Title
Marcos, Jr. vs. Robredo
Case
P.E.T. Case No. 005
Decision Date
Oct 15, 2019
Ferdinand Marcos Jr. contested Leni Robredo's 2016 VP election win, alleging fraud. PET dismissed his first claim after a recount in pilot provinces increased Robredo's lead; other claims deferred pending further evidence.

Case Summary (P.E.T. Case No. 005)

Factual Background

The vice presidential contest in the 2016 elections was extremely close with protestee declared the winner on May 30, 2016 after the canvass by Congress. The official canvass showed protestee with 14,418,817 votes and protestant with 14,155,344 votes, a margin of 263,473 votes. Protestant thereafter filed an election protest before the Tribunal challenging protestee’s proclamation and alleging widespread electoral irregularities, seeking annulment, recount, revision, and technical examinations of election paraphernalia in numerous clustered precincts.

Filing of the Protest

Protestant filed his Election Protest on June 29, 2016. He pleaded two causes of action: a First Cause of Action attacking the authenticity of the Certificates of Canvass (COCs) and the Consolidation and Canvass System (CCS) as bases for proclamation, and a Second Cause of Action alleging massive frauds, irregularities, and anomalies in 39,221 clustered precincts, with varying remedies sought including annulment of results in certain provinces and revision and recount of ballots in others. Protestant paid an initial cash deposit of PHP 200,000.

Protestant’s Causes of Action and Reliefs Sought

Protestant prayed that the Tribunal declare protestee’s proclamation null and void for lack of authentic COCs, annul election results in specified provinces where he alleged terrorism prevented voting, and order the collection, retrieval, and manual recount and revision of ballots and related forensic and technical examinations of automated election equipment, SD cards, ballot images, voter lists and registration records in the protested clustered precincts. Ultimately, he prayed for a declaration that he obtained the highest number of valid votes and should be declared Vice President.

Respondent’s Answer and Counter‑Protest

Protestee filed a Verified Answer with Special and Affirmative Defenses and a Counter-Protest on August 15, 2016. She moved for dismissal for lack of jurisdiction and insufficiency in form and substance under the 2010 PET Rules and contended that protestant’s challenge to proclamation was a pre-proclamation controversy that should have been brought before the National Board of Canvassers. Protestee also counter-protested ballots in 7,547 clustered precincts in thirteen provinces and alleged vote-buying and other irregularities in areas described as protestant bailiwicks. She paid an initial deposit of PHP 200,000.

Procedural Disputes on Timeliness and Verification

The parties disputed the timeliness of protestee’s Answer and protestant’s Answer to the Counter-Protest. Protestant moved to strike as late protestee’s Answer; protestee moved to expunge protestant’s Answer to the Counter-Protest as belated. The Tribunal examined postal certifications and accepted protestee’s Answer, denied motions to strike, and resolved the timeliness and verification issues in a Resolution dated January 24, 2017, holding that the Tribunal had exclusive jurisdiction under Section 4, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution and that the Protest was sufficient in form and substance.

Precautionary and Custody Orders; COMELEC Stripping and Closure

The Tribunal issued a Precautionary Protection Order on July 12, 2016 directing COMELEC and its agents to preserve ballots and election paraphernalia in 92,509 clustered precincts. COMELEC sought authority to conduct closure and stripping activities pursuant to its contract with Smartmatic, asserting contractual obligations and lease expiry concerns. The Tribunal authorized closure and stripping limited to physical dismantling and preserved election results data, and allowed party representatives to observe, while securing assurances that results would not be compromised.

Cash Deposits and Financial Requirements

Under Rule 33 of the 2010 PET Rules, the Tribunal computed the required cash deposits because the Protest and Counter‑Protest required retrieval of ballot boxes. The Tribunal required protestant to pay a total of PHP 66,023,000 in two installments and required protestee to pay PHP 15,439,000 in two installments. Both parties complied with the initial and subsequent payments as directed, with protestant paying his installments in April and July 2017 and protestee paying the first installment and seeking deferment of the second until after an initial determination under Rule 65.

Appointment of Panel and Preliminary Conference

The Tribunal constituted a panel of three Commissioners to aid in disposition and appointed a Head Revisor system and other personnel for the revision. A comprehensive preliminary conference was conducted on July 11, 2017 to simplify issues, obtain stipulations, and set preparation steps for retrieval and revision. The parties agreed to witness limits and that the Tribunal would adopt the Judicial Affidavit Rule for testimonial evidence.

