ELECTION PROTEST

Weekly Updates

Week 179: December 2 – 8, 2019

No significant developments

No significant developments

After 179 weeks (or roughly 1,257 days) :

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 his 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 178: November 25 – December 1, 2019

No significant developments

No significant developments

After 178 weeks (or roughly 1,250 days) :

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 his 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 177: November 18 – 24, 2019

No significant developments

No significant developments

After 177 weeks (or roughly 1,243 days) :

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 his 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 176: November 11 – 17, 2019

On 14 November 2019, BBM received a Notice from the PET which resolved to :

On 14 November 2019, BBM received a Notice from the PET which resolved to :

1. Grant the Letter from Robredo’s counsel to allow their authorized representatives to view the annexes of the revision results;

2. Deny Robredo’s Urgent Motion to secure soft copies of the annexes of the revision results;

3. Direct the Clerk of the Tribunal to verify the addresses of the Board of Election Inspectors (BEIs) of CP No. 118, Tabuco, Naga City because the said address was “unknown / return to sender”;

4. Grant the Omnibus Motion from BBM to allow their authorized representatives to view and photocopy the annexes of the revision report;

5. Note Robredo’s Manifestation reiterating her request to secure soft copies of the annexes;

6. Note Robredo’s Urgent Motion asking for equal time to file a Memorandum;

7. Allow BBM and Robredo through their counsels and / or authorized representatives to view, photocopy and secure physical or hard copies of the annexes; and

8. Direct BBM and Robredo to submit their respective Memoranda within 20 days after the completion of the requested viewing and photocopying activities.

(click here to see the 14 November 2019 Notice from the PET)

After 176 weeks (or roughly 1,236 days) :

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 his 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 175: November 4 – 10, 2019

On 4 November 2019, BBM received a Notice from the PET which resolved to :

On 4 November 2019, BBM received a Notice from the PET which resolved to :

1. Note BBM’s Extremely Urgent Motion filed on 9 August 2019 wherein he asked the PET to set a Preliminary Conference for his protest.

According to BBM, eight (8) months had already lapsed since the termination of the recount of votes in his 3 pilot provinces. Hence, he asked the PET to schedule a Preliminary Conference in order for him to present evidence to support his case. According to him, “public interest demands that this electoral controversy be resolved with dispatch to determine once and for all the genuine choice of the electorate for the VP position.”

Unfortunately, the Preliminary Conference was never scheduled and instead, Justice Caguioa submitted a 54-page report on the revision and appreciation of votes.

2. Note the Compliance from the Election Officer of Sagñay, Camarines Sur and the Letter-Explanation from the Board of Election Inspectors (BEIs) of Caramoan, Camarines Sur; and

3. Note Robredo’s Urgent Motion that she be furnished a copy of the revision and appreciation results of BBM’s 3 pilot provinces.

(click here to see the 4 November 2019 Notice from the PET)

On 6 November 2019, BBM received a Manifestation from Robredo reiterating her request to secure soft copies of the annexes for the Memorandum that she would be submitting.

(click here to see the 6 November 2019 Manifestation from Robredo)

On 8 November 2019, BBM received an Urgent Motion from Robredo asking for equal time to file a Memorandum on the revision and appreciation results.

(click here to see the 8 November 2019 Urgent Motion from Robredo)

After 175 weeks (or roughly 1,229 days) :

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. As of 5 March 2019, the MANUAL recount of ballots in these 3 provinces have been completed.  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 his 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 174: October 28 – November 3, 2019

On 30 October 2019, BBM received an Urgent Motion from Robredo wherein she asked the PET’s permission to secure soft copies of the annexes to be used in the Memorandum that she would be submitting.

On 30 October 2019, BBM received an Urgent Motion from Robredo wherein she asked the PET’s permission to secure soft copies of the annexes to be used in the Memorandum that she would be submitting.

