Kahit sinabi na nga ng COMELEC na dapat sundin ang 25% threshold sa shading sa recount, etong kampo ni BBM ang dami pa ding kuda. Kesyo may conspiracy daw. Luh, lakas-tama mga to.
Basahin natin ang pahayag ni Atty. Macalintal:
Marcos Consistently Inconsistent
30 July 2018
Statement of Atty. Romulo Macalintal
Lead Counsel of Vice President Leni Robredo
When the Commission on Elections (Comelec) affirmed before the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET) that the “shading threshold of 25 percent” was used in the 2016 elections and not 50 percent as erroneously argued by former Senator Ferdinand Marcos in his ongoing electoral protest, he immediately accused Comelec of being a “co-conspirator in the alleged electoral fraud committed by the camp of Maria Leonor “Leni” G. Robredo to secure her vice presidency win in the 2016 national elections.”
We cannot resist the urge of replying to said media statement, thus, in self defense, we vehemently deny such a baseless and frivolous accusation coming as it does from an election loser who cannot accept defeat in good grace, which epitomizes what political pundits say in jest that, “Dito sa Pilipinas may dalawang uri lang ng kandidato, iyong nanalo at yong nadaya.” (In the Philippines, there are only two (2) types of candidate – the winner and the one who claims he was cheated.)
In assailing Comelec for its said position, Marcos, through his spokesperson, claimed that his election protest was meant to “question Comelec’s misconduct in the election and its false canvassing and manipulation of the transmission of the election results.”
This only shows how Marcos could be consistently inconsistent. When the PET dismissed his first cause of action assailing the integrity of the transmission and canvassing of results, he said, “We respect it as we have exactly where we wanted it to be- the manual recount and judicial revision” of ballots since, as his lawyer claimed, “the ballots are the best evidence in an election protest.
Now that the Comelec clearly clarified that the vote counting machines would read ballots shaded within the 25 percent threshold, he is once again raising the issue of the integrity of the election system, which the PET had dismissed “for being pointless and meaningless” and is now practically abandoning his position that the ballots are the best evidence in an election protest.
Marcos and his spokesperson should remember that election matters are not “games of technicalities in which one more deeply schooled and skilled in the subtle act or movements and position, entraps or destroys the other or like a duel won by a rapier’s thrust.”
Thus, his reliance on the old procedure adopted by the PET in the 2010 election using the 50 percent threshold, cannot prevail what the Comelec confirmed now that it used the 25 percent threshold in the 2016 elections and that to use another standard would affect “the legitimacy of all elected officials, from the President down to the last Sangguniang Bayan member” and the disenfranchisement of millions of innocent voters.
It now appears that Marcos is so afraid to know the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, since the affirmation by the Comelec of the use of the 25 percent threshold exposed the falsity of his previous claim that the Comelec did not use the said threshold in the 2016 elections.
Thus, if Marcos is true to his statement that he wants to expedite the resolution of his protest and to prove that we are not delaying this proceedings, we challenge Marcos to use the picture images of the ballots to determine the true results of the election.
This is but consistent with the rules that in case of discrepancy between the physical count of the ballots, the results of the count of ballot images shall prevail. The use of ballot images is the most expeditious way of resolving an election protest in an automated election.
Sana BBM, matutunan nating mag move on no? Daming kuda, eh talo naman.
Yamot sa Sinungaling,