Motion for Reconsideration of SET Reso 07-105 (FINAL)

8/9/2019 Motion for Reconsideration of SET Reso 07-105 (FINAL)

1/32

Republic of the Philippines

SENATE ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL

Quezon City

AQUILINO L. PIMENTEL III,

Protestant/Counter-Protestee,

- versus - SET CASE NO. 001 07

JUAN MIGUEL F. ZUBIRI,

Protestee/Counter-Protestant.x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

OF SET RESOLUTION NO. 07-105

COMES NOW Protestant / Counter-Protestee Pimentel (Pimentel), by

himself, unto this Honorable Tribunal most respectfully MOVES FOR THE

RECONSIDERATION of SET Resolution No. 07-105 dated June 4, 2010 (a copy of

which was received on June 21, 2010), which contains the following findings, to wit:

Significantly, both Pimentel and Zubiri admitted that ballots of

dubious integrity were discovered in the course of the revision

proceedings in the pilot precincts of Quezon City, Manila, Batangas,and Bulacan. The Tribunals own examination and appreciation of the

ballots resulted in a finding that more than 50% of the ballotsspecifically cited in the revision reports were indeed spurious.Accordingly, the presence of said bogus ballots must be considered as

strong indicator that the elections in said areas was marred by

irregularities.

x x x

It reasonably appears from the results of the initial revision andappreciation of the ballots and election documents in the pilot counter-

protested precincts that Zubiri has a prima facie valid cause to pursue

his counter-protest. Also, it was reasonably shown that the officiallyproclaimed results for the twelfth (12th) senatorial position in the May

14, 2007 (sic) would be affected by the disclosed anomaly. It is

therefore warranted that proceedings in the remaining 75% of thecounter-protested precincts be further conducted.

Page 1 of32


2/32

based on the following grounds:

(1) The findings of this Honorable Tribunal stated in SET Resolution No.

07-105 are, with all due respect, BASELESS AND NOT SUPPORTED BY

THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD;

(2) The sole ground, the standard used by this Honorable Tribunal to

justify the continuation of the Zubiri Counter-Protest, which is the mere

presence of bogus ballots in Quezon City, Manila, Batangas, and Bulacan, IS

EXTRAORDINARILY LENIENT AND FAVORABLE TO PROTESTEE

/ COUNTER-PROTESTANT ZUBIRI (Zubiri), IS AGAINST THE SET

RULES, IS AGAINST EXISTING JURISPRUDENCE, AND IS

TANTAMOUNT TO GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION amounting to

lack or excess of jurisdiction because this Honorable Tribunal did not even

concern itself with [1] how many were these bogus ballots and [2] when

were these bogus ballots introduced into the electoral system;

(3) This Honorable Tribunal GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION

amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in ruling that

It reasonably appears from the results of the initial revision andappreciation of the ballots and election documents in the pilot counter-

protested precincts that Zubiri has a prima facie valid cause to pursue

his counter-protest. Also, it was reasonably shown that the officiallyproclaimed results for the twelfth (12th) senatorial position in the May

14, 2007 (sic) would be affected by the disclosed anomaly.

without discussing its findings and disclosing to the parties any of the figures it

used in coming up with this kind of a conclusion; and

(4) There is DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS as three Senators who voted in

favor of SET Resolution No. 07-105, namely, Senators Angara, Legarda, and

Lapid, each lacked the cold neutrality of an impartial judge, which is a

requirement of due process, having previously entered into an alliance with

Zubiri, where their political plans were inextricably linked to the continued

membership of Zubiri in the Senate, as discussed in Pimentels Manifestation

Page 2 of32


3/32

with Motion for Disqualification of Senators Angara, Legarda, and Lapid dated

June 24, 2010.

DISCUSSION

(1) THE FINDINGS OF THIS

HONORABLE TRIBUNAL STATED

IN SET RESOLUTION NO. 07-105

ARE, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT,

BASELESS AND NOT SUPPORTED

BY THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD;

1. Because of the sheer size of the Zubiri Counter-Protest, with 73,265

counter-protested precincts and 18,316 in pilot precincts alone, there is a need to put

things in proper perspective.

2. First, the Counter-Protest is Zubiris Protest. In other words, Zubiri is

the Protestant in this stage of the proceedings. Second, the burden of proving the

allegations in the Counter-Protest is with Zubiri. Third, the burden of complying with

the other requirements laid down by jurisprudence is also with Zubiri at this stage of

the proceedings.

3. Indeed, there were spurious ballots encountered during the revision

proceedings in the Zubiri Counter-Protest but, contrary to the clever use and

positioning of the word significantly in the challenged Resolution, to wit:

Significantly, both Pimentel and Zubiri admitted that ballots ofdubious integrity were discovered in the course of the revision

proceedings in the pilot precincts of Quezon City, Manila, Batangas,

and Bulacan (emphasis supplied; page 7 of Resolution No. 07-105)

it is precisely Pimentels most humble submission that the discovery of spurious

ballots during the revision proceedings in the Zubiri Counter-Protest is

INSIGNIFICANT, considering that:

(1) These spurious ballots were so few in number (only 17,481 ballots

according to footnote 1 of the Dissenting Opinion of Justice Carpio)

relative to the great number of ballots revised (counted official ballots),

Page 3 of32


4/32

which totals 2,488,117; (attached as ANNEX A is Pimentels

computation of the total number of counted official ballots)

(2) These spurious ballots were introduced into the electoral system

through post-election operation and therefore did not affect the

officially-proclaimed results of the contested election;

(3) These spurious ballots were introduced into the electoral system

precisely to strengthen the sham and baseless Counter-Protest of

Zubiri by giving it the element of irregularity. The introduction of

these spurious ballots was therefore meant to benefit Zubiri and/or to

damage Pimentel.

4. When this Honorable Tribunal stated the following The Tribunals

own examination and appreciation of the ballots resulted in a finding that more than

50% of the ballots specifically cited in the revision reports were indeed spurious,

what revision reports was this Honorable Tribunal referring to? How come this

Honorable Tribunal did not disclose or list down the precincts and/or revision reports

where spurious ballots were specifically cited? It is Pimentels most humble

submission that such finding of this Honorable Tribunal is utterly baseless.

5. However way we look at the data, we could not find any ratio or

percentage amounting to 50% or even close to it! Just consider the following:

In Quezon City:

o According to the Dissenting Opinion of Justice Carpio, only 50

precincts out of 1,265 pilot precincts yielded fake ballots.1 50

out of 1,265 is 3.95%. Hence, in terms of the number of pilot

precincts in Quezon City which yielded fake ballots, the

percentage is only 3.95%. Only 2,017 ballots were found to be

fake out of a total of 167,664 ballots. 2,017 out of 167,664 is

1.20%. Hence, in terms of the number of fake ballots found in

1 In Pimentels Memorandum, our figure was 45 precincts out of 1,263 pilot precincts

or 3.56%. (See page 36 thereof.)

