PET, as in Lapdog of Bong Bong

Bong Bong's electoral protest should have been dismissed outright if the Supreme Court had any modicum of decency. But alas, it has flourished in the treacherous chambers of the SC; that is, the Supreme "Casa" (the local term for brothel). Ever since Digong became President, the SC has quickly evolved into the ultimate "pay for play" venue of the most superlative plunderers and politicians in the country with nearly all of its "associates" spreading their legs to the highest bidder. And with the billions (as in billions of US dollars) plundered and securely stashed by the Marcos family earning interest in the past 30 plus years, there is no doubt that Bong Bong is the highest bidder of them all! Hence, our associates at the SC (I say "our associates" because these whores still have the temerity to draw salaries at our (taxpayers') expense) have willingly obliged Bong Bong's whims with the most perverse and unspeakable acts of injustice--the latest of which are unfolding right before our very eyes.

According to Rule 65 of the 2010 PET Rules, if there is no substantial recovery in the pilot provinces, "the protest may forthwith be dismissed, without further consideration of the other provinces mentioned in the protest." (underscore mine)

On September 9, 2019, the member-in-charge of the case, Supreme Court (SC) Associate Justice Benjamin Caguioa submitted to the PET his report on the result of the recount of 3 pilot provinces (Iloilo, Negros Oriental, and Camarines Sur) chosen by Bong Bong in the vice presidential poll protest. Given that the results contained in this report would affect the entire nation, why was it NOT immediately disclosed by the PET to the public? In fact, to this day (October 16, 2019), the said report of Justice Caguioa has NOT been disclosed to the public.

Instead, the PET has allowed the rumor mills to go on overdrive to muddle an otherwise straightforward issue and once again pre-condition the minds of the people that it's OK for the PET to proceed with another course of action that perverts Rule 65.

On October 15, 2019, the PET was expected to vote on how it would proceed with Bong Bong's electoral protest, based on the said report of Justice Caguioa. Indeed, two justices (Carpio and Caguioa, clearly the two who have not succumbed to the bling of Bong Bong) voted to dismiss Bong Bong's electoral protest against Vice President Leni Robredo per Rule 65 but were overruled by a majority of 11 whores.

Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio dissented, taking the position that the protest should have been dismissed because Bong Bong failed to make substantial recovery in the 3 pilot provinces, a court insider said. Two other sources said Caguioa had the same dissent.

However, the majority of the PET voted to "dribble the ball" yet again in favor of Bong Bong by asking the parties to submit position papers on Bong Bong's requested 3rd cause of action (Bong Bong's lawyer claims the ARMM votes are included in their 2nd cause of action, not the 3rd), which is to nullify votes in yet another 3 pilot provinces (Lanao del Sur, Basilan, and Maguindanao). Regardless of Bong Bong's 2nd or 3rd cause of action (which, like the 1st cause of action, should have been dismissed in the first place), the dilatory course of action by the majority of the PET directly contravenes Rule 65, which is blatantly misinterpreting the word "may" in the language of Rule 65 to suggest another perverted course of action in favor of Bong Bong that is otherwise clearly prescribed in Rule 65. Apparently, this is the same convoluted tactic deviced by Digong and his Coalition of Plunderers / Magnanakaw Inc. in the Maria Lourdes Sereno quo warranto case in which the SC said that because the Constitution used the word "may" in prescribing impeachment as the mode to remove a chief justice, it means that they could use an alternative mode. It was hogwash then in the bogus quo warranto case against Sereno and it is hogwash now in the bogus misinterpretation of Rule 65 against Robredo.

As expected, the logical conclusion of this sarswela (no doubt being drawn-out by the whores at the PET to extort as much plundered funds from Bong Bong) is the removal of Leni as the duly-elected Vice President and the placement of Bong Bong as the bogus one. It doesn't really matter if it happens today or just before the next presidential elections. It will happen, if only to bolster the presidential bid of Bong Bong in 2022. One can only hope that the unquenchable thirst for power and plunder of the likes of Duterte, Villar and Marcos will result in the cannibalization of their own stupid constituents and pave the way for a decent opposition candidate that will right with haste the terrible wrongs of Digong's administration.

Postscript

The lead of Philippines’ Vice President Leni Robredo over Ferdinand Marcos Jr. widened in the results of the protest recount in three provinces chosen by the late dictator’s son, according to the electoral tribunal.

The cat is out of the bag. Any way you slice and dice the facts, there was no substantial recovery on the recount of the 3 pilot provinces (Iloilo, Negros Oriental, and Camarines Sur) chosen by Bong Bong in the vice presidential poll protest. In fact, Robredo even widened her lead!!! But instead of dismissing the election protest of Bong Bong as prescribed by Rule 65, these 11 whores at the SC ordered Bong Bong and Robredo to submit their position on issues regarding Bong Bong's bid for the annulment of 2016 election results for vice president in three additional provinces (Lanao del Sur, Basilan, and Maguindanao), which is changing the rules midstream to accommodate a party who has failed to comply with what Rule 65 of the 2010 PET Rules expressly require.

Desperately grasping at straws, Bong Bong insists on disregarding Rule 65 by contesting ballots from three additional provinces (Lanao del Sur, Basilan, and Maguindanao), saying votes there must be annulled because of terrorism and fraud. He said the nullification will only need the presentation of evidence and not require a revision of ballots.

However, Carpio in his dissenting opinion logically and correctly points out that "To annul the election results (in the three additional provinces), an examination of the contested ballots is indispensable." Further, the senior magistrate explained that the PET "cannot determine the legality (or the illegality) of the ballots (in the three additional provinces) without examining the ballots themselves."

Because of this, Bong Bong should have included the three Mindanao provinces in his pilot provinces. He did not, Carpio said.

Allowing the annulment case (on the three additional provinces in Mindanao) to proceed, then, he wrote, will allow Bong Bong to exceed the three-province limit under Rule 65.

Talagang hindi dapat iyan payagan under Rule 65. Pero puwedeng-puwede iyan sa mga putang bayaran sa SC. Bong Bong, sa dami ninyong ninakaw sa kaban ng bayan, pahingi pa nga ng dadag na suhol para ma-areglo natin ito.