Panlilio appeals Supreme Court ruling on vote recount

SAN FERNANDO, Pampanga , Philippines   – Saying that “courts are not infallible and reversal of rulings already rendered is not uncommon,” Gov. Ed Panlilio yesterday filed a motion for reconsideration before the Supreme Court (SC) appealing its ruling allowing a recount of all votes cast in the 2007 gubernatorial race.

“This Supreme Court decision, if not set aside, will set a very bad precedent. We can expect the Commission on Elections (Comelec) to be swamped with sham protests after the 2010 elections,” said Ernesto Francisco, one of Panlilio’s volunteer lawyers.

The Comelec’s second division initially ordered the recount in July 2007, as it favored the petition of Lilia Pineda who lost to Panlilio by 1,147 votes.

As provided by law, Pineda “deposited” some P4.4 million with the second division for the recount expenses.  

Last July 17, the SC dismissed Panlilio’s petition and lifted its order against the transfer of ballot boxes from 4,836 precincts in this province to the Comelec central office for the recount.

Comelec provincial chief Temmie Lambino said he would transfer the ballot boxes as soon as he gets the go-signal from the Comelec central office.

As of yesterday, however, he had not yet received any copy of the SC resolution.

In filing the appeal, Francisco said that unless the SC reverses its decision, “all that moneyed but losing candidates have to do is to file sham, pro forma or copied petitions asking for recount and spend money on the recount to make sure that the outcome of the election will be reversed.”

In its resolution last July 17, the SC said Panlilio’s petition deserved “scant consideration” and upheld the initial ruling of the Comelec’s second division signed by only Commissioner Florentino Tuason.

The SC thus lifted its temporary restraining order against the transfer of ballot boxes for a recount at the Comelec central office.

Panlilio’s motion for reconsideration, which also showed lawyers Romulo Macalintal and Gregorio Brillantes as legal counsels, said that in dismissing the governor’s petition, the SC “in effect sweepingly tilted the scales of justice in favor of the private interest of every losing candidate.”

Panlilio argued that “proclamation of the winning candidate is imbued with the presumption of regularity” and that this should “subsist, except only when rebutted by sufficient countervailing proof.”

The SC dismissal of his petition, he further argued, “leads to a very absurd situation because rather than a recognition of the presumption of regularity, what would govern would be a presumption of irregularity.”

Panlilio said Pineda’s protest was a “fishing expedition” which “failed to state with specificity how many ballots were affected, how the alleged frauds and irregularities were committed.”