The Supreme Court (SC), sitting as Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET), denied former Senator Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos’ motion to inhibit Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa as justice-in-charge of his electoral protest against Vice President Leni Robredo.
In a 14-page resolution, the high court, in a per curiam decision, also “sternly warned” Marcos and his counsels that “any unfounded. and inappropriate accusation made in the future will be dealt with more severely.”
Marcos sought the inhibition of Caguioa, citing the justice’s “evident bias and manifest partiality.”
In his “Extremely Urgent Motion to Inhibit,” Marcos accused Caguioa of being biased towards the so-called ‘yellow brigade’ citing the justice’s position as justice secretary during the administration of President Benigno Aquino III.
Marcos also alleged that Caguioa’s wife is also a staunch supporter of Robredo.
READ: Bongbong wants Associate Justice out of his election case
However, the PET, in its ruling made public on Monday, said, “the spouse of the member-in-charge has political beliefs is not, by any means, evidence to show the existence of bias or impartiality on the part of the member-in-charge.”
“Such arguments are plainly conjectural and cannot stand scrutiny in a court of law. Justices are not to inhibit as a matter of convenience or simply to avoid controversy,” the PET said.
The PET also found it “disturbing” for Marcos to insinuate Caguioa as having a hand in the raffling of cases.
Under the IRSC (Internal Rules of the Supreme Court), a member of the raffle committee is designated by the Chief Justice based on seniority.
“Clearly, protestant’s allegation that the Protest ‘curiously landed’ on the lap of Justice Caguioa unduly creates an impression of bias or impropriety even on the part of the members of the Court’s raffle committee. This too borders on the contumacious,” read the resolution.
The PET added that the “evidence” attached by the Marcos camp in its motion — an opinion article from Radyo Inquirer about a ‘conjugal conspiracy’ — is “unauthenticated” and therefore “not credible and admissible supporting evidence.”
“All these deficiencies in the motion to inhibit coupled with the utter lack of legal and factual bases therefor, relegate the document to a mere scrap of paper,” read the resolution.
The PET even noted that even before Marcos filed the motion to inhibit, Caguioa already moved to have the case re-raffled because of his apprehension that despite all efforts of the PET, the parties and even the media could tarnish the process.
However, PET said they have unanimously denied Caguioa’s motion “knowing there is no basis for his inhibition.” /vvp