Page 4 of32


5/32

the pilot precincts of Quezon City, the percentage is only

1.20% of the total ballots counted in the precincts;

o In Quezon City, Zubiri did not make any objection based on

spurious ballots, as the spurious ballots in Quezon City turned

out to be common ballots. (Pimentels revisors, on the other

hand, manifested that the common ballots are fake. Under

SET Rules, the parties could not object to common ballots.)

o The general feature of the post-election fraud perpetrated in

Quezon City was the replacement of the genuine ballots that

contained only Pimentels name on them (not accompanied by

Zubiris name) with fake ballots that now contained both the

names of Pimentel and Zubiri. This explains why the difference

between the Physical Count and Election Return Votes of

Pimentel in these Quezon City Precincts hardly moved (only 58

votes difference), while the Physical Count for Zubiri jumped

up by a whopping 2,102 votes for an average gain of 46.71

votes per precinct (but in an illegal and fraudulent way)!

o However the figures in the ERs and/or the Tally Boards show

the regularity of the elections;

o This post-election fraud was meant to benefit Zubiri and to

prejudice Pimentel because, first scenario, if the spurious ballots

were to be upheld as genuine and be counted in favor of the

parties, then Zubiri would be gaining 2,102 votes (that is, his

physical count of votes would be 2,102 votes more than his total

votes per ER while Pimentel would be simply retaining his total

votes per ER), and, second scenario, if the spurious ballots were

to be adjudged as spurious and not be counted at all, then Zubiri

would be retaining his total votes per ER while Pimentel would

Page 5 of32


6/32

be deducted votes equal to the number of fake common ballots

(because Pimentels physical count of votes would now be

lesser than his total votes per ER). At any rate, it was certainly

the intention of the post-election operators that the presence of

bogus ballots would help the cause of a sham and baseless

protest like Zubiris Counter-Protest by giving it an

irregularity to argue on;

o As stated in the Memorandum, only 3.56% of the pilot precincts

in Quezon City were affected by this post-election operation (45

out of 1,263);

o The BEIs testimonies established that the fake ballots in

Quezon City were introduced after the May 14, 2007 elections

and therefore did not affect the officially proclaimed results of

the said elections.

In Manila:


out of 1,186 pilot precincts yielded fake ballots.261 out of 1,186

is 5.14%. Hence, in terms of the number of pilot precincts in

Manila which yielded fake ballots, the percentage is only

5.14%. Only 3,406 ballots were found to be fake out of a total

of 152,238 ballots. 3,406 out of 152,238 is 2.24%. Hence, in

terms of the number of fake ballots found in the pilot precincts

of Manila, the percentage is only 2.24% of the total ballots

counted in the precincts;

o However, an examination of the Revision Reports from the City

of Manila reveals that Zubiri made a total of only 2,558

2 In Pimentels Memorandum, our figure was 51 precincts out of 1,174 pilot precincts

or 4.34%. (See page 50 thereof.)

Page 6 of32


7/32

objections based on the spuriousness of the ballot out of 8,312

total official counted ballots in the precincts cited below:

MANILA

Precinct NumbersWhere There areZubiri Objections

Based on"Spurious Ballots"

TotalNumber ofCountedOfficialBallots

Number ofActual

ObjectionsMade By Zubiri

Based on"SpuriousBallots"

ExhibitNumbers

ofObjectedBallots(SB)

1 1A/B 184 54 Z1-Z54

2 9A 95 38 Z1-Z38

3 18B 98 31 Z1-Z31

4 114A/114C 147 59 Z1-Z59

5 115A 111 23 Z1-Z23

6 116B 113 32 Z1-Z32

7 118B/C 182 68 Z1-Z68

8 127A/B 185 49 Z1-Z49

9 130A/B 179 68 Z1-Z68

10

135A 107 30 Z1-Z30

11

135D 116 30 Z1-Z30

12

141A/142B 170 56 Z1-Z56

13

143A 119 36 Z1-Z36

14

146A 109 46 Z1-Z46

15

174B/C 154 34 Z1-Z34

16

209A 110 38 Z1-Z38

17

220A 124 31 Z1-Z31

18

222A/B 177 52 Z1-Z52

1

9 223A/B 207 50 Z1-Z5020

235B/C 189 59 Z1-Z59

21

258B 123 55 Z1-Z55

22

272B/273A 207 67 Z1-Z67

23

274A 112 31 Z1-Z31

24

278A/279C 196 34 Z1-Z34

25

279A 127 27 Z1-Z27

26

292A 118 31 Z1-Z31

27

293B/C 190 69 Z1-Z69

28

311A/B 197 40Z1-Z6,

Z20-Z24,Z27-Z55

Page 7 of32


8/32

29

331A 145 46 Z1-Z46

30

331B/332B 212 47 Z1-Z47

3

1347A/B 213 64 Z1-Z64

32

348B 104 23 Z1-Z23

33

374A/B 163 51 Z1-Z51

34

379A 120 43 Z1-Z43

35

381H 101 32 Z1-Z32

36

382L 118 34 Z1-Z34

37

384A 123 43 Z1-Z43

38

385B 75 31 Z1-Z31

39

385F 73 31 Z1-Z31

40

386A/B 144 40 Z1-Z40

41

388A/B 188 65 Z1-Z65

42

421A/421C 178 68 Z1-Z68

43

423A/C 128 44 Z1-Z44

4

4 429A/B 172 63 Z1-Z6345

430A/B 177 72 Z1-Z72

46

431A/B 203 67 Z1-Z67

47

475A/B 179 62 Z1-Z62

48

506A 121 48 Z1-Z48

49

506B 102 29 Z1-Z29

50

513A 118 30Z1-Z23,Z25-Z31

51

514A/B 151 51 Z1-Z51

52

521A 105 26 Z1-Z26

53

522A/B 127 31 Z1-Z31

54

525A 122 37 Z1-Z37

55

531A 125 34 Z1-Z34

56

532A/B 204 53 Z1-Z53

57 535B/537C 175 55 Z1-Z18,Z20-Z56

8,312 2,558

o The general feature of the post-election fraud perpetrated in the

Manila pilot precincts was that genuine ballots containing

Page 8 of32


9/32

Pimentels name only (without Zubiris name) were withdrawn

and replaced with fake ballots with Pimentels name on it. And

in most cases, the number of replacement fake ballots did not

match the number of genuine ballots withdrawn. Hence, the

physical count of ballots with Pimentels name on them is

woefully low, just a fraction of Pimentels votes as reflected in

the ER and the Tally Boards.

o In other words, the number of substituted fake ballots did not

match the original number of Pimentel ballots. However the

figures in the ERs and/or the Tally Boards show the regularity

of the elections;

o This post-election fraud was meant to prejudice Pimentel to

make it appear that fake ballots were counted in Pimentels

favor. At any rate, it was certainly the intention of the post-

election operators that the presence of bogus ballots would help

the cause of a sham and baseless protest like Zubiris Counter-

Protest by giving it an irregularity to argue on;

o As stated in the Memorandum, only 4.34% of the pilot precincts

in Manila were affected by this post-election operation (51 out

of 1,174);

o The BEIs testimonies established that the fake ballots in

Manila were introduced after the May 14, 2007 elections and

therefore did not affect the officially proclaimed results of the

said elections.

