PIMENTEL VS. ZUBIRISET CASE NO. 07 – 001

The Maguindanao Massacre of the May 14,

2007 Polls

2

On 14 July 2007, the Comelec led by Benjamin Abalos proclaimed Zubiri as the 12th and last winning Senator in the May 2007 Senatorial Elections.

Basic Facts

3

Before the Maguindanao votes were counted, Pimentel led Zubiri by 110,000 votes.

Zubiri’s Maguindanao votes allowed him to lead Pimentel by only 19,292 votes. Comelec proclaimed him as senator on July 14, 2007.

Pimentel filed a protest on July 30, 2007.Pimentel protested 2,658 precincts, 664

(25%) of which served as “pilot precincts”.

Basic Facts

4

Total No. of Precincts Protestedby Pimentel: 2,658

Provinces/ Areas InvolvedProvince Total Municipalities Total Precincts

Maguindanao 22 1,078Lanao del Norte 7 496Shariff Kabunsuan 3 291 Basilan 2 134Sultan Kudarat 2 282Lanao del Sur 4 161Sulu 4 216

Basic Facts

5

Zubiri filed his own Counter-Protest in August 2007.

Zubiri counter-protested 73,265 precincts.

This included Pimentel’s 2,658 precincts plus 70,607 new precincts.

His 25% “pilot precincts” alone already number 18,316 .

Basic Facts

6

Zubiri, the winner proclaimed by Abalos et al., claimed to have been cheated in 17 cities and 10 provinces, to wit:

Basic Facts

Entire Metro Manila (except Taguig & Valenzuela)

Batangas Bulacan Cagayan Valley Camarines Norte Cavite Ilocos Norte

Laguna Nueva Ecija Palawan Quezon Province Zamboanga City Bogo City, Cebu

7

Basic Facts

Zubiri’s Counter-Protest covers

1/3of the

Philippines!

8

Pimentel’s Protest side by side with Zubiri’s Counter-Protest:

Pimentel Protest Zubiri Counter Protest

2,658Number of Precincts Protested

73,265

664 Number of Pilot Precincts 18,316

Note: Zubiri’s Counter Protest is 27.5 times larger than the Main Protest!

Basic Facts

9

Basic Facts

On June 17, 2008, the SET issued Resolution No. 07-27 stating:

“The results of the initial revision and appreciation proceedings already done [IN PIMENTEL’S PILOT PRECINCTS] showed that the 14 May 2007 election in certain designated pilot areas was characterized by proven irregularities.”

10

SET RESOLUTION NO. 07-27,DATED 17 JUNE 2008:

“Thus, in six (6) of the nine (9) pilot municipalities in Maguindanao and Lanao del Norte, for instance, 98.15% of the ballots cast were found to be spurious, to wit:”

Basic Facts

11

Municipality Spurious

Genuine Total

1. Buluan, Maguindanao 9,829 0 9,829

2. Ampatuan, Maguindanao 9,655 655 10,310

3. Paglat, Maguindanao 4,537 0 4,5374. Guindulungan,

Maguindanao 4,683 224 4,907

5. Sultan Naga Dimaporo, Lanao del Norte

25,397 188 25,58

5

6. Salvador, Lanao del Norte 16,821 267 17,08

8

TOTAL 70,922 1,334 72,25

6

Thus, in six (6) of the nine (9) pilot municipalities in Maguindanao and Lanao del Norte, for instance, 98.15% of the ballots cast were found to be spurious, to wit:

Basic Facts

12

Basic Facts

Hence, SET Resolution No. 07-27 concluded that:

“From the results of the initial revision and the appreciation of ballots and election documents, it appears that Protestant has a prima facie valid cause of action. Indeed, there is reasonable ground to believe that the final outcome of the case could affect the officially proclaimed results for the twelfth (12th) senatorial position in the 14 May 2007 national elections; hence, the election protest deserves further proceedings by this Tribunal.”

13

Basic Facts

The SET then proceeded to collect and revise Zubiri’s pilot precincts.

The revision of ballots in Zubiri’s Counter-Protest has terminated on 14 May 2009.

14

Basic Facts

On June 4, 2010, the SET Majority of 7, composed of:1. Senator Edgardo J. Angara2. Senator Loren D. Legarda3. Senator Manuel “Lito” M. Lapid4. Senator Richard G. Gordon5. Senator Francis N. Pangilinan6. Justice Presbiterio J. Velasco, Jr.7. Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castroissued Resolution No. 07-105.

SET Chairman Senior Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio and Senator Compañera Pia S. Cayetano DISSENTED.

15

Pimentel vs. Zubiri SET Case No. 07 – 001“Resolution No. 07 - 105”

The issue before the SET was whether or not to allow the continuation of Zubiri’s Counter-Protest, pursuant to Rule 79 of the SET Rules.

If Zubiri failed to prove anything significant from his 18,000 plus pilot precincts, which will substantially affect the results of the Protest, then his entire Counter-Protest MUST BE DISMISSED.

