Leny questions lens in VP recount

The Supreme Court sitting as Presidential Electoral Tribunal will soon resolve an urgent motion for Vic Rodriguez, former Sen. Ferdinand Marcos’ lawyer, to disclose the names of persons who used magnifying glasses in the revision area for the recount petition of his client.

The PET move was in connection with the urgent ex-parte motion by Vice President Leni Robredo on July 4 against a magnifying glass used by a Marcos revisor in the current recount and revision of votes in the May 2016 vice presidential elections.

The motion was filed after Robredo’s camp apparently received information that a Marcos revisor brought in and used a prohibited item in the recount.

Robredo lawyer Romulo Macalintal told the court that Nestor Borromeo, one of Marcos’ revisors, used a plastic magnifying lens on June 14 when papers are the only items allowed in the area.

The Robredo camp informed the tribunal about the incident but Rodriguez issued a statement to the media stressing those present were aware of the plastic magnifier being used in the area and they never complained.

Likewise, the SC-PET ordered the Commission on Elections to comment on a motion for reconsideration filed by Robredo seeking 25-percent threshold on the ongoing electoral protest.

In its July 10 notice, the PET gave the Comelec 10 days to reply, independent from that of the Office of Solicitor General.

The resolution signed by Edgar Aricheta, clerk of the Tribunal, directed the Comelec to comment on the Urgent Motion for Reconsideration (of the resolution dated April 10, 2018) with Reiterative Prayer to Immediately Direct the Head Revisors to use the 25% threshold in the Revision, Recount and Re-Appreciation of Ballots dated April 18, 2018 by Robredo’s counsel.

The SC gave the Comelec a Non-Extendible period of 10 days from notice of the resolution.

The Office of the Solicitor General in a manifestation asked the PET to affirm its ruling last April, upholding the 50 percent shading threshold in determining the validity of votes in the 2016 vice presidential race.

It argued no basis for the High Court to grant the motion of Robredo, seeking to uphold the 25 percent shading threshold.

“As the People’s Tribune, it is the Solicitor General’s duty to present to the Honorable Tribunal the position he perceives to be in the best interest of the State, notwithstanding the stance of the Comelec on the issue of whether the Honorable Tribunal correctly ruled that it has no basis to impose a 25% threshold in determining whether a vote is valid,” the OSG said.

An extension for the Comelec to comment was sought by the OSG so it could study the issue and take the position of the PET.

In supporting the PET’s position and rule on the 50% threshold, the OSG maintained Section 4, Article VII of the Constitution mandates the PET, not the Comelec, has “sole” power and authority to judge presidential and vice presidential poll protests, and promulgate rules for the purpose.

“The power of the PET as the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of the President and Vice President, to promulgate rules and regulations relative to matters within its jurisdiction, including the determination of the threshold to be used in the recount, is beyond dispute,” the OSG said.