(click here to see the 30 October 2019 Urgent Motion from Robredo)

After 174 weeks (or roughly 1,222 days) :

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. As of 5 March 2019, the MANUAL recount of ballots in these 3 provinces have been completed.  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 his 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 173: October 21 – 27, 2019

On 21 October 2019, BBM received a Notice from the PET directing the parties to submit a Memorandum on the following matters within twenty (20) working days from receipt of said Notice:

On 21 October 2019, BBM received a Notice from the PET directing the parties to submit a Memorandum on the following matters within twenty (20) working days from receipt of said Notice:

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

2. Position on various issues relating to BBM’s Third Cause of Action, which is the Annulment of election results in Basilan, Lanao del Sur and Maguindanao.

(click here to see the 21 October 2019 Notice from the PET)

On 23 October 2019, BBM received a Manifestation from Robredo and claimed that the protest “will rise and fall on the pilot provinces chosen by BBM” because of Rule 65 of the 2010 PET Rules.

(click here to see the 23 October 2019 Manifestation from Robredo)

On 23 October 2019, BBM filed an Omnibus Motion and asked permission from the PET to photocopy the voluminous annexes of the revision results. He also requested that his authorized representatives be allowed to witness the photocopying activities and that the costs for the same be deducted from his cash deposit with the PET.

BBM also asked that he be allowed to submit the required Memorandum after the completion of the photocopying activities.

(click here to see the 23 October 2019 Omnibus Motion from BBM)

After 173 weeks (or roughly 1,215 days) :

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. As of 5 March 2019, the MANUAL recount of ballots in these 3 provinces have been completed.  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 his 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 172: October 14 – 20, 2019

In a press conference on 15 October 2019, Atty. Brian Keith Hosaka, Supreme Court Public Information Officer Chief, told members of the media that the PET decided to release the results of the revision and recount of ballots in BBM’s 3 pilot provinces.

In a press conference on 15 October 2019, Atty. Brian Keith Hosaka, Supreme Court Public Information Officer Chief, told members of the media that the PET decided to release the results of the revision and recount of ballots in BBM’s 3 pilot provinces. In addition, the Tribunal also required BBM and Robredo to submit a Memorandum on various issues relating to BBM’s third cause of action, which is the Annulment of election results in Basilan, Lanao del Sur and Maguindanao within 20 days from receipt of Notice.

In layman’s language, this means that the election protest was NOT dismissed. By an overwhelming vote of 11-2 (only Justices Caguioa & Carpio dissented), the Tribunal opted to receive inputs from both parties before deciding on how best to proceed.

(click here to see the 15 Ocober 2019 SC Media Briefer)

In a press conference on 10 September 2019, Atty. Brian Keth Hosaka, Supreme Court Public Information Officer Chief, told members of the media that the recount and revision of BBM’s pilot provinces have been concluded and that the member-in-charge of the case, Justice Caguioa, already submitted a report on the results of the revision. However, he stated that “the Tribunal has not taken any action yet on the said report”.

The Supreme Court also released a Media Briefer on the matter.

(click here to see the 10 September 2019 SC Media Briefer)

After 172 weeks (or roughly 1,208 days) :

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. As of 5 March 2019, the MANUAL recount of ballots in these 3 provinces have been completed.  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 next stage is what is referred to as the PRELIMINARY APPRECIATION (“PA”) of votes. The PA stage is where the parties submit their OBJECTIONS to the ballots that were MANUALLY counted so that the PET can REVIEW the same.

For his part, BBM’s objections included the presence 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

The PET began REVIEWING both parties’ objections on March 2019.

This is why the Tribunal has consistently said that, “it is highly premature x x x to claim a deduction of votes as the Tribunal has yet to rule on the objections and claims of the parties in the appreciation stage. In fact, the very purpose of ballot appreciation by the Tribunal is to avoid disenfranchisement of the electorate by ascertaining their true will and intent.”

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.”

We are still waiting to hear from the PET.

– – – – –

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 his 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 171: October 7 – 13, 2019

On 9 October 2019, BBM received a Notice from the PET regarding a Letter-Explanation of what happened to the ballots / ballot boxes / decrypted ballots in clustered precinct #27 in San Joaquin, Iloilo City. The said Letter-Explanation came from the Board of Electon Inspectors (BEIs) in San Joaquin, Iloilo City.