The SET Majority of 7, ruled to allow further proceedings (collect, open, and examine) in the remaining 52,380 precincts of the counter-protest of Zubiri.

16

Pimentel vs. Zubiri SET Case No. 07 – 001“Resolution No. 07 - 105”

The SET majority’s only “reason” for allowing Zubiri to present the rest of his counter-protested precincts is their statement that:

“…more than 50% of the ballots specifically cited in the revision reports were indeed spurious…”

17

Pimentel vs. Zubiri SET Case No. 07 – 001“Resolution No. 07 - 105”

The SET majority opinion did not even:

1. Mention the number of fake ballots found;2. Bother to find out when these fake ballots

were introduced into ballot boxes;3. Discuss the impact of the fake ballots on

results or running vote totals of Pimentel and Zubiri.

The Resolution is characterized by “Grave Abuse of

Discretion”

18

Pimentel vs. Zubiri SET Case No. 07 – 001“Resolution No. 07 - 105”

SET majority’s statement of “50% spurious” is utterly baseless considering the following:

Total number of ballots examined in QC, Manila, Bulacan, Batangas was 795,401.

Total number of fake ballots found in QC, Manila, Bulacan, Batangas was 17,481 (or just 2.2% spurious).

Total number of ballots examined for all of Zubiri’s “pilot precincts” was around 2.5 million (or merely 0.7% spurious).

The Resolution is “utterly baseless”

19

Pimentel vs. Zubiri SET Case No. 07 – 001“Resolution No. 07 - 105”

In the Revision Reports for QC, Manila, Bulacan, Batangas, the total number of Zubiri objections to ballots on the ground of “spurious ballots” found in QC, Manila, Bulacan, Batangas was only 4,689.

So the statement “more than 50% of the ballots specifically cited in the revision reports were indeed spurious” could only amount to anywhere from 2,345 to 4,689 ballots as spurious ballots (even fewer than the 17,481 ballots already found as spurious by the SET)

The Resolution is “utterly baseless”

20

Pimentel vs. Zubiri SET Case No. 07 – 001“Resolution No. 07 - 105”

No matter how we look at the data, there is no percentage which comes close to “50%”!

The Resolution is“utterly baseless”

21

Pimentel vs. Zubiri SET Case No. 07 – 001“Resolution No. 07 - 105”

Testimony of teachers (BEIs) from QC, and Manila at the SET regarding the fake ballots found during revision was consistent: “these were not the ballots we counted during election day…” (ballots had no initials at the back; initials found at the back were not the Chairman’s)The Resolution ignores the

“post-election fraud”

22

Pimentel vs. Zubiri SET Case No. 07 – 001“Resolution No. 07 - 105”

Bulacan and Batangas were both subjects of bloody local elections.

In BULACAN, the protagonists were Pagdanganan of LAKAS-CMD and Mendoza of KAMPI

BOTH ZUBIRI ALLIES

The Resolution ignores the “post-election fraud”

23

Pimentel vs. Zubiri SET Case No. 07 – 001“Resolution No. 07 - 105”

In BATANGAS, the protagonists were Ermita of LAKAS-CMD and Leviste of KAMPI

BOTH ZUBIRI ALLIES

The Resolution ignores the “post-election fraud”

24

Pimentel vs. Zubiri SET Case No. 07 – 001“Resolution No. 07 - 105”

The lawyer for the PROTESTANTS in both the Bulacan and Batangas protests was no other than Atty. George Garcia, who is Zubiri’s own lawyer.

Therefore, WHO HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO HANDLE THE BALLOTS?

And why should the presence of fake ballots in these areas be taken against Pimentel?

The Resolution ignores the “post-election fraud”

25

Pimentel vs. Zubiri SET Case No. 07 – 001“Resolution No. 07 - 105”

The Pimentel Protest has established:• The Net recovery from 664 “pilot precincts”

for Pimentel was 103,810 votes (or 156 votes per precinct)

• The Net recovery from the 2,658 precincts for Pimentel was 257,401 votes (or 97 votes per precinct)

The Resolution is characterized by

“grave abuse of discretion”

26

Pimentel vs. Zubiri SET Case No. 07 – 001“Resolution No. 07 - 105”

While Zubiri’s Counter-Protest could only establish:• A Net recovery from 18,227 “pilot

precincts” for Zubiri of only 11,948 votes (or 0.66 vote per precinct), which is even subject to adjustment due to the claims of Pimentel to some valid votes.

The Resolution is characterized by

“grave abuse of discretion”

27

Pimentel vs. Zubiri SET Case No. 07 – 001“Resolution No. 07 - 105”

• Hence, even if we assume that the 11,948 votes could be fully recovered by Zubiri, his maximum projected total net recovery from the remaining 70,607 precincts is only 45,742!

