballots in all the clustered precincts in BBM’s three (3) pilot provinces, namely Camarines Sur, Iloilo and Negros Oriental. Since the MANUAL recount began on 2 April 2018 and ended on 5 March 2019, it took the PET 11 months to complete the MANUAL recount of the said 3 provinces.

The PET likewise concluded the PRELIMINARY APPRECIATION (“PA”) of votes. During the PA stage, the parties are supposed to submit their OBJECTIONS to the ballots which were MANUALLY counted so that the PET can REVIEW the same. In reality, however, this NEVER happened because on 9 September 2019, Justice Caguioa SUDDENLY and UNILATERALLY released his UNOFFICIAL report and recommended that the election protest be DISMISSED because of Rule 65 of the PET Rules.

Had BBM been ALLOWED to present his objections during the PA stage, he would have been able to point out the prevalence of UNREADABLE ballots because they were :

wet
covered with dried fish & garbage
 burned with cigarette butts
had battery fluids in them
and so much more!

When it came to the READABLE ballots, BBM’s revisors discovered that :

 majority of the ballots contained SHADINGS of 25% or less
there were FAKE BALLOTS in the audit logs

Rule 65 states that “upon examination of such ballots and proof, and after making reasonable allowances, the Tribunal is convinced that, taking all circumstances into account, the protestant or counter- protestant will most probably fail to make out his case, the protest may forthwith be dismissed, without further consideration of the other provinces mentioned in the protest.”

Rule 65 also says that “the preceding paragraph shall also apply when the election protest involves correction of manifest errors.”

On 15 October 2019, the Supreme Court (voting 11-2) released a Resolution directing the parties to submit a Memorandum on the following matters within 20 working days :

1. To give their comments on the revision report in BBM’s 3 pilot provinces, namely, Camarines Sur, Iloilo and Negros Oriental; and

2. To explain their position on BBM’s Third Cause of Action, which is the Annulment of election resultsin Basilan, Lanao del Sur and Maguindanao.

Since neither BBM or Robredo were allowed to participate in the “appreciation [of votes] stage, the Supreme Court, on 5 November 2019 allowed the parties to photocopy the voluminous annexes (approx 16,000 pages) which formed the basis of the Caguioa report. Invoking due process, the Supreme Court informed the parties that they could submit their Memorandum 20 days AFTER they finished viewing and photocopying the said annexes.

On 19 December 2019, both BBM and Robredo filed their respective Memoranda.

The protest remained in limbo for almost 10 months. Then, on 30 September 2020, the Supreme Court issued a Press Briefer directing the COMELEC and the OSG to report to the PET various incidents which transpired during the 2016 elections in the provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur and Maguindanao. The Tribunal further directed the COMELEC and the OSG to comment on the Constitutionality of the annulment vis-a-vis failure of elections.

– – – – –

Listed below are the “sensitive” and important issues surrounding BBM’s protest :

1. Whether or not to apply the 25% shading threshold percentage or the 50% shading threshold percentage in the recounting of votes

Robredo’s Motion to Direct the Head Revisors to Apply the 25% threshold percentage in the revision, recount and re-appreciation of ballots

• In a Resolution dated 10 April 2018, the PET denied Robredo’s Ex Parte Motion.

(click here to see the 10 April 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 24 April 2018, the PET required BBM and the COMELEC to comment on Robredo’s Urgent Motion for Reconsideration.

(click here to see the 24 April 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 2 May 2018, Robredo filed an Urgent Motion for Reconsideration.

(click here to see the 2 May 2018 Urgent Motion from Robredo)

• On 28 May 2018, BBM filed his Opposition to Robredo’s Motion

(click here to see the 28 May 2018 Opposition from BBM)

• On 6 July 2018, BBM received a Manifestation from the Office of the Solicitor General.

(click here to see the 6 July 2018 Manifestation from the OSG)

• In a Resolution dated 24 July 2018, the PET resolved to note the OSG’s Manifestation and Motion

(click here to see the 24 July 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 26 July 2018, BBM received a Comment from the COMELEC

(click here to see the 26 July 2018 Comment from the COMELEC)

N.B.
Although the PET did not CATEGORICALLY decide on the 25% versus 50% shading threshold, they instructed the revisors – on 25 September 2018 — to just refer to the Election Returns :

• On 25 September 2018, BBM received a Notice from the PET directing Head Revisors to refer to the election returns to verify the total number of votes as read and counted by the voting counting machine.

(click here to see the 25 September 2018 Notice from the PET)

2. What to do with the wet & unreadable ballots 

• In a Resolution dated 5 June 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 5 June 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 26 June 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 26 June 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 6 July 2018, BBM filed a Strong Manifestation with Motion regarding regarding the use of decrypted ballot images in the revision proceedings.

(click here to see the 6 July 2018 Strong Manifestation from BBM)

•  In a Resolution dated 10 July 2018, the PET resolved to note BBM’s Strong Manifestation but deny his Motion to hold in abeyance the use of decrypted ballot images in the revision proceedings.

(click here to see the 10 July 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 19 July 2018, BBM filed a Strong Opposition regarding the use of decrypted ballot images in the revision proceedings.

(click here to see the 19 July 2018 Strong Opposition from BBM)

• In a Resolution dated 24 July 2018, the PET resolved to direct the COMELEC to comment on BBM’s Strong Opposition regarding the use of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 24 July 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 31 July 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 31 July 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 14 August 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 14 August 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 17 August 2018, BBM received a Motion from the COMELEC asking for an extension of time within which to file its Comment.

(click here to see the 17 August 2018 Motion from the COMELEC)

• In a Resolution dated 28 August 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the  28 August 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 30 August 2018, BBM received COMELEC’s Comment stating that the ballot images are not faithful reproduction of the original ballots but are instead the “true and genuine representation and captured images of the official ballots themselves.

(click here to see the 30 August 2018 Comment from the COMELEC)

• In a Resolution dated 4 September 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 4 September 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 11 September 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 11 September 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 18 September 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 18 September 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 25 September 2018, BBM received a Notice from the PET denying his Strong Opposition regarding the use of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 25 September 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 5 October 2018, BBM filed a Manifestation of Appreciation with Omnibus Motion for partial reconsideration of the denial of his Strong Opposition.

(click here to see the 5 October 2018 Manifestation with Omnibus Motion from BBM)

• In a Resolution dated 9 October 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 9 October 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 16 October 2018, the PET resolved to note BBM’s Manifestation with Omnibus Motion and direct Robredo and the COMELEC to comment.

(click here to see the 16 October 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 16 October 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 16 October 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 6 November 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 6 November 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 6 November 2018, BBM recieved the COMELEC’s Motion for extension of time within which to file a comment.

(click here to see the 6 November 2018 Motion from the COMELEC)

• In a Resolution dated 13 November 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 13 November 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 22 November 2018, BBM received Robredo’s Comment and Oppostion.

(click here to see the 22 November 2018 Comment from Robredo)

• In a Resolution dated 4 December 2018, the PET resolved to note the COMELEC’s Comment and required BBM to reply thereon.

(click here to see the 4 December 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 5 December 2018, BBM received the COMELEC’s Comment, stating BBM’s claim has “no leg to stand on.”

(click here to see the 5 December 2018 Comment from the COMELEC)

• On 20 December 2018, BBM filed his Consolidated Reply.

(click here to see the 20 December 2018 Consolidated Reply from BBM)

• In a Resolution dated 8 January 2019, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 8 January 2019 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 29 January 2019, the PET resolved to note BBM’s Consolidated Reply.

(click here to see the 29 January 2019 Resolution from the PET)

N.B.
From Day 1, BBM’s position has always been as follows: because of the presence of squares instead of ovals in the ballot images, the same are no longer faithful images of the original paper ballots. Since these “decrypted” images have been compromised, they do not reflect the true will of the voting public.

3. COMELEC’s request to lift the Precautionary Protection Order (PPO) with respect to the Election Management System (EMS) Servers

• In a Resolution dated 17 April 2018, the PET required BBM and Robredo to comment on COMELEC’s request.

(click here to see the 17 April 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 25 May 2018, BBM filed his Opposition to COMELEC’s request.

(click here to see the 25 May 2018 Opposition from BBM)

• On 20 July 2018, BBM received a Reply from the COMELEC.

(click here to see the 20 July 2018 Reply from the COMELEC)

• To date, Robredo has NOT yet filed any comment regarding the above issue.

N.B.
The Election Management System (EMS) is the “brain” of any election system. It is here where the ballot images are generated and where the SD cards and computers for the different provinces are programmed. It is important to preserve the data in the EMS so the parties can easily track down any “hanky panky” that was done during the May 2016 elections.

• In a Resolution dated 24 July 2018, the PET resolved to lift the Precautionary Protection Order (PPO) on the Election Management System (EMS) servers.

(click here to see the 24 July 2018 Resolution from the PET)

4. BBM’s Third Cause of Action

• In a Resolution dated 29 August 2017, the PET directed BBM to submit a new list of witnesses for the provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur and within five (5) days.

(click here to see the 29 August 2017 Resolution from the PET)

• On 11 September 2017, BBM filed his Compliance and submitted his list of witnesses.

(click here to see the 11 September 2017 Compliance from BBM)

• In a Resolution dated 19 September 2017, the PET required BBM to “STRICTLY COMPLY with their directive that he identify his witnesses in the corresponding clustered precincts within a FINAL and NON-EXTENDIBLE period of five (5) days from notice.”

> It is worth mentioning that on 11 September 2017, BBM had already submitted 171 names of potential wirtnesses to the PET.

(click here to see the 19 September 2017 Resolution from the PET)

• On 9 October 2017, BBM complied with the PET’s directive and submitted 7,356 names of witnesses for the provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur & Maguindanao.

(click here to see the 9 October 2017 Compliance from BBM)

• In a Resolution dated 7 November 2017, the PET “noted” BBM’s Compliance.

(click here to see the 7 November 2017 Resolution from the PET)

• On 12 December 2018, BBM filed his Extremely Urgent Manifestation of Grave Concern with Omnibus Motion requesting for the issuance of subpoena duces tecum to the COMELEC-ERSD to produce and submit the dactyloscopic and questioned document reports and such other relevant documents involving the technical examination conducted on the Voter’s Registration Records (VRRs) against the Election Day Computerized Voter’s List with Voting Records (EDCVLs) of 508 established precincts in the provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur, and Maguindanao relative to the protest of Tan vs. Hataman. BBM stated that he intends to use the said results as part of his evidence in support of his third cause of action, which is the Annulment of votes for the position of Vice President in the provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur, and Maguindanao.

(click here to see the 12 December 2018 Extremely Urgent Manifestation from BBM)

• On 18 January 2019, BBM received Robredo’s Counter-Manifestation with Comment and Opposition to BBM’s Extremely Urgent Motion.

(click here to see the 18 January 2019 Counter-Manifestation from Robredo)

• On 25 January 2019, BBM received a Supplemental Manifestation from Robredo.

(click here to see the 25 January 2019 Supplemental Manifestation from Robredo)

• On 28 January 2019, the PET directed Robredo and the COMELEC to comment on BBM’s Extremely Urgent Manifestation.

(click here to see the 28 January 2019 Resolution from the PET)

• On 11 February 2019, BBM received a Manifestation and Compliance from Robredo stating she previously filed her Comment and Opposition prior to the PET Resolution directing her to comment to BBM’s Extremely Urgent Manifestation.

(click here to see the 11 February 2019 Manifestation from Robredo)

• On 13 February 2019, BBM received a Manifestation [in lieu of Comment on BBM’s Extremely Urgent Manifestation of Grave Concern with Omnibus Motion] from the COMELEC, stating the Second Division is yet to issue a Resolution or Order regarding the results of Sakur Tan’s Motion for Technical Examination. The COMELEC further said as this is the case, they are invoking the sub judice rule.

(click here to see the 13 February 2019 Manifestation from the COMELEC)

• On 26 March 2019, BBM filed his Consolidated Reply with Urgent Motion to Resolve Protestant’s Motion wherein he reiterated his Extremely Urgent Manifestation with Omnibus Motion, which was filed in December 2018.

(click here to see the 26 March 2019 Consiladated Reply with Urgent Motion from BBM)

• On 17 July 2019, the PET resolved to “defer action” on BBM’s Extremely Urgent Manifestation with Omnibus Motion and Consolidated Reply with Urgent Motion “until such time that an initial determination has been made on the protest” in accordance with Rule 65 of the 2010 PET Rules.

(click here to see the 17 July 2019 Notice from the PET)

N.B.
Despite the lapse of 10 months, and the submission of 7,356 potential witnesses, we are respectfully waiting for the PET to issue a directive on BBM’s Third Cause of Action (ie: “Annulment of votes for the position of Vice-President in the provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur, and Maguindanao)

Week 223: October 5 – 11, 2020

On 5 October 2020, BBM received a Notice from the PET directing the COMELEC to report on various incidents which transpired during the 2016 elections in the provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur and Maguindanao.  The PET likewise directed the COMELEC to comment on BBM’s Third Cause of Action within a non-extendible period of twenty (20) working days from receipt of notice.

On 5 October 2020, BBM received a Notice from the PET directing the COMELEC to report on various incidents which transpired during the 2016 elections in the provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur and Maguindanao.  The PET likewise directed the COMELEC to comment on BBM’s Third Cause of Action within a non-extendible period of twenty (20) working days from receipt of notice.

The PET further directed the COMELEC and the OSG to comment, within the same non-extendible period of twenty (20) working days from receipt of notice, on various issues regarding annulment of elections versus failure of elections. The PET also sought to clarify whether it would be infringing on the COMELEC’s powers should it decide to declare failure of elections and subsequently order special elections.

The COMELEC and the OSG were required to furnish copies of their respective Comments to BBM and Robredo. Both parties were directed to submit their Replies within a non-extendible period of fifteen days (15) days from receipt of the Comments of the COMELEC and the OSG.

(click here to see the 5 October 2020 Notice from the PET)

On 5 October 2020, BBM received a Notice from the COMELEC regarding the conduct of technical examination of the signatures and thumbmarks appearing on the Voter’s Registration Records (VRRs) and the Election Day Computerized Voter’s List (EDVCL) in the 49 pilot protested precincts in the election protest case of Bernadette P. Sabili vs. Eric B. Africa. It also ordered the recount / revision proceedings in the same case.

(click here to see the 5 October 2020 Notice from the COMELEC)

After 223 weeks (or roughly 1,565 days) :

We are still waiting for some semblance of closure in BBM’s election protest.

On 5 March 2019, the PET finished the MANUAL recount of ballots in all the clustered precincts in BBM’s three (3) pilot provinces, namely Camarines Sur, Iloilo and Negros Oriental. Since the MANUAL recount began on 2 April 2018 and ended on 5 March 2019, it took the PET 11 months to complete the MANUAL recount of the said 3 provinces.

The PET likewise concluded the PRELIMINARY APPRECIATION (“PA”) of votes. During the PA stage, the parties are supposed to submit their OBJECTIONS to the ballots which were MANUALLY counted so that the PET can REVIEW the same. In reality, however, this NEVER happened because on 9 September 2019, Justice Caguioa SUDDENLY and UNILATERALLY released his UNOFFICIAL report and recommended that the election protest be DISMISSED because of Rule 65 of the PET Rules.

Had BBM been ALLOWED to present his objections during the PA stage, he would have been able to point out the prevalence of UNREADABLE ballots because they were :

wet
covered with dried fish & garbage
 burned with cigarette butts
had battery fluids in them
and so much more!

When it came to the READABLE ballots, BBM’s revisors discovered that :

 majority of the ballots contained SHADINGS of 25% or less
there were FAKE BALLOTS in the audit logs

Rule 65 states that “upon examination of such ballots and proof, and after making reasonable allowances, the Tribunal is convinced that, taking all circumstances into account, the protestant or counter- protestant will most probably fail to make out his case, the protest may forthwith be dismissed, without further consideration of the other provinces mentioned in the protest.”

Rule 65 also says that “the preceding paragraph shall also apply when the election protest involves correction of manifest errors.”

On 15 October 2019, the Supreme Court (voting 11-2) released a Resolution directing the parties to submit a Memorandum on the following matters within 20 working days :

1. To give their comments on the revision report in BBM’s 3 pilot provinces, namely, Camarines Sur, Iloilo and Negros Oriental; and

2. To explain their position on BBM’s Third Cause of Action, which is the Annulment of election resultsin Basilan, Lanao del Sur and Maguindanao.

Since neither BBM or Robredo were allowed to participate in the “appreciation [of votes] stage, the Supreme Court, on 5 November 2019 allowed the parties to photocopy the voluminous annexes (approx 16,000 pages) which formed the basis of the Caguioa report. Invoking due process, the Supreme Court informed the parties that they could submit their Memorandum 20 days AFTER they finished viewing and photocopying the said annexes.

On 19 December 2019, both BBM and Robredo filed their respective Memoranda.

The protest remained in limbo for almost 10 months. Then, on 30 September 2020, the Supreme Court issued a Press Briefer directing the COMELEC and the OSG to report to the PET various incidents which transpired during the 2016 elections in the provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur and Maguindanao. The Tribunal further directed the COMELEC and the OSG to comment on the Constitutionality of the annulment vis-a-vis failure of elections.

– – – – –

Listed below are the “sensitive” and important issues surrounding BBM’s protest :

1. Whether or not to apply the 25% shading threshold percentage or the 50% shading threshold percentage in the recounting of votes

Robredo’s Motion to Direct the Head Revisors to Apply the 25% threshold percentage in the revision, recount and re-appreciation of ballots

• In a Resolution dated 10 April 2018, the PET denied Robredo’s Ex Parte Motion.

(click here to see the 10 April 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 24 April 2018, the PET required BBM and the COMELEC to comment on Robredo’s Urgent Motion for Reconsideration.

(click here to see the 24 April 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 2 May 2018, Robredo filed an Urgent Motion for Reconsideration.

(click here to see the 2 May 2018 Urgent Motion from Robredo)

• On 28 May 2018, BBM filed his Opposition to Robredo’s Motion

(click here to see the 28 May 2018 Opposition from BBM)

• On 6 July 2018, BBM received a Manifestation from the Office of the Solicitor General.

(click here to see the 6 July 2018 Manifestation from the OSG)

• In a Resolution dated 24 July 2018, the PET resolved to note the OSG’s Manifestation and Motion

(click here to see the 24 July 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 26 July 2018, BBM received a Comment from the COMELEC

(click here to see the 26 July 2018 Comment from the COMELEC)

N.B.
Although the PET did not CATEGORICALLY decide on the 25% versus 50% shading threshold, they instructed the revisors – on 25 September 2018 — to just refer to the Election Returns :

• On 25 September 2018, BBM received a Notice from the PET directing Head Revisors to refer to the election returns to verify the total number of votes as read and counted by the voting counting machine.

(click here to see the 25 September 2018 Notice from the PET)

2. What to do with the wet & unreadable ballots 

• In a Resolution dated 5 June 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 5 June 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 26 June 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 26 June 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 6 July 2018, BBM filed a Strong Manifestation with Motion regarding regarding the use of decrypted ballot images in the revision proceedings.

(click here to see the 6 July 2018 Strong Manifestation from BBM)

•  In a Resolution dated 10 July 2018, the PET resolved to note BBM’s Strong Manifestation but deny his Motion to hold in abeyance the use of decrypted ballot images in the revision proceedings.

(click here to see the 10 July 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 19 July 2018, BBM filed a Strong Opposition regarding the use of decrypted ballot images in the revision proceedings.

(click here to see the 19 July 2018 Strong Opposition from BBM)

• In a Resolution dated 24 July 2018, the PET resolved to direct the COMELEC to comment on BBM’s Strong Opposition regarding the use of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 24 July 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 31 July 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 31 July 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 14 August 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 14 August 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 17 August 2018, BBM received a Motion from the COMELEC asking for an extension of time within which to file its Comment.

(click here to see the 17 August 2018 Motion from the COMELEC)

• In a Resolution dated 28 August 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the  28 August 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 30 August 2018, BBM received COMELEC’s Comment stating that the ballot images are not faithful reproduction of the original ballots but are instead the “true and genuine representation and captured images of the official ballots themselves.

(click here to see the 30 August 2018 Comment from the COMELEC)

• In a Resolution dated 4 September 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 4 September 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 11 September 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 11 September 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 18 September 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 18 September 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 25 September 2018, BBM received a Notice from the PET denying his Strong Opposition regarding the use of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 25 September 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 5 October 2018, BBM filed a Manifestation of Appreciation with Omnibus Motion for partial reconsideration of the denial of his Strong Opposition.

(click here to see the 5 October 2018 Manifestation with Omnibus Motion from BBM)

• In a Resolution dated 9 October 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 9 October 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 16 October 2018, the PET resolved to note BBM’s Manifestation with Omnibus Motion and direct Robredo and the COMELEC to comment.

(click here to see the 16 October 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 16 October 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 16 October 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 6 November 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 6 November 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 6 November 2018, BBM recieved the COMELEC’s Motion for extension of time within which to file a comment.

(click here to see the 6 November 2018 Motion from the COMELEC)

• In a Resolution dated 13 November 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 13 November 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 22 November 2018, BBM received Robredo’s Comment and Oppostion.

(click here to see the 22 November 2018 Comment from Robredo)

• In a Resolution dated 4 December 2018, the PET resolved to note the COMELEC’s Comment and required BBM to reply thereon.

(click here to see the 4 December 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 5 December 2018, BBM received the COMELEC’s Comment, stating BBM’s claim has “no leg to stand on.”

(click here to see the 5 December 2018 Comment from the COMELEC)

• On 20 December 2018, BBM filed his Consolidated Reply.

(click here to see the 20 December 2018 Consolidated Reply from BBM)

• In a Resolution dated 8 January 2019, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 8 January 2019 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 29 January 2019, the PET resolved to note BBM’s Consolidated Reply.

(click here to see the 29 January 2019 Resolution from the PET)

N.B.
From Day 1, BBM’s position has always been as follows: because of the presence of squares instead of ovals in the ballot images, the same are no longer faithful images of the original paper ballots. Since these “decrypted” images have been compromised, they do not reflect the true will of the voting public.

3. COMELEC’s request to lift the Precautionary Protection Order (PPO) with respect to the Election Management System (EMS) Servers

• In a Resolution dated 17 April 2018, the PET required BBM and Robredo to comment on COMELEC’s request.

(click here to see the 17 April 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 25 May 2018, BBM filed his Opposition to COMELEC’s request.

(click here to see the 25 May 2018 Opposition from BBM)

• On 20 July 2018, BBM received a Reply from the COMELEC.

(click here to see the 20 July 2018 Reply from the COMELEC)

• To date, Robredo has NOT yet filed any comment regarding the above issue.

N.B.
The Election Management System (EMS) is the “brain” of any election system. It is here where the ballot images are generated and where the SD cards and computers for the different provinces are programmed. It is important to preserve the data in the EMS so the parties can easily track down any “hanky panky” that was done during the May 2016 elections.

• In a Resolution dated 24 July 2018, the PET resolved to lift the Precautionary Protection Order (PPO) on the Election Management System (EMS) servers.

(click here to see the 24 July 2018 Resolution from the PET)

4. BBM’s Third Cause of Action

• In a Resolution dated 29 August 2017, the PET directed BBM to submit a new list of witnesses for the provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur and within five (5) days.

(click here to see the 29 August 2017 Resolution from the PET)

• On 11 September 2017, BBM filed his Compliance and submitted his list of witnesses.

(click here to see the 11 September 2017 Compliance from BBM)

• In a Resolution dated 19 September 2017, the PET required BBM to “STRICTLY COMPLY with their directive that he identify his witnesses in the corresponding clustered precincts within a FINAL and NON-EXTENDIBLE period of five (5) days from notice.”

> It is worth mentioning that on 11 September 2017, BBM had already submitted 171 names of potential wirtnesses to the PET.