In Batangas:


precincts out of 1,443 pilot precincts yielded fake ballots. 98 out

of 1,443 is only 6.79%. Hence, in terms of the number of pilot

Page 9 of32


10/32

precincts in Batangas which yielded fake ballots, the percentage

is only 6.79%. Only 5,896 ballots were found to be fake out of

a total of 215,041 ballots. 5,896 out of 215,041 is 2.74%.

Hence, in terms of the number of fake ballots found in the pilot

precincts of Batangas, the percentage is only 2.74% of the total

ballots counted in the precincts;

o But the Revision Reports reveal that Zubiri objected to

spurious ballots only in three Municipalities of Batangas,

namely (1) Balete, (2) Lemery, and (3) Sto. Tomas, out of 34

Municipalities;

o In Balete, Batangas, Zubiri made a total of only 187 objections

based on the spuriousness of the ballot out of 2,674 total

official counted ballots in the precincts cited below:

Balete, PROVINCE OF BATANGAS

PrecinctNumbers WhereThere are ZubiriObjections Based

on "SpuriousBallots"


Number ofActual



ExhibitNumbers


1 10A/B 191 4 Z23-Z26

2 14A/B 196 17 Z1-Z17

3 18A/B 198 35 Z1-Z35

4 20A 159 12 Z1-Z12

5 22A/B 189 17 Z1-Z17

6 29A 144 14 Z1-Z14

7 30A/B 170 25 Z1-Z25

8 33A/B 187 2 Z5-Z6

9 38A 165 6 Z1-Z6

10 40A 143 4 Z1-Z4

11 43A/B 236 21Z17-Z30,Z31-Z37

12 47A 150 7 Z50-Z56

13 49A/B 186 6 Z1-Z6

14 50A/B 213 14 Z1-Z14

15 51A 147 3 Z1-Z3

Total 2,674 187

Page 10 of32


11/32

o In Lemery, Batangas, Zubiri made a total of only 528 objections



Lemery, PROVINCE OF BATANGAS




Number ofActual



ExhibitNumbers


1 1A/2A 150 18 Z1-Z18

2 4A/B 152 14 Z1-Z14

3 7A 77 8 Z1-Z84 12A/B 165 13 Z1-Z13

5 35A/B 163 16 Z1-Z16

6 45A/B 186 14 Z1-Z14

7 49A/B 211 16 Z1-Z16

8 52A/B 198 18 Z1-Z18

9 54A/B 171 11 Z63-Z73

10 66A/B 195 6 Z1-Z6

11 69A/B 170 14 Z1-Z14

12 72A 91 9 Z9-Z17

13 72B 66 6 Z1-Z6

14 76A/B 210 13 Z1-Z13

15 80A 148 22 Z1-Z22

16 87A/B 228 38 Z1-Z38

17 95B 89 3 Z1-Z3

18 99A/B 185 6 Z1-Z6

19 102A/B 221 16 Z1-Z16

20 104A/B 158 24Z1-Z17,Z44-Z50

21 110A 151 9Z1-Z7,Z23-Z24

22 134A 147 1 Z16

23 134B 92 3 Z1-Z3

24 140A/B 204 6 Z1-Z6

25 142A/B 148 10 Z1-Z11

26 147A/B 220 28 Z1-Z28

27 148A 149 20 Z1-Z20

28 153A/B 169 30 Z1-Z30

29 160A/B 216 24 Z1-Z24

30 170A/B 201 37 Z1-Z37

31 174A/B 193 28 Z1-Z2832 184A/B 223 21 Z1-Z21

33 189A/B 206 12 Z1-Z12

34 197A 150 6 Z1-Z6

35 203A 91 8 Z1-Z8

Total 5,794 528

Page 11 of32


12/32

o In Sto. Tomas, Batangas, Zubiri made a total of only 813



Sto. Tomas, PROVINCE OF BATANGAS




Number ofActual



ExhibitNumbers


1 1A/B 210 22 Z1-Z22

2 4A/B 167 18Z1-Z6,Z39-Z50

3 6A 158 36Z1-Z19,

Z33-Z35,Z51-Z64

4 8A 131 15 Z1-Z15

5 10A 156 23 Z1-Z23

6 12A 142 19 Z1-Z19

7 14A 169 29 Z1-Z29

8 25A/B 144 16 Z1-Z16

9 28A/B 196 22 Z1-Z22

10 37A 133 23 Z1-Z23

11 43A 114 15 Z1-Z15

12 46A/B 168 12 Z17-Z28

13 48A 118 13 Z1-Z13

14 59A 140 19Z1-Z18,

Z34

15 60A/B 171 12 Z1-Z12

16 68A 139 22 Z1-Z22

17 74A 147 19 Z1-Z19

18 76A 157 11Z1-Z10,

Z41

19 86A 172 19 Z10-Z28

20 92A/B 162 14 Z1-Z14

21 98A/B 218 13 Z1-Z13

22 101A 148 11 Z1-Z11

23 110A 157 36 Z1-Z36

24 119A 155 8 Z1-Z8

25 123A 111 7 Z1-Z7

26 131A 143 7 Z1-Z7

27 138A/B 203 12 Z1-Z12

28 142A 127 7 Z1-Z7

29 148A 110 12 Z1-Z12

30 154A 115 9Z1-Z2,Z20-Z26

31 159A/B 177 6 Z1-Z6

32 171A/B 188 37 Z1-Z37

33 172A 153 9 Z15-Z23

34 184A 127 17 Z1-Z17

Page 12 of32


13/32

35 189A 149 16Z1-Z6,Z15-Z24

36 198A 131 21 Z1-Z21

37 203A 167 10 Z1-Z10

38 210A 125 10 Z1-Z10

39 216A 102 5Z1-Z2,Z26-Z28

40 220A/B 170 19 Z1-Z19

41 224A 114 8 Z1-Z8

42 233A 129 22 Z1-Z22

43 238A 119 10 Z1-Z10

44 243A 130 13 Z1-Z13

45 250A 144 17 Z1-Z17

46 257A 121 14 Z1-Z14

47 260A 159 11 Z1-Z11

48 262A 140 10 Z1-Z10

49 264A/B 205 21 Z1-Z21

50 266A/B 167 28 Z1-Z28

51 268A/B 193 8 Z1-Z8

Total 7,691 813

o Parenthetically, Zubiris lead counsel herein, Atty. George

Garcia is/was also the counsel of Edwin Ermita in his election

protest against Jose Antonio Leviste involving the position of

Vice-Governor of Batangas Province which was litigated before

the Comelec.

