By Atty. Julius Gregory B. Delgado

THE ROLE OF THE OFFICE OF SOLICITOR GENERAL AS TRIBUNE OF THE PEOPLE

First of Two Parts

On 17 November 2020, the Supreme Court En Banc sitting as the Presidential Electoral Tribunal
(“PET”) issued a Resolution of even date in PET Case No. 005 entitled “Ferdinand R. Marcos, Jr. vs. Maria
Leonor G. Robredo”, particularly on the protest of losing Vice Presidential candidate Bongbong Marcos
who narrowly lost to protestee Lenny Robredo. Normally, the Court will be speaking through a ponente
or the Justice who will write the ruling. But when it is per curiam such as in the instant case, it is as if all
the magistrates are the ponente or the writers of the resolution.
The Resolution dated 17 November 2020 is still not the ruling on the merits of the protest of
protestant Marcos. Rather, it is a resolution on the protestant’s 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 joined by the
Office of the Solicitor General (“OSG”) which filed an Omnibus Motion (Motion for Inhibition of Associate
Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen and Reraffle). Basically, the protestant and the OSG are accusing Senior
Associate Justice Marvic Leonen of preconceived bias and partiality against protestant Marcos and
deliberately delaying the case. Justice Leonen is the magistrate-in-charge of this pending PET case.
Protestant’s and OSG’s grounds are as follows: (1) Justice Leonen’s vigorous dissent in Ocampo
vs. Enriquez, G.R. No. 225973 (08 November 2016), or the Marcos Burial Case, and his ponencia in
Chavez vs. Marcos, (08 November 2016), allegedly showing his bias against the Marcos Family; (2)
Justice Leonen supposedly circulated Reflections allegedly advocating dismissal of the instant PET case;
and (3) referral of the case to the Office of the Solicitor General and the Commission on Elections only a
year after it was raffled to Justice Leonen insinuating that it was intended to delay the case.
The Supreme Court dismissed all allegations and chastised the protestant for filing such pleading
without sufficient basis. First, the Court held that there is no ground under the Internal Rules of the
Supreme Court which would justify the inhibition of Justice Leonen. Second, there is no rule which
directs the Court sitting as PET to decide the case within twenty (20) months. The Court held that
Republic Act No. 1793, which stated such period, is not anymore, a good law. It was passed because of
the lacuna of the law or the absence of the provision on PET proceedings under the 1935 Philippine
Constitution. Third, the referral of the case for comment to the OSG and COMELEC was not a decision of
Justice Leonen alone but the entire tribunal. The Court chastised the protestant that his allegation that
Justice Leonen was grossly ignorant in issuing such directive, in effect, is saying that the Tribunal is
grossly ignorant of the law. Very important in the Resolution is the Court’s rebuke on allegation of bias
and partiality against its member when it held:

“Absence of relationships or lack of opinion on any subject is not what makes a
person impartial. Rather, it is the acknowledgment of initial or existing impressions, and the
ability to be humble and open enough to rule in favor of where evidence may lie.
Human beings are naturally predisposed to formulate opinions, which may form
into biases or inclinations, as it is inherent in our survival as a species to make constant
value judgments on what is beneficial or detrimental to us. Instead of a constant state of
absolute neutrality, it is the exhibition of openness to alter one’s initial opinion that
signifies impartiality. Impartiality does not mean coming to the court as a blank slate which

is inherently impossible. When Justices are appointed to the Supreme Court, they bring
with them their experiences, philosophy and values. What the job requires is the
independence of the mind, not a completely blank slate.”
Finally, the Court held that what Justice Leonen cited in the Marcos Burial Case were all
judicial precedents and Republic Act No. 10368 wherein the atrocities committed during Martial
Law were acknowledged. The Court also disagreed with the posturing of the protestant which
would result to an absurd situation wherein a magistrate who rendered a ruling, for or against, in
a particular case involving a family such as the Marcos Family, he or she has to inhibit in every
case which is filed before the tribunal involving the said family because of how the magistrate
voted in the earlier case. (To be continued in Part 2)