(click here to see the 19 September 2017 Resolution from the PET)

• On 9 October 2017, BBM complied with the PET’s directive and submitted 7,356 names of witnesses for the provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur & Maguindanao.

(click here to see the 9 October 2017 Compliance from BBM)

• In a Resolution dated 7 November 2017, the PET “noted” BBM’s Compliance.

(click here to see the 7 November 2017 Resolution from the PET)

• On 12 December 2018, BBM filed his Extremely Urgent Manifestation of Grave Concern with Omnibus Motion requesting for the issuance of subpoena duces tecum to the COMELEC-ERSD to produce and submit the dactyloscopic and questioned document reports and such other relevant documents involving the technical examination conducted on the Voter’s Registration Records (VRRs) against the Election Day Computerized Voter’s List with Voting Records (EDCVLs) of 508 established precincts in the provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur, and Maguindanao relative to the protest of Tan vs. Hataman. BBM stated that he intends to use the said results as part of his evidence in support of his third cause of action, which is the Annulment of votes for the position of Vice President in the provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur, and Maguindanao.

(click here to see the 12 December 2018 Extremely Urgent Manifestation from BBM)

• On 18 January 2019, BBM received Robredo’s Counter-Manifestation with Comment and Opposition to BBM’s Extremely Urgent Motion.

(click here to see the 18 January 2019 Counter-Manifestation from Robredo)

• On 25 January 2019, BBM received a Supplemental Manifestation from Robredo.

(click here to see the 25 January 2019 Supplemental Manifestation from Robredo)

• On 28 January 2019, the PET directed Robredo and the COMELEC to comment on BBM’s Extremely Urgent Manifestation.

(click here to see the 28 January 2019 Resolution from the PET)

• On 11 February 2019, BBM received a Manifestation and Compliance from Robredo stating she previously filed her Comment and Opposition prior to the PET Resolution directing her to comment to BBM’s Extremely Urgent Manifestation.

(click here to see the 11 February 2019 Manifestation from Robredo)

• On 13 February 2019, BBM received a Manifestation [in lieu of Comment on BBM’s Extremely Urgent Manifestation of Grave Concern with Omnibus Motion] from the COMELEC, stating the Second Division is yet to issue a Resolution or Order regarding the results of Sakur Tan’s Motion for Technical Examination. The COMELEC further said as this is the case, they are invoking the sub judice rule.

(click here to see the 13 February 2019 Manifestation from the COMELEC)

• On 26 March 2019, BBM filed his Consolidated Reply with Urgent Motion to Resolve Protestant’s Motion wherein he reiterated his Extremely Urgent Manifestation with Omnibus Motion, which was filed in December 2018.

(click here to see the 26 March 2019 Consiladated Reply with Urgent Motion from BBM)

• On 17 July 2019, the PET resolved to “defer action” on BBM’s Extremely Urgent Manifestation with Omnibus Motion and Consolidated Reply with Urgent Motion “until such time that an initial determination has been made on the protest” in accordance with Rule 65 of the 2010 PET Rules.

(click here to see the 17 July 2019 Notice from the PET)

N.B.
Despite the lapse of 10 months, and the submission of 7,356 potential witnesses, we are respectfully waiting for the PET to issue a directive on BBM’s Third Cause of Action (ie: “Annulment of votes for the position of Vice-President in the provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur, and Maguindanao)

Week 222: September 28 – October 4, 2020

On 30 September 2020, the Supreme Court released a Press Briefer which stated that “in order to arrive at a full, fair and efficient resolution” regarding BBM’s election protest, it ordered that the following documents be furnished to the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) and to the the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) :

On 30 September 2020, the Supreme Court released a Press Briefer which stated that “in order to arrive at a full, fair and efficient resolution” regarding BBM’s election protest, it ordered that the following documents be furnished to the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) and to the the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) :

> The PET Resolution dated 15 October 2019
> Memoranda of BBM dated 19 September 2019
> Memoranda of Robredo dated 19 September 2019

The Tribunal directed the COMELEC to report on various incidents which transpired during the 2016 elections in the provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur and Maguindanao. It also directed the COMELEC to comment on BBM’s Third Cause of Action within a non-extendible period of twenty (20) working days from receipt of notice.

The Tribunal further directed the COMELEC and the OSG to comment, within the same non-extendible period of twenty (20) working days from receipt of notice, on the following:

1. Whether the PET is empowered by the Constitution to declare :

1.1 the annulment of elections without special elections; and
1.2 the failure of elections and order the conduct of special elections; and

2. Whether the PET’s declaration of failure of elections and then the ordering of special elections will infringe upon the COMELEC’s constitutional mandate under Article IX, C, Section 2.

The COMELEC and the OSG were required to furnish copies of their respective Comments to BBM and Robredo. Both parties were directed to submit their Replies within a non-extendible period of fifteen days (15) days from receipt of the Comments of the COMELEC and the OSG.

(click here to see the 30 September 2020 Press Briefer of the SC)

After 222 weeks (or roughly 1,558 days) :

We are still waiting for some semblance of closure in BBM’s election protest.

On 5 March 2019, the PET finished the MANUAL recount of ballots in all the clustered precincts in BBM’s three (3) pilot provinces, namely Camarines Sur, Iloilo and Negros Oriental. Since the MANUAL recount began on 2 April 2018 and ended on 5 March 2019, it took the PET 11 months to complete the MANUAL recount of the said 3 provinces.

The PET likewise concluded the PRELIMINARY APPRECIATION (“PA”) of votes. During the PA stage, the parties are supposed to submit their OBJECTIONS to the ballots which were MANUALLY counted so that the PET can REVIEW the same. In reality, however, this NEVER happened because on 9 September 2019, Justice Caguioa SUDDENLY and UNILATERALLY released his UNOFFICIAL report and recommended that the election protest be DISMISSED because of Rule 65 of the PET Rules.

Had BBM been ALLOWED to present his objections during the PA stage, he would have been able to point out the prevalence of UNREADABLE ballots because they were :

wet
covered with dried fish & garbage
 burned with cigarette butts
had battery fluids in them
and so much more!

When it came to the READABLE ballots, BBM’s revisors discovered that :

 majority of the ballots contained SHADINGS of 25% or less
there were FAKE BALLOTS in the audit logs

Rule 65 states that “upon examination of such ballots and proof, and after making reasonable allowances, the Tribunal is convinced that, taking all circumstances into account, the protestant or counter- protestant will most probably fail to make out his case, the protest may forthwith be dismissed, without further consideration of the other provinces mentioned in the protest.”

Rule 65 also says that “the preceding paragraph shall also apply when the election protest involves correction of manifest errors.”

On 15 October 2019, the Supreme Court (voting 11-2) released a Resolution directing the parties to submit a Memorandum on the following matters within 20 working days :

1. To give their comments on the revision report in BBM’s 3 pilot provinces, namely, Camarines Sur, Iloilo and Negros Oriental; and

2. To explain their position on BBM’s Third Cause of Action, which is the Annulment of election resultsin Basilan, Lanao del Sur and Maguindanao.

Since neither BBM or Robredo were allowed to participate in the “appreciation [of votes] stage, the Supreme Court, on 5 November 2019 allowed the parties to photocopy the voluminous annexes (approx 16,000 pages) which formed the basis of the Caguioa report. Invoking due process, the Supreme Court informed the parties that they could submit their Memorandum 20 days AFTER they finished viewing and photocopying the said annexes.

On 19 December 2019, both BBM and Robredo filed their respective Memoranda.

The protest remained in limbo for almost 10 months. Then, on 30 September 2020, the Supreme Court issued a Press Briefer directing the COMELEC and the OSG to report to the PET various incidents which transpired during the 2016 elections in the provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur and Maguindanao. The Tribunal further directed the COMELEC and the OSG to comment on the Constitutionality of the annulment vis-a-vis failure of elections.

– – – – –

Listed below are the “sensitive” and important issues surrounding BBM’s protest :

1. Whether or not to apply the 25% shading threshold percentage or the 50% shading threshold percentage in the recounting of votes

Robredo’s Motion to Direct the Head Revisors to Apply the 25% threshold percentage in the revision, recount and re-appreciation of ballots

• In a Resolution dated 10 April 2018, the PET denied Robredo’s Ex Parte Motion.

(click here to see the 10 April 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 24 April 2018, the PET required BBM and the COMELEC to comment on Robredo’s Urgent Motion for Reconsideration.

(click here to see the 24 April 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 2 May 2018, Robredo filed an Urgent Motion for Reconsideration.

(click here to see the 2 May 2018 Urgent Motion from Robredo)

• On 28 May 2018, BBM filed his Opposition to Robredo’s Motion

(click here to see the 28 May 2018 Opposition from BBM)

• On 6 July 2018, BBM received a Manifestation from the Office of the Solicitor General.

(click here to see the 6 July 2018 Manifestation from the OSG)

• In a Resolution dated 24 July 2018, the PET resolved to note the OSG’s Manifestation and Motion

(click here to see the 24 July 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 26 July 2018, BBM received a Comment from the COMELEC

(click here to see the 26 July 2018 Comment from the COMELEC)

N.B.
Although the PET did not CATEGORICALLY decide on the 25% versus 50% shading threshold, they instructed the revisors – on 25 September 2018 — to just refer to the Election Returns :

• On 25 September 2018, BBM received a Notice from the PET directing Head Revisors to refer to the election returns to verify the total number of votes as read and counted by the voting counting machine.

(click here to see the 25 September 2018 Notice from the PET)

2. What to do with the wet & unreadable ballots 

• In a Resolution dated 5 June 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 5 June 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 26 June 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 26 June 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 6 July 2018, BBM filed a Strong Manifestation with Motion regarding regarding the use of decrypted ballot images in the revision proceedings.

(click here to see the 6 July 2018 Strong Manifestation from BBM)

•  In a Resolution dated 10 July 2018, the PET resolved to note BBM’s Strong Manifestation but deny his Motion to hold in abeyance the use of decrypted ballot images in the revision proceedings.

(click here to see the 10 July 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 19 July 2018, BBM filed a Strong Opposition regarding the use of decrypted ballot images in the revision proceedings.

(click here to see the 19 July 2018 Strong Opposition from BBM)

• In a Resolution dated 24 July 2018, the PET resolved to direct the COMELEC to comment on BBM’s Strong Opposition regarding the use of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 24 July 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 31 July 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 31 July 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 14 August 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 14 August 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 17 August 2018, BBM received a Motion from the COMELEC asking for an extension of time within which to file its Comment.

(click here to see the 17 August 2018 Motion from the COMELEC)

• In a Resolution dated 28 August 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the  28 August 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 30 August 2018, BBM received COMELEC’s Comment stating that the ballot images are not faithful reproduction of the original ballots but are instead the “true and genuine representation and captured images of the official ballots themselves.

(click here to see the 30 August 2018 Comment from the COMELEC)

• In a Resolution dated 4 September 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 4 September 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 11 September 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 11 September 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 18 September 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 18 September 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 25 September 2018, BBM received a Notice from the PET denying his Strong Opposition regarding the use of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 25 September 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 5 October 2018, BBM filed a Manifestation of Appreciation with Omnibus Motion for partial reconsideration of the denial of his Strong Opposition.

(click here to see the 5 October 2018 Manifestation with Omnibus Motion from BBM)

• In a Resolution dated 9 October 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 9 October 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 16 October 2018, the PET resolved to note BBM’s Manifestation with Omnibus Motion and direct Robredo and the COMELEC to comment.

(click here to see the 16 October 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 16 October 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 16 October 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 6 November 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 6 November 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 6 November 2018, BBM recieved the COMELEC’s Motion for extension of time within which to file a comment.

(click here to see the 6 November 2018 Motion from the COMELEC)

• In a Resolution dated 13 November 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 13 November 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 22 November 2018, BBM received Robredo’s Comment and Oppostion.

(click here to see the 22 November 2018 Comment from Robredo)

• In a Resolution dated 4 December 2018, the PET resolved to note the COMELEC’s Comment and required BBM to reply thereon.

(click here to see the 4 December 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 5 December 2018, BBM received the COMELEC’s Comment, stating BBM’s claim has “no leg to stand on.”

(click here to see the 5 December 2018 Comment from the COMELEC)

• On 20 December 2018, BBM filed his Consolidated Reply.

(click here to see the 20 December 2018 Consolidated Reply from BBM)

• In a Resolution dated 8 January 2019, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 8 January 2019 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 29 January 2019, the PET resolved to note BBM’s Consolidated Reply.

(click here to see the 29 January 2019 Resolution from the PET)

N.B.
From Day 1, BBM’s position has always been as follows: because of the presence of squares instead of ovals in the ballot images, the same are no longer faithful images of the original paper ballots. Since these “decrypted” images have been compromised, they do not reflect the true will of the voting public.

3. COMELEC’s request to lift the Precautionary Protection Order (PPO) with respect to the Election Management System (EMS) Servers

• In a Resolution dated 17 April 2018, the PET required BBM and Robredo to comment on COMELEC’s request.

(click here to see the 17 April 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 25 May 2018, BBM filed his Opposition to COMELEC’s request.

(click here to see the 25 May 2018 Opposition from BBM)

• On 20 July 2018, BBM received a Reply from the COMELEC.

(click here to see the 20 July 2018 Reply from the COMELEC)

• To date, Robredo has NOT yet filed any comment regarding the above issue.

N.B.
The Election Management System (EMS) is the “brain” of any election system. It is here where the ballot images are generated and where the SD cards and computers for the different provinces are programmed. It is important to preserve the data in the EMS so the parties can easily track down any “hanky panky” that was done during the May 2016 elections.

• In a Resolution dated 24 July 2018, the PET resolved to lift the Precautionary Protection Order (PPO) on the Election Management System (EMS) servers.

(click here to see the 24 July 2018 Resolution from the PET)

4. BBM’s Third Cause of Action

• In a Resolution dated 29 August 2017, the PET directed BBM to submit a new list of witnesses for the provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur and within five (5) days.

(click here to see the 29 August 2017 Resolution from the PET)

• On 11 September 2017, BBM filed his Compliance and submitted his list of witnesses.

(click here to see the 11 September 2017 Compliance from BBM)

• In a Resolution dated 19 September 2017, the PET required BBM to “STRICTLY COMPLY with their directive that he identify his witnesses in the corresponding clustered precincts within a FINAL and NON-EXTENDIBLE period of five (5) days from notice.”

> It is worth mentioning that on 11 September 2017, BBM had already submitted 171 names of potential wirtnesses to the PET.

(click here to see the 19 September 2017 Resolution from the PET)

• On 9 October 2017, BBM complied with the PET’s directive and submitted 7,356 names of witnesses for the provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur & Maguindanao.

(click here to see the 9 October 2017 Compliance from BBM)

• In a Resolution dated 7 November 2017, the PET “noted” BBM’s Compliance.

(click here to see the 7 November 2017 Resolution from the PET)

• On 12 December 2018, BBM filed his Extremely Urgent Manifestation of Grave Concern with Omnibus Motion requesting for the issuance of subpoena duces tecum to the COMELEC-ERSD to produce and submit the dactyloscopic and questioned document reports and such other relevant documents involving the technical examination conducted on the Voter’s Registration Records (VRRs) against the Election Day Computerized Voter’s List with Voting Records (EDCVLs) of 508 established precincts in the provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur, and Maguindanao relative to the protest of Tan vs. Hataman. BBM stated that he intends to use the said results as part of his evidence in support of his third cause of action, which is the Annulment of votes for the position of Vice President in the provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur, and Maguindanao.

(click here to see the 12 December 2018 Extremely Urgent Manifestation from BBM)

• On 18 January 2019, BBM received Robredo’s Counter-Manifestation with Comment and Opposition to BBM’s Extremely Urgent Motion.

(click here to see the 18 January 2019 Counter-Manifestation from Robredo)

• On 25 January 2019, BBM received a Supplemental Manifestation from Robredo.

(click here to see the 25 January 2019 Supplemental Manifestation from Robredo)

• On 28 January 2019, the PET directed Robredo and the COMELEC to comment on BBM’s Extremely Urgent Manifestation.

(click here to see the 28 January 2019 Resolution from the PET)

• On 11 February 2019, BBM received a Manifestation and Compliance from Robredo stating she previously filed her Comment and Opposition prior to the PET Resolution directing her to comment to BBM’s Extremely Urgent Manifestation.

(click here to see the 11 February 2019 Manifestation from Robredo)

• On 13 February 2019, BBM received a Manifestation [in lieu of Comment on BBM’s Extremely Urgent Manifestation of Grave Concern with Omnibus Motion] from the COMELEC, stating the Second Division is yet to issue a Resolution or Order regarding the results of Sakur Tan’s Motion for Technical Examination. The COMELEC further said as this is the case, they are invoking the sub judice rule.

(click here to see the 13 February 2019 Manifestation from the COMELEC)

• On 26 March 2019, BBM filed his Consolidated Reply with Urgent Motion to Resolve Protestant’s Motion wherein he reiterated his Extremely Urgent Manifestation with Omnibus Motion, which was filed in December 2018.

(click here to see the 26 March 2019 Consiladated Reply with Urgent Motion from BBM)

• On 17 July 2019, the PET resolved to “defer action” on BBM’s Extremely Urgent Manifestation with Omnibus Motion and Consolidated Reply with Urgent Motion “until such time that an initial determination has been made on the protest” in accordance with Rule 65 of the 2010 PET Rules.

(click here to see the 17 July 2019 Notice from the PET)

N.B.
Despite the lapse of 10 months, and the submission of 7,356 potential witnesses, we are respectfully waiting for the PET to issue a directive on BBM’s Third Cause of Action (ie: “Annulment of votes for the position of Vice-President in the provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur, and Maguindanao)

Week 221: September 21 – 27, 2020

No significant developments

No significant developments

After 221 weeks (or roughly 1,551 days) :

We are still waiting for some semblance of closure in BBM’s election protest.

On 5 March 2019, the PET finished the MANUAL recount of ballots in all the clustered precincts in BBM’s three (3) pilot provinces, namely Camarines Sur, Iloilo and Negros Oriental. Since the MANUAL recount began on 2 April 2018 and ended on 5 March 2019, it took the PET 11 months to complete the MANUAL recount of the said 3 provinces.

The PET likewise concluded the PRELIMINARY APPRECIATION (“PA”) of votes. During the PA stage, the parties are supposed to submit their OBJECTIONS to the ballots which were MANUALLY counted so that the PET can REVIEW the same. In reality, however, this NEVER happened because on 9 September 2019, Justice Caguioa SUDDENLY and UNILATERALLY released his UNOFFICIAL report and recommended that the election protest be DISMISSED because of Rule 65 of the PET Rules.

Had BBM been ALLOWED to present his objections during the PA stage, he would have been able to point out the prevalence of UNREADABLE ballots because they were :

wet
covered with dried fish & garbage
 burned with cigarette butts
had battery fluids in them
and so much more!

When it came to the READABLE ballots, BBM’s revisors discovered that :

 majority of the ballots contained SHADINGS of 25% or less
there were FAKE BALLOTS in the audit logs

Rule 65 states that “upon examination of such ballots and proof, and after making reasonable allowances, the Tribunal is convinced that, taking all circumstances into account, the protestant or counter- protestant will most probably fail to make out his case, the protest may forthwith be dismissed, without further consideration of the other provinces mentioned in the protest.”

Rule 65 also says that “the preceding paragraph shall also apply when the election protest involves correction of manifest errors.”

On 15 October 2019, the Supreme Court (voting 11-2) released a Resolution directing the parties to submit a Memorandum on the following matters within 20 working days :

1. To give their comments on the revision report in BBM’s 3 pilot provinces, namely, Camarines Sur, Iloilo and Negros Oriental; and

2. To explain their position on BBM’s Third Cause of Action, which is the Annulment of election resultsin Basilan, Lanao del Sur and Maguindanao.

Since neither BBM or Robredo were allowed to participate in the “appreciation [of votes] stage, the Supreme Court, on 5 November 2019 allowed the parties to photocopy the voluminous annexes (approx 16,000 pages) which formed the basis of the Caguioa report. Invoking due process, the Supreme Court informed the parties that they could submit their Memorandum 20 days AFTER they finished viewing and photocopying the said annexes.

– – – – –

Listed below are the “sensitive” and important issues surrounding BBM’s protest :

1. Whether or not to apply the 25% shading threshold percentage or the 50% shading threshold percentage in the recounting of votes

Robredo’s Motion to Direct the Head Revisors to Apply the 25% threshold percentage in the revision, recount and re-appreciation of ballots

• In a Resolution dated 10 April 2018, the PET denied Robredo’s Ex Parte Motion.

(click here to see the 10 April 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 24 April 2018, the PET required BBM and the COMELEC to comment on Robredo’s Urgent Motion for Reconsideration.

(click here to see the 24 April 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 2 May 2018, Robredo filed an Urgent Motion for Reconsideration.

(click here to see the 2 May 2018 Urgent Motion from Robredo)

• On 28 May 2018, BBM filed his Opposition to Robredo’s Motion

(click here to see the 28 May 2018 Opposition from BBM)

• On 6 July 2018, BBM received a Manifestation from the Office of the Solicitor General.

(click here to see the 6 July 2018 Manifestation from the OSG)

• In a Resolution dated 24 July 2018, the PET resolved to note the OSG’s Manifestation and Motion

(click here to see the 24 July 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 26 July 2018, BBM received a Comment from the COMELEC

(click here to see the 26 July 2018 Comment from the COMELEC)

N.B.
Although the PET did not CATEGORICALLY decide on the 25% versus 50% shading threshold, they instructed the revisors – on 25 September 2018 — to just refer to the Election Returns :

• On 25 September 2018, BBM received a Notice from the PET directing Head Revisors to refer to the election returns to verify the total number of votes as read and counted by the voting counting machine.

(click here to see the 25 September 2018 Notice from the PET)

2. What to do with the wet & unreadable ballots 

• In a Resolution dated 5 June 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 5 June 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 26 June 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 26 June 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 6 July 2018, BBM filed a Strong Manifestation with Motion regarding regarding the use of decrypted ballot images in the revision proceedings.

(click here to see the 6 July 2018 Strong Manifestation from BBM)

•  In a Resolution dated 10 July 2018, the PET resolved to note BBM’s Strong Manifestation but deny his Motion to hold in abeyance the use of decrypted ballot images in the revision proceedings.

(click here to see the 10 July 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 19 July 2018, BBM filed a Strong Opposition regarding the use of decrypted ballot images in the revision proceedings.

(click here to see the 19 July 2018 Strong Opposition from BBM)

• In a Resolution dated 24 July 2018, the PET resolved to direct the COMELEC to comment on BBM’s Strong Opposition regarding the use of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 24 July 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 31 July 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 31 July 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 14 August 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 14 August 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 17 August 2018, BBM received a Motion from the COMELEC asking for an extension of time within which to file its Comment.

(click here to see the 17 August 2018 Motion from the COMELEC)

• In a Resolution dated 28 August 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the  28 August 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 30 August 2018, BBM received COMELEC’s Comment stating that the ballot images are not faithful reproduction of the original ballots but are instead the “true and genuine representation and captured images of the official ballots themselves.

(click here to see the 30 August 2018 Comment from the COMELEC)

• In a Resolution dated 4 September 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 4 September 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 11 September 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 11 September 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 18 September 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 18 September 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 25 September 2018, BBM received a Notice from the PET denying his Strong Opposition regarding the use of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 25 September 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 5 October 2018, BBM filed a Manifestation of Appreciation with Omnibus Motion for partial reconsideration of the denial of his Strong Opposition.

(click here to see the 5 October 2018 Manifestation with Omnibus Motion from BBM)

• In a Resolution dated 9 October 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 9 October 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 16 October 2018, the PET resolved to note BBM’s Manifestation with Omnibus Motion and direct Robredo and the COMELEC to comment.

(click here to see the 16 October 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 16 October 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 16 October 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 6 November 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 6 November 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 6 November 2018, BBM recieved the COMELEC’s Motion for extension of time within which to file a comment.