In Bulacan:


precincts out of 1,781 pilot precincts yielded fake ballots. 35 out

of 1,781 is only 1.97%. Hence, in terms of the number of pilot

precincts in Bulacan which yielded fake ballots, the percentage

is only 1.97%. Only 6,162 ballots were found to be fake out of

a total of 260,458 ballots. 6,162 out of 260,458 is 2.37%.

Hence, in terms of the number of fake ballots found in the pilot

precincts of Batangas, the percentage is only 2.37% of the total

ballots counted in the precincts;

Page 13 of32


14/32

o But the Revision Reports reveal that Zubiri objected to

spurious ballots only in seven Cities / Municipalities of

Bulacan, namely (1) Bocaue, (2) Marilao, (3) Meycauayan, (4)

Norzagaray, (5) Pulilan, (6) San Jose del Monte, and (7) San

Rafael, out of 24 Cities / Municipalities;

o In Bocaue, Bulacan, Zubiri made a total of only 61 objections



Bocaue, PROVINCE OF BULACAN




Number ofActual



ExhibitNumbers


1 88A/89A 188 12 Z1-Z12

2 111A 136 7 Z1-Z7

3 143A 126 2 Z1-Z24 194A (199) 133 16 Z7-Z22

5 208B/209A 145 5 Z1-Z5

6 218A/219A 176 7 Z1-Z7

7 261A/262A 198 12Z1-Z6,Z16-Z21

Total 1,102 61

o In Marilao, Bulacan, Zubiri made a total of only 8 objections

based on the spuriousness of the ballot out of 232 total


Marilao, PROVINCE OF BULACAN




Number ofActual



ExhibitNumbers


1 67A/68A 171 7 Z56-Z62

2 217C/D 61 1 Z15

Total 232 8

Page 14 of32


15/32

o In Meycauayan, Bulacan, Zubiri made a total of only 16

objections based on the spuriousness of the ballot out of 55

total official counted ballots in the precinct cited below:

Meycauayan, PROVINCE OF BULACAN




Number ofActual



ExhibitNumbers


1 505B/D 55 16 Z1-Z16

Total 55 16

o In Norzagaray, Bulacan, Zubiri made a total of only 96



Norzagaray, PROVINCE OF BULACAN



TotalNumber ofCounted

OfficialBallots

Number ofActual



ExhibitNumbers


1 53A 128 18 Z1-Z18

2 62A 140 4 Z1-Z4

3 77A 152 15 Z1-Z15

4 90C/91A 167 9Z1-Z9,Z16-Z41

5 110A 138 14Z1-Z14,Z27-Z41

6 160A 143 5 Z1-Z5

7 219A/B 138 15 Z1-Z158 246A/247A 185 16 Z1-Z16

Total 1,191 96

o In Pulilan, Bulacan, Zubiri made a total of only 1 objection

based on the spuriousness of the ballot out of 164 total

official counted ballots in the precinct cited below:

Pulilan, PROVINCE OF BULACAN




Number ofActual



ExhibitNumbers


1 142A/143A 164 1 Z79

Page 15 of32


16/32

Total 164 1

o In San Jose del Monte, Bulacan, Zubiri made a total of only 308



San Jose Del Monte, PROVINCE OF BULACAN




Number ofActual



ExhibitNumbers


1 1A/B 156 13Z1-Z10,Z34-Z36

2 69A 116 30Z1-Z29,

Z30

3 96A 133 48Z1-Z36,Z57-Z68

4 187A 91 9 Z1-Z9

5 296A/B 166 24 Z1-Z24

6 301B 131 25 Z1-Z25

7 379C 111 5 Z1-Z5

8 402A 108 12 Z1-Z12

9 414A/B 152 35 Z1-Z3510 453A/B 143 37 Z1-Z37

11 573A 108 13 Z1-Z13

12 591A 113 13 Z1-Z13

13 614A 117 14 Z1-Z14

14 636B 130 29 Z1-Z19

15 653B 72 1 Z1

Total 1,847 308

o In San Rafael, Bulacan, Zubiri made a total of only 113



San Rafael, PROVINCE OF BULACAN




Number ofActual



ExhibitNumbers


1 1A/B 204 3 Z1-Z3

2 18A 164 3 Z1-Z3

3 30A 148 21 Z1-Z21

4 72A 172 8 Z1-Z8

5 110A 138 9 Z1-Z9

6 142A 121 4 Z1-Z4

Page 16 of32


17/32

7 146A/B 177 11 Z1-Z11

8 162A/B 203 20 Z1-Z20

9 173A/B 191 12 Z1-Z12

10 198A 156 11 Z1-Z11

11 205A 141 6 Z1-Z6

12 215A 167 5 Z1-Z5

Total 1,982 113

o Parenthetically, Zubiris lead counsel herein, Atty. George

Garcia is/was also the counsel of Roberto Pagdanganan in his

election protest against Joselito Mendoza involving the position

of Governor of Bulacan Province which was litigated before the

Comelec.

In short, as culled from the Dissenting Opinion of Justice Carpio, only

244 precincts out of a total of 18,316 pilot precincts, or merely 1.33%

of the total number of pilot precincts yielded fake ballots;

Furthermore, according to the Dissenting Opinion of Justice Carpio,

only 17,481 ballots were found to be fake out of a total of 795,401

ballots counted in Quezon City, Manila, Batangas, and Bulacan or

merely 2.19% of the total number of ballots counted in these four

areas;

As a final statistic, according to the Dissenting Opinion of Justice

Carpio, only 17,481 ballots were found to be fake. 17,481 ballots out of

a total of 2,488,117 ballots revised in the Counter-Protests 18,316 pilot

precincts, is merely 0.70% of the total number of ballots revised.

0.70% means that less than one ballotwas found to be fake for every

one hundred ballots revised;

6. We repeat: there is no ratio or percentage amounting to 50% or even

close to it no matter how we look at the data.

7. The members of this Honorable Tribunal, both old and new, are urged

to review the evidence, specifically the Revision Reports.