In a press conference on 10 September 2019, Atty. Brian Keth Hosaka, Supreme Court Public Information Officer Chief, told members of the media that the recount and revision of BBM’s pilot provinces have been concluded and that the member-in-charge of the case, Justice Caguioa, already submitted a report on the results of the revision. However, he stated that “the Tribunal has not taken any action yet on the said report”.

The Supreme Court also released a Media Briefer on the matter.

(click here to see the 10 September 2019 SC Media Briefer)

On 9 October 2019, BBM received a Notice from the PET regarding a Letter-Explanation of what happened to the ballots / ballot boxes / decrypted ballots in clustered precinct #27 in San Joaquin, Iloilo City. The said Letter-Explanation came from the Board of Electon Inspectors (BEIs) in San Joaquin, Iloilo City.

Since the inception of this election protest, we have been receiving weekly queries on what these “Letters-Explanation” supposedly contain. Unfortunately, since we are not being furnished a copy of the ACTUAL Letter-Explanation, we have no way of knowing what the Letter contains or what the Explanation was.

(click here to see the 9 October 2019 Notice from the PET)

After 171 weeks (or roughly 1,201 days) :

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. As of 5 March 2019, the MANUAL recount of ballots in these 3 provinces have been completed.  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 next stage is what is referred to as the PRELIMINARY APPRECIATION (“PA”) of votes. The PA stage is where the parties submit their OBJECTIONS to the ballots that were MANUALLY counted so that the PET can REVIEW the same.

For his part, BBM’s objections included the presence 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

The PET began REVIEWING both parties’ objections on March 2019.

This is why the Tribunal has consistently said that, “it is highly premature x x x to claim a deduction of votes as the Tribunal has yet to rule on the objections and claims of the parties in the appreciation stage. In fact, the very purpose of ballot appreciation by the Tribunal is to avoid disenfranchisement of the electorate by ascertaining their true will and intent.”

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.”

We are still waiting to hear from the PET.

– – – – –

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 his 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 170: September 30 – October 6, 2019

In a press conference on 10 September 2019, Atty. Brian Keth Hosaka, Supreme Court Public Information Officer Chief, told members of the media that the recount and revision of BBM’s pilot provinces have been concluded and that the member-in-charge of the case, Justice Caguioa, already submitted a report on the results of the revision. However, he stated that “the Tribunal has not taken any action yet on the said report”.

In a press conference on 10 September 2019, Atty. Brian Keth Hosaka, Supreme Court Public Information Officer Chief, told members of the media that the recount and revision of BBM’s pilot provinces have been concluded and that the member-in-charge of the case, Justice Caguioa, already submitted a report on the results of the revision. However, he stated that “the Tribunal has not taken any action yet on the said report”.

The Supreme Court also released a Media Briefer on the matter.

(click here to see the 10 September 2019 SC Media Briefer)

After 170 weeks (or roughly 1,194 days) :

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. As of 5 March 2019, the MANUAL recount of ballots in these 3 provinces have been completed.  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 next stage is what is referred to as the PRELIMINARY APPRECIATION (“PA”) of votes. The PA stage is where the parties submit their OBJECTIONS to the ballots that were MANUALLY counted so that the PET can REVIEW the same.

For his part, BBM’s objections included the presence 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

The PET began REVIEWING both parties’ objections on March 2019.

This is why the Tribunal has consistently said that, “it is highly premature x x x to claim a deduction of votes as the Tribunal has yet to rule on the objections and claims of the parties in the appreciation stage. In fact, the very purpose of ballot appreciation by the Tribunal is to avoid disenfranchisement of the electorate by ascertaining their true will and intent.”

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.”

We are still waiting to hear from the PET.

– – – – –

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 his 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 169: September 23 – 29, 2019

In a press conference on 10 September 2019, Atty. Brian Keth Hosaka, Supreme Court Public Information Officer Chief, told members of the media that the recount and revision of BBM’s pilot provinces have been concluded and that the member-in-charge of the case, Justice Caguioa, already submitted a report on the results of the revision. However, he stated that “the Tribunal has not taken any action yet on the said report”.

