Case Digest (P.E.T. Case No. 005)
Facts:
Ferdinand "Bongbong" R. Marcos, Jr. v. Maria Leonor "Leni Daang Matuwid" G. Robredo, PET Case No. 005, November 17, 2020, Presidential Electoral Tribunal (the Supreme Court sitting as the PET), Per Curiam. The Resolution was promulgated per curiam by the Tribunal en banc with the membership and concurrence noted at the end of the Resolution.Protestant Marcos filed a "Strong Manifestation with Extremely Urgent Omnibus Motion" dated November 9, 2020, seeking: (I) the inhibition of Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen as Member-in-Charge; (II) an immediate re-raffle of the protest to another Member; and (III) resolution of all pending incidents in the election protest. Marcos alleged that Justice Leonen had demonstrated bias and partiality by reason of his prior employment, public pronouncements, a dissenting opinion in Ocampo v. Enriquez (the Marcos burial case), the circulation of draft "Reflections," and what Marcos characterized as undue delay and inappropriate handling of the protest (including referrals to the Commission on Elections and the Office of the Solicitor General).
On the same day the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), led by Solicitor General Jose C. Calida, filed a similar omnibus motion acting as the "People's Tribune," echoing Marcos' allegations that Justice Leonen had prejudged matters, exhibited disdain toward the Marcos family (citing Justice Leonen's long dissent in Ocampo v. Enriquez), and that the Tribunal's delay after the raffle to Justice Leonen demonstrated bias and/or incompetence. The OSG also urged the inhibition and re-raffle.
Respondent Robredo filed a countermanifestation opposing the motions, reminding the Tribunal of its August 28, 2018 Resolution that warned Marcos against unfounded accusations and arguing that the present motion repeated previously rejected grounds.
The Tribunal recounted the case history relevant to the motions: earlier proceedings including its October 15, 2019 Resolution (reporting the results of revision and appreciation of ballots in pilot provinces), parties’ memoranda (filed December 19, 2019 and noted January 7, 2020), prior incidents addressed by the Tribunal, and an earlier August 28, 2018 denial of a similar inhibition motion. The Tribunal considered procedural authorities including the Internal Rules (Rule 8, Section 1 on inhibition), the 2010 Rules of the PET (Admin. Matter No. 10-4-29-SC, Rule 67), constitutional provisions on decision-making (Art. VIII, Secs. 13–14), and jurisprudence (including Atty. Macalintal v. Presidential Electoral Tribunal and other Supreme Court decisions cited in the Resolution).
After reviewing the motions and submissions, the Tribunal held that none of the asserted grounds established a clear and convincing basis for inhibition under Rule 8, Section 1; that alleged delay was not governed by the obsolete time limits in Republic Act No. 1793 or Batas Pambansa Blg. 884 and that the Tribunal's procedures are governed by constitutional provisions and the PET rule...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Should Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen inhibit from participation in PET Case No. 005? ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)