Page 17 of32


18/32

8. What shall the review reveal? That Zubiri made only 4,689 objections

based on the spuriousness of the ballot, to wit:

Number of PrecinctsWhere There are ZubiriObjections Based on

Spurious Ballot

Number of ActualObjections Made by ZubiriBased on Spurious

Ballot

Manila 58 2,558

Batangas 101 1,528

Bulacan 46 603

TOTAL 4,689

[NOTE: Quezon City is not included in the table above for the reason already stated

earlier (no objections were made to common ballots).]

9. Does the Tribunal ruling mean that the Tribunal is already satisfied that

massive irregularity affected the officially proclaimed results for the 12th senatorial

position in the May 14, 2007 elections just because more than 50% of the 4,689

objections made by Zubiri based on spurious ballots turned out to be indeed

spurious?

10. Such conclusion that more than 50% of the ballots specifically cited in

the revision reports were indeed spurious is therefore utterly baseless and not

supported by the evidence, and, more important, completely insignificant, as the

ballots specifically cited in the revision reports could not number more than 4,689

ballots.

11. SET Resolution No. 07-105 also makes the following conclusion, to

wit:

It reasonably appears from the results of the initial revision and

appreciation of the ballots and election documents in the pilot counter-protested precincts that Zubiri has a prima facie valid cause to pursue

his counter-protest. Also, it was reasonably shown that the officially

proclaimed results for the twelfth (12th) senatorial position in the May14, 2007 (sic) would be affected by the disclosed anomaly. (See page

8 of SET Resolution No. 07-105.)

without stating (1) how Zubiri was able to prove a prima facie valid cause to pursue

his counter-protest, (2) how the officially proclaimed results for the twelfth (12th)

senatorial position in the May 14, 2007 elections was or would be affected by the

disclosed anomaly, which anomaly presumably is the presence of bogus ballots, and

Page 18 of32


19/32

(3) the facts and figures upon which such a conclusion was based. Why are the facts

and figures not disclosed to the parties, especially to Protestant / Counter-Protestee

Pimentel, who is the party to be most aggrieved by this baseless conclusion made by

this Honorable Tribunal?

12. It is most respectfully submitted that the above conclusion is just as

utterly baseless and not supported by the evidence as the finding that more than 50%

of the ballots specifically cited in the revision reports were indeed spurious discussed

above.

(2) THE SOLE GROUND, THE

STANDARD USED BY THIS

HONORABLE TRIBUNAL TO

JUSTIFY THE CONTINUATION OF

THE ZUBIRI COUNTER-PROTEST,

WHICH IS THE MERE PRESENCE

OF BOGUS BALLOTS IN QUEZON

CITY, MANILA, BATANGAS, AND

BULACAN, IS EXTRAORDINARILY

LENIENT AND FAVORABLE TO

PROTESTEE / COUNTER-

PROTESTANT ZUBIRI, IS

AGAINST THE SET RULES, IS

AGAINST EXISTING

JURISPRUDENCE, AND IS

TANTAMOUNT TO GRAVE ABUSE

OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO

LACK OR EXCESS OF

JURISDICTION BECAUSE THIS

HONORABLE TRIBUNAL DID NOT

EVEN CONCERN ITSELF WITH [1]HOW MANY WERE THESE

BOGUS BALLOTS AND [2] WHEN

WERE THESE BOGUS BALLOTS

INTRODUCED INTO THE

ELECTORAL SYSTEM;

1. The standard used by this Honorable Tribunal to justify the

continuation of proceedings in the 75% remainder of the Zubiri Counter-Protest is the

mere presence of bogus ballots in Quezon City, Manila, Batangas, and Bulacan.

2. It is the most humble submission of Pimentel that the said standard

used by this Honorable Tribunal is extraordinarily lenient and favorable to Zubiri, is

Page 19 of32


20/32

against the SET Rules as well as existing jurisprudence, and is tantamount to grave

abuse of discretion.

3. The pertinent portion of Rule 79 of the Revised Rules of the Senate

Electoral Tribunal reads:

xxx Upon the termination of such initial revision and reception of

evidence, and based upon what reasonably appears therefrom as

affecting or not the officially-proclaimed results of the contested

election, the Tribunal may dismiss the protest, any counter-protest or

cross-protest, as the case may be, or all of them, or require the parties toshow cause why these should not be dismissed without further

proceedings. (Emphasis supplied)

4. It is the most humble submission of Pimentel that implicit from Rule 79

quoted above are the following principles:

(1)Not all types of frauds or irregularities encountered during such

initial revision and reception of evidence would justify the

continuation of proceedings in the remaining 75% of the Protest or

Counter-Protest;

(2) The frauds or irregularities must be proven (not merely alleged)

by the Protestant in the Protest and the Counter-Protestant in the

Counter-Protest in order to justify the continuation of the Protest or

Counter-Protest, as the case may be;

(3) And these proven frauds or irregularities must be massive

enough to have affected the officially-proclaimed results of the

contested election;

5. Finding mere presence of bogus ballots a good enough reason to

allow the continuation of the proceedings in the Zubiri Counter-Protest fails to satisfy

the above requirements of Rule 79 of the SET Rules.

6. Furthermore, the case of ROSAL vs. COMELEC and IMPERIAL, G.

R. Nos. 168253 and 172741, March 16, 2007, extensively cited by Pimentel in his

Memorandum (see pages 24 to 25 thereof), requires Zubiri to prove whether the

ballots found in the ballot boxes during the revision proceedings were the same ballots

Page 20 of32


21/32

that were cast and counted in the elections, a burden which Zubiri conveniently chose

to ignore.

7. The Pilot stage is not a summary hearing, it is already full blown

trial. In fact, Zubiri was given an initial 84 days to present his evidence and an

additional 52 days to further present evidence after he wasted the first 84 days by

refusing to present evidence and boycotting the hearings. After wasting time, Zubiri

went through the motions of presenting witnesses by presenting 42 witnesses, 40 of

whom were in his payroll as either revision supervisor or revisor and who were simply

going to repeat what they had already stated in their revision reports (thereby totally

wasting time again!). The other two (2) witnesses (one a private supplier of paper to

the Comelec and the other a government employee) were not even eye-witnesses to

any kind of fraud. The private supplier of paper to the Comelec (Henry Young) was

made to identify a few spurious ballots. The government employees testimony

(Gracia Enriquez) was even cut short by Zubiris counsel when the witness insisted on

the genuineness of ballots which Zubiris counsel thought were spurious.