In a press conference on 10 September 2019, Atty. Brian Keth Hosaka, Supreme Court Public Information Officer Chief, told members of the media that the recount and revision of BBM’s pilot provinces have been concluded and that the member-in-charge of the case, Justice Caguioa, already submitted a report on the results of the revision. However, he stated that “the Tribunal has not taken any action yet on the said report”.

The Supreme Court also released a Media Briefer on the matter.

(click here to see the 10 September 2019 SC Media Briefer)

After 169 weeks (or roughly 1,187 days) :

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. As of 5 March 2019, the MANUAL recount of ballots in these 3 provinces have been completed.  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 next stage is what is referred to as the PRELIMINARY APPRECIATION (“PA”) of votes. The PA stage is where the parties submit their OBJECTIONS to the ballots that were MANUALLY counted so that the PET can REVIEW the same.

For his part, BBM’s objections included the presence 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

The PET began REVIEWING both parties’ objections on March 2019.

This is why the Tribunal has consistently said that, “it is highly premature x x x to claim a deduction of votes as the Tribunal has yet to rule on the objections and claims of the parties in the appreciation stage. In fact, the very purpose of ballot appreciation by the Tribunal is to avoid disenfranchisement of the electorate by ascertaining their true will and intent.”

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.”

We are still waiting to hear from the PET.

– – – – –

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 his 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 168: September 16 – 22, 2019

In a press conference on 10 September 2019, Atty. Brian Keth Hosaka, Supreme Court Public Information Officer Chief, told members of the media that the recount and revision of BBM’s pilot provinces have been concluded and that the member-in-charge of the case, Justice Caguioa, already submitted a report on the results of the revision. However, he stated that “the Tribunal has not taken any action yet on the said report”.

In a press conference on 10 September 2019, Atty. Brian Keth Hosaka, Supreme Court Public Information Officer Chief, told members of the media that the recount and revision of BBM’s pilot provinces have been concluded and that the member-in-charge of the case, Justice Caguioa, already submitted a report on the results of the revision. However, he stated that “the Tribunal has not taken any action yet on the said report”.

The Supreme Court also released a Media Briefer on the matter.

(click here to see the 10 September 2019 SC Media Briefer)

On 17 September 2019, BBM received a Notice from the PET which resolved to Note the :

1. Letter-Explanation from the Acting City Treasurer of Bato, Camarines Sur; and

2. Letter-Explanation from the Board of Election Inspectors (BEIs) of CP No. 34, Bato, Camarines Sur.

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

On 17 September 2019, BBM received a second Notice from the PET which resolved to Note the :

1. Compliance from the Election Officer of Iriga City, Camarines Sur;

2. Letter-Explanation from the Board of Election Inspectors (BEIs) of CP No. 68, Iriga City, Camarines Sur; and

3. Letter-Explanation from the Board of Election Inspectors (BEIs) of CP No. 118, Naga City, Camarines Sur.

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

After 168 weeks (or roughly 1,180 days) :

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. As of 5 March 2019, the MANUAL recount of ballots in these 3 provinces have been completed.  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 next stage is what is referred to as the PRELIMINARY APPRECIATION (“PA”) of votes. The PA stage is where the parties submit their OBJECTIONS to the ballots that were MANUALLY counted so that the PET can REVIEW the same.

For his part, BBM’s objections included the presence 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

The PET began REVIEWING both parties’ objections on March 2019.

This is why the Tribunal has consistently said that, “it is highly premature x x x to claim a deduction of votes as the Tribunal has yet to rule on the objections and claims of the parties in the appreciation stage. In fact, the very purpose of ballot appreciation by the Tribunal is to avoid disenfranchisement of the electorate by ascertaining their true will and intent.”

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.”

We are still waiting to hear from the PET.

– – – – –

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 his 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 167: September 9 – 15, 2019

In a press conference on 10 September 2019, Atty. Brian Keth Hosaka, Supreme Court Public Information Officer Chief, told members of the media that the recount and revision of BBM’s pilot provinces have been concluded and that the member-in-charge of the case, Justice Caguioa, already submitted a report on the results of the revision. However, he stated that “the Tribunal has not taken any action yet on the said report”.

