SC petitions vs BBM premature, says lawyer

MANILA, Philippines — The petitions before the Supreme Court (SC) seeking to prevent presumptive president Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. from assuming office in Malacañang are premature, his legal counsel has said.

Former solicitor general and justice minister Estelito Mendoza argued that the groups seeking to disqualify Marcos from the presidential race made the wrong move in seeking the issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) on the canvassing of votes and proclamation of winners by Congress.

“That will have to be done through an election protest – not at this time. At this time, the Constitution provides, step by step, what shall be done with the votes that are cast in the election,” he said in an interview.

Mendoza stressed that such a constitutional duty of Congress – to convene in a joint session of the Senate and the House of Representatives to canvass the votes for president and vice president – cannot be enjoined by the Court.

This was the argument contained in his manifestation that prompted the SC not to issue the immediate TRO sought by the petitioners against the canvassing and proclamation scheduled next week.

Other legal experts shared Mendoza’s opinion and also cited precedents in which the High Court would usually respect the results of the elections in poll cases.

Mendoza advised lawyers of the petitioners to instead file either a quo warranto petition or an election protest after Marcos is proclaimed president.

“The petitioners will then have to decide whether to abide and stick by the petition as filed by the SC or whether the scenario has changed and then therefore, what they should be filing is an election protest before the Supreme Court, either a quo warranto or an ordinary election protest,” he suggested.

Quo warranto is a verified petition contesting the election of the president or vice president on the ground of ineligibility or disloyalty to the Republic of the Philippines.

Under the 2010 Rules of Presidential Election Tribunal on automated elections, this may be filed by any registered voter who has voted in the election concerned within 10 days after the proclamation of the winner.

In an election protest, on the other hand, the registered candidate for president or vice president of the Philippines who received the second or third highest number of votes may contest the election of the president or vice president, as the case may be, by filing a verified election protest with the Clerk of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET) within 30 days after the proclamation of the winner.

Based on partial and unofficial results, Marcos has garnered over 31 million votes during the elections last May 9 – the largest electoral mandate in the country’s history and the first majority vote under the multi-party system.

Last Tuesday, a group headed by Fr. Christian Buenafe filed a petition asking the SC to issue a TRO to stop Congress, convened as the National Board of Canvassers (NBOC), from counting Marcos’ votes.

The group also sought to cancel Marcos’ certificate of candidacy (COC) based on alleged material misrepresentation.

On Wednesday, a second disqualification petition was filed against Marcos by the Campaign Against the Return of the Marcoses and Martial Law (CARMMA).

Apart from asking the SC to stop the NBOC from counting the votes, the group also seeks to overturn the Comelec’s ruling on its previous petitions.

But in an order issued last Thursday, the SC opted not to grant the plea of petitioners for immediate issuance of TRO enjoining Congress from proceeding with the canvass until their petitions are resolved.

While in recess, the High Court decided to instead require the respondents – Marcos and both chambers of Congress as the NBOC – to comment on the petitions within 15 days from notice or a period beyond the scheduled proclamation of Marcos on Friday, May 27.