BY EVANGELINE DE VERA

THE Supreme Court, sitting as the Presidential Electoral Tribunal, yesterday dismissed and terminated the election protest filed by Sen. Loren Legarda against Vice President Noli de Castro for failure to sufficiently prove her claim of fraud.

In a 20-page resolution penned by Senior Associate Justice Leonardo Quisumbing, the tribunal dismissed for lack of legal and factual basis the first aspect of Legarda’s protest involving the correction of errors of the certificates of canvass and election returns.

The SC said "the pilot-tested revision of ballots or re-tabulation of the certificates of canvass would not affect the winning margin of the protestee in the final canvass of the returns, in addition to the ground of abandonment or withdrawal by reason of protestant’s candidacy for, election and assumption of the office Senator of the Philippines."

De Castro said: "I am glad that this issue is over once and for all. I am glad we have been finally vindicated."

Legarda said: "Victory has a price. My electoral protest was dismissed all because we failed literally to raise the required amount to pursue it."

"But it is one thing to lose a case for lack of money to sustain it. It is a different story if they cannot appreciate the glaring pieces of evidence of massive electoral fraud… The verdict leaves more questions than answers," she said.

The Court adopted the recommendation of Hearing Commissioner and former Commission on Elections chair, retired SC Justice Bernardo Pardo.

The second aspect of the petition concerning the revision of ballots in 124,404 precincts had been dismissed in June 5, 2007 when Legarda failed to deposit the P3.9 million costs for the revision of ballots. This deposit was pursuant to Rule 33 of the PET.

"To overcome the presumption of regularity, there must be evidence that is clear, convincing, and more than merely preponderant. Absent such convincing evidence, the presumption must be upheld," the tribunal ruled.

The PET said Legarda "had not adequately and convincingly rebutted the presumption that as public documents, the Congress-retrieved (election return) ER copies, used for the proclamation of the protestee (De Castro) by the NBC, are authentic and duly executed in the regular course of official business."

Legarda earlier identified the provinces of Lanao del Sur, Lanao del Norte, and Surigao del Sur as pilot areas that best exemplified her grounds for electoral fraud. She would later abandon her protest with regards to Lanao del Norte and Surigao del Sur.

The PET noted that the records show that Legarda’s witnesses had admitted that they discerned security features and markings in the Congress-retrieved ERs.

There was no conclusive evidence, the PET said, to prove the alleged break-in at the House of Representatives, which allegedly facilitated the switching of ERs.

It noted that one of Legarda’s witnesses, Artemio Adasa, House deputy secretary general for legislative operations, had categorically denied that a break-in and a switching of ERs took place at the House.

Furthermore, the PET said that even assuming that all the votes in the 497 precincts included in the pilot areas with about 99,400 votes were considered for Legarda, the senator would not have been able to overcome De Castro’s lead. The margin in favor of De Castro adds up to a total of 881,722 votes, the Court noted.

Sixto Brillantes, lawyer of Legarda, said they can accept the decision of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal based only on their alleged abandonment of the electoral protest when her client won a Senate seat in 2007.

Citing Defensor Santiago v. Ramos, the PET said Legarda had effectively abandoned or withdrawn her protest when she ran for and won a Senate seat, which term coincides with the term of De Castro.

Brillantes, however, said they could not accept the part of the ruling that said that they have failed to prove that there was fraud and irregularity during the 2004 elections. "We cannot accept that," he said.

Brillantes said they have submitted all evidence proving that the presidential and vice presidential elections were attended with fraud.

He said he has yet to thoroughly read the PET decision, after which it would be decided if a motion for reconsideration should be filed.

Legarda could not be contacted as of press time.

Romulo Macalintal, election lawyer of both President Arroyo and De Castro, said the Supreme Court ruling also affirms the legitimacy of Arroyo’s victory in the May 2004 elections because it involved the same ballots, election returns, and certificates of canvass.

"I don’t think they have basis anymore for questioning the legitimacy of the President. The documents were not found to be fraudulent," he said.

He said Press Secretary Ignacio Bunye told him that President Arroyo was "very, very happy" when she learned about the PET decision. – With Dennis Gadil and Regina Bengco