REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES SENATE ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL QUEZON CITY
AQUILINO L. PIMENTEL III, Protestant,
- versus -
SET Case No. 001-07
JUAN MIGUEL F. ZUBIRI, Protestee. x------------------------------x
ANSWER / COMMENT / OPPOSITION [To Zubiri’s “Urgent Manifestation with Motion to Cite the Protestant in Contempt” Dated July 23, 2009]
Protestant AQUILINO L. PIMENTEL III, by himself, most respectfully states that: 1.
Protestant Pimentel received a copy of the SET Resolution No. 07-78
on August 3, 2009. 2.
The holding of a press conference on July 22, 2009 at past 11:00 a. m.
is admitted. 3.
The other allegations and statements made by Protestee/Counter-
Protestant Zubiri (henceforth “Zubiri”) in his “Urgent Manifestation with Motion to Cite the Protestant in Contempt of this Honorable Electoral Tribunal” are DENIED for being conclusions of law and of fact, and for being self-serving allegations intended by Zubiri to put Protestant Pimentel in a bad light before this Honorable Tribunal. 4.
What Zubiri conveniently omitted in his Contempt Motion is the FACT
that the Protestant stated at the very beginning of that press conference on July 22, 2009 that it was called to “set the record straight, Zubiri himself having given false
1
and misleading statements about the Protest in his interviews and media pronouncements.” SET RESOLUTION NO. 07-20 5.
SET Resolution No. 07-20 dated 21 February 2008 contains the
following sentence: “The parties and their respective counsel are REMINDED to refrain from discussing the merits of the protest with the media.” CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED SPEECH 6.
It is the most humble submission of the Protestant that a “discussion
cum lecture” (see paragraph 2 of the Contempt Motion) on the topic of election fraud and its remedies, which has been the Protestant’s advocacy since the 1995 dagdagbawas incident, is constitutionally protected speech under the 1987 Constitution. 7.
Likewise it is humbly submitted that a PowerPoint slide presentation
accompanying such a constitutionally protected “discussion cum lecture” is likewise constitutionally protected speech under the 1987 Constitution. 8.
Furthermore, the expression of an aspiration that this Protest “will
hopefully be terminated by November or December of this year” is also constitutionally protected speech, the 1987 Constitution itself being the embodiment of “ideals and aspirations”; hence, in other words, there is nothing wrong with aspiring. DOES ZUBIRI HAVE “CLEAN HANDS”? 9.
Even if we assume for the sake of argument that the Protestant violated
SET Resolution No. 07-20 dated 21 February 2008 when he called that press conference on July 22, 2009 (a point which is not conceded by the Protestant), since Zubiri wants Protestant Pimentel sanctioned and punished for contempt, we should ask the question: HAS ZUBIRI COME TO COURT WITH CLEAN HANDS?
10. “He who comes to court must come with clean hands.”
2
ZUBIRI’S ACTIONS BEFORE THE PRESS CONFERENCE ON JULY 22, 2009 11.
On January 16, 2009, a letter to the editor from a certain “Marivic DL.
Laurel, Legal Counsel, Office of Sen. (sic) Juan Miguel Zubiri” appeared on page A14 of the Philippine Daily Inquirer issue of that day. Attached as Annex “A” hereto is a photocopy of the said letter. 12.
Please note that said letter to the editor contains the following
statements: “There is evidence in the ongoing revision proceedings in the counter-protested areas that would show and prove that election fraud has been committed to favor Pimentel. Certain anomalies have been uncovered in the proceedings, such as: thousands of ballots in Makati, with Koko’s name on them, were written by one person; thousands of ballots in Manila and Quezon City, with Koko’s name, were found to be spurious/fake; the physical recount in the counter-protested precincts shows thousands of votes for Senator (sic) Zubiri that were intentionally not read in his favor.” 13.
Because that letter to the editor preceded the above-quoted statements
with the sentence “Nery may not be aware of some facts and acts that his good friend from childhood committed”, the Protestant filed a LIBEL case against the letter writer Marivic DL. Laurel. 14.
In her Counter-Affidavit dated April 29, 2009 in the Libel case,
Marivic DL. Laurel freely and voluntarily stated in paragraph 19, on page 8, that: “19. Moreover, the act of commenting or responding to the column of Mr. Nery was in reality not done in the undersigned’s personal capacity but as the legal counsel, representing the office of Sen. (sic) Zubiri, and under the color of authority and specific instructions of the senator (sic), who was directly attacked by the said columnist.” [emphasis supplied] 15.
Attached as Annex “B” hereto is a photocopy of the pertinent page in
Marivic DL. Laurel Counter-Affidavit dated April 29, 2009 in the Libel case (now docketed as NPS Docket No. XV-09-INV-09C-00367).
3
16.
Under Sec. 29, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, the libelous allegations
in the cited letter to the editor may be given in evidence against Zubiri, the principal. In other words, that libelous letter to the editor dated January 16, 2009 was for all intents and purposes the act and product of Zubiri. 17.
