The Vice President of the Republic of the Philippines, Maria Leonor Gerona Robredo, was duly elected, officially proclaimed by Congress on May 30, 2016, and took her oath on June 30, 2016. 

But loser Ferdinand Marcos, Jr filed his protest with the Presidential Electoral Tribunal. He first wanted the election annulled because the computerized result was allegedly not credible. The Supreme Court rejected the claim.  Then he selected pilot areas (Camarines Sur, Iloilo, and Negros Occidental) for recount. In October  2019, the PET released its report. He did not obtain any substantial recovery to overtake Vice President Robredo, whose votes even increased by about 15,000.  

A lot of people thought that the protest should have been dismissed, but to no avail. Its continuity engenders an apprehension to many that, just like former Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno’s ouster via a mind-boggling quo warranto proceeding, Senator De Lima’ incarceration on testimonies by drug convicts, and Maria Ressa’s travails against the many cases filed against her, Vice President Robredo’s fate may not be remotely different. 

Indeed, it may involve more than scheming persons but institutions as well – for only an institution can bring down another institution. 

Can people be blamed for entertaining such dire possibilities? 

To understand this anxiety, we start with the Supreme Court – the place where the denouement may happen.   

Only the Supreme Court, as the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET), can oust Vice President Maria Leonor Gerona Robredo. Section 4 Article 7 of the 1987 Constitution provides that “the Supreme Court, sitting en banc, shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of the President or Vice-President.” 

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court’s reputation is not totally reassuring. Rightly or wrongly and, in particular cases, even if the decisions may be correct, the Supreme Court has been perceived by many to likely side with or give “political” or “special accommodation” to the “elite,” the rich, the privileged, and people highly placed in politics. Even some justices, in their dissents, have pointed this out.  

For example, the Supreme Court acquitted former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, granted bail to Senator Juan Ponce Enrile, adjudged former President Joseph Estrada’s pardon as absolute, excused Mayor Junjun Binay from sanction despite abandonment of the “Condonation doctrine,” and decided that Congressman Ronald Singson cannot be ousted as a representative because his drug-related-conviction did not concern a crime involving moral turpitude.  

This is also the Supreme Court whose majority ruled against the coconut farmers in one case, favoring the late Danding Cojuangco in the coco-levy controversy because, among others, there was no  proof that the latter was one of the “close associates of President Marcos” – prompting former Associate SC Justice and former Ombudsperson Conchita Carpio-Morales to say that “the argument that Cojuangco was not the subordinate or close associate of the Marcoses is the biggest joke to hit the country.”

And as to the Marcoses, the Supreme Court acquitted Imelda Marcos in one case and dismissed the damage suit against Imee Marcos. And how can one forget the decision allowing the dictator Ferdinand E. Marcos – whose regime was, as recognized by the Human Rights Victims Reparation and Recognition Act of 2013, responsible for “summary execution, torture, enforced or involuntary disappearance, and other gross human rights violations” – to be buried in the Libingan ng mga Bayani – a ruling which gave fruition to President Duterte’s reported campaign promise and which, to many, is one of the most horrible decisions in Philippine history and, perhaps, in the world. 

Now, the dictator’s son Ferdinand (Bongbong) R. Marcos Jr is banking on the Supreme Court to oust Vice President Robredo.

Even before filing his protest case, the losing candidate was reported in June 2016 to have publicly said: “I will eventually take my seat that is being kept warm for me.” 

President Duterte’s friendship is well known. After the election, he explained his non-committal stance in appointing Vice President-elect Robredo to the cabinet thus: “You know why? I don’t want to hurt the feelings of Bongbong Marcos. He is my friend. That is the political reality.”

In his China state visit, President Duterte introduced Bongbong as “the next vice president if he wins his protest.” This was made in the same sub-judice way the President publicly expressed his position favoring the Marcos burial though the case was pending in the Supreme Court. How much can these statements or known friendship affect the majority of the Supreme Court justices who owe their appointment to the President? It remains to be seen. 

Undeniably, Vice President Robredo does not belong to the “elite,” the rich, or the powerful. President Duterte’s annoyance against her is not a secret. She has been ostracized from the crucial decision-making process of the executive department.   

She is the only Vice President in Philippine history who was unprecedently  charged with multiple offenses – sedition, inciting to sedition, cyber libel, libel, estafa, harboring a criminal, obstruction of justice – all in one instance by the Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG) of the Philippine National Police. All charges turned out to be absolutely baseless. 

Recently, the Supreme Court required the Solicitor General’s Office (OSG) and the Commission on Elections to comment on the Marcos protest. Majority of the COMELEC members were appointed by President Duterte to their present posts. The OSG headed by a Duterte appointee represented  the CIDG in the multiple baseless cases filed against Vice President Robredo. One wonders: can an unbiased comment from these agencies even be expected? 

The Supreme Court will be tested in this protest case. Will majority of the Justices, especially those appointed by  President Duterte, exhibit an overly-deferential attitude towards him in their opinions?  

Will they base their respective positions, wittingly or subliminally, on the President’s being a “good friend” of Ferdinand (Bongbong) Marcos, whom he does not want to get hurt, and/or in his annoyance towards Vice President Robredo? Will the decision be based on President Duterte’s “political reality”?  

The people must be vigilant. The Supreme Court justices are not gods. They are fallible human beings who can also be unduly influenced and, notwithstanding their good faith, promulgate far-reaching decisions grossly damaging to the nation and destructive to our democracy. Justice Brewer, former US Supreme Court Justice, said:

“Justices should be the objects of constant watchfulness by all, and their judgments subject to the freest criticism. The time is past in the history of the world when any living man or body of men can be set on a pedestal and decorated with a halo. True, many criticisms may be, like their authors, devoid of good taste, but better all sorts of criticism than no criticism at all. The moving waters are full of life and health; only in the still waters is stagnation and death.”

I believe that there is no reason to conclude that the same ballot and the same machine where the shaded votes of President Duterte and Vice President Robredo were placed will result in two different outcomes: one correct and the other incorrect. That will be absurd. – Rappler.com

Mel Sta Maria is dean of the Far Eastern University (FEU) Institute of Law. He teaches law at FEU and the Ateneo School of Law, hosts shows on both radio and Youtube, and has authored several books on law, politics, and current events.