(click here to see the 6 November 2018 Motion from the COMELEC)

• In a Resolution dated 13 November 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 13 November 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 22 November 2018, BBM received Robredo’s Comment and Oppostion.

(click here to see the 22 November 2018 Comment from Robredo)

• In a Resolution dated 4 December 2018, the PET resolved to note the COMELEC’s Comment and required BBM to reply thereon.

(click here to see the 4 December 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 5 December 2018, BBM received the COMELEC’s Comment, stating BBM’s claim has “no leg to stand on.”

(click here to see the 5 December 2018 Comment from the COMELEC)

• On 20 December 2018, BBM filed his Consolidated Reply.

(click here to see the 20 December 2018 Consolidated Reply from BBM)

• In a Resolution dated 8 January 2019, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 8 January 2019 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 29 January 2019, the PET resolved to note BBM’s Consolidated Reply.

(click here to see the 29 January 2019 Resolution from the PET)

N.B.
From Day 1, BBM’s position has always been as follows: because of the presence of squares instead of ovals in the ballot images, the same are no longer faithful images of the original paper ballots. Since these “decrypted” images have been compromised, they do not reflect the true will of the voting public.

3. COMELEC’s request to lift the Precautionary Protection Order (PPO) with respect to the Election Management System (EMS) Servers

• In a Resolution dated 17 April 2018, the PET required BBM and Robredo to comment on COMELEC’s request.

(click here to see the 17 April 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 25 May 2018, BBM filed his Opposition to COMELEC’s request.

(click here to see the 25 May 2018 Opposition from BBM)

• On 20 July 2018, BBM received a Reply from the COMELEC.

(click here to see the 20 July 2018 Reply from the COMELEC)

• To date, Robredo has NOT yet filed any comment regarding the above issue.

N.B.
The Election Management System (EMS) is the “brain” of any election system. It is here where the ballot images are generated and where the SD cards and computers for the different provinces are programmed. It is important to preserve the data in the EMS so the parties can easily track down any “hanky panky” that was done during the May 2016 elections.

• In a Resolution dated 24 July 2018, the PET resolved to lift the Precautionary Protection Order (PPO) on the Election Management System (EMS) servers.

(click here to see the 24 July 2018 Resolution from the PET)

4. BBM’s Third Cause of Action

• In a Resolution dated 29 August 2017, the PET directed BBM to submit a new list of witnesses for the provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur and within five (5) days.

(click here to see the 29 August 2017 Resolution from the PET)

• On 11 September 2017, BBM filed his Compliance and submitted his list of witnesses.

(click here to see the 11 September 2017 Compliance from BBM)

• In a Resolution dated 19 September 2017, the PET required BBM to “STRICTLY COMPLY with their directive that he identify his witnesses in the corresponding clustered precincts within a FINAL and NON-EXTENDIBLE period of five (5) days from notice.”

> It is worth mentioning that on 11 September 2017, BBM had already submitted 171 names of potential wirtnesses to the PET.

(click here to see the 19 September 2017 Resolution from the PET)

• On 9 October 2017, BBM complied with the PET’s directive and submitted 7,356 names of witnesses for the provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur & Maguindanao.

(click here to see the 9 October 2017 Compliance from BBM)

• In a Resolution dated 7 November 2017, the PET “noted” BBM’s Compliance.

(click here to see the 7 November 2017 Resolution from the PET)

• On 12 December 2018, BBM filed his Extremely Urgent Manifestation of Grave Concern with Omnibus Motion requesting for the issuance of subpoena duces tecum to the COMELEC-ERSD to produce and submit the dactyloscopic and questioned document reports and such other relevant documents involving the technical examination conducted on the Voter’s Registration Records (VRRs) against the Election Day Computerized Voter’s List with Voting Records (EDCVLs) of 508 established precincts in the provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur, and Maguindanao relative to the protest of Tan vs. Hataman. BBM stated that he intends to use the said results as part of his evidence in support of his third cause of action, which is the Annulment of votes for the position of Vice President in the provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur, and Maguindanao.

(click here to see the 12 December 2018 Extremely Urgent Manifestation from BBM)

• On 18 January 2019, BBM received Robredo’s Counter-Manifestation with Comment and Opposition to BBM’s Extremely Urgent Motion.

(click here to see the 18 January 2019 Counter-Manifestation from Robredo)

• On 25 January 2019, BBM received a Supplemental Manifestation from Robredo.

(click here to see the 25 January 2019 Supplemental Manifestation from Robredo)

• On 28 January 2019, the PET directed Robredo and the COMELEC to comment on BBM’s Extremely Urgent Manifestation.

(click here to see the 28 January 2019 Resolution from the PET)

• On 11 February 2019, BBM received a Manifestation and Compliance from Robredo stating she previously filed her Comment and Opposition prior to the PET Resolution directing her to comment to BBM’s Extremely Urgent Manifestation.

(click here to see the 11 February 2019 Manifestation from Robredo)

• On 13 February 2019, BBM received a Manifestation [in lieu of Comment on BBM’s Extremely Urgent Manifestation of Grave Concern with Omnibus Motion] from the COMELEC, stating the Second Division is yet to issue a Resolution or Order regarding the results of Sakur Tan’s Motion for Technical Examination. The COMELEC further said as this is the case, they are invoking the sub judice rule.

(click here to see the 13 February 2019 Manifestation from the COMELEC)

• On 26 March 2019, BBM filed his Consolidated Reply with Urgent Motion to Resolve Protestant’s Motion wherein he reiterated his Extremely Urgent Manifestation with Omnibus Motion, which was filed in December 2018.

(click here to see the 26 March 2019 Consiladated Reply with Urgent Motion from BBM)

• On 17 July 2019, the PET resolved to “defer action” on BBM’s Extremely Urgent Manifestation with Omnibus Motion and Consolidated Reply with Urgent Motion “until such time that an initial determination has been made on the protest” in accordance with Rule 65 of the 2010 PET Rules.

(click here to see the 17 July 2019 Notice from the PET)

N.B.
Despite the lapse of 10 months, and the submission of 7,356 potential witnesses, we are respectfully waiting for the PET to issue a directive on BBM’s Third Cause of Action (ie: “Annulment of votes for the position of Vice-President in the provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur, and Maguindanao)

Week 220: September 14 – 20, 2020

No significant developments

No significant developments

After 220 weeks (or roughly 1,544 days) :

We are still waiting for some semblance of closure in BBM’s election protest.

On 5 March 2019, the PET finished the MANUAL recount of ballots in all the clustered precincts in BBM’s three (3) pilot provinces, namely Camarines Sur, Iloilo and Negros Oriental. Since the MANUAL recount began on 2 April 2018 and ended on 5 March 2019, it took the PET 11 months to complete the MANUAL recount of the said 3 provinces.

The PET likewise concluded the PRELIMINARY APPRECIATION (“PA”) of votes. During the PA stage, the parties are supposed to submit their OBJECTIONS to the ballots which were MANUALLY counted so that the PET can REVIEW the same. In reality, however, this NEVER happened because on 9 September 2019, Justice Caguioa SUDDENLY and UNILATERALLY released his UNOFFICIAL report and recommended that the election protest be DISMISSED because of Rule 65 of the PET Rules.

Had BBM been ALLOWED to present his objections during the PA stage, he would have been able to point out the prevalence of UNREADABLE ballots because they were :

wet
covered with dried fish & garbage
 burned with cigarette butts
had battery fluids in them
and so much more!

When it came to the READABLE ballots, BBM’s revisors discovered that :

 majority of the ballots contained SHADINGS of 25% or less
there were FAKE BALLOTS in the audit logs

Rule 65 states that “upon examination of such ballots and proof, and after making reasonable allowances, the Tribunal is convinced that, taking all circumstances into account, the protestant or counter- protestant will most probably fail to make out his case, the protest may forthwith be dismissed, without further consideration of the other provinces mentioned in the protest.”

Rule 65 also says that “the preceding paragraph shall also apply when the election protest involves correction of manifest errors.”

On 15 October 2019, the Supreme Court (voting 11-2) released a Resolution directing the parties to submit a Memorandum on the following matters within 20 working days :

1. To give their comments on the revision report in BBM’s 3 pilot provinces, namely, Camarines Sur, Iloilo and Negros Oriental; and

2. To explain their position on BBM’s Third Cause of Action, which is the Annulment of election resultsin Basilan, Lanao del Sur and Maguindanao.

Since neither BBM or Robredo were allowed to participate in the “appreciation [of votes] stage, the Supreme Court, on 5 November 2019 allowed the parties to photocopy the voluminous annexes (approx 16,000 pages) which formed the basis of the Caguioa report. Invoking due process, the Supreme Court informed the parties that they could submit their Memorandum 20 days AFTER they finished viewing and photocopying the said annexes.

– – – – –

Listed below are the “sensitive” and important issues surrounding BBM’s protest :

1. Whether or not to apply the 25% shading threshold percentage or the 50% shading threshold percentage in the recounting of votes

Robredo’s Motion to Direct the Head Revisors to Apply the 25% threshold percentage in the revision, recount and re-appreciation of ballots

• In a Resolution dated 10 April 2018, the PET denied Robredo’s Ex Parte Motion.

(click here to see the 10 April 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 24 April 2018, the PET required BBM and the COMELEC to comment on Robredo’s Urgent Motion for Reconsideration.

(click here to see the 24 April 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 2 May 2018, Robredo filed an Urgent Motion for Reconsideration.

(click here to see the 2 May 2018 Urgent Motion from Robredo)

• On 28 May 2018, BBM filed his Opposition to Robredo’s Motion

(click here to see the 28 May 2018 Opposition from BBM)

• On 6 July 2018, BBM received a Manifestation from the Office of the Solicitor General.

(click here to see the 6 July 2018 Manifestation from the OSG)

• In a Resolution dated 24 July 2018, the PET resolved to note the OSG’s Manifestation and Motion

(click here to see the 24 July 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 26 July 2018, BBM received a Comment from the COMELEC

(click here to see the 26 July 2018 Comment from the COMELEC)

N.B.
Although the PET did not CATEGORICALLY decide on the 25% versus 50% shading threshold, they instructed the revisors – on 25 September 2018 — to just refer to the Election Returns :

• On 25 September 2018, BBM received a Notice from the PET directing Head Revisors to refer to the election returns to verify the total number of votes as read and counted by the voting counting machine.

(click here to see the 25 September 2018 Notice from the PET)

2. What to do with the wet & unreadable ballots 

• In a Resolution dated 5 June 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 5 June 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 26 June 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 26 June 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 6 July 2018, BBM filed a Strong Manifestation with Motion regarding regarding the use of decrypted ballot images in the revision proceedings.

(click here to see the 6 July 2018 Strong Manifestation from BBM)

•  In a Resolution dated 10 July 2018, the PET resolved to note BBM’s Strong Manifestation but deny his Motion to hold in abeyance the use of decrypted ballot images in the revision proceedings.

(click here to see the 10 July 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 19 July 2018, BBM filed a Strong Opposition regarding the use of decrypted ballot images in the revision proceedings.

(click here to see the 19 July 2018 Strong Opposition from BBM)

• In a Resolution dated 24 July 2018, the PET resolved to direct the COMELEC to comment on BBM’s Strong Opposition regarding the use of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 24 July 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 31 July 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 31 July 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 14 August 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 14 August 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 17 August 2018, BBM received a Motion from the COMELEC asking for an extension of time within which to file its Comment.

(click here to see the 17 August 2018 Motion from the COMELEC)

• In a Resolution dated 28 August 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the  28 August 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 30 August 2018, BBM received COMELEC’s Comment stating that the ballot images are not faithful reproduction of the original ballots but are instead the “true and genuine representation and captured images of the official ballots themselves.

(click here to see the 30 August 2018 Comment from the COMELEC)

• In a Resolution dated 4 September 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 4 September 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 11 September 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 11 September 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 18 September 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 18 September 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 25 September 2018, BBM received a Notice from the PET denying his Strong Opposition regarding the use of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 25 September 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 5 October 2018, BBM filed a Manifestation of Appreciation with Omnibus Motion for partial reconsideration of the denial of his Strong Opposition.

(click here to see the 5 October 2018 Manifestation with Omnibus Motion from BBM)

• In a Resolution dated 9 October 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 9 October 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 16 October 2018, the PET resolved to note BBM’s Manifestation with Omnibus Motion and direct Robredo and the COMELEC to comment.

(click here to see the 16 October 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 16 October 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 16 October 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 6 November 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 6 November 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 6 November 2018, BBM recieved the COMELEC’s Motion for extension of time within which to file a comment.

(click here to see the 6 November 2018 Motion from the COMELEC)

• In a Resolution dated 13 November 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 13 November 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 22 November 2018, BBM received Robredo’s Comment and Oppostion.

(click here to see the 22 November 2018 Comment from Robredo)

• In a Resolution dated 4 December 2018, the PET resolved to note the COMELEC’s Comment and required BBM to reply thereon.

(click here to see the 4 December 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 5 December 2018, BBM received the COMELEC’s Comment, stating BBM’s claim has “no leg to stand on.”

(click here to see the 5 December 2018 Comment from the COMELEC)

• On 20 December 2018, BBM filed his Consolidated Reply.

(click here to see the 20 December 2018 Consolidated Reply from BBM)

• In a Resolution dated 8 January 2019, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 8 January 2019 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 29 January 2019, the PET resolved to note BBM’s Consolidated Reply.

(click here to see the 29 January 2019 Resolution from the PET)

N.B.
From Day 1, BBM’s position has always been as follows: because of the presence of squares instead of ovals in the ballot images, the same are no longer faithful images of the original paper ballots. Since these “decrypted” images have been compromised, they do not reflect the true will of the voting public.

3. COMELEC’s request to lift the Precautionary Protection Order (PPO) with respect to the Election Management System (EMS) Servers

• In a Resolution dated 17 April 2018, the PET required BBM and Robredo to comment on COMELEC’s request.

(click here to see the 17 April 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 25 May 2018, BBM filed his Opposition to COMELEC’s request.

(click here to see the 25 May 2018 Opposition from BBM)

• On 20 July 2018, BBM received a Reply from the COMELEC.

(click here to see the 20 July 2018 Reply from the COMELEC)

• To date, Robredo has NOT yet filed any comment regarding the above issue.

N.B.
The Election Management System (EMS) is the “brain” of any election system. It is here where the ballot images are generated and where the SD cards and computers for the different provinces are programmed. It is important to preserve the data in the EMS so the parties can easily track down any “hanky panky” that was done during the May 2016 elections.

• In a Resolution dated 24 July 2018, the PET resolved to lift the Precautionary Protection Order (PPO) on the Election Management System (EMS) servers.

(click here to see the 24 July 2018 Resolution from the PET)

4. BBM’s Third Cause of Action

• In a Resolution dated 29 August 2017, the PET directed BBM to submit a new list of witnesses for the provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur and within five (5) days.

(click here to see the 29 August 2017 Resolution from the PET)

• On 11 September 2017, BBM filed his Compliance and submitted his list of witnesses.

(click here to see the 11 September 2017 Compliance from BBM)

• In a Resolution dated 19 September 2017, the PET required BBM to “STRICTLY COMPLY with their directive that he identify his witnesses in the corresponding clustered precincts within a FINAL and NON-EXTENDIBLE period of five (5) days from notice.”

> It is worth mentioning that on 11 September 2017, BBM had already submitted 171 names of potential wirtnesses to the PET.

(click here to see the 19 September 2017 Resolution from the PET)

• On 9 October 2017, BBM complied with the PET’s directive and submitted 7,356 names of witnesses for the provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur & Maguindanao.

(click here to see the 9 October 2017 Compliance from BBM)

• In a Resolution dated 7 November 2017, the PET “noted” BBM’s Compliance.

(click here to see the 7 November 2017 Resolution from the PET)

• On 12 December 2018, BBM filed his Extremely Urgent Manifestation of Grave Concern with Omnibus Motion requesting for the issuance of subpoena duces tecum to the COMELEC-ERSD to produce and submit the dactyloscopic and questioned document reports and such other relevant documents involving the technical examination conducted on the Voter’s Registration Records (VRRs) against the Election Day Computerized Voter’s List with Voting Records (EDCVLs) of 508 established precincts in the provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur, and Maguindanao relative to the protest of Tan vs. Hataman. BBM stated that he intends to use the said results as part of his evidence in support of his third cause of action, which is the Annulment of votes for the position of Vice President in the provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur, and Maguindanao.

(click here to see the 12 December 2018 Extremely Urgent Manifestation from BBM)

• On 18 January 2019, BBM received Robredo’s Counter-Manifestation with Comment and Opposition to BBM’s Extremely Urgent Motion.

(click here to see the 18 January 2019 Counter-Manifestation from Robredo)

• On 25 January 2019, BBM received a Supplemental Manifestation from Robredo.

(click here to see the 25 January 2019 Supplemental Manifestation from Robredo)

• On 28 January 2019, the PET directed Robredo and the COMELEC to comment on BBM’s Extremely Urgent Manifestation.

(click here to see the 28 January 2019 Resolution from the PET)

• On 11 February 2019, BBM received a Manifestation and Compliance from Robredo stating she previously filed her Comment and Opposition prior to the PET Resolution directing her to comment to BBM’s Extremely Urgent Manifestation.

(click here to see the 11 February 2019 Manifestation from Robredo)

• On 13 February 2019, BBM received a Manifestation [in lieu of Comment on BBM’s Extremely Urgent Manifestation of Grave Concern with Omnibus Motion] from the COMELEC, stating the Second Division is yet to issue a Resolution or Order regarding the results of Sakur Tan’s Motion for Technical Examination. The COMELEC further said as this is the case, they are invoking the sub judice rule.

(click here to see the 13 February 2019 Manifestation from the COMELEC)

• On 26 March 2019, BBM filed his Consolidated Reply with Urgent Motion to Resolve Protestant’s Motion wherein he reiterated his Extremely Urgent Manifestation with Omnibus Motion, which was filed in December 2018.

(click here to see the 26 March 2019 Consiladated Reply with Urgent Motion from BBM)

• On 17 July 2019, the PET resolved to “defer action” on BBM’s Extremely Urgent Manifestation with Omnibus Motion and Consolidated Reply with Urgent Motion “until such time that an initial determination has been made on the protest” in accordance with Rule 65 of the 2010 PET Rules.

(click here to see the 17 July 2019 Notice from the PET)

N.B.
Despite the lapse of 10 months, and the submission of 7,356 potential witnesses, we are respectfully waiting for the PET to issue a directive on BBM’s Third Cause of Action (ie: “Annulment of votes for the position of Vice-President in the provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur, and Maguindanao)

Week 219: September 7 – 13, 2020

No significant developments

No significant developments

After 219 weeks (or roughly 1,537 days) :

We are still waiting for some semblance of closure in BBM’s election protest.

On 5 March 2019, the PET finished the MANUAL recount of ballots in all the clustered precincts in BBM’s three (3) pilot provinces, namely Camarines Sur, Iloilo and Negros Oriental. Since the MANUAL recount began on 2 April 2018 and ended on 5 March 2019, it took the PET 11 months to complete the MANUAL recount of the said 3 provinces.

The PET likewise concluded the PRELIMINARY APPRECIATION (“PA”) of votes. During the PA stage, the parties are supposed to submit their OBJECTIONS to the ballots which were MANUALLY counted so that the PET can REVIEW the same. In reality, however, this NEVER happened because on 9 September 2019, Justice Caguioa SUDDENLY and UNILATERALLY released his UNOFFICIAL report and recommended that the election protest be DISMISSED because of Rule 65 of the PET Rules.

Had BBM been ALLOWED to present his objections during the PA stage, he would have been able to point out the prevalence of UNREADABLE ballots because they were :

wet
covered with dried fish & garbage
 burned with cigarette butts
had battery fluids in them
and so much more!

When it came to the READABLE ballots, BBM’s revisors discovered that :

 majority of the ballots contained SHADINGS of 25% or less
there were FAKE BALLOTS in the audit logs

Rule 65 states that “upon examination of such ballots and proof, and after making reasonable allowances, the Tribunal is convinced that, taking all circumstances into account, the protestant or counter- protestant will most probably fail to make out his case, the protest may forthwith be dismissed, without further consideration of the other provinces mentioned in the protest.”

Rule 65 also says that “the preceding paragraph shall also apply when the election protest involves correction of manifest errors.”

On 15 October 2019, the Supreme Court (voting 11-2) released a Resolution directing the parties to submit a Memorandum on the following matters within 20 working days :

1. To give their comments on the revision report in BBM’s 3 pilot provinces, namely, Camarines Sur, Iloilo and Negros Oriental; and

2. To explain their position on BBM’s Third Cause of Action, which is the Annulment of election resultsin Basilan, Lanao del Sur and Maguindanao.

Since neither BBM or Robredo were allowed to participate in the “appreciation [of votes] stage, the Supreme Court, on 5 November 2019 allowed the parties to photocopy the voluminous annexes (approx 16,000 pages) which formed the basis of the Caguioa report. Invoking due process, the Supreme Court informed the parties that they could submit their Memorandum 20 days AFTER they finished viewing and photocopying the said annexes.

– – – – –

Listed below are the “sensitive” and important issues surrounding BBM’s protest :

1. Whether or not to apply the 25% shading threshold percentage or the 50% shading threshold percentage in the recounting of votes

Robredo’s Motion to Direct the Head Revisors to Apply the 25% threshold percentage in the revision, recount and re-appreciation of ballots

• In a Resolution dated 10 April 2018, the PET denied Robredo’s Ex Parte Motion.

(click here to see the 10 April 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 24 April 2018, the PET required BBM and the COMELEC to comment on Robredo’s Urgent Motion for Reconsideration.

(click here to see the 24 April 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 2 May 2018, Robredo filed an Urgent Motion for Reconsideration.

(click here to see the 2 May 2018 Urgent Motion from Robredo)

• On 28 May 2018, BBM filed his Opposition to Robredo’s Motion

(click here to see the 28 May 2018 Opposition from BBM)

• On 6 July 2018, BBM received a Manifestation from the Office of the Solicitor General.

(click here to see the 6 July 2018 Manifestation from the OSG)

• In a Resolution dated 24 July 2018, the PET resolved to note the OSG’s Manifestation and Motion

(click here to see the 24 July 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 26 July 2018, BBM received a Comment from the COMELEC

(click here to see the 26 July 2018 Comment from the COMELEC)

N.B.
Although the PET did not CATEGORICALLY decide on the 25% versus 50% shading threshold, they instructed the revisors – on 25 September 2018 — to just refer to the Election Returns :

• On 25 September 2018, BBM received a Notice from the PET directing Head Revisors to refer to the election returns to verify the total number of votes as read and counted by the voting counting machine.

(click here to see the 25 September 2018 Notice from the PET)

2. What to do with the wet & unreadable ballots 

• In a Resolution dated 5 June 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 5 June 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 26 June 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 26 June 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 6 July 2018, BBM filed a Strong Manifestation with Motion regarding regarding the use of decrypted ballot images in the revision proceedings.

(click here to see the 6 July 2018 Strong Manifestation from BBM)

•  In a Resolution dated 10 July 2018, the PET resolved to note BBM’s Strong Manifestation but deny his Motion to hold in abeyance the use of decrypted ballot images in the revision proceedings.

(click here to see the 10 July 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 19 July 2018, BBM filed a Strong Opposition regarding the use of decrypted ballot images in the revision proceedings.

(click here to see the 19 July 2018 Strong Opposition from BBM)

• In a Resolution dated 24 July 2018, the PET resolved to direct the COMELEC to comment on BBM’s Strong Opposition regarding the use of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 24 July 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 31 July 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 31 July 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 14 August 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 14 August 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 17 August 2018, BBM received a Motion from the COMELEC asking for an extension of time within which to file its Comment.