Dismissal of the First Cause of Action and Preliminary Conference Order

In the Resolution dated August 29, 2017 the Tribunal dismissed the First Cause of Action as legally and practically futile because protestant did not seek a manual recount of ballots in all clustered precincts, rendering an annulment of proclamation without a full recount meaningless. The Tribunal issued a Preliminary Conference Order limiting the proceedings to the Second and Third Causes of Action and designated Camarines Sur, Iloilo, and Negros Oriental as protestant’s three pilot provinces under Rule 65 to serve as test cases for whether the protestant could make a prima facie recovery sufficient to proceed to the remaining contested precincts.

Motions for Retrieval, Decryption, and Technical Examination

Protestant moved for retrieval of ballot boxes and election paraphernalia and for decryption and printing of ballot images and technical examination of voters’ signatures in certain provinces. The Tribunal granted retrieval, decryption and printing only for the pilot provinces and deferred technical examination in provinces alleged in the Third Cause of Action (Lanao del Sur, Maguindanao, Basilan) pending the Rule 65 initial determination, emphasizing judicial economy and logistical constraints.

Revisor’s Guide, Amendments to Procedures, and Threshold Issue

To govern the revision under AES conditions, the Tribunal issued the PET Revisor’s Guide and amended the composition and compensation of Revision Committees. A major procedural issue arose over the shading threshold to determine valid votes—whether to apply the 50% threshold in the 2010 PET Rules or the 25% range asserted in COMELEC materials. After submissions, the Tribunal directed Head Revisors to use the Election Returns generated by the VCMs as the guiding baseline and amended Rule 62 of the Revisor’s Guide so that segregation and classification of ballots would be done with reference to the machine-generated Election Returns rather than by a fixed percentage shading rule.

Retrieval and Decryption Operations and Venue Preparation

The Tribunal coordinated exploratory retrieval missions and authorized the use and retrofitting of the Supreme Court gymnasium as the revision venue. COMELEC delivered procedures for decryption and printing. Decryption and printing of ballot images for the pilot provinces commenced on October 23, 2017, with the Tribunal supervising authentication, and COMELEC later turned over custody of printed ballot images, audit logs and election returns for the pilot provinces to the Tribunal on December 3, 2018. The physical retrieval and transfer of ballot boxes from the three pilot provinces concluded on September 19, 2018.

Revision Methodology and Conduct of the Revision

The Tribunal structured the revision to verify physical counts, recount votes, and record party objections and claims. Fifty Revision Committees, each with a Head Revisor and party revisors, conducted the revision beginning April 2, 2018. The process required authentication of ballots, segregation into categories (votes for protestant, votes for protestee, other candidates, stray votes), registration of parties’ claims and objections, and preparation of Revision Reports. Revision Supervisors resolved threshold and shading questions during revision and prepared Incident Reports on irregularities for the panel of Commissioners’ examination.

Ballot Appreciation Guidelines and Appreciation Stage

After revision, the Tribunal adopted the PET Guidelines in the Appreciation of Ballots Under the Automated Election System to govern the appreciation stage with the cardinal objective to discover and give effect to the voter’s intent. The appreciation of ballots from the pilot provinces commenced January 14, 2019 and concluded August 14, 2019. The Tribunal classified objections (for example, spurious ballots, substituted ballots, shaded by one or more, marked ballots, pre-shaded ballots) and claims (ambiguous votes, over-votes, machine-rejected ballots) and set out rules for admission or rejection of such items.

Results of Revision and Appreciation in the Pilot Provinces

The Tribunal revised and appreciated paper ballots and decrypted ballot images in five thousand four hundred fifteen clustered precincts in Camarines Sur, Iloilo, and Negros Oriental. The revision and appreciation produced a new computed national total by combining unchanged votes in the non-pilot precincts and the results from the pilot precincts after adjudication of objections and claims. Using the official canvass as the starting point (protestee 14,418,817; protestant 14,155,344), and substituting revised pilot-province totals, the Tribunal computed new totals of 14,436,337 votes for protestee and 14,157,771 votes for protestant. The revision therefore increased protestee’s lead from 263,473 to 278,566 votes.

Interim Rulings, Sanctions, and Other Orders

The Tribunal imposed a P50,000 fine on each party for violations of the sub judice rule and sternly warned them against repetition. The Tribunal denied protestant’s Motion to Inhibit Member-in-Charge Associate Ju

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.