By Andrew J. Masigan
THE debate continues as to whether the electoral protest of Bongbong Marcos is one with real merit or pursued solely to cast doubt on the legitimacy of Leni Robredo. Those prejudiced against the vice-president are convinced that the presidential elections of 2016 was wrought with fraud and that Marcos was robbed of the position that was rightfully his. Supporters of Robredo declare the opposite. I studied both sides of the case and this is what I came away with.
The Marcos protest comes down to three fundamental causes of action.
First, that the Automated Elections System (AES) was compromised, hence, the integrity of the AES cannot be relied upon to declare a legitimate winner. Second, that the elections was tainted with fraud, particularly in the provinces of Lanao del Sur, Basilan, and Maguindanao. Thus, a plea was made to nullify the votes in these three provinces. Third, that the Vote Counting Machines (VCM) did not accurately count Marcos’s votes in 22 provinces and five cities. To this, the senator petitioned the courts for a recount in these areas.
The first cause of action carries serious ramifications that deserve a thorough explanation. Before delving into it, let me first explain the arguments and counter-arguments of the second and third basis’ of the case.
The allegation that fraud occurred in Lanao del Sur, Basilan, and Maguindanao stems from the fact that Marcos garnered zero votes in seven municipalities within these provinces. It is statistically impossible, he says, given his stronghold in these areas. To substantiate the assertion, Marcos’s legal team presented an avalanche of affidavits from individuals who testified to vote buying, coercion, and the presence of flying voters.
A quick look at the election results revealed that Robredo, too, garnered zero votes in some municipalities of the ARMM, particularly in Datu Odin Sinsuat, Tabuan Lasa, Sumisip, among others. The fact that these areas were thought to be bailiwicks of the Liberal Party indicates that it is not statistically impossible after all.
As for the affidavits, numerous reasons were presented to the courts to question its authenticity. For instance, it was found that affidavits supposedly written by Comelec election assistants were actually written by people who were neither employed by Comelec nor recognized as volunteers. Raising even more doubt is the fact that the lawyer who notarized some affidavits did not even possess a license from the notary commission.
On the argument that Marcos’s votes were not counted in 22 provinces and five cities, this allegation is debunked by another Marcos plea that cited an inordinate number of undervotes (abstained votes) in the said provinces and cities. It raised the question of how Marcos could know the extent of undervotes if the votes were not counted in the first place. The argument is self contradictory.
Notwithstanding the weak basis of Marcos’s case, his legal team boldly petitioned the court to credit all unaccounted votes to the Senator’s favor. Unaccounted votes occur when two votes are made for the same position or no votes are made at all. To many, this is seen as the height of presumptuousness as it assumes that neither of the five other vice-presidential candidates won a single vote nor did anyone abstain.
THE FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
As mentioned earlier, the first cause of action is the most contentious of all due its ramifications. This is because Marcos claims that the AES itself was compromised. As a result, he petitioned the court to nullify the Certificates of Canvasses (CoCs) used to proclaim Robredo.
The basis to Marcos claim is an incident that happened midway through the elections, at 7 p.m. of March 9, 2016, to be exact. On that faithful evening, the script code on the transparency server was switched to reflect the letter “ñ” on the name of then presidential candidate, Roy Señeres. Marcos claims that the switch was a ploy to reprogram the VCM’s to credit the majority of votes to Robredo.
The problem with this argument is that transparency server is not the basis of the CoC. The transparency server is provided by the Comelec to both the media and political parties for one purpose — transparency. It is only a parallel count and not the basis of proclamation. The official results are generated from the Comelec Central Server.
But this is where it gets contentious — the very CoCs that Marcos is seeking to annul contains the votes received by both president and vice-president. Thus, if the CoCs were compromised, being one document, it necessarily follows that the votes of the president has to be nullified as well. After all, how can you separate the vice-president in one document which also contains the votes for president?
There will be serious ramifications should the Supreme Court vote in Marcos’s favor. Not only will the position of the vice-president be declared vacant, so will the position of the president.
Apart from the anarchy this will cause among the president’s millions of rabid followers, it will also cause a mad scramble for the presidency from both the losing presidential candidates and sectors with vested interests. It will create a vacuum in leadership at a time we need it most — especially in light of the terrorist cells attempting to establish a caliphate in Mindanao. It is political turmoil we cannot afford.
The ramifications will permeate to the economic realm as well. After more than a year of development, President Duterte’s medium term development plan is finally bearing fruit.
At the heart of the plan is to spend trillions of pesos on badly needed infrastructure, many of which have already obtained NEDA approval. All these will be derailed should the presidency be declared vacant. We will have to wait another year before building can start as the new administration rationalizes each and every infrastructure project anew.
Adding injury is the political uncertainty this will cause.
After a long period of wait-and-see, investor confidence is back on the upswing as seen in the double digit increases in foreign direct investments and bullish stock market. With the courts ruling to Marcos’s favor, all favorable sentiments will be negated as investors revert to wait-and-see mode.
MOTIVES
With the country having so much to lose, why is Marcos intent on pursuing this case?
The first reason is obvious.
Since the President himself has mentioned that he may not finish his term due to health reasons, pursuing this case gives Marcos a glimmer of hope to grab the presidency from Robredo. If he wins the case — he becomes president. If he loses, he still succeeds to destabilize Robredo’s presidency on the back of questionable legitimacy. It is a win-win situation.
But more than this, I reckon, pursuing this case gives Marcos the platform to peddle the narrative that he was cheated and robbed of a position that was rightfully his. It paints him as the victim — the underdog, if you will. It overrides the stigma of the Marcos family being repressive, abusive, and obsessed with regaining power. It bodes well for the family image, especially since the next generation prepares for public life.
I am surprised that Bongbong Marcos has decided to go down this road. I have had a few encounters with him over the years and have always thought of him as a gentleman. His intelligence cannot be denied, nor the fact that he is a good family man and one who is highly evolved in the ways of political diplomacy. Filing this electoral protest is out of character. After all, a stunt like that is on only done by traditional politicians without the magnanimity to honorably admit defeat.
Perhaps the pressure to regain political power is too strong. Still, it is hard to fathom how Marcos can put the nation’s welfare on the line on the back of his own political ambition. A true statesman would keep his peace knowing that the country has more to lose by going down this road. It becomes a question of the entitlement of one man (or one family), outweighing the welfare of 102 million Filipinos.
Andrew J. Masigan is an economist.