8. In short, even when he was given 136 days to present his evidence to

prove his allegations in the Counter-Protest, Zubiri never attempted to comply with the

doctrines in the case of ROSAL vs. COMELEC and IMPERIAL that

We summarize the foregoing doctrines: (1) the ballots cannot be used

to overturn the official count as reflected in the election returns unless

it is first shown affirmatively that the ballots have been preserved witha care which precludes the opportunity of tampering and all suspicion

of change, abstraction or substitution; (2) the burden of proving that the

integrity of the ballots has been preserved in such a manner is on the

protestant; (3) where a mode of preserving the ballots is enjoined bylaw, proof must be made of such substantial compliance with the

requirements of that mode as would provide assurance that the ballots

have been kept inviolate notwithstanding slight deviations from theprecise mode of achieving that end; (4) it is only when the protestant

has shown substantial compliance with the provisions of law on the

preservation of ballots that the burden of proving actual tampering orthe likelihood thereof shifts to the protestee and (5) only if it appears to

the satisfaction of the court or Comelec that the integrity of the ballots

has been preserved should it adopt the result as shown by the recount

and not as reflected in the election returns. (See page 24 of PimentelsMemorandum.)

Page 21 of32


22/32

9. Zubiri has no evidence at all and depends entirely on the appreciation

of manipulated substituted ballots, introduced into the electoral system through a

post-election operation, and two of the areas mentioned in SET Resolution No. 07-105

(Batangas and Bulacan) involved local election protests where Zubiris lead counsel

is/was also the lawyer of the protestants in the said local election protests.

10. Zubiri is one such lucky Protestant (in his Counter-Protest) and Atty.

George Garcia one such lucky election lawyer if all they have to do is to show an

irregularity in the pilot precinct stage and their remaining 75% protested precincts

shall already be allowed to proceed. No election is perfect. Not even the recently

concluded first automated elections in our country. How much more a manual one?

And if a whopping 18,316 pilot precincts are opened and revised, for sure, an

irregularity will be uncovered.

11. But is the discovery of spurious ballots really an irregularity massive

enough to have affected the officially-proclaimed results of the contested election?

a) In the first place, is the presence of these spurious ballots truly

an irregularity? Zubiri, although the burden was upon him, did not even

attempt to present evidence that these spurious ballots were the very

same ballots actually cast by the voters and counted by the BEIs in the

May 14, 2007 elections. On the other hand, there is overwhelming

evidence that these were introduced into the electoral system after the

voting and counting, by way of a post-election operation. Since these

were introduced into the electoral system after the counting, then

definitely the spurious ballots did not affect the officially-proclaimed

results of the contested election. But the more important question to ask

is: Why was Zubiri relieved of his obligation to prove that the ballots

revised were the same ballots cast by the voters and counted by the

BEIs?

Page 22 of32


23/32

b) In the second place, is the presence of 17,481 spurious ballots

massive enough to have the potential to change the outcome of this

Protest? (We have taken our figure from the Dissenting Opinion

because the Majority Opinion does not disclose any figure.) 17,481

spurious ballots out of a total of 795,401 contested ballots in Quezon

City, Manila, Batangas, and Bulacan is a mere 2.19%! 17,481 spurious

ballots out of a total of 2,488,117 revised ballots in the entire 18,316

pilot precincts is a mere 0.70%!

i) In contrast, Pimentel, in the Main Protest, already led

Zubiri by 103,810 votes from Pimentels 664 pilot

precincts alone, and by 257,401 votes after the revision

of all of Pimentels 2,658 protested precincts!

c) In the third place, since the spurious ballots were placed inside

the ballot boxes in a post-election operation, these ballots were not the

same ones counted and therefore did not affect in any way the

officially-proclaimed results of the May 14, 2007 senatorial elections.

i) The members of this Honorable Tribunal, both old and

new, are invited to note the Comments and

Observations in the Revision Reports covering the

Quezon City and Manila precincts, where the following

are stated: no outer and inner metal seals, inner metal

seal was attached but appears to have been forcibly

opened, envelope for counted official ballots is almost

torn apart in its bottom and upper part and its paper seal

re-pasted, keys did not match with padlocks, inner

metal seal attached but unlocked, inner metal seal was

locked but suspiciously tampered by an adhesive, left

hinge of the box was detached, inner metal seal

Page 23 of32


24/32

unsealed, both metal seals unlocked, envelope for

valid ballots unsealed, metal seals appear to have been

sealed with clear adhesive glue, ballot box inner metal

seal was reattached by adhesive, ballot box outer

metal seal is glued to relock, envelope for counted

official ballots is re-pasted and partly torn at the

bottom, outer and inner metal seals were both attached

but unsealed, flap of the envelope for counted official

ballots was torn on the left side, evidence of dried

glue/paste on the surface and side of paper seal of the

envelope for counted official ballots, upper and lower

portion of the envelope for counted official ballots partly

destroyed, etc. (See also Annexes M-1 and KK-1

of Pimentels Memorandum);

ii) The ballots from Batangas and Bulacan did not arrive at

the SET in their original ballot boxes because these had

been previously revised at the Comelec in the election

protests involving Batangas and Bulacan where Zubiris

lead counsel, Atty. George Garcia, is/was also the

counsel for both protestants therein.

12. The lowering of the standard of proof to mere presence of bogus

ballots in order to justify the continuation of proceedings in Zubiris Counter-Protest

(for the remaining 75% counter-protested precincts) demonstrates the manifest

partiality of this Honorable Tribunal towards Protestee / Counter-Protestant Zubiri.

13. Zubiri did not even lift a finger to try to prove the allegations in his

Counter-Protest, yet, he gets the go-signal to proceed with the rest of his counter-

protested precincts, merely on the basis of the presence of bogus ballots in Quezon

Page 24 of32


25/32

City, Manila, Batangas, and Bulacan. Such a baseless, arbitrary, and whimsical

Decision amounts to grave abuse of discretion.

14. On the contrary, the evidence shows that further proceedings in the

Zubiri Counter-Protest are not warranted.

(3) THIS HONORABLE

TRIBUNAL GRAVELY ABUSED ITS

DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO

LACK OR EXCESS OF

JURISDICTION IN RULING THAT

IT REASONABLY APPEARSFROM THE RESULTS OF THE

INITIAL REVISION AND

APPRECIATION OF THE BALLOTS

AND ELECTION DOCUMENTS IN

THE PILOT COUNTER-

PROTESTED PRECINCTS THAT

ZUBIRI HAS A PRIMA FACIE

VALID CAUSE TO PURSUE HIS

COUNTER-PROTEST. ALSO, IT

WAS REASONABLY SHOWN THAT

THE OFFICIALLY PROCLAIMEDRESULTS FOR THE TWELFTH

(12TH) SENATORIAL POSITION IN

THE MAY 14, 2007 (SIC) WOULD

BE AFFECTED BY THE

DISCLOSED ANOMALY.