(click here to see the 17 August 2018 Motion from the COMELEC)

• In a Resolution dated 28 August 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the  28 August 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 30 August 2018, BBM received COMELEC’s Comment stating that the ballot images are not faithful reproduction of the original ballots but are instead the “true and genuine representation and captured images of the official ballots themselves.

(click here to see the 30 August 2018 Comment from the COMELEC)

• In a Resolution dated 4 September 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 4 September 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 11 September 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 11 September 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 18 September 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 18 September 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 25 September 2018, BBM received a Notice from the PET denying his Strong Opposition regarding the use of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 25 September 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 5 October 2018, BBM filed a Manifestation of Appreciation with Omnibus Motion for partial reconsideration of the denial of his Strong Opposition.

(click here to see the 5 October 2018 Manifestation with Omnibus Motion from BBM)

• In a Resolution dated 9 October 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 9 October 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 16 October 2018, the PET resolved to note BBM’s Manifestation with Omnibus Motion and direct Robredo and the COMELEC to comment.

(click here to see the 16 October 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 16 October 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 16 October 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 6 November 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 6 November 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 6 November 2018, BBM recieved the COMELEC’s Motion for extension of time within which to file a comment.

(click here to see the 6 November 2018 Motion from the COMELEC)

• In a Resolution dated 13 November 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 13 November 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 22 November 2018, BBM received Robredo’s Comment and Oppostion.

(click here to see the 22 November 2018 Comment from Robredo)

• In a Resolution dated 4 December 2018, the PET resolved to note the COMELEC’s Comment and required BBM to reply thereon.

(click here to see the 4 December 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 5 December 2018, BBM received the COMELEC’s Comment, stating BBM’s claim has “no leg to stand on.”

(click here to see the 5 December 2018 Comment from the COMELEC)

• On 20 December 2018, BBM filed his Consolidated Reply.

(click here to see the 20 December 2018 Consolidated Reply from BBM)

• In a Resolution dated 8 January 2019, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 8 January 2019 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 29 January 2019, the PET resolved to note BBM’s Consolidated Reply.

(click here to see the 29 January 2019 Resolution from the PET)

N.B.
From Day 1, BBM’s position has always been as follows: because of the presence of squares instead of ovals in the ballot images, the same are no longer faithful images of the original paper ballots. Since these “decrypted” images have been compromised, they do not reflect the true will of the voting public.

3. COMELEC’s request to lift the Precautionary Protection Order (PPO) with respect to the Election Management System (EMS) Servers

• In a Resolution dated 17 April 2018, the PET required BBM and Robredo to comment on COMELEC’s request.

(click here to see the 17 April 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 25 May 2018, BBM filed his Opposition to COMELEC’s request.

(click here to see the 25 May 2018 Opposition from BBM)

• On 20 July 2018, BBM received a Reply from the COMELEC.

(click here to see the 20 July 2018 Reply from the COMELEC)

• To date, Robredo has NOT yet filed any comment regarding the above issue.

N.B.
The Election Management System (EMS) is the “brain” of any election system. It is here where the ballot images are generated and where the SD cards and computers for the different provinces are programmed. It is important to preserve the data in the EMS so the parties can easily track down any “hanky panky” that was done during the May 2016 elections.

• In a Resolution dated 24 July 2018, the PET resolved to lift the Precautionary Protection Order (PPO) on the Election Management System (EMS) servers.

(click here to see the 24 July 2018 Resolution from the PET)

4. BBM’s Third Cause of Action

• In a Resolution dated 29 August 2017, the PET directed BBM to submit a new list of witnesses for the provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur and within five (5) days.

(click here to see the 29 August 2017 Resolution from the PET)

• On 11 September 2017, BBM filed his Compliance and submitted his list of witnesses.

(click here to see the 11 September 2017 Compliance from BBM)

• In a Resolution dated 19 September 2017, the PET required BBM to “STRICTLY COMPLY with their directive that he identify his witnesses in the corresponding clustered precincts within a FINAL and NON-EXTENDIBLE period of five (5) days from notice.”

> It is worth mentioning that on 11 September 2017, BBM had already submitted 171 names of potential wirtnesses to the PET.

(click here to see the 19 September 2017 Resolution from the PET)

• On 9 October 2017, BBM complied with the PET’s directive and submitted 7,356 names of witnesses for the provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur & Maguindanao.

(click here to see the 9 October 2017 Compliance from BBM)

• In a Resolution dated 7 November 2017, the PET “noted” BBM’s Compliance.

(click here to see the 7 November 2017 Resolution from the PET)

• On 12 December 2018, BBM filed his Extremely Urgent Manifestation of Grave Concern with Omnibus Motion requesting for the issuance of subpoena duces tecum to the COMELEC-ERSD to produce and submit the dactyloscopic and questioned document reports and such other relevant documents involving the technical examination conducted on the Voter’s Registration Records (VRRs) against the Election Day Computerized Voter’s List with Voting Records (EDCVLs) of 508 established precincts in the provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur, and Maguindanao relative to the protest of Tan vs. Hataman. BBM stated that he intends to use the said results as part of his evidence in support of his third cause of action, which is the Annulment of votes for the position of Vice President in the provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur, and Maguindanao.

(click here to see the 12 December 2018 Extremely Urgent Manifestation from BBM)

• On 18 January 2019, BBM received Robredo’s Counter-Manifestation with Comment and Opposition to BBM’s Extremely Urgent Motion.

(click here to see the 18 January 2019 Counter-Manifestation from Robredo)

• On 25 January 2019, BBM received a Supplemental Manifestation from Robredo.

(click here to see the 25 January 2019 Supplemental Manifestation from Robredo)

• On 28 January 2019, the PET directed Robredo and the COMELEC to comment on BBM’s Extremely Urgent Manifestation.

(click here to see the 28 January 2019 Resolution from the PET)

• On 11 February 2019, BBM received a Manifestation and Compliance from Robredo stating she previously filed her Comment and Opposition prior to the PET Resolution directing her to comment to BBM’s Extremely Urgent Manifestation.

(click here to see the 11 February 2019 Manifestation from Robredo)

• On 13 February 2019, BBM received a Manifestation [in lieu of Comment on BBM’s Extremely Urgent Manifestation of Grave Concern with Omnibus Motion] from the COMELEC, stating the Second Division is yet to issue a Resolution or Order regarding the results of Sakur Tan’s Motion for Technical Examination. The COMELEC further said as this is the case, they are invoking the sub judice rule.

(click here to see the 13 February 2019 Manifestation from the COMELEC)

• On 26 March 2019, BBM filed his Consolidated Reply with Urgent Motion to Resolve Protestant’s Motion wherein he reiterated his Extremely Urgent Manifestation with Omnibus Motion, which was filed in December 2018.

(click here to see the 26 March 2019 Consiladated Reply with Urgent Motion from BBM)

• On 17 July 2019, the PET resolved to “defer action” on BBM’s Extremely Urgent Manifestation with Omnibus Motion and Consolidated Reply with Urgent Motion “until such time that an initial determination has been made on the protest” in accordance with Rule 65 of the 2010 PET Rules.

(click here to see the 17 July 2019 Notice from the PET)

N.B.
Despite the lapse of 10 months, and the submission of 7,356 potential witnesses, we are respectfully waiting for the PET to issue a directive on BBM’s Third Cause of Action (ie: “Annulment of votes for the position of Vice-President in the provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur, and Maguindanao)

Week 218: August 31 – September 6, 2020

No significant developments

No significant developments

After 218 weeks (or roughly 1,530 days) :

We are still waiting for some semblance of closure in BBM’s election protest.

On 5 March 2019, the PET finished the MANUAL recount of ballots in all the clustered precincts in BBM’s three (3) pilot provinces, namely Camarines Sur, Iloilo and Negros Oriental. Since the MANUAL recount began on 2 April 2018 and ended on 5 March 2019, it took the PET 11 months to complete the MANUAL recount of the said 3 provinces.

The PET likewise concluded the PRELIMINARY APPRECIATION (“PA”) of votes. During the PA stage, the parties are supposed to submit their OBJECTIONS to the ballots which were MANUALLY counted so that the PET can REVIEW the same. In reality, however, this NEVER happened because on 9 September 2019, Justice Caguioa SUDDENLY and UNILATERALLY released his UNOFFICIAL report and recommended that the election protest be DISMISSED because of Rule 65 of the PET Rules.

Had BBM been ALLOWED to present his objections during the PA stage, he would have been able to point out the prevalence of UNREADABLE ballots because they were :

wet
covered with dried fish & garbage
 burned with cigarette butts
had battery fluids in them
and so much more!

When it came to the READABLE ballots, BBM’s revisors discovered that :

 majority of the ballots contained SHADINGS of 25% or less
there were FAKE BALLOTS in the audit logs

Rule 65 states that “upon examination of such ballots and proof, and after making reasonable allowances, the Tribunal is convinced that, taking all circumstances into account, the protestant or counter- protestant will most probably fail to make out his case, the protest may forthwith be dismissed, without further consideration of the other provinces mentioned in the protest.”

Rule 65 also says that “the preceding paragraph shall also apply when the election protest involves correction of manifest errors.”

On 15 October 2019, the Supreme Court (voting 11-2) released a Resolution directing the parties to submit a Memorandum on the following matters within 20 working days :

1. To give their comments on the revision report in BBM’s 3 pilot provinces, namely, Camarines Sur, Iloilo and Negros Oriental; and

2. To explain their position on BBM’s Third Cause of Action, which is the Annulment of election resultsin Basilan, Lanao del Sur and Maguindanao.

Since neither BBM or Robredo were allowed to participate in the “appreciation [of votes] stage, the Supreme Court, on 5 November 2019 allowed the parties to photocopy the voluminous annexes (approx 16,000 pages) which formed the basis of the Caguioa report. Invoking due process, the Supreme Court informed the parties that they could submit their Memorandum 20 days AFTER they finished viewing and photocopying the said annexes.

– – – – –

Listed below are the “sensitive” and important issues surrounding BBM’s protest :

1. Whether or not to apply the 25% shading threshold percentage or the 50% shading threshold percentage in the recounting of votes

Robredo’s Motion to Direct the Head Revisors to Apply the 25% threshold percentage in the revision, recount and re-appreciation of ballots

• In a Resolution dated 10 April 2018, the PET denied Robredo’s Ex Parte Motion.

(click here to see the 10 April 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 24 April 2018, the PET required BBM and the COMELEC to comment on Robredo’s Urgent Motion for Reconsideration.

(click here to see the 24 April 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 2 May 2018, Robredo filed an Urgent Motion for Reconsideration.

(click here to see the 2 May 2018 Urgent Motion from Robredo)

• On 28 May 2018, BBM filed his Opposition to Robredo’s Motion

(click here to see the 28 May 2018 Opposition from BBM)

• On 6 July 2018, BBM received a Manifestation from the Office of the Solicitor General.

(click here to see the 6 July 2018 Manifestation from the OSG)

• In a Resolution dated 24 July 2018, the PET resolved to note the OSG’s Manifestation and Motion

(click here to see the 24 July 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 26 July 2018, BBM received a Comment from the COMELEC

(click here to see the 26 July 2018 Comment from the COMELEC)

N.B.
Although the PET did not CATEGORICALLY decide on the 25% versus 50% shading threshold, they instructed the revisors – on 25 September 2018 — to just refer to the Election Returns :

• On 25 September 2018, BBM received a Notice from the PET directing Head Revisors to refer to the election returns to verify the total number of votes as read and counted by the voting counting machine.

(click here to see the 25 September 2018 Notice from the PET)

2. What to do with the wet & unreadable ballots 

• In a Resolution dated 5 June 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 5 June 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 26 June 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 26 June 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 6 July 2018, BBM filed a Strong Manifestation with Motion regarding regarding the use of decrypted ballot images in the revision proceedings.

(click here to see the 6 July 2018 Strong Manifestation from BBM)

•  In a Resolution dated 10 July 2018, the PET resolved to note BBM’s Strong Manifestation but deny his Motion to hold in abeyance the use of decrypted ballot images in the revision proceedings.

(click here to see the 10 July 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 19 July 2018, BBM filed a Strong Opposition regarding the use of decrypted ballot images in the revision proceedings.

(click here to see the 19 July 2018 Strong Opposition from BBM)

• In a Resolution dated 24 July 2018, the PET resolved to direct the COMELEC to comment on BBM’s Strong Opposition regarding the use of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 24 July 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 31 July 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 31 July 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 14 August 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 14 August 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 17 August 2018, BBM received a Motion from the COMELEC asking for an extension of time within which to file its Comment.

(click here to see the 17 August 2018 Motion from the COMELEC)

• In a Resolution dated 28 August 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the  28 August 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 30 August 2018, BBM received COMELEC’s Comment stating that the ballot images are not faithful reproduction of the original ballots but are instead the “true and genuine representation and captured images of the official ballots themselves.

(click here to see the 30 August 2018 Comment from the COMELEC)

• In a Resolution dated 4 September 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 4 September 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 11 September 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 11 September 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 18 September 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 18 September 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 25 September 2018, BBM received a Notice from the PET denying his Strong Opposition regarding the use of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 25 September 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 5 October 2018, BBM filed a Manifestation of Appreciation with Omnibus Motion for partial reconsideration of the denial of his Strong Opposition.

(click here to see the 5 October 2018 Manifestation with Omnibus Motion from BBM)

• In a Resolution dated 9 October 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 9 October 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 16 October 2018, the PET resolved to note BBM’s Manifestation with Omnibus Motion and direct Robredo and the COMELEC to comment.

(click here to see the 16 October 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 16 October 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 16 October 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 6 November 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 6 November 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 6 November 2018, BBM recieved the COMELEC’s Motion for extension of time within which to file a comment.

(click here to see the 6 November 2018 Motion from the COMELEC)

• In a Resolution dated 13 November 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 13 November 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 22 November 2018, BBM received Robredo’s Comment and Oppostion.

(click here to see the 22 November 2018 Comment from Robredo)

• In a Resolution dated 4 December 2018, the PET resolved to note the COMELEC’s Comment and required BBM to reply thereon.

(click here to see the 4 December 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 5 December 2018, BBM received the COMELEC’s Comment, stating BBM’s claim has “no leg to stand on.”

(click here to see the 5 December 2018 Comment from the COMELEC)

• On 20 December 2018, BBM filed his Consolidated Reply.

(click here to see the 20 December 2018 Consolidated Reply from BBM)

• In a Resolution dated 8 January 2019, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 8 January 2019 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 29 January 2019, the PET resolved to note BBM’s Consolidated Reply.

(click here to see the 29 January 2019 Resolution from the PET)

N.B.
From Day 1, BBM’s position has always been as follows: because of the presence of squares instead of ovals in the ballot images, the same are no longer faithful images of the original paper ballots. Since these “decrypted” images have been compromised, they do not reflect the true will of the voting public.

3. COMELEC’s request to lift the Precautionary Protection Order (PPO) with respect to the Election Management System (EMS) Servers

• In a Resolution dated 17 April 2018, the PET required BBM and Robredo to comment on COMELEC’s request.

(click here to see the 17 April 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 25 May 2018, BBM filed his Opposition to COMELEC’s request.

(click here to see the 25 May 2018 Opposition from BBM)

• On 20 July 2018, BBM received a Reply from the COMELEC.

(click here to see the 20 July 2018 Reply from the COMELEC)

• To date, Robredo has NOT yet filed any comment regarding the above issue.

N.B.
The Election Management System (EMS) is the “brain” of any election system. It is here where the ballot images are generated and where the SD cards and computers for the different provinces are programmed. It is important to preserve the data in the EMS so the parties can easily track down any “hanky panky” that was done during the May 2016 elections.

• In a Resolution dated 24 July 2018, the PET resolved to lift the Precautionary Protection Order (PPO) on the Election Management System (EMS) servers.

(click here to see the 24 July 2018 Resolution from the PET)

4. BBM’s Third Cause of Action

• In a Resolution dated 29 August 2017, the PET directed BBM to submit a new list of witnesses for the provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur and within five (5) days.

(click here to see the 29 August 2017 Resolution from the PET)

• On 11 September 2017, BBM filed his Compliance and submitted his list of witnesses.

(click here to see the 11 September 2017 Compliance from BBM)

• In a Resolution dated 19 September 2017, the PET required BBM to “STRICTLY COMPLY with their directive that he identify his witnesses in the corresponding clustered precincts within a FINAL and NON-EXTENDIBLE period of five (5) days from notice.”

> It is worth mentioning that on 11 September 2017, BBM had already submitted 171 names of potential wirtnesses to the PET.

(click here to see the 19 September 2017 Resolution from the PET)

• On 9 October 2017, BBM complied with the PET’s directive and submitted 7,356 names of witnesses for the provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur & Maguindanao.

(click here to see the 9 October 2017 Compliance from BBM)

• In a Resolution dated 7 November 2017, the PET “noted” BBM’s Compliance.

(click here to see the 7 November 2017 Resolution from the PET)

• On 12 December 2018, BBM filed his Extremely Urgent Manifestation of Grave Concern with Omnibus Motion requesting for the issuance of subpoena duces tecum to the COMELEC-ERSD to produce and submit the dactyloscopic and questioned document reports and such other relevant documents involving the technical examination conducted on the Voter’s Registration Records (VRRs) against the Election Day Computerized Voter’s List with Voting Records (EDCVLs) of 508 established precincts in the provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur, and Maguindanao relative to the protest of Tan vs. Hataman. BBM stated that he intends to use the said results as part of his evidence in support of his third cause of action, which is the Annulment of votes for the position of Vice President in the provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur, and Maguindanao.

(click here to see the 12 December 2018 Extremely Urgent Manifestation from BBM)

• On 18 January 2019, BBM received Robredo’s Counter-Manifestation with Comment and Opposition to BBM’s Extremely Urgent Motion.

(click here to see the 18 January 2019 Counter-Manifestation from Robredo)

• On 25 January 2019, BBM received a Supplemental Manifestation from Robredo.

(click here to see the 25 January 2019 Supplemental Manifestation from Robredo)

• On 28 January 2019, the PET directed Robredo and the COMELEC to comment on BBM’s Extremely Urgent Manifestation.

(click here to see the 28 January 2019 Resolution from the PET)

• On 11 February 2019, BBM received a Manifestation and Compliance from Robredo stating she previously filed her Comment and Opposition prior to the PET Resolution directing her to comment to BBM’s Extremely Urgent Manifestation.

(click here to see the 11 February 2019 Manifestation from Robredo)

• On 13 February 2019, BBM received a Manifestation [in lieu of Comment on BBM’s Extremely Urgent Manifestation of Grave Concern with Omnibus Motion] from the COMELEC, stating the Second Division is yet to issue a Resolution or Order regarding the results of Sakur Tan’s Motion for Technical Examination. The COMELEC further said as this is the case, they are invoking the sub judice rule.

(click here to see the 13 February 2019 Manifestation from the COMELEC)

• On 26 March 2019, BBM filed his Consolidated Reply with Urgent Motion to Resolve Protestant’s Motion wherein he reiterated his Extremely Urgent Manifestation with Omnibus Motion, which was filed in December 2018.

(click here to see the 26 March 2019 Consiladated Reply with Urgent Motion from BBM)

• On 17 July 2019, the PET resolved to “defer action” on BBM’s Extremely Urgent Manifestation with Omnibus Motion and Consolidated Reply with Urgent Motion “until such time that an initial determination has been made on the protest” in accordance with Rule 65 of the 2010 PET Rules.

(click here to see the 17 July 2019 Notice from the PET)

N.B.
Despite the lapse of 10 months, and the submission of 7,356 potential witnesses, we are respectfully waiting for the PET to issue a directive on BBM’s Third Cause of Action (ie: “Annulment of votes for the position of Vice-President in the provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur, and Maguindanao)

Week 217: August 24 – 30, 2020

No significant developments

No significant developments

After 217 weeks (or roughly 1,523 days) :

We are still waiting for some semblance of closure in BBM’s election protest.

On 5 March 2019, the PET finished the MANUAL recount of ballots in all the clustered precincts in BBM’s three (3) pilot provinces, namely Camarines Sur, Iloilo and Negros Oriental. Since the MANUAL recount began on 2 April 2018 and ended on 5 March 2019, it took the PET 11 months to complete the MANUAL recount of the said 3 provinces.

The PET likewise concluded the PRELIMINARY APPRECIATION (“PA”) of votes. During the PA stage, the parties are supposed to submit their OBJECTIONS to the ballots which were MANUALLY counted so that the PET can REVIEW the same. In reality, however, this NEVER happened because on 9 September 2019, Justice Caguioa SUDDENLY and UNILATERALLY released his UNOFFICIAL report and recommended that the election protest be DISMISSED because of Rule 65 of the PET Rules.

Had BBM been ALLOWED to present his objections during the PA stage, he would have been able to point out the prevalence of UNREADABLE ballots because they were :

wet
covered with dried fish & garbage
 burned with cigarette butts
had battery fluids in them
and so much more!

When it came to the READABLE ballots, BBM’s revisors discovered that :

 majority of the ballots contained SHADINGS of 25% or less
there were FAKE BALLOTS in the audit logs

Rule 65 states that “upon examination of such ballots and proof, and after making reasonable allowances, the Tribunal is convinced that, taking all circumstances into account, the protestant or counter- protestant will most probably fail to make out his case, the protest may forthwith be dismissed, without further consideration of the other provinces mentioned in the protest.”

Rule 65 also says that “the preceding paragraph shall also apply when the election protest involves correction of manifest errors.”

On 15 October 2019, the Supreme Court (voting 11-2) released a Resolution directing the parties to submit a Memorandum on the following matters within 20 working days :

1. To give their comments on the revision report in BBM’s 3 pilot provinces, namely, Camarines Sur, Iloilo and Negros Oriental; and

2. To explain their position on BBM’s Third Cause of Action, which is the Annulment of election resultsin Basilan, Lanao del Sur and Maguindanao.

Since neither BBM or Robredo were allowed to participate in the “appreciation [of votes] stage, the Supreme Court, on 5 November 2019 allowed the parties to photocopy the voluminous annexes (approx 16,000 pages) which formed the basis of the Caguioa report. Invoking due process, the Supreme Court informed the parties that they could submit their Memorandum 20 days AFTER they finished viewing and photocopying the said annexes.

– – – – –

Listed below are the “sensitive” and important issues surrounding BBM’s protest :

1. Whether or not to apply the 25% shading threshold percentage or the 50% shading threshold percentage in the recounting of votes

Robredo’s Motion to Direct the Head Revisors to Apply the 25% threshold percentage in the revision, recount and re-appreciation of ballots

• In a Resolution dated 10 April 2018, the PET denied Robredo’s Ex Parte Motion.

(click here to see the 10 April 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 24 April 2018, the PET required BBM and the COMELEC to comment on Robredo’s Urgent Motion for Reconsideration.

(click here to see the 24 April 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 2 May 2018, Robredo filed an Urgent Motion for Reconsideration.

(click here to see the 2 May 2018 Urgent Motion from Robredo)

• On 28 May 2018, BBM filed his Opposition to Robredo’s Motion

(click here to see the 28 May 2018 Opposition from BBM)

• On 6 July 2018, BBM received a Manifestation from the Office of the Solicitor General.

(click here to see the 6 July 2018 Manifestation from the OSG)

• In a Resolution dated 24 July 2018, the PET resolved to note the OSG’s Manifestation and Motion

(click here to see the 24 July 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 26 July 2018, BBM received a Comment from the COMELEC

(click here to see the 26 July 2018 Comment from the COMELEC)

N.B.
Although the PET did not CATEGORICALLY decide on the 25% versus 50% shading threshold, they instructed the revisors – on 25 September 2018 — to just refer to the Election Returns :

• On 25 September 2018, BBM received a Notice from the PET directing Head Revisors to refer to the election returns to verify the total number of votes as read and counted by the voting counting machine.

