Marcos dares Robredo: Withdraw all motions to proceed with recount

With this, petitioner Marcos said he is also ready to withdraw his motions so as to stop the bickering from both camps. (Photo: Bongbong Marcos/ Facebook)

MANILA— Former Senator Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos, Jr. has challenged the camp of Vice President Leni Robredo to withdraw all the motions they had filed against his electoral protest pending before the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET) to be able to proceed with the recount.

With this, petitioner Marcos said he is also ready to withdraw his motions so as to stop the bickering from both camps.

“To remove all of these accusations flying back and forth I reiterate my challenge withdraw all your motions that could serve to delay the recount, I will withdraw all my motions that has been pending para wala ng (so that there will be no) outstanding issues, wala nang (no) instances na kailangan pang pag-aralan ng (that needs to be studied by the) Tribunal, at pupuntahan na natin ang pagbubukas ng balota at ang pagbilang ng balota (so that we can proceed to the opening and counting of the ballots),” he said in a press conference on Monday in Manila.

“That has been my contention since May 10 of 2016 until now. It has been the same, I have been consistent, I reissue the challenge to Mrs. Robredo, withdraw all your motions, I will withdraw all of mine and let us proceed with the recount,” the former legislator added.

Marcos issued the challenged to stop the “delaying” issues being thrown by both camps to each other.

At the same time, the vice presidential candidate in the May 2016 polls bared “solid and incontrovertible” evidence of massive fraud that transpired during the national and local elections held nearly two years ago.

Marcos questioned the presence of square shapes in the ballot images instead of the oval shapes which voters shaded for their choice of candidates.

“When we voted, we had the oval shapes. How come in the ballot images, the ovals are gone and instead we have the squares. What does this mean?” he said.

He added, “(w)e could see based on the election results summary that the squares indicated the candidates that were voted upon. But this is a new feature that the Commission on Elections (Comelec) and Smartmatic added in the system and I had been told they did not inform the candidates of the presence of this feature in the images.”

Marcos also said that in some of the ballot images, even though two or more candidates were shaded in the vice presidential race, the votes still went for his opponent, then Camarines Sur Rep. Leni Robredo instead of being considered “overvotes”.

“Marami kaming nadiskubre na kapag ako ang ibinoto, hindi binilang at ginagawa lamang na (We have discovered many instances where my votes are not counted and are considered) undervotes. Kaya pala mataas ang (That is why there are high) undervotes sa vice presidency which is more than 3 million. Pero kapag iyong kalaban ko, kahit dapat hindi bilangin sa kanya, sa kanya pa din ang boto, (But as for my opponent, even if it is not her vote, it is still counted as hers)” he pointed out.

For his part, Marcos’ spokesperson lawyer Vic Rodriguez believed that the cheating was mainly on the votes of the former senator.

“The fraud perpetrated is Marcos specific, and the cheating was carried out with such surgical position targeting only the votes for Senator Marcos,” he explained.

Last week, Marcos slammed the resolution of the PET to withhold the original copies of the decrypted ballot images and other documents from Marcos after requiring him to pay for the costs of the decryption and the printing of the ballot images.

In a resolution dated Jan. 10, 2018, which was received by Marcos’ lawyers on Jan, 17, 2018, the Tribunal said it would keep the original copies of the ballot images despite previously requiring Marcos to pay for the copies and all costs for the decryption.

In the same resolution, the PET said although Marcos was allowed to get the “photocopies or soft copies of the decrypted ballot images”, he should pay once more for the “incidental costs” for securing the same.