THE camp of Vice President Leni Robredo has asked the Supreme Court (SC) sitting as the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET) to investigate a possible collusion among Solicitor General Jose Calida, his subordinates, defeated vice presidential candidate Ferdinand Marcos Jr. and a news reporter allegedly to besmirch the reputation of Associate Justice Marvic Leonen.
Robredo, through her lawyer Romulo Macalintal, filed the urgent motion on Tuesday, the same day that the PET unanimously junked Marcos’ and Calida’s petitions seeking the removal of Leonen as ponente of the former senator’s electoral protest against the Vice President.
Leonen is the member-in-charge of the electoral case against Robredo.
The PET has required Calida and Manila Times reporter Jomar Canlas to show cause why they should not be cited in contempt by the Court for their insinuations of bias against Leonen.
Marcos and Calida relied heavily on Canlas’ news articles when they asked the high court to compel Leonen to step down as ponente of the electoral complaint. The reporter’s news stories have come out exclusively at the Manila Times and have extensively discussed Leonen’s supposed prejudice against the defeated candidate, citing purported statements made by unnamed but allegedly reliable sources.
“It is respectfully prayed of this Honorable Tribunal to conduct an immediate investigation for possible collusion between Solicitor General Jose Calida, the 19 Assistant Solicitor Generals, Jomar Canlas of the Manila Times and protestant Ferdinand Marcos Jr. in besmirching the reputation of the member-in- charge,” Robredo’s motion read.
Calida’s petition seeking the recusal of Leonen from the case was co-signed by his 19 assistant solicitor generals.
In the same motion, Robredo also questioned the legal standing of the Office of the Solicitor General to intervene in the electoral protest and ask for Leonen’s inhibition.
Robredo said the OSG’s participation in the case must be limited only as statutory counsel of the Commission on Elections, and not as a party to the case.
“The Comelec is not a party-in-interest in the above-captioned election protest. Thus, the Office of the Solicitor General has no legal standing to intervene by seeking the inhibition of the member-in-charge,” she said.
In calling for Leonen’s inhibition, Calida invoked his mandate as the “tribune of the people” but Robredo rejected his claim.
Robredo said that in order for Calida to appear or act as the people’s tribune, the case should involve the government, its agencies and instrumentalities, its officials and agents and the State should have a direct interest in the outcome.
Robredo accused Calida of lawyering for Marcos as she noted that their separate motions for Leonen’s inhibition contained “eerily similar” arguments.
Both cited the alleged bias and partiality as well as hostility of Leonen to the Marcoses and their friends.
Calida’s petition was filed several hours after Marcos filed his own pleading. The latter had denied joining forces with the solicitor general against Leonen.
“How does siding with one man serve the welfare of the people, and why would he take up the position of the defeated candidate whose interest is to call into question and effectively disenfranchise the vote of the people of the Philippines? And yes, if the Office of the Solicitor General is to be the People’s Tribune, (then) it cannot be someone’s gladiator,” Robredo said.
Robredo also raised Calida’s active support for Marcos in the 2016 elections where he organized the Alyansang Duterte-Bongbong to push for the Duterte-Marcos tandem in the said polls.
“Given his vocal and well-known support for protestant Marcos, then, it is not the most prudent course of action for Solicitor General Calida to ask any relief from the Honorable Tribunal in the above-captioned election protest,” she added.
Robredo also said the claim of alleged bias of Leonen can only be raised by Marcos, and not by Calida, since he is not a party nor has the legal standing to participate in the proceeding.
“The State, through the OSG, has no obligation to assuage the insecurities, impatience or hurt feelings of protestant Marcos.The personal feelings of protestant Marcos are not the concern of the Republic or of the People,” Robredo said, adding that Marcos is already represented by his own set of lawyers.
Robredo also blasted Calida’s reliance on newspaper reports in his motion against Leonen calling it “irresponsible, reckless, uncalled for, and gossip mongering.”