(click here to see the 25 September 2018 Notice from the PET)

2. What to do with the wet & unreadable ballots 

• In a Resolution dated 5 June 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 5 June 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 26 June 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 26 June 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 6 July 2018, BBM filed a Strong Manifestation with Motion regarding regarding the use of decrypted ballot images in the revision proceedings.

(click here to see the 6 July 2018 Strong Manifestation from BBM)

•  In a Resolution dated 10 July 2018, the PET resolved to note BBM’s Strong Manifestation but deny his Motion to hold in abeyance the use of decrypted ballot images in the revision proceedings.

(click here to see the 10 July 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 19 July 2018, BBM filed a Strong Opposition regarding the use of decrypted ballot images in the revision proceedings.

(click here to see the 19 July 2018 Strong Opposition from BBM)

• In a Resolution dated 24 July 2018, the PET resolved to direct the COMELEC to comment on BBM’s Strong Opposition regarding the use of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 24 July 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 31 July 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 31 July 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 14 August 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 14 August 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 17 August 2018, BBM received a Motion from the COMELEC asking for an extension of time within which to file its Comment.

(click here to see the 17 August 2018 Motion from the COMELEC)

• In a Resolution dated 28 August 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the  28 August 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 30 August 2018, BBM received COMELEC’s Comment stating that the ballot images are not faithful reproduction of the original ballots but are instead the “true and genuine representation and captured images of the official ballots themselves.

(click here to see the 30 August 2018 Comment from the COMELEC)

• In a Resolution dated 4 September 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 4 September 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 11 September 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 11 September 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 18 September 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 18 September 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 25 September 2018, BBM received a Notice from the PET denying his Strong Opposition regarding the use of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 25 September 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 5 October 2018, BBM filed a Manifestation of Appreciation with Omnibus Motion for partial reconsideration of the denial of his Strong Opposition.

(click here to see the 5 October 2018 Manifestation with Omnibus Motion from BBM)

• In a Resolution dated 9 October 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 9 October 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 16 October 2018, the PET resolved to note BBM’s Manifestation with Omnibus Motion and direct Robredo and the COMELEC to comment.

(click here to see the 16 October 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 16 October 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 16 October 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 6 November 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 6 November 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 6 November 2018, BBM recieved the COMELEC’s Motion for extension of time within which to file a comment.

(click here to see the 6 November 2018 Motion from the COMELEC)

• In a Resolution dated 13 November 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 13 November 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 22 November 2018, BBM received Robredo’s Comment and Oppostion.

(click here to see the 22 November 2018 Comment from Robredo)

• In a Resolution dated 4 December 2018, the PET resolved to note the COMELEC’s Comment and required BBM to reply thereon.

(click here to see the 4 December 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 5 December 2018, BBM received the COMELEC’s Comment, stating BBM’s claim has “no leg to stand on.”

(click here to see the 5 December 2018 Comment from the COMELEC)

• On 20 December 2018, BBM filed his Consolidated Reply.

(click here to see the 20 December 2018 Consolidated Reply from BBM)

• In a Resolution dated 8 January 2019, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 8 January 2019 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 29 January 2019, the PET resolved to note BBM’s Consolidated Reply.

(click here to see the 29 January 2019 Resolution from the PET)

N.B.
From Day 1, BBM’s position has always been as follows: because of the presence of squares instead of ovals in the ballot images, the same are no longer faithful images of the original paper ballots. Since these “decrypted” images have been compromised, they do not reflect the true will of the voting public.

3. COMELEC’s request to lift the Precautionary Protection Order (PPO) with respect to the Election Management System (EMS) Servers

• In a Resolution dated 17 April 2018, the PET required BBM and Robredo to comment on COMELEC’s request.

(click here to see the 17 April 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 25 May 2018, BBM filed his Opposition to COMELEC’s request.

(click here to see the 25 May 2018 Opposition from BBM)

• On 20 July 2018, BBM received a Reply from the COMELEC.

(click here to see the 20 July 2018 Reply from the COMELEC)

• To date, Robredo has NOT yet filed any comment regarding the above issue.

N.B.
The Election Management System (EMS) is the “brain” of any election system. It is here where the ballot images are generated and where the SD cards and computers for the different provinces are programmed. It is important to preserve the data in the EMS so the parties can easily track down any “hanky panky” that was done during the May 2016 elections.

• In a Resolution dated 24 July 2018, the PET resolved to lift the Precautionary Protection Order (PPO) on the Election Management System (EMS) servers.

(click here to see the 24 July 2018 Resolution from the PET)

4. BBM’s Third Cause of Action

• In a Resolution dated 29 August 2017, the PET directed BBM to submit a new list of witnesses for the provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur and within five (5) days.

(click here to see the 29 August 2017 Resolution from the PET)

• On 11 September 2017, BBM filed his Compliance and submitted his list of witnesses.

(click here to see the 11 September 2017 Compliance from BBM)

• In a Resolution dated 19 September 2017, the PET required BBM to “STRICTLY COMPLY with their directive that he identify his witnesses in the corresponding clustered precincts within a FINAL and NON-EXTENDIBLE period of five (5) days from notice.”

> It is worth mentioning that on 11 September 2017, BBM had already submitted 171 names of potential wirtnesses to the PET.

(click here to see the 19 September 2017 Resolution from the PET)

• On 9 October 2017, BBM complied with the PET’s directive and submitted 7,356 names of witnesses for the provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur & Maguindanao.

(click here to see the 9 October 2017 Compliance from BBM)

• In a Resolution dated 7 November 2017, the PET “noted” BBM’s Compliance.

(click here to see the 7 November 2017 Resolution from the PET)

• On 12 December 2018, BBM filed his Extremely Urgent Manifestation of Grave Concern with Omnibus Motion requesting for the issuance of subpoena duces tecum to the COMELEC-ERSD to produce and submit the dactyloscopic and questioned document reports and such other relevant documents involving the technical examination conducted on the Voter’s Registration Records (VRRs) against the Election Day Computerized Voter’s List with Voting Records (EDCVLs) of 508 established precincts in the provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur, and Maguindanao relative to the protest of Tan vs. Hataman. BBM stated that he intends to use the said results as part of his evidence in support of his third cause of action, which is the Annulment of votes for the position of Vice President in the provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur, and Maguindanao.

(click here to see the 12 December 2018 Extremely Urgent Manifestation from BBM)

• On 18 January 2019, BBM received Robredo’s Counter-Manifestation with Comment and Opposition to BBM’s Extremely Urgent Motion.

(click here to see the 18 January 2019 Counter-Manifestation from Robredo)

• On 25 January 2019, BBM received a Supplemental Manifestation from Robredo.

(click here to see the 25 January 2019 Supplemental Manifestation from Robredo)

• On 28 January 2019, the PET directed Robredo and the COMELEC to comment on BBM’s Extremely Urgent Manifestation.

(click here to see the 28 January 2019 Resolution from the PET)

• On 11 February 2019, BBM received a Manifestation and Compliance from Robredo stating she previously filed her Comment and Opposition prior to the PET Resolution directing her to comment to BBM’s Extremely Urgent Manifestation.

(click here to see the 11 February 2019 Manifestation from Robredo)

• On 13 February 2019, BBM received a Manifestation [in lieu of Comment on BBM’s Extremely Urgent Manifestation of Grave Concern with Omnibus Motion] from the COMELEC, stating the Second Division is yet to issue a Resolution or Order regarding the results of Sakur Tan’s Motion for Technical Examination. The COMELEC further said as this is the case, they are invoking the sub judice rule.

(click here to see the 13 February 2019 Manifestation from the COMELEC)

• On 26 March 2019, BBM filed his Consolidated Reply with Urgent Motion to Resolve Protestant’s Motion wherein he reiterated his Extremely Urgent Manifestation with Omnibus Motion, which was filed in December 2018.

(click here to see the 26 March 2019 Consiladated Reply with Urgent Motion from BBM)

• On 17 July 2019, the PET resolved to “defer action” on BBM’s Extremely Urgent Manifestation with Omnibus Motion and Consolidated Reply with Urgent Motion “until such time that an initial determination has been made on the protest” in accordance with Rule 65 of the 2010 PET Rules.

(click here to see the 17 July 2019 Notice from the PET)

N.B.
Despite the lapse of 10 months, and the submission of 7,356 potential witnesses, we are respectfully waiting for the PET to issue a directive on BBM’s Third Cause of Action (ie: “Annulment of votes for the position of Vice-President in the provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur, and Maguindanao)

Week 216: August 17 – 23, 2020

No significant developments

No significant developments

After 216 weeks (or roughly 1,516 days) :

We are still waiting for some semblance of closure in BBM’s election protest.

On 5 March 2019, the PET finished the MANUAL recount of ballots in all the clustered precincts in BBM’s three (3) pilot provinces, namely Camarines Sur, Iloilo and Negros Oriental. Since the MANUAL recount began on 2 April 2018 and ended on 5 March 2019, it took the PET 11 months to complete the MANUAL recount of the said 3 provinces.

The PET likewise concluded the PRELIMINARY APPRECIATION (“PA”) of votes. During the PA stage, the parties are supposed to submit their OBJECTIONS to the ballots which were MANUALLY counted so that the PET can REVIEW the same. In reality, however, this NEVER happened because on 9 September 2019, Justice Caguioa SUDDENLY and UNILATERALLY released his UNOFFICIAL report and recommended that the election protest be DISMISSED because of Rule 65 of the PET Rules.

Had BBM been ALLOWED to present his objections during the PA stage, he would have been able to point out the prevalence of UNREADABLE ballots because they were :

wet
covered with dried fish & garbage
 burned with cigarette butts
had battery fluids in them
and so much more!

When it came to the READABLE ballots, BBM’s revisors discovered that :

 majority of the ballots contained SHADINGS of 25% or less
there were FAKE BALLOTS in the audit logs

Rule 65 states that “upon examination of such ballots and proof, and after making reasonable allowances, the Tribunal is convinced that, taking all circumstances into account, the protestant or counter- protestant will most probably fail to make out his case, the protest may forthwith be dismissed, without further consideration of the other provinces mentioned in the protest.”

Rule 65 also says that “the preceding paragraph shall also apply when the election protest involves correction of manifest errors.”

On 15 October 2019, the Supreme Court (voting 11-2) released a Resolution directing the parties to submit a Memorandum on the following matters within 20 working days :

1. To give their comments on the revision report in BBM’s 3 pilot provinces, namely, Camarines Sur, Iloilo and Negros Oriental; and

2. To explain their position on BBM’s Third Cause of Action, which is the Annulment of election resultsin Basilan, Lanao del Sur and Maguindanao.

Since neither BBM or Robredo were allowed to participate in the “appreciation [of votes] stage, the Supreme Court, on 5 November 2019 allowed the parties to photocopy the voluminous annexes (approx 16,000 pages) which formed the basis of the Caguioa report. Invoking due process, the Supreme Court informed the parties that they could submit their Memorandum 20 days AFTER they finished viewing and photocopying the said annexes.

– – – – –

Listed below are the “sensitive” and important issues surrounding BBM’s protest :

1. Whether or not to apply the 25% shading threshold percentage or the 50% shading threshold percentage in the recounting of votes

Robredo’s Motion to Direct the Head Revisors to Apply the 25% threshold percentage in the revision, recount and re-appreciation of ballots

• In a Resolution dated 10 April 2018, the PET denied Robredo’s Ex Parte Motion.

(click here to see the 10 April 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 24 April 2018, the PET required BBM and the COMELEC to comment on Robredo’s Urgent Motion for Reconsideration.

(click here to see the 24 April 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 2 May 2018, Robredo filed an Urgent Motion for Reconsideration.

(click here to see the 2 May 2018 Urgent Motion from Robredo)

• On 28 May 2018, BBM filed his Opposition to Robredo’s Motion

(click here to see the 28 May 2018 Opposition from BBM)

• On 6 July 2018, BBM received a Manifestation from the Office of the Solicitor General.

(click here to see the 6 July 2018 Manifestation from the OSG)

• In a Resolution dated 24 July 2018, the PET resolved to note the OSG’s Manifestation and Motion

(click here to see the 24 July 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 26 July 2018, BBM received a Comment from the COMELEC

(click here to see the 26 July 2018 Comment from the COMELEC)

N.B.
Although the PET did not CATEGORICALLY decide on the 25% versus 50% shading threshold, they instructed the revisors – on 25 September 2018 — to just refer to the Election Returns :

• On 25 September 2018, BBM received a Notice from the PET directing Head Revisors to refer to the election returns to verify the total number of votes as read and counted by the voting counting machine.

(click here to see the 25 September 2018 Notice from the PET)

2. What to do with the wet & unreadable ballots 

• In a Resolution dated 5 June 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 5 June 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 26 June 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 26 June 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 6 July 2018, BBM filed a Strong Manifestation with Motion regarding regarding the use of decrypted ballot images in the revision proceedings.

(click here to see the 6 July 2018 Strong Manifestation from BBM)

•  In a Resolution dated 10 July 2018, the PET resolved to note BBM’s Strong Manifestation but deny his Motion to hold in abeyance the use of decrypted ballot images in the revision proceedings.

(click here to see the 10 July 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 19 July 2018, BBM filed a Strong Opposition regarding the use of decrypted ballot images in the revision proceedings.

(click here to see the 19 July 2018 Strong Opposition from BBM)

• In a Resolution dated 24 July 2018, the PET resolved to direct the COMELEC to comment on BBM’s Strong Opposition regarding the use of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 24 July 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 31 July 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 31 July 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 14 August 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 14 August 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 17 August 2018, BBM received a Motion from the COMELEC asking for an extension of time within which to file its Comment.

(click here to see the 17 August 2018 Motion from the COMELEC)

• In a Resolution dated 28 August 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the  28 August 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 30 August 2018, BBM received COMELEC’s Comment stating that the ballot images are not faithful reproduction of the original ballots but are instead the “true and genuine representation and captured images of the official ballots themselves.

(click here to see the 30 August 2018 Comment from the COMELEC)

• In a Resolution dated 4 September 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 4 September 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 11 September 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 11 September 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 18 September 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 18 September 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 25 September 2018, BBM received a Notice from the PET denying his Strong Opposition regarding the use of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 25 September 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 5 October 2018, BBM filed a Manifestation of Appreciation with Omnibus Motion for partial reconsideration of the denial of his Strong Opposition.

(click here to see the 5 October 2018 Manifestation with Omnibus Motion from BBM)

• In a Resolution dated 9 October 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 9 October 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 16 October 2018, the PET resolved to note BBM’s Manifestation with Omnibus Motion and direct Robredo and the COMELEC to comment.

(click here to see the 16 October 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 16 October 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 16 October 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 6 November 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 6 November 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 6 November 2018, BBM recieved the COMELEC’s Motion for extension of time within which to file a comment.

(click here to see the 6 November 2018 Motion from the COMELEC)

• In a Resolution dated 13 November 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 13 November 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 22 November 2018, BBM received Robredo’s Comment and Oppostion.

(click here to see the 22 November 2018 Comment from Robredo)

• In a Resolution dated 4 December 2018, the PET resolved to note the COMELEC’s Comment and required BBM to reply thereon.

(click here to see the 4 December 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 5 December 2018, BBM received the COMELEC’s Comment, stating BBM’s claim has “no leg to stand on.”

(click here to see the 5 December 2018 Comment from the COMELEC)

• On 20 December 2018, BBM filed his Consolidated Reply.

(click here to see the 20 December 2018 Consolidated Reply from BBM)

• In a Resolution dated 8 January 2019, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 8 January 2019 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 29 January 2019, the PET resolved to note BBM’s Consolidated Reply.

(click here to see the 29 January 2019 Resolution from the PET)

N.B.
From Day 1, BBM’s position has always been as follows: because of the presence of squares instead of ovals in the ballot images, the same are no longer faithful images of the original paper ballots. Since these “decrypted” images have been compromised, they do not reflect the true will of the voting public.

3. COMELEC’s request to lift the Precautionary Protection Order (PPO) with respect to the Election Management System (EMS) Servers

• In a Resolution dated 17 April 2018, the PET required BBM and Robredo to comment on COMELEC’s request.

(click here to see the 17 April 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 25 May 2018, BBM filed his Opposition to COMELEC’s request.

(click here to see the 25 May 2018 Opposition from BBM)

• On 20 July 2018, BBM received a Reply from the COMELEC.

(click here to see the 20 July 2018 Reply from the COMELEC)

• To date, Robredo has NOT yet filed any comment regarding the above issue.

N.B.
The Election Management System (EMS) is the “brain” of any election system. It is here where the ballot images are generated and where the SD cards and computers for the different provinces are programmed. It is important to preserve the data in the EMS so the parties can easily track down any “hanky panky” that was done during the May 2016 elections.

• In a Resolution dated 24 July 2018, the PET resolved to lift the Precautionary Protection Order (PPO) on the Election Management System (EMS) servers.

(click here to see the 24 July 2018 Resolution from the PET)

4. BBM’s Third Cause of Action

• In a Resolution dated 29 August 2017, the PET directed BBM to submit a new list of witnesses for the provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur and within five (5) days.

(click here to see the 29 August 2017 Resolution from the PET)

• On 11 September 2017, BBM filed his Compliance and submitted his list of witnesses.

(click here to see the 11 September 2017 Compliance from BBM)

• In a Resolution dated 19 September 2017, the PET required BBM to “STRICTLY COMPLY with their directive that he identify his witnesses in the corresponding clustered precincts within a FINAL and NON-EXTENDIBLE period of five (5) days from notice.”

> It is worth mentioning that on 11 September 2017, BBM had already submitted 171 names of potential wirtnesses to the PET.

(click here to see the 19 September 2017 Resolution from the PET)

• On 9 October 2017, BBM complied with the PET’s directive and submitted 7,356 names of witnesses for the provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur & Maguindanao.

(click here to see the 9 October 2017 Compliance from BBM)

• In a Resolution dated 7 November 2017, the PET “noted” BBM’s Compliance.

(click here to see the 7 November 2017 Resolution from the PET)

• On 12 December 2018, BBM filed his Extremely Urgent Manifestation of Grave Concern with Omnibus Motion requesting for the issuance of subpoena duces tecum to the COMELEC-ERSD to produce and submit the dactyloscopic and questioned document reports and such other relevant documents involving the technical examination conducted on the Voter’s Registration Records (VRRs) against the Election Day Computerized Voter’s List with Voting Records (EDCVLs) of 508 established precincts in the provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur, and Maguindanao relative to the protest of Tan vs. Hataman. BBM stated that he intends to use the said results as part of his evidence in support of his third cause of action, which is the Annulment of votes for the position of Vice President in the provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur, and Maguindanao.

(click here to see the 12 December 2018 Extremely Urgent Manifestation from BBM)

• On 18 January 2019, BBM received Robredo’s Counter-Manifestation with Comment and Opposition to BBM’s Extremely Urgent Motion.

(click here to see the 18 January 2019 Counter-Manifestation from Robredo)

• On 25 January 2019, BBM received a Supplemental Manifestation from Robredo.

(click here to see the 25 January 2019 Supplemental Manifestation from Robredo)

• On 28 January 2019, the PET directed Robredo and the COMELEC to comment on BBM’s Extremely Urgent Manifestation.

(click here to see the 28 January 2019 Resolution from the PET)

• On 11 February 2019, BBM received a Manifestation and Compliance from Robredo stating she previously filed her Comment and Opposition prior to the PET Resolution directing her to comment to BBM’s Extremely Urgent Manifestation.

(click here to see the 11 February 2019 Manifestation from Robredo)

• On 13 February 2019, BBM received a Manifestation [in lieu of Comment on BBM’s Extremely Urgent Manifestation of Grave Concern with Omnibus Motion] from the COMELEC, stating the Second Division is yet to issue a Resolution or Order regarding the results of Sakur Tan’s Motion for Technical Examination. The COMELEC further said as this is the case, they are invoking the sub judice rule.

(click here to see the 13 February 2019 Manifestation from the COMELEC)

• On 26 March 2019, BBM filed his Consolidated Reply with Urgent Motion to Resolve Protestant’s Motion wherein he reiterated his Extremely Urgent Manifestation with Omnibus Motion, which was filed in December 2018.

(click here to see the 26 March 2019 Consiladated Reply with Urgent Motion from BBM)

• On 17 July 2019, the PET resolved to “defer action” on BBM’s Extremely Urgent Manifestation with Omnibus Motion and Consolidated Reply with Urgent Motion “until such time that an initial determination has been made on the protest” in accordance with Rule 65 of the 2010 PET Rules.

(click here to see the 17 July 2019 Notice from the PET)

N.B.
Despite the lapse of 10 months, and the submission of 7,356 potential witnesses, we are respectfully waiting for the PET to issue a directive on BBM’s Third Cause of Action (ie: “Annulment of votes for the position of Vice-President in the provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur, and Maguindanao)

Week 215: August 10 – 16, 2020

No significant developments

No significant developments

After 215 weeks (or roughly 1,509 days) :

We are still waiting for some semblance of closure in BBM’s election protest.

On 5 March 2019, the PET finished the MANUAL recount of ballots in all the clustered precincts in BBM’s three (3) pilot provinces, namely Camarines Sur, Iloilo and Negros Oriental. Since the MANUAL recount began on 2 April 2018 and ended on 5 March 2019, it took the PET 11 months to complete the MANUAL recount of the said 3 provinces.

The PET likewise concluded the PRELIMINARY APPRECIATION (“PA”) of votes. During the PA stage, the parties are supposed to submit their OBJECTIONS to the ballots which were MANUALLY counted so that the PET can REVIEW the same. In reality, however, this NEVER happened because on 9 September 2019, Justice Caguioa SUDDENLY and UNILATERALLY released his UNOFFICIAL report and recommended that the election protest be DISMISSED because of Rule 65 of the PET Rules.

Had BBM been ALLOWED to present his objections during the PA stage, he would have been able to point out the prevalence of UNREADABLE ballots because they were :

wet
covered with dried fish & garbage
 burned with cigarette butts
had battery fluids in them
and so much more!

When it came to the READABLE ballots, BBM’s revisors discovered that :

 majority of the ballots contained SHADINGS of 25% or less
there were FAKE BALLOTS in the audit logs

Rule 65 states that “upon examination of such ballots and proof, and after making reasonable allowances, the Tribunal is convinced that, taking all circumstances into account, the protestant or counter- protestant will most probably fail to make out his case, the protest may forthwith be dismissed, without further consideration of the other provinces mentioned in the protest.”

Rule 65 also says that “the preceding paragraph shall also apply when the election protest involves correction of manifest errors.”

On 15 October 2019, the Supreme Court (voting 11-2) released a Resolution directing the parties to submit a Memorandum on the following matters within 20 working days :

1. To give their comments on the revision report in BBM’s 3 pilot provinces, namely, Camarines Sur, Iloilo and Negros Oriental; and

2. To explain their position on BBM’s Third Cause of Action, which is the Annulment of election resultsin Basilan, Lanao del Sur and Maguindanao.

Since neither BBM or Robredo were allowed to participate in the “appreciation [of votes] stage, the Supreme Court, on 5 November 2019 allowed the parties to photocopy the voluminous annexes (approx 16,000 pages) which formed the basis of the Caguioa report. Invoking due process, the Supreme Court informed the parties that they could submit their Memorandum 20 days AFTER they finished viewing and photocopying the said annexes.

– – – – –

Listed below are the “sensitive” and important issues surrounding BBM’s protest :

1. Whether or not to apply the 25% shading threshold percentage or the 50% shading threshold percentage in the recounting of votes

Robredo’s Motion to Direct the Head Revisors to Apply the 25% threshold percentage in the revision, recount and re-appreciation of ballots

• In a Resolution dated 10 April 2018, the PET denied Robredo’s Ex Parte Motion.

(click here to see the 10 April 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 24 April 2018, the PET required BBM and the COMELEC to comment on Robredo’s Urgent Motion for Reconsideration.

(click here to see the 24 April 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 2 May 2018, Robredo filed an Urgent Motion for Reconsideration.