In a press conference on 10 September 2019, Atty. Brian Keth Hosaka, Supreme Court Public Information Officer Chief, told members of the media that the recount and revision of BBM’s pilot provinces have been concluded and that the member-in-charge of the case, Justice Caguioa, already submitted a report on the results of the revision. However, he stated that “the Tribunal has not taken any action yet on the said report”.

The Supreme Court also released a Media Briefer on the matter.

 (click here to see the 10 September 2019 SC Media Briefer)

After 167 weeks (or roughly 1,173 days) :

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. As of 5 March 2019, the MANUAL recount of ballots in these 3 provinces have been completed.  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 next stage is what is referred to as the PRELIMINARY APPRECIATION (“PA”) of votes. The PA stage is where the parties submit their OBJECTIONS to the ballots that were MANUALLY counted so that the PET can REVIEW the same.

For his part, BBM’s objections included the presence 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

The PET began REVIEWING both parties’ objections on March 2019.

This is why the Tribunal has consistently said that, “it is highly premature x x x to claim a deduction of votes as the Tribunal has yet to rule on the objections and claims of the parties in the appreciation stage. In fact, the very purpose of ballot appreciation by the Tribunal is to avoid disenfranchisement of the electorate by ascertaining their true will and intent.”

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.”

We are still waiting to hear from the PET.

– – – – –

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 his 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 166: September 2 – 8, 2019

No significant developments

No significant developments

After 166 weeks (or roughly 1,166 days) :

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. As of 5 March 2019, the MANUAL recount of ballots in these 3 provinces have been completed.  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 next stage is what is referred to as the PRELIMINARY APPRECIATION (“PA”) of votes. The PA stage is where the parties submit their OBJECTIONS to the ballots that were MANUALLY counted so that the PET can REVIEW the same.

For his part, BBM’s objections included the presence 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

The PET began REVIEWING both parties’ objections on March 2019.  We are still waiting for the Tribunal to inform us of the RESULTS of the PA stage of BBM’s election protest.

This is why the Tribunal has consistently said that, “it is highly premature x x x to claim a deduction of votes as the Tribunal has yet to rule on the objections and claims of the parties in the appreciation stage. In fact, the very purpose of ballot appreciation by the Tribunal is to avoid disenfranchisement of the electorate by ascertaining their true will and intent.”

After the PET completes the PA stage, it will then direct the parties to submit their FORMAL OFFER OF EVIDENCE [undertaking 14 of 21].

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.”

– – – – –

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 his 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 165: August 26 – September 1, 2019

No significant developments

No significant developments

After 165 weeks (or roughly 1,159 days) :

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. As of 5 March 2019, the MANUAL recount of ballots in these 3 provinces have been completed.  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 next stage is what is referred to as the PRELIMINARY APPRECIATION (“PA”) of votes. The PA stage is where the parties submit their OBJECTIONS to the ballots that were MANUALLY counted so that the PET can REVIEW the same.

For his part, BBM’s objections included the presence 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

The PET began REVIEWING both parties’ objections on March 2019.  We are still waiting for the Tribunal to inform us of the RESULTS of the PA stage of BBM’s election protest.

This is why the Tribunal has consistently said that, “it is highly premature x x x to claim a deduction of votes as the Tribunal has yet to rule on the objections and claims of the parties in the appreciation stage. In fact, the very purpose of ballot appreciation by the Tribunal is to avoid disenfranchisement of the electorate by ascertaining their true will and intent.”

After the PET completes the PA stage, it will then direct the parties to submit their FORMAL OFFER OF EVIDENCE [undertaking 14 of 21].

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.”

– – – – –

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 his 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 164: August 19 – 25, 2019

No significant developments

No significant developments

After 164 weeks (or roughly 1,152 days) :

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. As of 5 March 2019, the MANUAL recount of ballots in these 3 provinces have been completed.  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 next stage is what is referred to as the PRELIMINARY APPRECIATION (“PA”) of votes. The PA stage is where the parties submit their OBJECTIONS to the ballots that were MANUALLY counted so that the PET can REVIEW the same.

For his part, BBM’s objections included the presence 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

The PET began REVIEWING both parties’ objections on March 2019.  We are still waiting for the Tribunal to inform us of the RESULTS of the PA stage of BBM’s election protest.

