Vice President Leni Robredo. AP FILE PHOTO
Vice President Leni Robredo has asked the Supreme Court sitting as the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET) to junk the motion seeking the dismissal of her counter-protest against losing candidate Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr.
In an eight-page comment dated May 5, Robredo said the PET should give due course to her counter-protest.
She said, through lawyers Romulo Macalintal and Maria Bernadette Sardillo, that Marcos was misplaced in citing previous rulings of the Supreme Court in the cases of Perla Garcia and Bienvenido William Lloren in his bid to dismiss Robredo’s motion.
Robredo’s camp explained that Garcia’s case refers to the simultaneous payment to the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) with the filing of the petition while the Lloren case is not applicable because the issue raised was payment of appeal fee.
“It is unfortunate that protestant Marcos has resorted to misleading the Honorable Tribunal by using the SC decision on Lloren’s case to pursue his intention. (…) For the foregoing reasons, the Motion to Dismiss the Counter-Protest should be stricken off the records of this case,” the motion stated.
More importantly, Marcos’ motion should be deemed moot and academic as Robredo has already complied with the PET’s order dated April 25, the payment of the first installment of the cash deposit for her counter-protest amounting to P8 million last May 2, 2017.
READ: Overcoming ‘difficulty,’ Robredo pays P8M for poll protest
Robredo, in her counter protest questioned the results in over 30,000 polling precincts in several areas where Marcos won.
Under Section 33 (b) of the PET rules, a protestant is required to make a cash deposit to the tribunal the amount of P500 per contested precinct.
Based on this, the tribunal required the Vice President in an order last month to pay a cash deposit of P15.43 million for her counter-protest.
She was ordered to pay P8 million for the first tranche on April 16 and P7.43 million on July 14.
But Robredo appealed the order and filed a motion for reconsideration. The PET then denied her appeal, prompting her to comply with the required cash deposit last May 2. IDL/rga