(click here to see the 2 May 2018 Urgent Motion from Robredo)

• On 28 May 2018, BBM filed his Opposition to Robredo’s Motion

(click here to see the 28 May 2018 Opposition from BBM)

• On 6 July 2018, BBM received a Manifestation from the Office of the Solicitor General.

(click here to see the 6 July 2018 Manifestation from the OSG)

• In a Resolution dated 24 July 2018, the PET resolved to note the OSG’s Manifestation and Motion

(click here to see the 24 July 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 26 July 2018, BBM received a Comment from the COMELEC

(click here to see the 26 July 2018 Comment from the COMELEC)

N.B.
Although the PET did not CATEGORICALLY decide on the 25% versus 50% shading threshold, they instructed the revisors – on 25 September 2018 — to just refer to the Election Returns :

• On 25 September 2018, BBM received a Notice from the PET directing Head Revisors to refer to the election returns to verify the total number of votes as read and counted by the voting counting machine.

(click here to see the 25 September 2018 Notice from the PET)

2. What to do with the wet & unreadable ballots 

• In a Resolution dated 5 June 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 5 June 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 26 June 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 26 June 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 6 July 2018, BBM filed a Strong Manifestation with Motion regarding regarding the use of decrypted ballot images in the revision proceedings.

(click here to see the 6 July 2018 Strong Manifestation from BBM)

•  In a Resolution dated 10 July 2018, the PET resolved to note BBM’s Strong Manifestation but deny his Motion to hold in abeyance the use of decrypted ballot images in the revision proceedings.

(click here to see the 10 July 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 19 July 2018, BBM filed a Strong Opposition regarding the use of decrypted ballot images in the revision proceedings.

(click here to see the 19 July 2018 Strong Opposition from BBM)

• In a Resolution dated 24 July 2018, the PET resolved to direct the COMELEC to comment on BBM’s Strong Opposition regarding the use of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 24 July 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 31 July 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 31 July 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 14 August 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 14 August 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 17 August 2018, BBM received a Motion from the COMELEC asking for an extension of time within which to file its Comment.

(click here to see the 17 August 2018 Motion from the COMELEC)

• In a Resolution dated 28 August 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the  28 August 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 30 August 2018, BBM received COMELEC’s Comment stating that the ballot images are not faithful reproduction of the original ballots but are instead the “true and genuine representation and captured images of the official ballots themselves.

(click here to see the 30 August 2018 Comment from the COMELEC)

• In a Resolution dated 4 September 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 4 September 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 11 September 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 11 September 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 18 September 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 18 September 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 25 September 2018, BBM received a Notice from the PET denying his Strong Opposition regarding the use of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 25 September 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 5 October 2018, BBM filed a Manifestation of Appreciation with Omnibus Motion for partial reconsideration of the denial of his Strong Opposition.

(click here to see the 5 October 2018 Manifestation with Omnibus Motion from BBM)

• In a Resolution dated 9 October 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 9 October 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 16 October 2018, the PET resolved to note BBM’s Manifestation with Omnibus Motion and direct Robredo and the COMELEC to comment.

(click here to see the 16 October 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 16 October 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 16 October 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 6 November 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 6 November 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 6 November 2018, BBM recieved the COMELEC’s Motion for extension of time within which to file a comment.

(click here to see the 6 November 2018 Motion from the COMELEC)

• In a Resolution dated 13 November 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 13 November 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 22 November 2018, BBM received Robredo’s Comment and Oppostion.

(click here to see the 22 November 2018 Comment from Robredo)

• In a Resolution dated 4 December 2018, the PET resolved to note the COMELEC’s Comment and required BBM to reply thereon.

(click here to see the 4 December 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 5 December 2018, BBM received the COMELEC’s Comment, stating BBM’s claim has “no leg to stand on.”

(click here to see the 5 December 2018 Comment from the COMELEC)

• On 20 December 2018, BBM filed his Consolidated Reply.

(click here to see the 20 December 2018 Consolidated Reply from BBM)

• In a Resolution dated 8 January 2019, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 8 January 2019 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 29 January 2019, the PET resolved to note BBM’s Consolidated Reply.

(click here to see the 29 January 2019 Resolution from the PET)

N.B.
From Day 1, BBM’s position has always been as follows: because of the presence of squares instead of ovals in the ballot images, the same are no longer faithful images of the original paper ballots. Since these “decrypted” images have been compromised, they do not reflect the true will of the voting public.

3. COMELEC’s request to lift the Precautionary Protection Order (PPO) with respect to the Election Management System (EMS) Servers

• In a Resolution dated 17 April 2018, the PET required BBM and Robredo to comment on COMELEC’s request.

(click here to see the 17 April 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 25 May 2018, BBM filed his Opposition to COMELEC’s request.

(click here to see the 25 May 2018 Opposition from BBM)

• On 20 July 2018, BBM received a Reply from the COMELEC.

(click here to see the 20 July 2018 Reply from the COMELEC)

• To date, Robredo has NOT yet filed any comment regarding the above issue.

N.B.
The Election Management System (EMS) is the “brain” of any election system. It is here where the ballot images are generated and where the SD cards and computers for the different provinces are programmed. It is important to preserve the data in the EMS so the parties can easily track down any “hanky panky” that was done during the May 2016 elections.

• In a Resolution dated 24 July 2018, the PET resolved to lift the Precautionary Protection Order (PPO) on the Election Management System (EMS) servers.

(click here to see the 24 July 2018 Resolution from the PET)

4. BBM’s Third Cause of Action

• In a Resolution dated 29 August 2017, the PET directed BBM to submit a new list of witnesses for the provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur and within five (5) days.

(click here to see the 29 August 2017 Resolution from the PET)

• On 11 September 2017, BBM filed his Compliance and submitted his list of witnesses.

(click here to see the 11 September 2017 Compliance from BBM)

• In a Resolution dated 19 September 2017, the PET required BBM to “STRICTLY COMPLY with their directive that he identify his witnesses in the corresponding clustered precincts within a FINAL and NON-EXTENDIBLE period of five (5) days from notice.”

> It is worth mentioning that on 11 September 2017, BBM had already submitted 171 names of potential wirtnesses to the PET.

(click here to see the 19 September 2017 Resolution from the PET)

• On 9 October 2017, BBM complied with the PET’s directive and submitted 7,356 names of witnesses for the provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur & Maguindanao.

(click here to see the 9 October 2017 Compliance from BBM)

• In a Resolution dated 7 November 2017, the PET “noted” BBM’s Compliance.

(click here to see the 7 November 2017 Resolution from the PET)

• On 12 December 2018, BBM filed his Extremely Urgent Manifestation of Grave Concern with Omnibus Motion requesting for the issuance of subpoena duces tecum to the COMELEC-ERSD to produce and submit the dactyloscopic and questioned document reports and such other relevant documents involving the technical examination conducted on the Voter’s Registration Records (VRRs) against the Election Day Computerized Voter’s List with Voting Records (EDCVLs) of 508 established precincts in the provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur, and Maguindanao relative to the protest of Tan vs. Hataman. BBM stated that he intends to use the said results as part of his evidence in support of his third cause of action, which is the Annulment of votes for the position of Vice President in the provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur, and Maguindanao.

(click here to see the 12 December 2018 Extremely Urgent Manifestation from BBM)

• On 18 January 2019, BBM received Robredo’s Counter-Manifestation with Comment and Opposition to BBM’s Extremely Urgent Motion.

(click here to see the 18 January 2019 Counter-Manifestation from Robredo)

• On 25 January 2019, BBM received a Supplemental Manifestation from Robredo.

(click here to see the 25 January 2019 Supplemental Manifestation from Robredo)

• On 28 January 2019, the PET directed Robredo and the COMELEC to comment on BBM’s Extremely Urgent Manifestation.

(click here to see the 28 January 2019 Resolution from the PET)

• On 11 February 2019, BBM received a Manifestation and Compliance from Robredo stating she previously filed her Comment and Opposition prior to the PET Resolution directing her to comment to BBM’s Extremely Urgent Manifestation.

(click here to see the 11 February 2019 Manifestation from Robredo)

• On 13 February 2019, BBM received a Manifestation [in lieu of Comment on BBM’s Extremely Urgent Manifestation of Grave Concern with Omnibus Motion] from the COMELEC, stating the Second Division is yet to issue a Resolution or Order regarding the results of Sakur Tan’s Motion for Technical Examination. The COMELEC further said as this is the case, they are invoking the sub judice rule.

(click here to see the 13 February 2019 Manifestation from the COMELEC)

• On 26 March 2019, BBM filed his Consolidated Reply with Urgent Motion to Resolve Protestant’s Motion wherein he reiterated his Extremely Urgent Manifestation with Omnibus Motion, which was filed in December 2018.

(click here to see the 26 March 2019 Consiladated Reply with Urgent Motion from BBM)

• On 17 July 2019, the PET resolved to “defer action” on BBM’s Extremely Urgent Manifestation with Omnibus Motion and Consolidated Reply with Urgent Motion “until such time that an initial determination has been made on the protest” in accordance with Rule 65 of the 2010 PET Rules.

(click here to see the 17 July 2019 Notice from the PET)

N.B.
Despite the lapse of 10 months, and the submission of 7,356 potential witnesses, we are respectfully waiting for the PET to issue a directive on BBM’s Third Cause of Action (ie: “Annulment of votes for the position of Vice-President in the provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur, and Maguindanao)

Week 214: August 2 – 9, 2020

No significant developments

No significant developments

After 214 weeks (or roughly 1,502 days) :

We are still waiting for some semblance of closure in BBM’s election protest.

On 5 March 2019, the PET finished the MANUAL recount of ballots in all the clustered precincts in BBM’s three (3) pilot provinces, namely Camarines Sur, Iloilo and Negros Oriental. Since the MANUAL recount began on 2 April 2018 and ended on 5 March 2019, it took the PET 11 months to complete the MANUAL recount of the said 3 provinces.

The PET likewise concluded the PRELIMINARY APPRECIATION (“PA”) of votes. During the PA stage, the parties are supposed to submit their OBJECTIONS to the ballots which were MANUALLY counted so that the PET can REVIEW the same. In reality, however, this NEVER happened because on 9 September 2019, Justice Caguioa SUDDENLY and UNILATERALLY released his UNOFFICIAL report and recommended that the election protest be DISMISSED because of Rule 65 of the PET Rules.

Had BBM been ALLOWED to present his objections during the PA stage, he would have been able to point out the prevalence of UNREADABLE ballots because they were :

wet
covered with dried fish & garbage
 burned with cigarette butts
had battery fluids in them
and so much more!

When it came to the READABLE ballots, BBM’s revisors discovered that :

 majority of the ballots contained SHADINGS of 25% or less
there were FAKE BALLOTS in the audit logs

Rule 65 states that “upon examination of such ballots and proof, and after making reasonable allowances, the Tribunal is convinced that, taking all circumstances into account, the protestant or counter- protestant will most probably fail to make out his case, the protest may forthwith be dismissed, without further consideration of the other provinces mentioned in the protest.”

Rule 65 also says that “the preceding paragraph shall also apply when the election protest involves correction of manifest errors.”

On 15 October 2019, the Supreme Court (voting 11-2) released a Resolution directing the parties to submit a Memorandum on the following matters within 20 working days :

1. To give their comments on the revision report in BBM’s 3 pilot provinces, namely, Camarines Sur, Iloilo and Negros Oriental; and

2. To explain their position on BBM’s Third Cause of Action, which is the Annulment of election resultsin Basilan, Lanao del Sur and Maguindanao.

Since neither BBM or Robredo were allowed to participate in the “appreciation [of votes] stage, the Supreme Court, on 5 November 2019 allowed the parties to photocopy the voluminous annexes (approx 16,000 pages) which formed the basis of the Caguioa report. Invoking due process, the Supreme Court informed the parties that they could submit their Memorandum 20 days AFTER they finished viewing and photocopying the said annexes.

– – – – –

Listed below are the “sensitive” and important issues surrounding BBM’s protest :

1. Whether or not to apply the 25% shading threshold percentage or the 50% shading threshold percentage in the recounting of votes

Robredo’s Motion to Direct the Head Revisors to Apply the 25% threshold percentage in the revision, recount and re-appreciation of ballots

• In a Resolution dated 10 April 2018, the PET denied Robredo’s Ex Parte Motion.

(click here to see the 10 April 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 24 April 2018, the PET required BBM and the COMELEC to comment on Robredo’s Urgent Motion for Reconsideration.

(click here to see the 24 April 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 2 May 2018, Robredo filed an Urgent Motion for Reconsideration.

(click here to see the 2 May 2018 Urgent Motion from Robredo)

• On 28 May 2018, BBM filed his Opposition to Robredo’s Motion

(click here to see the 28 May 2018 Opposition from BBM)

• On 6 July 2018, BBM received a Manifestation from the Office of the Solicitor General.

(click here to see the 6 July 2018 Manifestation from the OSG)

• In a Resolution dated 24 July 2018, the PET resolved to note the OSG’s Manifestation and Motion

(click here to see the 24 July 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 26 July 2018, BBM received a Comment from the COMELEC

(click here to see the 26 July 2018 Comment from the COMELEC)

N.B.
Although the PET did not CATEGORICALLY decide on the 25% versus 50% shading threshold, they instructed the revisors – on 25 September 2018 — to just refer to the Election Returns :

• On 25 September 2018, BBM received a Notice from the PET directing Head Revisors to refer to the election returns to verify the total number of votes as read and counted by the voting counting machine.

(click here to see the 25 September 2018 Notice from the PET)

2. What to do with the wet & unreadable ballots 

• In a Resolution dated 5 June 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 5 June 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 26 June 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 26 June 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 6 July 2018, BBM filed a Strong Manifestation with Motion regarding regarding the use of decrypted ballot images in the revision proceedings.

(click here to see the 6 July 2018 Strong Manifestation from BBM)

•  In a Resolution dated 10 July 2018, the PET resolved to note BBM’s Strong Manifestation but deny his Motion to hold in abeyance the use of decrypted ballot images in the revision proceedings.

(click here to see the 10 July 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 19 July 2018, BBM filed a Strong Opposition regarding the use of decrypted ballot images in the revision proceedings.

(click here to see the 19 July 2018 Strong Opposition from BBM)

• In a Resolution dated 24 July 2018, the PET resolved to direct the COMELEC to comment on BBM’s Strong Opposition regarding the use of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 24 July 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 31 July 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 31 July 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 14 August 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 14 August 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 17 August 2018, BBM received a Motion from the COMELEC asking for an extension of time within which to file its Comment.

(click here to see the 17 August 2018 Motion from the COMELEC)

• In a Resolution dated 28 August 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the  28 August 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 30 August 2018, BBM received COMELEC’s Comment stating that the ballot images are not faithful reproduction of the original ballots but are instead the “true and genuine representation and captured images of the official ballots themselves.

(click here to see the 30 August 2018 Comment from the COMELEC)

• In a Resolution dated 4 September 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 4 September 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 11 September 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 11 September 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 18 September 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 18 September 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 25 September 2018, BBM received a Notice from the PET denying his Strong Opposition regarding the use of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 25 September 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 5 October 2018, BBM filed a Manifestation of Appreciation with Omnibus Motion for partial reconsideration of the denial of his Strong Opposition.

(click here to see the 5 October 2018 Manifestation with Omnibus Motion from BBM)

• In a Resolution dated 9 October 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 9 October 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 16 October 2018, the PET resolved to note BBM’s Manifestation with Omnibus Motion and direct Robredo and the COMELEC to comment.

(click here to see the 16 October 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 16 October 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 16 October 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 6 November 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 6 November 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 6 November 2018, BBM recieved the COMELEC’s Motion for extension of time within which to file a comment.

(click here to see the 6 November 2018 Motion from the COMELEC)

• In a Resolution dated 13 November 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 13 November 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 22 November 2018, BBM received Robredo’s Comment and Oppostion.

(click here to see the 22 November 2018 Comment from Robredo)

• In a Resolution dated 4 December 2018, the PET resolved to note the COMELEC’s Comment and required BBM to reply thereon.

(click here to see the 4 December 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 5 December 2018, BBM received the COMELEC’s Comment, stating BBM’s claim has “no leg to stand on.”

(click here to see the 5 December 2018 Comment from the COMELEC)

• On 20 December 2018, BBM filed his Consolidated Reply.

(click here to see the 20 December 2018 Consolidated Reply from BBM)

• In a Resolution dated 8 January 2019, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 8 January 2019 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 29 January 2019, the PET resolved to note BBM’s Consolidated Reply.

(click here to see the 29 January 2019 Resolution from the PET)

N.B.
From Day 1, BBM’s position has always been as follows: because of the presence of squares instead of ovals in the ballot images, the same are no longer faithful images of the original paper ballots. Since these “decrypted” images have been compromised, they do not reflect the true will of the voting public.

3. COMELEC’s request to lift the Precautionary Protection Order (PPO) with respect to the Election Management System (EMS) Servers

• In a Resolution dated 17 April 2018, the PET required BBM and Robredo to comment on COMELEC’s request.

(click here to see the 17 April 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 25 May 2018, BBM filed his Opposition to COMELEC’s request.

(click here to see the 25 May 2018 Opposition from BBM)

• On 20 July 2018, BBM received a Reply from the COMELEC.

(click here to see the 20 July 2018 Reply from the COMELEC)

• To date, Robredo has NOT yet filed any comment regarding the above issue.

N.B.
The Election Management System (EMS) is the “brain” of any election system. It is here where the ballot images are generated and where the SD cards and computers for the different provinces are programmed. It is important to preserve the data in the EMS so the parties can easily track down any “hanky panky” that was done during the May 2016 elections.

• In a Resolution dated 24 July 2018, the PET resolved to lift the Precautionary Protection Order (PPO) on the Election Management System (EMS) servers.

(click here to see the 24 July 2018 Resolution from the PET)

4. BBM’s Third Cause of Action

• In a Resolution dated 29 August 2017, the PET directed BBM to submit a new list of witnesses for the provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur and within five (5) days.

(click here to see the 29 August 2017 Resolution from the PET)

• On 11 September 2017, BBM filed his Compliance and submitted his list of witnesses.

(click here to see the 11 September 2017 Compliance from BBM)

• In a Resolution dated 19 September 2017, the PET required BBM to “STRICTLY COMPLY with their directive that he identify his witnesses in the corresponding clustered precincts within a FINAL and NON-EXTENDIBLE period of five (5) days from notice.”

> It is worth mentioning that on 11 September 2017, BBM had already submitted 171 names of potential wirtnesses to the PET.

(click here to see the 19 September 2017 Resolution from the PET)

• On 9 October 2017, BBM complied with the PET’s directive and submitted 7,356 names of witnesses for the provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur & Maguindanao.

(click here to see the 9 October 2017 Compliance from BBM)

• In a Resolution dated 7 November 2017, the PET “noted” BBM’s Compliance.

(click here to see the 7 November 2017 Resolution from the PET)

• On 12 December 2018, BBM filed his Extremely Urgent Manifestation of Grave Concern with Omnibus Motion requesting for the issuance of subpoena duces tecum to the COMELEC-ERSD to produce and submit the dactyloscopic and questioned document reports and such other relevant documents involving the technical examination conducted on the Voter’s Registration Records (VRRs) against the Election Day Computerized Voter’s List with Voting Records (EDCVLs) of 508 established precincts in the provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur, and Maguindanao relative to the protest of Tan vs. Hataman. BBM stated that he intends to use the said results as part of his evidence in support of his third cause of action, which is the Annulment of votes for the position of Vice President in the provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur, and Maguindanao.

(click here to see the 12 December 2018 Extremely Urgent Manifestation from BBM)

• On 18 January 2019, BBM received Robredo’s Counter-Manifestation with Comment and Opposition to BBM’s Extremely Urgent Motion.

(click here to see the 18 January 2019 Counter-Manifestation from Robredo)

• On 25 January 2019, BBM received a Supplemental Manifestation from Robredo.

(click here to see the 25 January 2019 Supplemental Manifestation from Robredo)

• On 28 January 2019, the PET directed Robredo and the COMELEC to comment on BBM’s Extremely Urgent Manifestation.

(click here to see the 28 January 2019 Resolution from the PET)

• On 11 February 2019, BBM received a Manifestation and Compliance from Robredo stating she previously filed her Comment and Opposition prior to the PET Resolution directing her to comment to BBM’s Extremely Urgent Manifestation.

(click here to see the 11 February 2019 Manifestation from Robredo)

• On 13 February 2019, BBM received a Manifestation [in lieu of Comment on BBM’s Extremely Urgent Manifestation of Grave Concern with Omnibus Motion] from the COMELEC, stating the Second Division is yet to issue a Resolution or Order regarding the results of Sakur Tan’s Motion for Technical Examination. The COMELEC further said as this is the case, they are invoking the sub judice rule.

(click here to see the 13 February 2019 Manifestation from the COMELEC)

• On 26 March 2019, BBM filed his Consolidated Reply with Urgent Motion to Resolve Protestant’s Motion wherein he reiterated his Extremely Urgent Manifestation with Omnibus Motion, which was filed in December 2018.

(click here to see the 26 March 2019 Consiladated Reply with Urgent Motion from BBM)

• On 17 July 2019, the PET resolved to “defer action” on BBM’s Extremely Urgent Manifestation with Omnibus Motion and Consolidated Reply with Urgent Motion “until such time that an initial determination has been made on the protest” in accordance with Rule 65 of the 2010 PET Rules.

(click here to see the 17 July 2019 Notice from the PET)

N.B.
Despite the lapse of 10 months, and the submission of 7,356 potential witnesses, we are respectfully waiting for the PET to issue a directive on BBM’s Third Cause of Action (ie: “Annulment of votes for the position of Vice-President in the provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur, and Maguindanao)

Week 213: July 27 – August 2, 2020

No significant developments

No significant developments

After 213 weeks (or roughly 1,495 days) :

We are still waiting for some semblance of closure in BBM’s election protest.

On 5 March 2019, the PET finished the MANUAL recount of ballots in all the clustered precincts in BBM’s three (3) pilot provinces, namely Camarines Sur, Iloilo and Negros Oriental. Since the MANUAL recount began on 2 April 2018 and ended on 5 March 2019, it took the PET 11 months to complete the MANUAL recount of the said 3 provinces.

The PET likewise concluded the PRELIMINARY APPRECIATION (“PA”) of votes. During the PA stage, the parties are supposed to submit their OBJECTIONS to the ballots which were MANUALLY counted so that the PET can REVIEW the same. In reality, however, this NEVER happened because on 9 September 2019, Justice Caguioa SUDDENLY and UNILATERALLY released his UNOFFICIAL report and recommended that the election protest be DISMISSED because of Rule 65 of the PET Rules.

Had BBM been ALLOWED to present his objections during the PA stage, he would have been able to point out the prevalence of UNREADABLE ballots because they were :

wet
covered with dried fish & garbage
 burned with cigarette butts
had battery fluids in them
and so much more!

When it came to the READABLE ballots, BBM’s revisors discovered that :

 majority of the ballots contained SHADINGS of 25% or less
there were FAKE BALLOTS in the audit logs

Rule 65 states that “upon examination of such ballots and proof, and after making reasonable allowances, the Tribunal is convinced that, taking all circumstances into account, the protestant or counter- protestant will most probably fail to make out his case, the protest may forthwith be dismissed, without further consideration of the other provinces mentioned in the protest.”

Rule 65 also says that “the preceding paragraph shall also apply when the election protest involves correction of manifest errors.”

On 15 October 2019, the Supreme Court (voting 11-2) released a Resolution directing the parties to submit a Memorandum on the following matters within 20 working days :

1. To give their comments on the revision report in BBM’s 3 pilot provinces, namely, Camarines Sur, Iloilo and Negros Oriental; and

2. To explain their position on BBM’s Third Cause of Action, which is the Annulment of election resultsin Basilan, Lanao del Sur and Maguindanao.