This is why the Tribunal has consistently said that, “it is highly premature x x x to claim a deduction of votes as the Tribunal has yet to rule on the objections and claims of the parties in the appreciation stage. In fact, the very purpose of ballot appreciation by the Tribunal is to avoid disenfranchisement of the electorate by ascertaining their true will and intent.”

After the PET completes the PA stage, it will then direct the parties to submit their FORMAL OFFER OF EVIDENCE [undertaking 14 of 21].

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.”

– – – – –

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 his 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 163: August 12 – 18, 2019

On 16 August 2019, BBM recived a Notice from the PET denying its request to decrypt and print the ballots images of clustered precinct #19 in Caramoan, Camarines Sur.

On 16 August 2019, BBM recived a Notice from the PET denying its request to decrypt and print the ballots images of clustered precinct #19 in Caramoan, Camarines Sur.

(click here to see the 16 August 2019 Notice from the PET)

After 163 weeks (or roughly 1,145 days) :

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. As of 5 March 2019, the MANUAL recount of ballots in these 3 provinces have been completed.  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 next stage is what is referred to as the PRELIMINARY APPRECIATION (“PA”) of votes. The PA stage is where the parties submit their OBJECTIONS to the ballots that were MANUALLY counted so that the PET can REVIEW the same.

For his part, BBM’s objections included the presence 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

The PET began REVIEWING both parties’ objections on March 2019.  We are still waiting for the Tribunal to inform us of the RESULTS of the PA stage of BBM’s election protest.

This is why the Tribunal has consistently said that, “it is highly premature x x x to claim a deduction of votes as the Tribunal has yet to rule on the objections and claims of the parties in the appreciation stage. In fact, the very purpose of ballot appreciation by the Tribunal is to avoid disenfranchisement of the electorate by ascertaining their true will and intent.”

After the PET completes the PA stage, it will then direct the parties to submit their FORMAL OFFER OF EVIDENCE [undertaking 14 of 21].

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.”

We are still waiting to hear from the PET.

– – – – –

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 his 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 162: August 5 – 11, 2019

On 9 August 2019, BBM filed an Extremely Urgent Motion wherein he asked the PET to set his Election Protest for Preliminary Conference.

On 9 August 2019, BBM filed an Extremely Urgent Motion wherein he asked the PET to set his Election Protest for Preliminary Conference.

It has been more than five (5) months since the recount of BBM’s votes in the 3 pilot provinces was terminated. Thus, BBM asked the PET to schedule a Preliminary Conference so that he can present evidence to support his case. According to BBM, “Public interest demands that this electoral controversy be resolved with dispatch to determine once and for all the genuine choice of the electorate for the contested position.

(click here to see the 9 August 2019 Extremely Urgent Motion from BBM)

After 162 weeks (or roughly 1,138 days) :

The PET finished the MANUAL recount of ballots in all the clustered precincts of BBM’s three (3) pilot provinces, namely Camarines Sur, Iloilo and Negros Oriental. As of 5 March 2019, the MANUAL recount of ballots in these 3 provinces have been completed.

The next stage is what is referred to as the PRELIMINARY APPRECIATION (“PA”) of votes. The PA stage is where the parties submit their OBJECTIONS to the ballots that were MANUALLY counted so that the PET can REVIEW the same.

For his part, BBM’s objections included the presence of UNREADABLE ballots because they were :

wet
 covered with dried fish & garbage
 burned with cigarette butts
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

The PET has been REVIEWING these objections since March 2019. We are still waiting for the Tribunal to COMPLETE the PA stage of BBM’s election protest.

This is why the Tribunal has consistently said that, “it is highly premature x x x to claim a deduction of votes as the Tribunal has yet to rule on the objections and claims of the parties in the appreciation stage. In fact, the very purpose of ballot appreciation by the Tribunal is to avoid disenfranchisement of the electorate by ascertaining their true will and intent.”

After the PET completes the PA stage, it will then direct the parties to submit their FORMAL OFFER OF EVIDENCE [undertaking 14 of 21]. This is where BBM will prove that he lost a SUBSTANTIAL number of votes in the 3 pilot provinces.

