Fake victory news from Leni?

Why is she claiming victory this early when the High Court had already voted to give the two parties their ‘due process’ that has been stretched to 20 days?

Media was all over the report that the Supreme Court (SC), acting as the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET), released Friday its report showing that the recount of votes in three pilot provinces chosen by Marcos had increased Robredo’s lead by 15,093 votes.

“After the revision and appreciation of votes, the lead of protestee Robredo increased from 263,473 to 278,566,” media reports claimed the PET said in its ruling.

Leni’s lawyer, Bernadette Sardillo, claimed victory, saying that the PET findings “only affirmed our consistent position that Vice President Robredo won in the three provinces fair and square, contrary to the accusations of losing candidate Ferdinand Marcos Jr.” She added that, “Clearly, we won in May 2016 and we have proven our victory again in the recount. The Marcos camp should respect the decision of the Filipino people instead of confusing the public with misinformation and lies.”

But is this what the PET and not just what the two dissenting justices said, in “affirming” the claimed victory of Leni, or is it yet another propaganda spiel from Robredo and her camp?

And why is she claiming victory this early when the High Court had already voted to give the two parties their “due process” that has been stretched to 20 days after which the tribunal is to decide whether to go to the next stage of the protest or not.

Marcos spokesman and counsel Vic Rodriguez had a different interpretation as he commented on Leni’s early claim of victory. He said Robredo’s vote gain was “outrageous” and that this was precisely the reason the tribunal voted not to dismiss the Marcos protest outright.

Rodriquez, in a statement, said, “This is precisely why the majority of the tribunal by a very decisive 11-2 vote emphatically junked the minority opinion favoring Mrs. Leni Robredo after finding the figures presented before them to be outrageous and therefore ordered the election protest to proceed with the parties to file their comment and memoranda.”

These are two contradictory statements, which make many ask: Which version is the factual one? Certainly, the PET as a whole, and not just the two dissenting justices’ opinions, is what matters, and the PET has already voted to have the parties comment on the issue. Then, logically, how can the official PET have ruled on the Marcos protest and rule that Leni won the race even before the comments have reached the SC?

It has to be made clear that at this time, no one knows, especially Leni and her camp, that she won, and not even the High Court, acting officially as the PET, knows as yet especially since Leni’s announced “victory” from her claimed PET decision just doesn’t jell with what the PET had earlier voted on, which was to defer the vote on the protest until after the comments are submitted and studied.

How then can Leni and her lawyers and perhaps even the media that fell for the Leni press release, claim that indeed, she is the legitimately elected vice president?

It does make many wonder why if such is really the genuine ruling by the entire PET, and not just the “decision” and “ruling” taken from the two dissenting SC justices’ opinion, especially since the media reports quoting Leni and her lawyers may merely be parroting Justice Benjamin Caguioa’s junked proposed dismissal of the protest, along with Leni’s vote revisors even as she and her lawyers this early are aware of the fact that the PET voted 11-2 for both parties to submit their comments.

This being a fact, Filipinos, especially Leni and her lawyers, as well as her yellow supporters, must ask themselves why the SC, acting as the PET as a whole, and not just the two justices, released the results favoring Leni with over 15,000 plus votes over protestant Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos, since it simply defies logic that the PET, in a formal en banc decision, had asked the parties to comment in 20 days. Yet the same body quickly releases the claimed PET vote figures that favored Robredo? Clearly illogical is this Leni’s PET victory claim and the media fell for it!

There has not been a formal release from the SC on this specific claimed PET decision, and the 15,000-plus figure released by the Robredo camp apparently seems to have been taken from Caguioa’ PET’s junked report and her revisors’ figures, which seemed unacceptable to the majority of justices.

Lawyers for the Robredo and Marcos camps have different interpretations of the over 15,000 additional votes that the Vice President had claimed she gained in the tribunal’s revision and appreciation of ballots in Iloilo, Camarines Sur and Negros Oriental, the three pilot provinces that Marcos had chosen for recount.

But a source said Caguioa’s figures allegedly added to Leni’s numbers the discarded votes, such as the 50 percent shaded votes, which percentage was not allowed, along with the addition of votes that should have been discarded instead of counted.

Moreover, the same source alleged, the 15,000-plus votes by rights should be counted in Marcos’ favor.

These are two opposing sides being aired by the media. Unless and until the SC as the official PET rules on the issue after it decides, based on the comments from both parties, poll victories claimed are nothing but what can be called “fake news” that the media fell for, hook, line and sinker, sorry to say.