The Resolution is characterized by

“grave abuse of discretion”

28

Pimentel vs. Zubiri SET Case No. 07 – 001“Resolution No. 07 - 105”

Justice Carpio’s Dissenting Opinion states that:“In Zubiri’s pilot precincts, consisting of 18,227 precincts, he was able to recover only 11,948 votes, subject to adjustments, translating to 0.66 average vote recovered per precinct. His projected total recovery is only 33,794 votes in his remaining 75% non-pilot protested precincts, or a total projected recovery of 45,742 votes in all his 70,607 counter-protested precincts.”

29

Pimentel vs. Zubiri SET Case No. 07 – 001“Resolution No. 07 - 105”

Justice Carpio’s Dissenting Opinion categorically provides that:

“On the other hand, Pimentel’s net recovery in all his protested precincts is 257,401 votes.

Even if we deduct the number of votes contained in the fake ballots, Zubiri’s projected net recovery can not successfully overcome the net recovery posted by Pimentel.”

Pimentel vs. Zubiri SET Case No. 07 – 001

Pimentel vs. Zubiri SET Case No. 07 – 001

PIMENTEL ZUBIRI257,401 net gain

(from 2,658 precincts)11,948 net gain

(from 18,227 pilot precincts)

45,742 maximum net gainprojected

(from 70,607 precincts)

32

Pimentel vs. Zubiri SET Case No. 07 – 001“Resolution No. 07 - 105”

So why should the SET majority still want 52,000 precincts opened and revised, when 20,000 precincts, where no significant fraud was established in Zubiri’s Counter-Protest, took 3 years to be revised?

• 20,000 precincts took 3 years to collect, open, and revise / examine.

• 52,000 precincts would therefore take another 7.8 years!

33

Pimentel vs. Zubiri SET Case No. 07 – 001“Resolution No. 07 - 105”

Did the SET majority therefore intend to finish the Pimentel Protest in 10 years?

• The contested term is only 6 years!• This would therefore be the longest

election protest in the world.• And the most useless, if the decision is

to be rendered after the expiration of the term contested.

34

Pimentel vs. Zubiri SET Case No. 07 – 001“Resolution No. 07 - 105”

Justice Delayed is Justice Denied!

Zubiri wanted to simply delay the process and the SET majority

allowed it!

35

Pimentel vs. Zubiri SET Case No. 07 – 001“Resolution No. 07 - 105”

For more than 3 long years, Zubiri has occupied a position which he does not deserve for he has not legitimately won as Senator in 2007!

The Pimentel Protest has shown that Zubiri does not have any factual as well as legal basis to be Senator of the Republic of the Philippines and to remain as one.

36

Pimentel vs. Zubiri SET Case No. 07 – 001“Resolution No. 07 - 105”

• No factual basis since Zubiri’s fantastic 195,823 official votes in the entire Province of Maguindanao are not even supported by actual valid votes (no genuine ballots, no election returns!).

No legal basis, as Zubiri’s proclamation was the product of a criminal conspiracy perpetrated by election syndicates.

37

Pimentel vs. Zubiri SET Case No. 07 – 001“Resolution No. 07 - 105”

• Any day longer that Zubiri stays in office as Senator of the Republic of the Philippines is an injustice to the Filipino People.A Senate seat is a gift from the Filipino People. It cannot be gifted by election syndicates. Neither can it be bought from them, as “Public Office is a Public Trust”.

38

Pimentel vs. Zubiri SET Case No. 07 – 001“Resolution No. 07 - 105”

• Sa Resolution No. 07-105, mukhang gusto na lamang “ibaon sa limot” ang dayaang nangyari sa Maguindanao noong 2007.

• Kung maging “moot and academic” ang Pimentel Protest, walang official finding na lalabas tungkol sa malawakang dayaan sa Maguindanao noong 2007.

39

Pimentel vs. Zubiri SET Case No. 07 – 001“Resolution No. 07 - 105”

• Ano na nga ba ang nangyari kay Lintang Bedol? Naparusahan na ba? O nabaon na sa limot?

• Ano na nga ba ang nangyari sa mga election documents na nahukay sa Maguindanao, bago nag deklara ng martial law doon noong December 2009?

• Sino ang may hawak nito? Bakit hindi pa ito sinusurender sa Comelec at pinapakita sa publiko?

40

Pimentel vs. Zubiri SET Case No. 07 – 001“Resolution No. 07 - 105”

• Mukhang lahat ng tungkol sa Maguindanao ay ibabaon na lamang sa limot.

Never again, the Maguindanao Massacre!

41

Pimentel vs. Zubiri SET Case No. 07 – 001“Resolution No. 07 - 105”

• Let the experience of Koko Pimentel be a warning to the relatives and friends of the victims of the Maguindanao Massacre, huwag kayong pumayag na mabaon na lamang sa limot ang karumal-dumal na krimen na iyon.Never again, the

Maguindanao Massacre!

42

Pimentel vs. Zubiri SET Case No. 07 – 001“Resolution No. 07 - 105”

• There is too much INJUSTICE in Philippine society!

• It is time to fight it.

• Together!

Let Justice Prevail!