Mitra's petition against recall

My column of Jan. 12, 2012, entitled “A Product of Blatant Fraud,” drew a stinging rebuke from Jose Maria M. Mirasol, liaison officer/spokesperson of Kilusan Love Malampaya Foundation, Inc. I am reproducing his letter, minus the stinging remarks, and have asked a law office to respond to Mirasol’s charges. With this exchange of views, this column puts an end to the issue, and waits for the Comelec’s decision.

 Here is Mirasol’s letter:

“We take exception to the comments made in your opinion column, and offer ours in rejoinder:

“Inasmuch as Mitra’s Motion for Reconsideration is still pending at the Comelec, it appears that your column’s intent could be an attempt to influence the Comelec to favor Mitra. Fortunately, this is an administrative and not an adjudicatory matter, and the Comelec need only to rule on the sufficiency of the Petition and order the verification process to proceed.

“Obviously, you are unaware that the Recall process prescribes time limits in the compliance of Comelec requirements. What appears to you to be undue haste or swift action by the Comelec to issue its resolution for sufficiency is nothing but due diligence in complying with administrative procedures of the Comelec’s implementing rules & regulations.

“Because the nature of Recall requires timely expediency due to term limits, the Recall process must be undertaken in as swift a time as practicable, so as not to allow those being recalled from exercising dilatory tactics under the guise of “due process.” Thus, administrative procedures with time limits have been prescribed, taking cognizance of the maxim that the true test of a public official’s mandate is nothing but the will of the people. If the recalled official believes that the electorate want him to remain in office, then let him pass the true test, which is the Recall Election.

“Contrary to your belief, Mitra won by a measly 5% margin over his opponent, Jose Ch. Alvarez… not the comfortable victory you presume. Are you aware that the number of registered voters who signed the Recall Petition totalled 158,889? This number represents 47.5% of the voting population, while the law requires only 45,000 signatures to effect a Recall. This number is also more than the number of votes Mitra garnered during the May 2010 elections.

 You quoted Mitra’s lawyer’s allegation that “…there is fraud, undue influence, machinations made…” in relation to the number of registered voters who signed the Recall Petition. Had you been objective, you would have done your homework and researched what we had to say about Mitra’s motion for reconsideration, and I quote from our manifestation that “… it was actually the Respondent (Mitra) who is guilty of fraudulent acts, trickery and deception by luring the innocent residents of Palawan into signing a false affidavit purportedly recanting or disavowing their signatures in the Petition for Recall.” — Jose Maria M. Mirasol, Liaison Officer/spokesperson, Kilusan Love Malampaya Foundation, Inc.

*      *      *

The Mendoza-Antero-Bautista law office’s response to Mirasol’s letter follows:

“This is in response to your letter regarding Ms. Torrevillas’ Philippine STAR column dated January 12, 2012. We would like to point out that:

“First, the writer of the said column is entitled to her own opinion as regards the issue at hand. In a country that values freedom of speech, said opinion is warranted, especially as it is supported by facts.

 “While it is true that the Recall process prescribes time limits in compliance with Comelec’s requirements, it must equally be borne in my mind that the constitutionally enshrined right to due process must not be sacrificed for purposes of expediency. It is basic that the demands of due process cannot be sacrificed in the face of a good and substantial defense. Same must be applied at all times, for while an administrative tribunal possessed of quasi-judicial powers is free from the rigidity of certain procedural requirements, it does not mean that it can in justiciable cases coming before it entirely ignore or disregard the fundamental and essential requirements of due process. In addition hereto, while you maintain that Comelec was just being prudent in its performance of its duties, how come other petitions for recall which was filed much earlier than the instant Petition are still pending before it. Several Petitions for Recall of various elective officials have been filed as early as 2010. We cannot help but wonder how the recall process of Respondent which initiated only in 2011, came ahead of the other petitions earlier filed.

“The Petitioner in this case is seeking the verification of signatures and a recall election which will necessarily involve the expenditure of millions of the taxpayers’ money, when the same can be easily avoided had Respondent Mitra been given the opportunity to negate the same at the earliest possible time. Sadly, what was made available to Respondent Mitra as a remedy to prove the insufficiency of the Petition was a mere Motion for Reconsideration, to be submitted before the Comelec within three days from receipt of the Comelec’s resolution certifying to the sufficiency of the said Petition. Indubitably, Respondent Mitra was denied due process.

“As regards your allegation that the number of registered voters who signed the Recall Petition totalled 158,889, which represents 47.5% of the voting population, while the law requires only 45,000 signatures to effect a Recall, we maintain that such a number is highly incredible, to say the least. A scrutiny of the signatures will reveal that in some places, all of the registered voters signed the Petition. This is highly improbable and even ridiculous, and the same is an indication of massive fraud. Even at the onset of the Petition, almost 5,000 signatures were nullified by the Provincial Election Supervisor, signifying that the Petition is fraudulent or at the very least, flawed from the very start. This is why criminal charges for falsification had already been filed against Petitioner.

“The Petition for Recall is obviously a ploy to disrupt Respondent’s unwavering service to the Palaweños. Governor Abraham Mitra has been lawfully elected to office, and it would be an utter frustration of the will of the Palaweños to oust him therefrom through fraudulent means. We reiterate that criminal charges for falsification have already been filed against Petitioner.

“Lastly, let it be known that the pending Petition for Recall will not in any way affect Governor Abraham Mitra’s tenacity in serving the Palaweños. The Recall Process must give effect to, and not frustrate the will of the people. The Palaweños have already made their voices heard when they elected Governor Abraham Mitra to office. Let their voices be not put to naught.” - Mendoza-Antero-Bautista Law Offices.

My email:[email protected]