Former Senator Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. on Monday (August 6) asked the Supreme Court (SC), sitting as Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET), to inhibit Justice Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa from participating on the former’s election protest.
In his extremely urgent motion, Marcos told the PET that Caguioa should be inhibited “on the ground of evident bias and manifest partiality in favor of protestee Maria Leonor G. Robredo.”
“Associate Justice Caguioa cannot deny that he is biased towards the ‘yellow brigade given his close ties with his friend and former boss, former President Benigno Simeon ‘Noynoy’ C. Aquino, III,” read his motion.
“It is public knowledge that Noynoy Aquino had nothing but harsh words to say about protestant Marcos and would verbally criticize him and his family before, during, and even after the May 2016 elections. He practically used his office to convince the voting public not to vote protestant Marcos as Vice-President,” he pointed out.
The former lawmaker reminded that Caguioa is Aquino’s classmate during grade school and was appointed by the former President first as chief presidential legal counsel, then as justice secretary, and, lastly, as SC justice.
Marcos also cited Viber chat group conversations which became viral and even got reported by Radyo Inquirer.
“The Viber messages reveal that Mrs. Caguioa was and still is an ardent supporter of protestee Robredo and even actively campaigned for the latter when she ran against protestant Marcos in the My 2016 elections,” he complained.
Marcos said “it would be unfair and unjust for the other members of the esteemed Tribunal to be tainted by the impropriety of Associate Justice Caguioa.”
“In light of the clear and convincing evidence of bias, partiality and prejudice exhibited by Associate Justice Caguioa and Mrs. Caguioa in favor of protestee Robredo, the continued presence and participation of Associate Justice Caguioa as the ponente of the above-entitled case in gross violation of the undersigned protestant’s Constitutional right to due process of law,” he stressed.