“Focusing on recount numbers from the pilot areas rather than the complex anomalies that created a discrepancy between the original and the revisions washes over the questions of fraud and its diverse modes.

There are several aberrations with the manner that the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET) has been handling the election protest filed against Leonor Robredo.

One is the interpretation that according to a specific rule of the PET on the revision of ballot counts in three pilot areas subsequent other courses of action that pertain to a different set of ballots, a different set of protest charges and indeed, a different set of fraudulent electoral results, may likewise be junked on the basis of action singularly focused on these three areas.

Another is the act of the PET in prematurely releasing to the parties involved, both the protester and the protestant, the results of a revision of counts in three pilot areas. The PET says that the release is in order that the parties might comment. What is the point of simply releasing those numbers sans curative measures responding to possible fraud that created those questionable counts in the first place? If the three pilot area test is merely a recount exercise to indicate the presence or absence of election fraud in other areas then its validity as a representative area renders its results merely speculative.

The third is the premature release of raw and unprocessed data which creates both unfounded expectations and misconceptions likely to affect both the credibility and acceptability of the PET’s final judgement on the totality of the 2016 elections.

If the PET eventually hinges the totality of the protest on this singular course of action then nothing is settled.

Worse, if we were to identify a premature winner then a common beneficiary on all of the foregoing would be Robredo as the circumstances of each unfairly accrue to her benefit.

On the rules of the PET that Robredo asserts cannot be changed midway in the protest, she interprets Rule 65 to effectively overwhelm and overrule all others if the recount shows her with a lead. Never mind that the decision of the PET to recognize a 25 percent shaded ballot instead of 50 percent had effectively changed rules after the fact and thus created that lead.

PET Rule 65 states, “If 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.”

By declaring she’s won the count several times including the three pilot area recounts, Robredo is at best whistling in the dark. At worst she’s fomenting falsehoods. Discern the rules’ verbatim prose. Rule 65 does not limit results to mere recounts. “All circumstances,” “ballots and proof” must be examined to determine the probability of either winning or losing. And even on the basis of probability, the possibility of dismissing remains simply speculative.

This segues to the second aberration on the release of non-definitive data. Given that mere recount numbers do not suffice to determine victory, why release these when doing so unfairly allows Robredo a propaganda advantage to fool and lie to a vulnerable public that these three areas constitute victory over the whole protest?

Focusing on recount numbers from the pilot areas rather than the complex anomalies that created a discrepancy between the original and the revisions washes over the questions of fraud and its diverse modes thus fomenting the misconception that the protest is merely a counting concern. Election fraud is the issue here and is at the core of the protest. Not mere recounting.

Robredo’s rhetoric purposely invokes a misinterpretation of Rule 65. That’s dishonesty.

These compel us to ask if the PET is still being fair since all three display an identifiable bias in favor of Robredo who herself fertilizes falsehoods and effectively lies on the PET’s protocols.

The PET cannot appear to be biased. While the PET is not the Supreme Court (SC) where its role and functions are concerned, the fact that the PET is comprised of SC justices virtually locks the door to any motion for reconsideration, erases all options thereafter and denies other venues for redress.

Filipinos feel that Philippine elections are rigged. Such surrender is the result of the failure to satisfy the constituents’ demand for timely justice. Woe for us should the PET become a cemetery for election protests. Deep-sixed and buried aren’t the losing protesters. It will be the credibility of our electoral system.