On July 19, 2009, the Protestant was informed by his co-counsel, Atty.
Donna L. Camitan, of a claim made by Zubiri over radio that “he has recovered more than 100,000 votes in his counter-protest.” (a) Upon inquiry it was found out that Zubiri made this claim in an interview over radio station either DZMM or DZBB, anchored by a certain Nymfa, between 10 and 11 a. m. of July 19, 2009. 18.
In the early morning of July 22, 2009, the Protestant received a text
message from someone in Bukidnon Province informing him of the airing over radio of a taped interview of Zubiri wherein Zubiri stated that “he is winning in his counter-protest by 150,000 votes”. (a) Upon inquiry it was found out that when President Arroyo and her Cabinet left Bukidnon Province (where they inaugurated some projects), Zubiri, who stayed behind, called a press conference on July 21, 2009 attended by local media practitioners. It was during this press conference that Zubiri made the above-quoted claim which was then aired over DXMV Radyo Ukay, a Bukidnon radio station, anchored by a certain Jun Estore. 19.
The above are instances of Zubiri “discussing the merits of the protest
with the media” even BEFORE the holding of the subject press conference on July 22, 2009. 20.
Fortunately for the Protestant, those radio interviews have been brought
to his attention by his concerned friends and supporters. (The Protestant does not have a media monitoring group as he cannot afford to hire or to maintain one.) 21.
But the question is, how many more radio interviews has Zubiri given
“discussing the merits of the protest”, which have not been accidentally heard or monitored by the Protestant’s supporters and friends? Is Zubiri therefore just “wiser”
4
because he gives only radio interviews and thus, does not leave any paper trail? Or does this make him “viler”? ZUBIRI’S ACTIONS AFTER THE PRESS CONFERENCE ON JULY 22, 2009 BUT BEFORE THE FILING OF THE CONTEMPT MOTION 22.
What did Zubiri do AFTER the subject press conference on July 22,
2009 but BEFORE the filing of the Contempt Motion1? (1)
Zubiri held his own press conference at 1 p. m. on July 23, 2009
at the Public Information and Media Relations Office (PIMRO) in the Philippine Senate Building in Pasay City; (2)
In that press conference of July 23, 2009, Zubiri gave to the
media men present a document titled “Summary of Preliminary Appreciation (PA) Invalid Ballots of Pimentel & Admissible Ballots for Protestee Zubiri Pilot Precincts”, a copy of which is hereto attached as Annex “C”; (3)
Zubiri also caused the publication hereto attached as Annex
“D” in the July 24, 2009 edition of the Philippine Daily Inquirer; Annex “E” in the July 29, 2009 issue of the Malaya (column of Mr. Ducky Paredes); and Annex “F” in the July 29, 2009 issue of the Philippine Star (column of Mr. Alex Magno). 23.
It is therefore clear that Zubiri has discussed the merits of this protest
with the media BEFORE AND AFTER the subject press conference on July 22, 2009. 24.
At any rate, since election protests are imbued with public interest, it is
the Protestant’s most humble submission that SET Resolution No. 07-20 cannot and should not be interpreted as preventing the parties and their respective counsel from ever discussing anything connected with the protest with the media, as the Filipino people across the nation are really interested in this Protest involving as it does a national office. 1
Protestant received a copy of the Contempt Motion on July 29, 2009.
5
25.
Therefore, it is clear that it is Zubiri himself who has been discussing
the merits of the protest with the media and he had been doing so way BEFORE the subject press conference on July 22, 2009. 26.
Since Zubiri prays that the Protestant be cited and punished for
contempt, he should first come to court with clean hands. PRAYER WHEREFORE, premises considered, Protestant Pimentel most respectfully prays that Zubiri’s “Urgent Manifestation with Motion to Cite the Protestant in Contempt” dated July 23, 2009 be DENIED for utter lack of merit and that Zubiri himself be the one cited for contempt of this Honorable Tribunal for violating SET Resolution No. 07-20 dated 21 February 2008 way before the subject press conference on July 22, 2009. Other reliefs just and equitable under the circumstances are likewise prayed for. San Juan for Quezon City; 13 August 2009.
ATTY. AQUILINO L. PIMENTEL III Protestant and Lead Counsel for Himself Unit 2106, The Atlanta Center Bldg. No. 31 Annapolis St., Greenhills San Juan, Metro Manila; 722-5473 PTR No. 2721436; 01/07/09; Marikina IBP Lifetime Roll No. 05048 Roll of Attorneys No. 37248 MCLE Compliance No. II-0011559 COPY FURNISHED BY REGISTERED MAIL: ATTY. GEORGE ERWIN M. GARCIA Lead Counsel for Protestee Juan Miguel F. Zubiri (Ground Floor, Laiko Bldg., Cabildo St., Intramuros, Manila) EXPLANATION Due to manpower limitation as well as lack of material time, the undersigned was constrained to send a copy of the foregoing Answer / Comment / Opposition to the above-named counsel by registered mail.
6