DIGEST: RAUL BARBOSA/P.E.T Case No. 005 Marcos v. Robredo

 

P.E.T Case No. 005

Marcos v. Robredo

 

Facts:

On November 9, 2020, the protestant filed a "Strong Manifestation with Extremely Urgent Omnibus Motion for the: I. Inhibition of Associate Justice Mario Victor F. Leonen; II. Re-raffle of this Election Protest; III. Resolution of all the Pending Incidents in the Above Entitled Case." He alleges that since October 2019, the protest has "remained in limbo."

Protestant, Bongbong Marcos, alleges that Justice Leone is biased and partial against the Marcos family. Protestant prays for the inhibition of Justice Leonen under those grounds. Marcos cited Leonen’s dissenting opinion in the Marcos burial case to justify his claim that Leonen was indeed partial and biased. Bongbong Marcos also cites news articles to further bolster his allegations.

The OSG filed a similar motion as the protestant. He states that the delay of the case’s resolution is evident of Justice Leonen’s bias against protestant. OSG claimed to be the People’s Tribune, motioning for the inhibition of Leonen. OSG cited the same grounds as Protestants.

Issues:

Whether or not Justice Leonen should inhibit himself.
Whether or not the claim of the OSG as the People’s Tribune is proper.

Ruling:

1^st issue: SC denied the inhibition. SC cited Rule 8 which gives the grounds for inhibition of a member of the court. Protestant and OSG could not give clear and convincing evidence of Leonen’s alleged bias and partiality. Leonen’s dissenting opinions were based on jurisprudence and history, therefore it could not be held against him because he was just doing his job.

2^nd issue: As a general rule, the OSG is the lawyer of the state. People’s tribune happens when the OSG sees it fit to go against the executive; this usually happens when the Filipino people is the party litigant against the state and the OSG sees it fit to represent the people.

However, in this case, it’s only between two individuals. Namely, Marcos and Robredo. This case involves two individuals who are concerned with the Vice-presidential seat. The people are not party litigants of this case. Therefore, OSG’s claim as People’s Tribune is improper.

digest submitted by Raul Barbosa