ELECTION PROTEST

Weekly Updates

Week 203: May 18 – 24, 2020

No significant developments

No significant developments

After 203 weeks (or roughly 1,425 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 202: May 11 – 17, 2020

No significant developments

No significant developments

After 202 weeks (or roughly 1,418 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 201: May 4 – 10, 2020

No significant developments

No significant developments

After 201 weeks (or roughly 1,411 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 200: April 27 – May 3, 2020

No significant developments

No significant developments

After 200 weeks (or roughly 1,404 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 199: April 20 – 26, 2020

No significant developments

No significant developments

After 199 weeks (or roughly 1,397 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 198: April 13 – 19, 2020

No significant developments

No significant developments

After 198 weeks (or roughly 1,390 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 197: April 6 – 12, 2020

No significant developments

No significant developments

After 197 weeks (or roughly 1,383 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 196: March 30 – April 5, 2020

No significant developments

No significant developments

After 196 weeks (or roughly 1,376 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 195: March 23 – 29, 2020

No significant developments

No significant developments

After 195 weeks (or roughly 1,369 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 194: March 16 – 22, 2020

No significant developments

No significant developments

After 194 weeks (or roughly 1,362 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 193: March 9 – 15, 2020

No significant developments

No significant developments

After 193 weeks (or roughly 1,355 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 192: March 2 – 8, 2020

No significant developments

No significant developments

After 192 weeks (or roughly 1,348 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 191: February 24 – March 1, 2020

On 27 February 2020, BBM received a Notice from the PET wherein it Noted his Manifestation with Motion for Early Resolution of All Pending Incidents in his ongoing election protect. The said Motion was filed on 7 February 2020.

On 27 February 2020, BBM received a Notice from the PET wherein it Noted his Manifestation with Motion for Early Resolution of All Pending Incidents in his ongoing election protect. The said Motion was filed on 7 February 2020.

(click here to see the 27 February 2020 Notice from the PET)

After 191 weeks (or roughly 1,341 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 190: February 17 – 23, 2020

On 19 February 2020, BBM received a Notice from the PET wherein it the Board of Election Inspector (BEI) Chairperson in Tabuco, Naga City to furnish the Tribunal with their correct address of their co-member because the Tribunal’s Resolution dated 5 November 2019 was returned unserved.

On 19 February 2020, BBM received a Notice from the PET wherein it the Board of Election Inspector (BEI) Chairperson in Tabuco, Naga City to furnish the Tribunal with their correct address of their co-member because the Tribunal’s Resolution dated 5 November 2019 was returned unserved.

(click here to see the 19 February 2020 Notice from the PET)

After 190 weeks (or roughly 1,334 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 189: February 10 – 16, 2020

No significant developments

No significant developments

After 189 weeks (or roughly 1,327 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 188: February 3 – 9, 2020

On 7 February 2020, BBM received a Notice from the PET wherein it directed the Process Servicing Unit to serve anew the Tribunal’s Resolution dated 5 November 2019 to the Board of Election Inspector (BEI) of CP No. 118, Tabuco, Naga City because the previous address was “unknown / return to sender.”

On 7 February 2020, BBM received a Notice from the PET wherein it directed the Process Servicing Unit to serve anew the Tribunal’s Resolution dated 5 November 2019 to the Board of Election Inspector (BEI) of CP No. 118, Tabuco, Naga City because the previous address was “unknown / return to sender.”

(click here to see the 7 February 2020 Notice from the PET)

On 7 February 2020, BBM filed a Manifestation with Motion for Early Resolution of All Pending Incidents in his election protest.  BBM filed the said Manifestationso as not to render as moot and academic the merits of this case given that the next Vice-Presidential election is just around the corner.”

(click here to see the 7 February 2020 Manifestation from BBM)

After 188 weeks (or roughly 1,320 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 187: January 27 – February 2, 2020

No significant developments

No significant developments

After 187 weeks (or roughly 1,313 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 186: January 20 – 26, 2020

No significant developments

No significant developments

After 186 weeks (or roughly 1,306 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 185: January 13 – 19, 2020

On 17 January 2020, BBM received a Notice from the PET wherein it Noted the Memorandums filed by both BBM and Robredo pursuant to its Resolution dated 15 October 2019.

On 17 January 2020, BBM received a Notice from the PET wherein it Noted the Memorandums filed by both BBM and Robredo pursuant to its Resolution dated 15 October 2019.

(click here to see the 17 January 2020 Notice from the PET)

After 185 weeks (or roughly 1,299 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 184: January 6 – 12, 2020

It will be recalled that on 15 October 2019, the Supreme Court (voting 11-2) rejected Justice Caguioa’s unofficial revision report and instead directed the parties to submit a Memorandum on the following matters within 20 working days :

It will be recalled that on 15 October 2019, the Supreme Court (voting 11-2) rejected Justice Caguioa’s unofficial revision report and instead directed 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 Surand Maguindanao.

Hence, on 6 January 2020, Robredo submitted her Memorandum and said :

1. That BBM’s election protest should be dismissed or, in the alternative,

2. That the protest should still proceed as to the Third Cause of Action and for BBM to present evidence to justify the technical examination of the votes in Basilan, Lanao del Sur and Maguindanao.

(click here to see the 6 January 2020 1 – 100 Memorandum from Robredo)
(click here to see the 6 January 2020 101 – 212 Memorandum from Robredo)
(click here to see the 6 January 2020 ANNEX 1  Memorandum from Robredo)
(click here to see the 6 January 2020 ANNEX 2 Memorandum from Robredo)
(click here to see the 6 January 2020 ANNEX 3 and 4 Memorandum from Robredo)

After 184 weeks (or roughly 1,292 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)