We are still waiting to hear from the PET.

– – – – –

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 his 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 161: July 29 – August 4, 2019

On 31 July 2019, BBM received a Manifestation from the COMELEC wherein it explained the “defects” of the ballot images :

On 31 July 2019, BBM received a Manifestation from the COMELEC wherein it explained the “defects” of the ballot images :

1. The absence of ballot images in some of the clustered precincts in Camarines Sur and Iloilo was due to the SD cards being “permanently deleted.” This happened because the Electoral Boards (EBs) pressed the “rezero” command “before shutting down the Vote Counting Machines (VCMs);”

2. The non-chronological sequencing of the ballot images was due to COMELEC’s desire to eliminate “any possible link between the ballot and the voter.” “Accordingly, to ensure ballot secrecy, the sequence of storing the ballot images in the baloots-list.csv report should be scrambled, and not in choronological order;”

COMELEC also requested permission to decrypt and print the ballot images of CP 19 of Caramoan, Camarines Sur in order to address the issue of excess ballot images in the said precinct.

(click here to see the 31 July 2019 Manifestation from COMELEC)

After 161 weeks (or roughly 1,131 days) :

The PET finished the MANUAL recount of ballots in all the clustered precincts of BBM’s three (3) pilot provinces, namely Camarines Sur, Iloilo and Negros Oriental. As of 5 March 2019, the MANUAL recount of ballots in these 3 provinces have been completed.

The next stage is what is referred to as the PRELIMINARY APPRECIATION (“PA”) of votes. The PA stage is where the parties submit their OBJECTIONS to the ballots that were MANUALLY counted so that the PET can REVIEW the same.

For his part, BBM’s objections included the presence of UNREADABLE ballots because they were :

wet
 covered with dried fish & garbage
 burned with cigarette butts
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

The PET has been REVIEWING these objections since March 2019. We are still waiting for the Tribunal to COMPLETE the PA stage of BBM’s election protest.

This is why the Tribunal has consistently said that, “it is highly premature x x x to claim a deduction of votes as the Tribunal has yet to rule on the objections and claims of the parties in the appreciation stage. In fact, the very purpose of ballot appreciation by the Tribunal is to avoid disenfranchisement of the electorate by ascertaining their true will and intent.”

After the PET completes the PA stage, it will then direct the parties to submit their FORMAL OFFER OF EVIDENCE [undertaking 14 of 21]. This is where BBM will prove that he lost a SUBSTANTIAL number of votes in the 3 pilot provinces.

We are still waiting to hear from the PET.

– – – – –

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 his 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 160: July 22 – 28, 2019

No significant developments

No significant developments

After 160 weeks (or roughly 1,124 days) :

The PET finished the MANUAL recount of ballots in all the clustered precincts of BBM’s three (3) pilot provinces, namely Camarines Sur, Iloilo and Negros Oriental. As of 5 March 2019, the MANUAL recount of ballots in these 3 provinces have been completed.

The next stage is what is referred to as the PRELIMINARY APPRECIATION (“PA”) of votes. The PA stage is where the parties submit their OBJECTIONS to the ballots that were MANUALLY counted so that the PET can REVIEW the same.

For his part, BBM’s objections included the presence of UNREADABLE ballots because they were :

wet
 covered with dried fish & garbage
 burned with cigarette butts
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

The PET has been REVIEWING these objections since March 2019. We are still waiting for the Tribunal to COMPLETE the PA stage of BBM’s election protest.

This is why the Tribunal has consistently said that, “it is highly premature x x x to claim a deduction of votes as the Tribunal has yet to rule on the objections and claims of the parties in the appreciation stage. In fact, the very purpose of ballot appreciation by the Tribunal is to avoid disenfranchisement of the electorate by ascertaining their true will and intent.”

After the PET completes the PA stage, it will then direct the parties to submit their FORMAL OFFER OF EVIDENCE [undertaking 14 of 21]. This is where BBM will prove that he lost a SUBSTANTIAL number of votes in the 3 pilot provinces.

We are still waiting to hear from the PET.

– – – – –

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 his 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)