Denies Robredo’s request for application of 25% threshold in shading of ballots
(Eagle News) — The Presidential Electoral Tribunal has ordered the camps of Vice President Leni Robredo and former Senator Bongbong Marcos to explain why they should not be cited in contempt for their alleged violation of the sub judice rule.
In its five-page resolution, the PET said the continued disclosure of “sensitive information” about the revision process in connection with Marcos’ electoral protest was “in clear violation” of the tribunal’s resolutions dated Feb. 13 and March 20.
“To be sure, the statements of the parties with respect to matters or concerns already referred to or pending resolution of the tribunal, as well as statements and remarks pertaining to the integrity of the revision process are within the clear ambit of the sub judice rule…,” the PET said.
“In this regard, to preserve the sanctity of the proceedings, both parties are hereby directed to show cause and explain…,” the PET added.
50% threshold, not 25%
In the five-page resolution, the PET also denied Robredo’s request for the tribunal to follow what she said was the 25% threshold for the shading of ballots set by the Commission on Elections, instead of the PET’s 50% threshold.
In the first place, the PET said Robredo’s claim the Comelec applies a 25% threshold in determining a valid vote as reportedly confirmed by the Random Manual Audit Guidelines and Report was “inaccurate.”
“The Court is not aware of any Comelec resolution that states the applicability of a 25% threshold, and the tribunal cannot treat the Random Manual Audit Guidelines and Report as proof of the threshold used by the Comelec,” the PET said.
It said Comelec Resolution No. 9164, which is the Comelec’s procedure for the recount of ballots in electoral protests within its jurisdiction, “does not mention a 25% threshold.”
Prior to the amendment of Resolution No. 9164, the PET said, Rule 15, Section 6 of Resolution No. 8804 “states that any shading less than 50% shall not be considered a valid vote.”
“The wording is in fact the same as Section 43(I) of the 2010 PET rules. Comelec Resolution No. 9164, however, removed the 50% threshold but did not impose a new (one),” the PET said.
According to the tribunal, the same could be said of the 2018 Revisor’s Guide, which, in making mention of a threshold, reportedly made reference to the 50% threshold reflected in the 2010 PET rules.
“All told, the tribunal has no basis to impose a 25% threshold in determining whether a vote is valid..,” the PET said.
The PET also said “the protestee’s claim of a systematic reduction of her votes is without basis and shows a misunderstanding of the revision process.”
It said “such final reduction or addition of votes may only take place after the tribunal has ruled on the objections and/or claims and after reception of evidence of the parties, if necessary.”