Since neither BBM or Robredo were allowed to participate in the “appreciation [of votes] stage, the Supreme Court, on 5 November 2019 allowed the parties to photocopy the voluminous annexes (approx 16,000 pages) which formed the basis of the Caguioa report. Invoking due process, the Supreme Court informed the parties that they could submit their Memorandum 20 days AFTER they finished viewing and photocopying the said annexes.

– – – – –

Listed below are the “sensitive” and important issues surrounding BBM’s protest :

1. Whether or not to apply the 25% shading threshold percentage or the 50% shading threshold percentage in the recounting of votes

Robredo’s Motion to Direct the Head Revisors to Apply the 25% threshold percentage in the revision, recount and re-appreciation of ballots

• In a Resolution dated 10 April 2018, the PET denied Robredo’s Ex Parte Motion.

(click here to see the 10 April 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 24 April 2018, the PET required BBM and the COMELEC to comment on Robredo’s Urgent Motion for Reconsideration.

(click here to see the 24 April 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 2 May 2018, Robredo filed an Urgent Motion for Reconsideration.

(click here to see the 2 May 2018 Urgent Motion from Robredo)

• On 28 May 2018, BBM filed his Opposition to Robredo’s Motion

(click here to see the 28 May 2018 Opposition from BBM)

• On 6 July 2018, BBM received a Manifestation from the Office of the Solicitor General.

(click here to see the 6 July 2018 Manifestation from the OSG)

• In a Resolution dated 24 July 2018, the PET resolved to note the OSG’s Manifestation and Motion

(click here to see the 24 July 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 26 July 2018, BBM received a Comment from the COMELEC

(click here to see the 26 July 2018 Comment from the COMELEC)

N.B.
Although the PET did not CATEGORICALLY decide on the 25% versus 50% shading threshold, they instructed the revisors – on 25 September 2018 — to just refer to the Election Returns :

• On 25 September 2018, BBM received a Notice from the PET directing Head Revisors to refer to the election returns to verify the total number of votes as read and counted by the voting counting machine.

(click here to see the 25 September 2018 Notice from the PET)

2. What to do with the wet & unreadable ballots 

• In a Resolution dated 5 June 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 5 June 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 26 June 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 26 June 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 6 July 2018, BBM filed a Strong Manifestation with Motion regarding regarding the use of decrypted ballot images in the revision proceedings.

(click here to see the 6 July 2018 Strong Manifestation from BBM)

•  In a Resolution dated 10 July 2018, the PET resolved to note BBM’s Strong Manifestation but deny his Motion to hold in abeyance the use of decrypted ballot images in the revision proceedings.

(click here to see the 10 July 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 19 July 2018, BBM filed a Strong Opposition regarding the use of decrypted ballot images in the revision proceedings.

(click here to see the 19 July 2018 Strong Opposition from BBM)

• In a Resolution dated 24 July 2018, the PET resolved to direct the COMELEC to comment on BBM’s Strong Opposition regarding the use of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 24 July 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 31 July 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 31 July 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 14 August 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 14 August 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 17 August 2018, BBM received a Motion from the COMELEC asking for an extension of time within which to file its Comment.

(click here to see the 17 August 2018 Motion from the COMELEC)

• In a Resolution dated 28 August 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the  28 August 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 30 August 2018, BBM received COMELEC’s Comment stating that the ballot images are not faithful reproduction of the original ballots but are instead the “true and genuine representation and captured images of the official ballots themselves.

(click here to see the 30 August 2018 Comment from the COMELEC)

• In a Resolution dated 4 September 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 4 September 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 11 September 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 11 September 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 18 September 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 18 September 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 25 September 2018, BBM received a Notice from the PET denying his Strong Opposition regarding the use of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 25 September 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 5 October 2018, BBM filed a Manifestation of Appreciation with Omnibus Motion for partial reconsideration of the denial of his Strong Opposition.

(click here to see the 5 October 2018 Manifestation with Omnibus Motion from BBM)

• In a Resolution dated 9 October 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 9 October 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 16 October 2018, the PET resolved to note BBM’s Manifestation with Omnibus Motion and direct Robredo and the COMELEC to comment.

(click here to see the 16 October 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 16 October 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 16 October 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 6 November 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 6 November 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 6 November 2018, BBM recieved the COMELEC’s Motion for extension of time within which to file a comment.

(click here to see the 6 November 2018 Motion from the COMELEC)

• In a Resolution dated 13 November 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 13 November 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 22 November 2018, BBM received Robredo’s Comment and Oppostion.

(click here to see the 22 November 2018 Comment from Robredo)

• In a Resolution dated 4 December 2018, the PET resolved to note the COMELEC’s Comment and required BBM to reply thereon.

(click here to see the 4 December 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 5 December 2018, BBM received the COMELEC’s Comment, stating BBM’s claim has “no leg to stand on.”

(click here to see the 5 December 2018 Comment from the COMELEC)

• On 20 December 2018, BBM filed his Consolidated Reply.

(click here to see the 20 December 2018 Consolidated Reply from BBM)

• In a Resolution dated 8 January 2019, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 8 January 2019 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 29 January 2019, the PET resolved to note BBM’s Consolidated Reply.

(click here to see the 29 January 2019 Resolution from the PET)

N.B.
From Day 1, BBM’s position has always been as follows: because of the presence of squares instead of ovals in the ballot images, the same are no longer faithful images of the original paper ballots. Since these “decrypted” images have been compromised, they do not reflect the true will of the voting public.

3. COMELEC’s request to lift the Precautionary Protection Order (PPO) with respect to the Election Management System (EMS) Servers

• In a Resolution dated 17 April 2018, the PET required BBM and Robredo to comment on COMELEC’s request.

(click here to see the 17 April 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 25 May 2018, BBM filed his Opposition to COMELEC’s request.

(click here to see the 25 May 2018 Opposition from BBM)

• On 20 July 2018, BBM received a Reply from the COMELEC.

(click here to see the 20 July 2018 Reply from the COMELEC)

• To date, Robredo has NOT yet filed any comment regarding the above issue.

N.B.
The Election Management System (EMS) is the “brain” of any election system. It is here where the ballot images are generated and where the SD cards and computers for the different provinces are programmed. It is important to preserve the data in the EMS so the parties can easily track down any “hanky panky” that was done during the May 2016 elections.

• In a Resolution dated 24 July 2018, the PET resolved to lift the Precautionary Protection Order (PPO) on the Election Management System (EMS) servers.

(click here to see the 24 July 2018 Resolution from the PET)

4. BBM’s Third Cause of Action

• In a Resolution dated 29 August 2017, the PET directed BBM to submit a new list of witnesses for the provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur and within five (5) days.

(click here to see the 29 August 2017 Resolution from the PET)

• On 11 September 2017, BBM filed his Compliance and submitted his list of witnesses.

(click here to see the 11 September 2017 Compliance from BBM)

• In a Resolution dated 19 September 2017, the PET required BBM to “STRICTLY COMPLY with their directive that he identify his witnesses in the corresponding clustered precincts within a FINAL and NON-EXTENDIBLE period of five (5) days from notice.”

> It is worth mentioning that on 11 September 2017, BBM had already submitted 171 names of potential wirtnesses to the PET.

(click here to see the 19 September 2017 Resolution from the PET)

• On 9 October 2017, BBM complied with the PET’s directive and submitted 7,356 names of witnesses for the provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur & Maguindanao.

(click here to see the 9 October 2017 Compliance from BBM)

• In a Resolution dated 7 November 2017, the PET “noted” BBM’s Compliance.

(click here to see the 7 November 2017 Resolution from the PET)

• On 12 December 2018, BBM filed his Extremely Urgent Manifestation of Grave Concern with Omnibus Motion requesting for the issuance of subpoena duces tecum to the COMELEC-ERSD to produce and submit the dactyloscopic and questioned document reports and such other relevant documents involving the technical examination conducted on the Voter’s Registration Records (VRRs) against the Election Day Computerized Voter’s List with Voting Records (EDCVLs) of 508 established precincts in the provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur, and Maguindanao relative to the protest of Tan vs. Hataman. BBM stated that he intends to use the said results as part of his evidence in support of his third cause of action, which is the Annulment of votes for the position of Vice President in the provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur, and Maguindanao.

(click here to see the 12 December 2018 Extremely Urgent Manifestation from BBM)

• On 18 January 2019, BBM received Robredo’s Counter-Manifestation with Comment and Opposition to BBM’s Extremely Urgent Motion.

(click here to see the 18 January 2019 Counter-Manifestation from Robredo)

• On 25 January 2019, BBM received a Supplemental Manifestation from Robredo.

(click here to see the 25 January 2019 Supplemental Manifestation from Robredo)

• On 28 January 2019, the PET directed Robredo and the COMELEC to comment on BBM’s Extremely Urgent Manifestation.

(click here to see the 28 January 2019 Resolution from the PET)

• On 11 February 2019, BBM received a Manifestation and Compliance from Robredo stating she previously filed her Comment and Opposition prior to the PET Resolution directing her to comment to BBM’s Extremely Urgent Manifestation.

(click here to see the 11 February 2019 Manifestation from Robredo)

• On 13 February 2019, BBM received a Manifestation [in lieu of Comment on BBM’s Extremely Urgent Manifestation of Grave Concern with Omnibus Motion] from the COMELEC, stating the Second Division is yet to issue a Resolution or Order regarding the results of Sakur Tan’s Motion for Technical Examination. The COMELEC further said as this is the case, they are invoking the sub judice rule.

(click here to see the 13 February 2019 Manifestation from the COMELEC)

• On 26 March 2019, BBM filed his Consolidated Reply with Urgent Motion to Resolve Protestant’s Motion wherein he reiterated his Extremely Urgent Manifestation with Omnibus Motion, which was filed in December 2018.

(click here to see the 26 March 2019 Consiladated Reply with Urgent Motion from BBM)

• On 17 July 2019, the PET resolved to “defer action” on BBM’s Extremely Urgent Manifestation with Omnibus Motion and Consolidated Reply with Urgent Motion “until such time that an initial determination has been made on the protest” in accordance with Rule 65 of the 2010 PET Rules.

(click here to see the 17 July 2019 Notice from the PET)

N.B.
Despite the lapse of 10 months, and the submission of 7,356 potential witnesses, we are respectfully waiting for the PET to issue a directive on BBM’s Third Cause of Action (ie: “Annulment of votes for the position of Vice-President in the provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur, and Maguindanao)

Week 212: July 20 – 26, 2020

No significant developments

No significant developments

After 212 weeks (or roughly 1,488 days) :

We are still waiting for some semblance of closure in BBM’s election protest.

On 5 March 2019, the PET finished the MANUAL recount of ballots in all the clustered precincts in BBM’s three (3) pilot provinces, namely Camarines Sur, Iloilo and Negros Oriental. Since the MANUAL recount began on 2 April 2018 and ended on 5 March 2019, it took the PET 11 months to complete the MANUAL recount of the said 3 provinces.

The PET likewise concluded the PRELIMINARY APPRECIATION (“PA”) of votes. During the PA stage, the parties are supposed to submit their OBJECTIONS to the ballots which were MANUALLY counted so that the PET can REVIEW the same. In reality, however, this NEVER happened because on 9 September 2019, Justice Caguioa SUDDENLY and UNILATERALLY released his UNOFFICIAL report and recommended that the election protest be DISMISSED because of Rule 65 of the PET Rules.

Had BBM been ALLOWED to present his objections during the PA stage, he would have been able to point out the prevalence of UNREADABLE ballots because they were :

wet
covered with dried fish & garbage
 burned with cigarette butts
had battery fluids in them
and so much more!

When it came to the READABLE ballots, BBM’s revisors discovered that :

 majority of the ballots contained SHADINGS of 25% or less
there were FAKE BALLOTS in the audit logs

Rule 65 states that “upon examination of such ballots and proof, and after making reasonable allowances, the Tribunal is convinced that, taking all circumstances into account, the protestant or counter- protestant will most probably fail to make out his case, the protest may forthwith be dismissed, without further consideration of the other provinces mentioned in the protest.”

Rule 65 also says that “the preceding paragraph shall also apply when the election protest involves correction of manifest errors.”

On 15 October 2019, the Supreme Court (voting 11-2) released a Resolution directing the parties to submit a Memorandum on the following matters within 20 working days :

1. To give their comments on the revision report in BBM’s 3 pilot provinces, namely, Camarines Sur, Iloilo and Negros Oriental; and

2. To explain their position on BBM’s Third Cause of Action, which is the Annulment of election resultsin Basilan, Lanao del Sur and Maguindanao.

Since neither BBM or Robredo were allowed to participate in the “appreciation [of votes] stage, the Supreme Court, on 5 November 2019 allowed the parties to photocopy the voluminous annexes (approx 16,000 pages) which formed the basis of the Caguioa report. Invoking due process, the Supreme Court informed the parties that they could submit their Memorandum 20 days AFTER they finished viewing and photocopying the said annexes.

– – – – –

Listed below are the “sensitive” and important issues surrounding BBM’s protest :

1. Whether or not to apply the 25% shading threshold percentage or the 50% shading threshold percentage in the recounting of votes

Robredo’s Motion to Direct the Head Revisors to Apply the 25% threshold percentage in the revision, recount and re-appreciation of ballots

• In a Resolution dated 10 April 2018, the PET denied Robredo’s Ex Parte Motion.

(click here to see the 10 April 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 24 April 2018, the PET required BBM and the COMELEC to comment on Robredo’s Urgent Motion for Reconsideration.

(click here to see the 24 April 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 2 May 2018, Robredo filed an Urgent Motion for Reconsideration.

(click here to see the 2 May 2018 Urgent Motion from Robredo)

• On 28 May 2018, BBM filed his Opposition to Robredo’s Motion

(click here to see the 28 May 2018 Opposition from BBM)

• On 6 July 2018, BBM received a Manifestation from the Office of the Solicitor General.

(click here to see the 6 July 2018 Manifestation from the OSG)

• In a Resolution dated 24 July 2018, the PET resolved to note the OSG’s Manifestation and Motion

(click here to see the 24 July 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 26 July 2018, BBM received a Comment from the COMELEC

(click here to see the 26 July 2018 Comment from the COMELEC)

N.B.
Although the PET did not CATEGORICALLY decide on the 25% versus 50% shading threshold, they instructed the revisors – on 25 September 2018 — to just refer to the Election Returns :

• On 25 September 2018, BBM received a Notice from the PET directing Head Revisors to refer to the election returns to verify the total number of votes as read and counted by the voting counting machine.

(click here to see the 25 September 2018 Notice from the PET)

2. What to do with the wet & unreadable ballots 

• In a Resolution dated 5 June 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 5 June 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 26 June 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 26 June 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 6 July 2018, BBM filed a Strong Manifestation with Motion regarding regarding the use of decrypted ballot images in the revision proceedings.

(click here to see the 6 July 2018 Strong Manifestation from BBM)

•  In a Resolution dated 10 July 2018, the PET resolved to note BBM’s Strong Manifestation but deny his Motion to hold in abeyance the use of decrypted ballot images in the revision proceedings.

(click here to see the 10 July 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 19 July 2018, BBM filed a Strong Opposition regarding the use of decrypted ballot images in the revision proceedings.

(click here to see the 19 July 2018 Strong Opposition from BBM)

• In a Resolution dated 24 July 2018, the PET resolved to direct the COMELEC to comment on BBM’s Strong Opposition regarding the use of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 24 July 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 31 July 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 31 July 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 14 August 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 14 August 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 17 August 2018, BBM received a Motion from the COMELEC asking for an extension of time within which to file its Comment.

(click here to see the 17 August 2018 Motion from the COMELEC)

• In a Resolution dated 28 August 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the  28 August 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 30 August 2018, BBM received COMELEC’s Comment stating that the ballot images are not faithful reproduction of the original ballots but are instead the “true and genuine representation and captured images of the official ballots themselves.

(click here to see the 30 August 2018 Comment from the COMELEC)

• In a Resolution dated 4 September 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 4 September 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 11 September 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 11 September 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 18 September 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 18 September 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 25 September 2018, BBM received a Notice from the PET denying his Strong Opposition regarding the use of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 25 September 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 5 October 2018, BBM filed a Manifestation of Appreciation with Omnibus Motion for partial reconsideration of the denial of his Strong Opposition.

(click here to see the 5 October 2018 Manifestation with Omnibus Motion from BBM)

• In a Resolution dated 9 October 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 9 October 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 16 October 2018, the PET resolved to note BBM’s Manifestation with Omnibus Motion and direct Robredo and the COMELEC to comment.

(click here to see the 16 October 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 16 October 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 16 October 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 6 November 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 6 November 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 6 November 2018, BBM recieved the COMELEC’s Motion for extension of time within which to file a comment.

(click here to see the 6 November 2018 Motion from the COMELEC)

• In a Resolution dated 13 November 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 13 November 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 22 November 2018, BBM received Robredo’s Comment and Oppostion.

(click here to see the 22 November 2018 Comment from Robredo)

• In a Resolution dated 4 December 2018, the PET resolved to note the COMELEC’s Comment and required BBM to reply thereon.

(click here to see the 4 December 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 5 December 2018, BBM received the COMELEC’s Comment, stating BBM’s claim has “no leg to stand on.”

(click here to see the 5 December 2018 Comment from the COMELEC)

• On 20 December 2018, BBM filed his Consolidated Reply.

(click here to see the 20 December 2018 Consolidated Reply from BBM)

• In a Resolution dated 8 January 2019, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 8 January 2019 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 29 January 2019, the PET resolved to note BBM’s Consolidated Reply.

(click here to see the 29 January 2019 Resolution from the PET)

N.B.
From Day 1, BBM’s position has always been as follows: because of the presence of squares instead of ovals in the ballot images, the same are no longer faithful images of the original paper ballots. Since these “decrypted” images have been compromised, they do not reflect the true will of the voting public.

3. COMELEC’s request to lift the Precautionary Protection Order (PPO) with respect to the Election Management System (EMS) Servers

• In a Resolution dated 17 April 2018, the PET required BBM and Robredo to comment on COMELEC’s request.

(click here to see the 17 April 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 25 May 2018, BBM filed his Opposition to COMELEC’s request.

(click here to see the 25 May 2018 Opposition from BBM)

• On 20 July 2018, BBM received a Reply from the COMELEC.

(click here to see the 20 July 2018 Reply from the COMELEC)

• To date, Robredo has NOT yet filed any comment regarding the above issue.

N.B.
The Election Management System (EMS) is the “brain” of any election system. It is here where the ballot images are generated and where the SD cards and computers for the different provinces are programmed. It is important to preserve the data in the EMS so the parties can easily track down any “hanky panky” that was done during the May 2016 elections.

• In a Resolution dated 24 July 2018, the PET resolved to lift the Precautionary Protection Order (PPO) on the Election Management System (EMS) servers.

(click here to see the 24 July 2018 Resolution from the PET)

4. BBM’s Third Cause of Action

• In a Resolution dated 29 August 2017, the PET directed BBM to submit a new list of witnesses for the provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur and within five (5) days.

(click here to see the 29 August 2017 Resolution from the PET)

• On 11 September 2017, BBM filed his Compliance and submitted his list of witnesses.

(click here to see the 11 September 2017 Compliance from BBM)

• In a Resolution dated 19 September 2017, the PET required BBM to “STRICTLY COMPLY with their directive that he identify his witnesses in the corresponding clustered precincts within a FINAL and NON-EXTENDIBLE period of five (5) days from notice.”

> It is worth mentioning that on 11 September 2017, BBM had already submitted 171 names of potential wirtnesses to the PET.

(click here to see the 19 September 2017 Resolution from the PET)

• On 9 October 2017, BBM complied with the PET’s directive and submitted 7,356 names of witnesses for the provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur & Maguindanao.

(click here to see the 9 October 2017 Compliance from BBM)

• In a Resolution dated 7 November 2017, the PET “noted” BBM’s Compliance.

(click here to see the 7 November 2017 Resolution from the PET)

• On 12 December 2018, BBM filed his Extremely Urgent Manifestation of Grave Concern with Omnibus Motion requesting for the issuance of subpoena duces tecum to the COMELEC-ERSD to produce and submit the dactyloscopic and questioned document reports and such other relevant documents involving the technical examination conducted on the Voter’s Registration Records (VRRs) against the Election Day Computerized Voter’s List with Voting Records (EDCVLs) of 508 established precincts in the provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur, and Maguindanao relative to the protest of Tan vs. Hataman. BBM stated that he intends to use the said results as part of his evidence in support of his third cause of action, which is the Annulment of votes for the position of Vice President in the provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur, and Maguindanao.

(click here to see the 12 December 2018 Extremely Urgent Manifestation from BBM)

• On 18 January 2019, BBM received Robredo’s Counter-Manifestation with Comment and Opposition to BBM’s Extremely Urgent Motion.

(click here to see the 18 January 2019 Counter-Manifestation from Robredo)

• On 25 January 2019, BBM received a Supplemental Manifestation from Robredo.

(click here to see the 25 January 2019 Supplemental Manifestation from Robredo)

• On 28 January 2019, the PET directed Robredo and the COMELEC to comment on BBM’s Extremely Urgent Manifestation.

(click here to see the 28 January 2019 Resolution from the PET)

• On 11 February 2019, BBM received a Manifestation and Compliance from Robredo stating she previously filed her Comment and Opposition prior to the PET Resolution directing her to comment to BBM’s Extremely Urgent Manifestation.

(click here to see the 11 February 2019 Manifestation from Robredo)

• On 13 February 2019, BBM received a Manifestation [in lieu of Comment on BBM’s Extremely Urgent Manifestation of Grave Concern with Omnibus Motion] from the COMELEC, stating the Second Division is yet to issue a Resolution or Order regarding the results of Sakur Tan’s Motion for Technical Examination. The COMELEC further said as this is the case, they are invoking the sub judice rule.

(click here to see the 13 February 2019 Manifestation from the COMELEC)

• On 26 March 2019, BBM filed his Consolidated Reply with Urgent Motion to Resolve Protestant’s Motion wherein he reiterated his Extremely Urgent Manifestation with Omnibus Motion, which was filed in December 2018.

(click here to see the 26 March 2019 Consiladated Reply with Urgent Motion from BBM)

• On 17 July 2019, the PET resolved to “defer action” on BBM’s Extremely Urgent Manifestation with Omnibus Motion and Consolidated Reply with Urgent Motion “until such time that an initial determination has been made on the protest” in accordance with Rule 65 of the 2010 PET Rules.

(click here to see the 17 July 2019 Notice from the PET)

N.B.
Despite the lapse of 10 months, and the submission of 7,356 potential witnesses, we are respectfully waiting for the PET to issue a directive on BBM’s Third Cause of Action (ie: “Annulment of votes for the position of Vice-President in the provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur, and Maguindanao)

Week 211: July 13 – 19, 2020

No significant developments

No significant developments

After 211 weeks (or roughly 1,481 days) :

We are still waiting for some semblance of closure in BBM’s election protest.

On 5 March 2019, the PET finished the MANUAL recount of ballots in all the clustered precincts in BBM’s three (3) pilot provinces, namely Camarines Sur, Iloilo and Negros Oriental. Since the MANUAL recount began on 2 April 2018 and ended on 5 March 2019, it took the PET 11 months to complete the MANUAL recount of the said 3 provinces.

The PET likewise concluded the PRELIMINARY APPRECIATION (“PA”) of votes. During the PA stage, the parties are supposed to submit their OBJECTIONS to the ballots which were MANUALLY counted so that the PET can REVIEW the same. In reality, however, this NEVER happened because on 9 September 2019, Justice Caguioa SUDDENLY and UNILATERALLY released his UNOFFICIAL report and recommended that the election protest be DISMISSED because of Rule 65 of the PET Rules.

Had BBM been ALLOWED to present his objections during the PA stage, he would have been able to point out the prevalence of UNREADABLE ballots because they were :

wet
covered with dried fish & garbage
 burned with cigarette butts
had battery fluids in them
and so much more!