WITHOUT DISCUSSING ITS

FINDINGS AND DISCLOSING TO

THE PARTIES ANY OF THE

FIGURES IT USED IN COMING UP

WITH THIS KIND OF A

CONCLUSION;

1. Again, this Honorable Tribunal makes a sweeping conclusion without

substantiating it by facts and/or figures.

2. Due process requires that the parties should be apprised of the basis for

such an important conclusion.

3. What results did this Honorable Tribunal take into account before

concluding that Zubiri has a prima facie valid cause to pursue his Counter-Protest?

And what did reasonably appear from the said results?

Page 25 of32


26/32

4. Also, what disclosed anomaly reasonably showed that the officially

proclaimed results for the twelfth (12th) senatorial position in the May 14, 2007

elections would be affected? And how or to what extent was the officially proclaimed

results supposed to be affected?

5. How was this Honorable Tribunal able to come up with this kind of a

conclusion without even stating the number of bogus ballots supposed to have been

discovered?

6. Why did this Honorable Tribunal put so much importance on the

presence of bogus ballots when there is no evidence, since Zubiri chose to ignore his

burden, that these spurious ballots were the very same ballots actually cast by the

voters and counted by the BEIs in the May 14, 2007 elections? (On the other hand,

there is evidence to show that these spurious ballots were the product of post-election

fraud.)

7. Furthermore, according to the Dissenting Opinion, The fake ballots do

not necessarily translate into a net recovery in favor of either Pimentel or Zubiri, as

such ballots could reflect votes for either Pimentel or Zubiri or both.

8. Why should the mere presence of fake ballots in Bulacan and Batangas

prejudice Pimentel and/or benefit Zubiri, when the protagonists in the local election

protests involving these areas were all the party-mates or allies of Zubiri, not

Pimentel? Attached as ANNEX B is a certified true copy of the Certificate of

Candidacy for Governor (of Bulacan) of Joselito Mendoza showing his party to be

KAMPI; ANNEX C is a certified true copy of the Certificate of Candidacy for

Governor (of Bulacan) of Roberto Pagdanganan showing his party to be LAKAS-

Christian Muslim Democrats (LAKAS-CMD); ANNEX D is a certified true copy

of the Certificate of Candidacy for Vice-Governor (of Batangas) of Jose Antonio

Leviste showing his party to be Kabalikat ng Malayang Pilipino; ANNEX E is a

certified true copy of the Certificate of Candidacy for Vice-Governor (of Batangas) of

Edwin Ermita showing his party to be LAKAS-CMD.

Page 26 of32


27/32

9. The results of the election in these precincts where fake ballots were

found could still be established from the figures in the Election Returns and Tally

Boards, which generally match, proving the regularity of the election. (And at the

same time further proving the post-election nature of the fraud.)

10. Zubiris rate of recovery of votes from his 18,316 pilot precincts, is less

thanone vote per precinct, more accurately, 0.66 average vote recovery per precinct.

But that rate is even before the legitimate claims of Pimentel are considered. And

Pimentel has strong legitimate claims to votes not physically counted, totaling 12,915

votes claimed, as discussed in his Memorandum on pages 26 to 32 and in the

corresponding annexes.

11. Contrast the above Zubiri rate of recovery of votes with Pimentels

(taken from the Main Protest): 156.34 average vote recovery per precinct from

Pimentels 664 pilot precincts, and 99.64 average vote recovery per precinct from

Pimentels entire 2,658 protested precincts!

12. In terms of vote recovery (physical count minus ER votes), from his

18,316 pilot precincts, Zubiri was able to recover 11,948 votes (again, before the

legitimate claims of Pimentel are considered). In contrast, from Pimentels 664 pilot

precincts, he was able to recover 103,810 votes.

13. From Pimentels entire 2,658 protested precincts, he was able to

recover 257,401 votes. Since the 18,316 pilot precincts are already the best evidence

of the fraud pleaded by Zubiri in his Counter-Protest, his 75% remaining precincts 3

(numbering 52,291, that is, 70,607 minus 18,316) are therefore not expected to exceed

the vote recovery rate of the pilot precincts. Hence, Zubiris remaining 52,291

precincts could only be expected to yield him a maximum recovery of 34,1104,

assuming that these remaining non-pilot precincts should prove to be as good as his

pilot precincts, which would definitely not be the case.

3 Not exactly 75% because Zubiris 18,316 pilot precincts was computed from (25%

of) the total of Zubiris 70,607 new counter-protested precincts and the 2,658 precinctsprotested in the Main Protest which Zubiri also counter-protested.4 Computed as follows: 52,291 divided by 18,316 then multiplied by 11,948.

Page 27 of32


28/32

14. Given the above figures, it is indeed very difficult to believe that there

were results seen by this Honorable Tribunal that convinced it that Zubiri has a

prima facie valid cause to pursue his counter-protest.

15. What is clear is that the results of the 25% pilot precincts of Zubiri

show an improbability for Zubiri to overcome Pimentels tremendous lead established

in his Main Protest. (Since Zubiris total number of counter-protested precincts

comprise already 1/3 of the total number of precincts in the country that functioned

during the May 14, 2007 elections, and Zubiris projected recovery [before claims]

from all his counter-protested precincts is only a maximum of 46,058 votes [11,948

plus 34,110] while Pimentel already leads Zubiri by 257,401 votes, even if Zubiri

were to open all the ballots boxes in the entire country, a 100% recount of the entire

countrys 220 thousand plus precincts, duplicating the function of the Comelec and the

BEIs, still Zubiri cannot and will not be able to overcome Pimentels tremendous lead

established from only 2,658 precincts.)

(4) THERE IS DENIAL OF DUE

PROCESS AS THREE SENATORS

WHO VOTED IN FAVOR OF SET

RESOLUTION NO. 07-105,

NAMELY, SENATORS ANGARA,

LEGARDA, AND LAPID, EACH

LACKED THE COLD NEUTRALITY

OF AN IMPARTIAL JUDGE,

WHICH IS A REQUIREMENT OFDUE PROCESS, HAVING

PREVIOUSLY ENTERED INTO AN

ALLIANCE WITH ZUBIRI, WHERE

THEIR POLITICAL PLANS WERE

INEXTRICABLY LINKED TO THE

CONTINUED MEMBERSHIP OF

ZUBIRI IN THE SENATE.

1. As stated in Pimentels Manifestation with Motion for

Disqualification of Senators Angara, Legarda, and Lapid dated June 24, 2010, there

is UNITY OF INTEREST AMONG SENATORS ANGARA, LEGARDA, AND

LAPID AND PROTESTEE / COUNTER PROTESTANT ZUBIRI THAT IS

Page 28 of32


29/32

TANTAMOUNT TO INABILITY ON THE PART OF SENATORS ANGARA,

LEGARDA, AND LAPID TO OBSERVE AND MAINTAIN THE COLD

NEUTRALITY OF AN IMPARTIAL JUDGE. The requirement of cold neutrality of

an impartial judge is a requirement of due process.