When it came to the READABLE ballots, BBM’s revisors discovered that :

 majority of the ballots contained SHADINGS of 25% or less
there were FAKE BALLOTS in the audit logs

Rule 65 states that “upon examination of such ballots and proof, and after making reasonable allowances, the Tribunal is convinced that, taking all circumstances into account, the protestant or counter- protestant will most probably fail to make out his case, the protest may forthwith be dismissed, without further consideration of the other provinces mentioned in the protest.”

Rule 65 also says that “the preceding paragraph shall also apply when the election protest involves correction of manifest errors.”

On 15 October 2019, the Supreme Court (voting 11-2) released a Resolution directing the parties to submit a Memorandum on the following matters within 20 working days :

1. To give their comments on the revision report in BBM’s 3 pilot provinces, namely, Camarines Sur, Iloilo and Negros Oriental; and

2. To explain their position on BBM’s Third Cause of Action, which is the Annulment of election resultsin Basilan, Lanao del Sur and Maguindanao.

Since neither BBM or Robredo were allowed to participate in the “appreciation [of votes] stage, the Supreme Court, on 5 November 2019 allowed the parties to photocopy the voluminous annexes (approx 16,000 pages) which formed the basis of the Caguioa report. Invoking due process, the Supreme Court informed the parties that they could submit their Memorandum 20 days AFTER they finished viewing and photocopying the said annexes.

– – – – –

Listed below are the “sensitive” and important issues surrounding BBM’s protest :

1. Whether or not to apply the 25% shading threshold percentage or the 50% shading threshold percentage in the recounting of votes

Robredo’s Motion to Direct the Head Revisors to Apply the 25% threshold percentage in the revision, recount and re-appreciation of ballots

• In a Resolution dated 10 April 2018, the PET denied Robredo’s Ex Parte Motion.

(click here to see the 10 April 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 24 April 2018, the PET required BBM and the COMELEC to comment on Robredo’s Urgent Motion for Reconsideration.

(click here to see the 24 April 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 2 May 2018, Robredo filed an Urgent Motion for Reconsideration.

(click here to see the 2 May 2018 Urgent Motion from Robredo)

• On 28 May 2018, BBM filed his Opposition to Robredo’s Motion

(click here to see the 28 May 2018 Opposition from BBM)

• On 6 July 2018, BBM received a Manifestation from the Office of the Solicitor General.

(click here to see the 6 July 2018 Manifestation from the OSG)

• In a Resolution dated 24 July 2018, the PET resolved to note the OSG’s Manifestation and Motion

(click here to see the 24 July 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 26 July 2018, BBM received a Comment from the COMELEC

(click here to see the 26 July 2018 Comment from the COMELEC)

N.B.
Although the PET did not CATEGORICALLY decide on the 25% versus 50% shading threshold, they instructed the revisors – on 25 September 2018 — to just refer to the Election Returns :

• On 25 September 2018, BBM received a Notice from the PET directing Head Revisors to refer to the election returns to verify the total number of votes as read and counted by the voting counting machine.

(click here to see the 25 September 2018 Notice from the PET)

2. What to do with the wet & unreadable ballots 

• In a Resolution dated 5 June 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 5 June 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 26 June 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 26 June 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 6 July 2018, BBM filed a Strong Manifestation with Motion regarding regarding the use of decrypted ballot images in the revision proceedings.

(click here to see the 6 July 2018 Strong Manifestation from BBM)

•  In a Resolution dated 10 July 2018, the PET resolved to note BBM’s Strong Manifestation but deny his Motion to hold in abeyance the use of decrypted ballot images in the revision proceedings.

(click here to see the 10 July 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 19 July 2018, BBM filed a Strong Opposition regarding the use of decrypted ballot images in the revision proceedings.

(click here to see the 19 July 2018 Strong Opposition from BBM)

• In a Resolution dated 24 July 2018, the PET resolved to direct the COMELEC to comment on BBM’s Strong Opposition regarding the use of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 24 July 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 31 July 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 31 July 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 14 August 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 14 August 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 17 August 2018, BBM received a Motion from the COMELEC asking for an extension of time within which to file its Comment.

(click here to see the 17 August 2018 Motion from the COMELEC)

• In a Resolution dated 28 August 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the  28 August 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 30 August 2018, BBM received COMELEC’s Comment stating that the ballot images are not faithful reproduction of the original ballots but are instead the “true and genuine representation and captured images of the official ballots themselves.

(click here to see the 30 August 2018 Comment from the COMELEC)

• In a Resolution dated 4 September 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 4 September 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 11 September 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 11 September 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 18 September 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 18 September 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 25 September 2018, BBM received a Notice from the PET denying his Strong Opposition regarding the use of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 25 September 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 5 October 2018, BBM filed a Manifestation of Appreciation with Omnibus Motion for partial reconsideration of the denial of his Strong Opposition.

(click here to see the 5 October 2018 Manifestation with Omnibus Motion from BBM)

• In a Resolution dated 9 October 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 9 October 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 16 October 2018, the PET resolved to note BBM’s Manifestation with Omnibus Motion and direct Robredo and the COMELEC to comment.

(click here to see the 16 October 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 16 October 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 16 October 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 6 November 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 6 November 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 6 November 2018, BBM recieved the COMELEC’s Motion for extension of time within which to file a comment.

(click here to see the 6 November 2018 Motion from the COMELEC)

• In a Resolution dated 13 November 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 13 November 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 22 November 2018, BBM received Robredo’s Comment and Oppostion.

(click here to see the 22 November 2018 Comment from Robredo)

• In a Resolution dated 4 December 2018, the PET resolved to note the COMELEC’s Comment and required BBM to reply thereon.

(click here to see the 4 December 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 5 December 2018, BBM received the COMELEC’s Comment, stating BBM’s claim has “no leg to stand on.”

(click here to see the 5 December 2018 Comment from the COMELEC)

• On 20 December 2018, BBM filed his Consolidated Reply.

(click here to see the 20 December 2018 Consolidated Reply from BBM)

• In a Resolution dated 8 January 2019, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 8 January 2019 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 29 January 2019, the PET resolved to note BBM’s Consolidated Reply.

(click here to see the 29 January 2019 Resolution from the PET)

N.B.
From Day 1, BBM’s position has always been as follows: because of the presence of squares instead of ovals in the ballot images, the same are no longer faithful images of the original paper ballots. Since these “decrypted” images have been compromised, they do not reflect the true will of the voting public.

3. COMELEC’s request to lift the Precautionary Protection Order (PPO) with respect to the Election Management System (EMS) Servers

• In a Resolution dated 17 April 2018, the PET required BBM and Robredo to comment on COMELEC’s request.

(click here to see the 17 April 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 25 May 2018, BBM filed his Opposition to COMELEC’s request.

(click here to see the 25 May 2018 Opposition from BBM)

• On 20 July 2018, BBM received a Reply from the COMELEC.

(click here to see the 20 July 2018 Reply from the COMELEC)

• To date, Robredo has NOT yet filed any comment regarding the above issue.

N.B.
The Election Management System (EMS) is the “brain” of any election system. It is here where the ballot images are generated and where the SD cards and computers for the different provinces are programmed. It is important to preserve the data in the EMS so the parties can easily track down any “hanky panky” that was done during the May 2016 elections.

• In a Resolution dated 24 July 2018, the PET resolved to lift the Precautionary Protection Order (PPO) on the Election Management System (EMS) servers.

(click here to see the 24 July 2018 Resolution from the PET)

4. BBM’s Third Cause of Action

• In a Resolution dated 29 August 2017, the PET directed BBM to submit a new list of witnesses for the provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur and within five (5) days.

(click here to see the 29 August 2017 Resolution from the PET)

• On 11 September 2017, BBM filed his Compliance and submitted his list of witnesses.

(click here to see the 11 September 2017 Compliance from BBM)

• In a Resolution dated 19 September 2017, the PET required BBM to “STRICTLY COMPLY with their directive that he identify his witnesses in the corresponding clustered precincts within a FINAL and NON-EXTENDIBLE period of five (5) days from notice.”

> It is worth mentioning that on 11 September 2017, BBM had already submitted 171 names of potential wirtnesses to the PET.

(click here to see the 19 September 2017 Resolution from the PET)

• On 9 October 2017, BBM complied with the PET’s directive and submitted 7,356 names of witnesses for the provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur & Maguindanao.

(click here to see the 9 October 2017 Compliance from BBM)

• In a Resolution dated 7 November 2017, the PET “noted” BBM’s Compliance.

(click here to see the 7 November 2017 Resolution from the PET)

• On 12 December 2018, BBM filed his Extremely Urgent Manifestation of Grave Concern with Omnibus Motion requesting for the issuance of subpoena duces tecum to the COMELEC-ERSD to produce and submit the dactyloscopic and questioned document reports and such other relevant documents involving the technical examination conducted on the Voter’s Registration Records (VRRs) against the Election Day Computerized Voter’s List with Voting Records (EDCVLs) of 508 established precincts in the provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur, and Maguindanao relative to the protest of Tan vs. Hataman. BBM stated that he intends to use the said results as part of his evidence in support of his third cause of action, which is the Annulment of votes for the position of Vice President in the provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur, and Maguindanao.

(click here to see the 12 December 2018 Extremely Urgent Manifestation from BBM)

• On 18 January 2019, BBM received Robredo’s Counter-Manifestation with Comment and Opposition to BBM’s Extremely Urgent Motion.

(click here to see the 18 January 2019 Counter-Manifestation from Robredo)

• On 25 January 2019, BBM received a Supplemental Manifestation from Robredo.

(click here to see the 25 January 2019 Supplemental Manifestation from Robredo)

• On 28 January 2019, the PET directed Robredo and the COMELEC to comment on BBM’s Extremely Urgent Manifestation.

(click here to see the 28 January 2019 Resolution from the PET)

• On 11 February 2019, BBM received a Manifestation and Compliance from Robredo stating she previously filed her Comment and Opposition prior to the PET Resolution directing her to comment to BBM’s Extremely Urgent Manifestation.

(click here to see the 11 February 2019 Manifestation from Robredo)

• On 13 February 2019, BBM received a Manifestation [in lieu of Comment on BBM’s Extremely Urgent Manifestation of Grave Concern with Omnibus Motion] from the COMELEC, stating the Second Division is yet to issue a Resolution or Order regarding the results of Sakur Tan’s Motion for Technical Examination. The COMELEC further said as this is the case, they are invoking the sub judice rule.

(click here to see the 13 February 2019 Manifestation from the COMELEC)

• On 26 March 2019, BBM filed his Consolidated Reply with Urgent Motion to Resolve Protestant’s Motion wherein he reiterated his Extremely Urgent Manifestation with Omnibus Motion, which was filed in December 2018.

(click here to see the 26 March 2019 Consiladated Reply with Urgent Motion from BBM)

• On 17 July 2019, the PET resolved to “defer action” on BBM’s Extremely Urgent Manifestation with Omnibus Motion and Consolidated Reply with Urgent Motion “until such time that an initial determination has been made on the protest” in accordance with Rule 65 of the 2010 PET Rules.

(click here to see the 17 July 2019 Notice from the PET)

N.B.
Despite the lapse of 10 months, and the submission of 7,356 potential witnesses, we are respectfully waiting for the PET to issue a directive on BBM’s Third Cause of Action (ie: “Annulment of votes for the position of Vice-President in the provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur, and Maguindanao)

Week 210: July 6 – 12, 2020

No significant developments

No significant developments

After 210 weeks (or roughly 1,474 days) :

We are still waiting for some semblance of closure in BBM’s election protest.

On 5 March 2019, the PET finished the MANUAL recount of ballots in all the clustered precincts in BBM’s three (3) pilot provinces, namely Camarines Sur, Iloilo and Negros Oriental. Since the MANUAL recount began on 2 April 2018 and ended on 5 March 2019, it took the PET 11 months to complete the MANUAL recount of the said 3 provinces.

The PET likewise concluded the PRELIMINARY APPRECIATION (“PA”) of votes. During the PA stage, the parties are supposed to submit their OBJECTIONS to the ballots which were MANUALLY counted so that the PET can REVIEW the same. In reality, however, this NEVER happened because on 9 September 2019, Justice Caguioa SUDDENLY and UNILATERALLY released his UNOFFICIAL report and recommended that the election protest be DISMISSED because of Rule 65 of the PET Rules.

Had BBM been ALLOWED to present his objections during the PA stage, he would have been able to point out the prevalence of UNREADABLE ballots because they were :

wet
covered with dried fish & garbage
 burned with cigarette butts
had battery fluids in them
and so much more!

When it came to the READABLE ballots, BBM’s revisors discovered that :

 majority of the ballots contained SHADINGS of 25% or less
there were FAKE BALLOTS in the audit logs

Rule 65 states that “upon examination of such ballots and proof, and after making reasonable allowances, the Tribunal is convinced that, taking all circumstances into account, the protestant or counter- protestant will most probably fail to make out his case, the protest may forthwith be dismissed, without further consideration of the other provinces mentioned in the protest.”

Rule 65 also says that “the preceding paragraph shall also apply when the election protest involves correction of manifest errors.”

On 15 October 2019, the Supreme Court (voting 11-2) released a Resolution directing the parties to submit a Memorandum on the following matters within 20 working days :

1. To give their comments on the revision report in BBM’s 3 pilot provinces, namely, Camarines Sur, Iloilo and Negros Oriental; and

2. To explain their position on BBM’s Third Cause of Action, which is the Annulment of election resultsin Basilan, Lanao del Sur and Maguindanao.

Since neither BBM or Robredo were allowed to participate in the “appreciation [of votes] stage, the Supreme Court, on 5 November 2019 allowed the parties to photocopy the voluminous annexes (approx 16,000 pages) which formed the basis of the Caguioa report. Invoking due process, the Supreme Court informed the parties that they could submit their Memorandum 20 days AFTER they finished viewing and photocopying the said annexes.

– – – – –

Listed below are the “sensitive” and important issues surrounding BBM’s protest :

1. Whether or not to apply the 25% shading threshold percentage or the 50% shading threshold percentage in the recounting of votes

Robredo’s Motion to Direct the Head Revisors to Apply the 25% threshold percentage in the revision, recount and re-appreciation of ballots

• In a Resolution dated 10 April 2018, the PET denied Robredo’s Ex Parte Motion.

(click here to see the 10 April 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 24 April 2018, the PET required BBM and the COMELEC to comment on Robredo’s Urgent Motion for Reconsideration.

(click here to see the 24 April 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 2 May 2018, Robredo filed an Urgent Motion for Reconsideration.

(click here to see the 2 May 2018 Urgent Motion from Robredo)

• On 28 May 2018, BBM filed his Opposition to Robredo’s Motion

(click here to see the 28 May 2018 Opposition from BBM)

• On 6 July 2018, BBM received a Manifestation from the Office of the Solicitor General.

(click here to see the 6 July 2018 Manifestation from the OSG)

• In a Resolution dated 24 July 2018, the PET resolved to note the OSG’s Manifestation and Motion

(click here to see the 24 July 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 26 July 2018, BBM received a Comment from the COMELEC

(click here to see the 26 July 2018 Comment from the COMELEC)

N.B.
Although the PET did not CATEGORICALLY decide on the 25% versus 50% shading threshold, they instructed the revisors – on 25 September 2018 — to just refer to the Election Returns :

• On 25 September 2018, BBM received a Notice from the PET directing Head Revisors to refer to the election returns to verify the total number of votes as read and counted by the voting counting machine.

(click here to see the 25 September 2018 Notice from the PET)

2. What to do with the wet & unreadable ballots 

• In a Resolution dated 5 June 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 5 June 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 26 June 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 26 June 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 6 July 2018, BBM filed a Strong Manifestation with Motion regarding regarding the use of decrypted ballot images in the revision proceedings.

(click here to see the 6 July 2018 Strong Manifestation from BBM)

•  In a Resolution dated 10 July 2018, the PET resolved to note BBM’s Strong Manifestation but deny his Motion to hold in abeyance the use of decrypted ballot images in the revision proceedings.

(click here to see the 10 July 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 19 July 2018, BBM filed a Strong Opposition regarding the use of decrypted ballot images in the revision proceedings.

(click here to see the 19 July 2018 Strong Opposition from BBM)

• In a Resolution dated 24 July 2018, the PET resolved to direct the COMELEC to comment on BBM’s Strong Opposition regarding the use of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 24 July 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 31 July 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 31 July 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 14 August 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 14 August 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 17 August 2018, BBM received a Motion from the COMELEC asking for an extension of time within which to file its Comment.

(click here to see the 17 August 2018 Motion from the COMELEC)

• In a Resolution dated 28 August 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the  28 August 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 30 August 2018, BBM received COMELEC’s Comment stating that the ballot images are not faithful reproduction of the original ballots but are instead the “true and genuine representation and captured images of the official ballots themselves.

(click here to see the 30 August 2018 Comment from the COMELEC)

• In a Resolution dated 4 September 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 4 September 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 11 September 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 11 September 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 18 September 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 18 September 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 25 September 2018, BBM received a Notice from the PET denying his Strong Opposition regarding the use of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 25 September 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 5 October 2018, BBM filed a Manifestation of Appreciation with Omnibus Motion for partial reconsideration of the denial of his Strong Opposition.

(click here to see the 5 October 2018 Manifestation with Omnibus Motion from BBM)

• In a Resolution dated 9 October 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 9 October 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 16 October 2018, the PET resolved to note BBM’s Manifestation with Omnibus Motion and direct Robredo and the COMELEC to comment.

(click here to see the 16 October 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 16 October 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 16 October 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 6 November 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 6 November 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 6 November 2018, BBM recieved the COMELEC’s Motion for extension of time within which to file a comment.

(click here to see the 6 November 2018 Motion from the COMELEC)

• In a Resolution dated 13 November 2018, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 13 November 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 22 November 2018, BBM received Robredo’s Comment and Oppostion.

(click here to see the 22 November 2018 Comment from Robredo)

• In a Resolution dated 4 December 2018, the PET resolved to note the COMELEC’s Comment and required BBM to reply thereon.

(click here to see the 4 December 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 5 December 2018, BBM received the COMELEC’s Comment, stating BBM’s claim has “no leg to stand on.”

(click here to see the 5 December 2018 Comment from the COMELEC)

• On 20 December 2018, BBM filed his Consolidated Reply.

(click here to see the 20 December 2018 Consolidated Reply from BBM)

• In a Resolution dated 8 January 2019, the PET resolved to allow the revision of decrypted ballot images.

(click here to see the 8 January 2019 Resolution from the PET)

• In a Resolution dated 29 January 2019, the PET resolved to note BBM’s Consolidated Reply.

(click here to see the 29 January 2019 Resolution from the PET)

N.B.
From Day 1, BBM’s position has always been as follows: because of the presence of squares instead of ovals in the ballot images, the same are no longer faithful images of the original paper ballots. Since these “decrypted” images have been compromised, they do not reflect the true will of the voting public.

3. COMELEC’s request to lift the Precautionary Protection Order (PPO) with respect to the Election Management System (EMS) Servers

• In a Resolution dated 17 April 2018, the PET required BBM and Robredo to comment on COMELEC’s request.

(click here to see the 17 April 2018 Resolution from the PET)

• On 25 May 2018, BBM filed his Opposition to COMELEC’s request.

(click here to see the 25 May 2018 Opposition from BBM)

• On 20 July 2018, BBM received a Reply from the COMELEC.

(click here to see the 20 July 2018 Reply from the COMELEC)

• To date, Robredo has NOT yet filed any comment regarding the above issue.

N.B.
The Election Management System (EMS) is the “brain” of any election system. It is here where the ballot images are generated and where the SD cards and computers for the different provinces are programmed. It is important to preserve the data in the EMS so the parties can easily track down any “hanky panky” that was done during the May 2016 elections.

• In a Resolution dated 24 July 2018, the PET resolved to lift the Precautionary Protection Order (PPO) on the Election Management System (EMS) servers.

(click here to see the 24 July 2018 Resolution from the PET)

4. BBM’s Third Cause of Action

• In a Resolution dated 29 August 2017, the PET directed BBM to submit a new list of witnesses for the provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur and within five (5) days.

(click here to see the 29 August 2017 Resolution from the PET)

• On 11 September 2017, BBM filed his Compliance and submitted his list of witnesses.

(click here to see the 11 September 2017 Compliance from BBM)

• In a Resolution dated 19 September 2017, the PET required BBM to “STRICTLY COMPLY with their directive that he identify his witnesses in the corresponding clustered precincts within a FINAL and NON-EXTENDIBLE period of five (5) days from notice.”

> It is worth mentioning that on 11 September 2017, BBM had already submitted 171 names of potential wirtnesses to the PET.

(click here to see the 19 September 2017 Resolution from the PET)

• On 9 October 2017, BBM complied with the PET’s directive and submitted 7,356 names of witnesses for the provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur & Maguindanao.

(click here to see the 9 October 2017 Compliance from BBM)

• In a Resolution dated 7 November 2017, the PET “noted” BBM’s Compliance.

(click here to see the 7 November 2017 Resolution from the PET)

• On 12 December 2018, BBM filed his Extremely Urgent Manifestation of Grave Concern with Omnibus Motion requesting for the issuance of subpoena duces tecum to the COMELEC-ERSD to produce and submit the dactyloscopic and questioned document reports and such other relevant documents involving the technical examination conducted on the Voter’s Registration Records (VRRs) against the Election Day Computerized Voter’s List with Voting Records (EDCVLs) of 508 established precincts in the provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur, and Maguindanao relative to the protest of Tan vs. Hataman. BBM stated that he intends to use the said results as part of his evidence in support of his third cause of action, which is the Annulment of votes for the position of Vice President in the provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur, and Maguindanao.

(click here to see the 12 December 2018 Extremely Urgent Manifestation from BBM)

• On 18 January 2019, BBM received Robredo’s Counter-Manifestation with Comment and Opposition to BBM’s Extremely Urgent Motion.

(click here to see the 18 January 2019 Counter-Manifestation from Robredo)

• On 25 January 2019, BBM received a Supplemental Manifestation from Robredo.

(click here to see the 25 January 2019 Supplemental Manifestation from Robredo)

• On 28 January 2019, the PET directed Robredo and the COMELEC to comment on BBM’s Extremely Urgent Manifestation.

(click here to see the 28 January 2019 Resolution from the PET)

• On 11 February 2019, BBM received a Manifestation and Compliance from Robredo stating she previously filed her Comment and Opposition prior to the PET Resolution directing her to comment to BBM’s Extremely Urgent Manifestation.

(click here to see the 11 February 2019 Manifestation from Robredo)

• On 13 February 2019, BBM received a Manifestation [in lieu of Comment on BBM’s Extremely Urgent Manifestation of Grave Concern with Omnibus Motion] from the COMELEC, stating the Second Division is yet to issue a Resolution or Order regarding the results of Sakur Tan’s Motion for Technical Examination. The COMELEC further said as this is the case, they are invoking the sub judice rule.

(click here to see the 13 February 2019 Manifestation from the COMELEC)

• On 26 March 2019, BBM filed his Consolidated Reply with Urgent Motion to Resolve Protestant’s Motion wherein he reiterated his Extremely Urgent Manifestation with Omnibus Motion, which was filed in December 2018.

(click here to see the 26 March 2019 Consiladated Reply with Urgent Motion from BBM)

• On 17 July 2019, the PET resolved to “defer action” on BBM’s Extremely Urgent Manifestation with Omnibus Motion and Consolidated Reply with Urgent Motion “until such time that an initial determination has been made on the protest” in accordance with Rule 65 of the 2010 PET Rules.

(click here to see the 17 July 2019 Notice from the PET)

N.B.
Despite the lapse of 10 months, and the submission of 7,356 potential witnesses, we are respectfully waiting for the PET to issue a directive on BBM’s Third Cause of Action (ie: “Annulment of votes for the position of Vice-President in the provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur, and Maguindanao)