2. Attached as ANNEX F is a photocopy of a news report in the May

17, 2010 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer, entitled Magnificent 5 may swing

vote for Senate head by Michael Lim Ubac, which has the following entry:

The emerging power bloc in the Senate is composed of Majority

Leader Juan Miguel Zubiri, Edgardo Angara, Loren Legarda,

Ramon Revilla Jr., and Lito Lapid, who is hanging on in the 11 th

place in the senatorial races.

Zubiri blurted out the phrase Magnificent 5 when asked about the

name of their group.

xxx

Were one bloc, Zubiri told the INQUIRER the other day,

stressing that they will vote as one. [emphasis supplied]

3. It is clear that Protestee / Counter-Protestant Zubiri has found an

ingenious way to make his continued membership in the Senate indispensable to the

attainment of the political plans of SET members SENATORS ANGARA,

LEGARDA, and LAPID, his fellow members of the Magnificent 5 bloc.

4. It is most respectfully submitted that the six (6) Senator-Members of

the SET, although they are politicians, must nonetheless think, act, and behave like

Judges.

5. Judicial Conduct requires that judges should avoid impropriety and the

appearance of impropriety in all activities. This means that a judge should always

show, in the discharge of his judicial functions, the cold neutrality of an impartial

judge, which is a requirement of due process. The time honored rule is that a public

official whose duty is to apply the law and dispense justice, xxx, should not only be

Page 29 of32


30/32

impartial, independent and honest but should be believed and perceived to be

impartial, independent and honest.

xxx For due process of law requires a hearing before an impartial and

disinterested tribunal and every litigant is entitled to nothing less than the cold

neutrality of an impartial judge. (Agpalo, Legal and Judicial Ethics, Eighth Edition,

2009, pages 611 to 612.)

6. A judge whose duty is to apply the law and dispense justice should

not only be impartial, independent and honest but should be perceived to be impartial,

independent and honest as well. Like Caesars wife, a judge must not only be pure but

above suspicion. His private as well as official conduct must be free from all

appearances of impropriety. Fraternizing with litigants tarnishes this appearance.

(Agpalo, Legal and Judicial Ethics, Eighth Edition, 2009, page 611; emphasis

supplied.)

LAST WORD

Protestant / Counter-Protestee Pimentel came to this Honorable Tribunal

seeking Justice.

It therefore comes as a shock to him that a sham, baseless Counter-Protest like

Zubiris would be allowed to proceed simply because fake ballots were discovered

upon the opening of ballot boxes without regard as to the number of these fake ballots

and as to when these fake ballots were introduced into the electoral system and as to

whether their presence frustrated the will of the electorate.

This case has been pending for almost three years now. Zubiri is simply

relying on the presence of tampered substituted ballots perpetrated through a post-

election operation in order to prolong the Protestant / Counter-Protestees agony and at

the same time prolong his unjustified stay in office. But Justice delayed is justice

denied!

Page 30 of32


31/32

Zubiri did not even lift a finger to prove his allegations in the Counter-Protest.

It is obvious that his plan is simply TO DELAY THE PROTEST. This is the second

part of that old scheme of electoral cheats, the GRAB THE PROCLAMATION,

DELAY THE PROTEST strategy.

Since the 18,316 pilot precincts were Zubiris best precincts to prove the

allegations of fraud he has made to justify his gargantuan Counter-Protest, and they

proved nothing, he should not be allowed to promise to prove his allegations in the

remaining 75% of his Counter-Protest, for if the best 25% precincts proved to be an

utter waste of time, then the remaining ordinary 75% of the counter-protested

precincts would definitely prove not only to be another waste of time but a criminal

waste of time, money, and resources.

IN SHORT, ZUBIRI UTTERLY FAILED TO PROVE BY CLEAR,

CREDIBLE, SUBSTANTIAL, AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT THE

CONDUCT OF THE MAY 14, 2007 SENATORIAL ELECTIONS IN THE AREAS

COVERED BY HIS COUNTER-PROTEST WAS TAINTED BY FRAUD AND

IRREGULARITIES THAT FRUSTRATED THE WILL OF THE ELECTORATE.

The truth is as simple as that.

And since for close to three long years, Zubiri has wrongfully and illegally

occupied a public office, which is a public trust, it is about time for this Honorable

Tribunal to immediately correct the situation and give effect to the true will of the

Filipino People as expressed during the May 14, 2007 senatorial elections.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed that the

Motion for Reconsideration of SET Resolution No. 07-105 dated June 4, 2010 be

granted and another Resolution be issued (1) DISMISSING THE ENTIRE

COUNTER-PROTEST OF PROTESTEE / COUNTER-PROTESTANT ZUBIRI, for

Page 31 of32


32/32

failure to prove by convincing evidence, through his designated pilot precincts, that

the conduct of the May 14, 2007 senatorial elections in the areas covered by

Protestee / Counter-Protestant Zubiris Counter-Protest was tainted by fraud and

irregularities that frustrated the will of the electorate, and (2) RESOLVING this case

immediately on the basis of the Main Protest, and, as a consequence thereof, that

JUDGMENT BE RENDERED DECLARING PROTESTANT / COUNTER-

PROTESTEE PIMENTEL AS THE RIGHTFUL AND PROPER TWELFTH (12TH)

WINNING SENATORIAL CANDIDATE IN THE 14 MAY 2007 ELECTIONS in

lieu of Protestee / Counter-Protestant Zubiri.

Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed for.

San Juan City for Quezon City; July 1, 2010.

ATTY. AQUILINO L. PIMENTEL III

Unit 2106, Atlanta Center Bldg.

Annapolis St., GreenhillsSan Juan City, Metro Manila

Roll of Attorneys No. 37248

IBP Lifetime Member No. 05048PTR No. 3273440; Jan. 12, 2010; Marikina

MCLE Compliance No. III-0011434

Copy furnished by registered mail:Atty. George Erwin M. Garcia

Counsel for Protestee/Counter-Protestant Zubiri

Ground Floor, LAIKO Bldg.Cabildo St., Intramuros, Manila

EXPLANATION

Due to lack of time and manpower resources, the undersigned was forced tofurnish the above-named counsel a copy of the foregoing Motion for Reconsideration

by registered mail.

ATTY. AQUILINO L. PIMENTEL III

Motion for Reconsideration of SET Reso 07-105 (FINAL)

Documents

Transcript of Motion for Reconsideration of SET Reso 07-105 (FINAL)