Email

Print

That hearing lasted the entire day yesterday, and it ended only a few minutes before the start of news. So, to properly summarize why it is that the PUP feels that the Elections and Boundaries Commission mishandled that process, Daniel Ortiz recounts the most important elements. Here's his story:

Daniel Ortiz reporting
UDP's like the incumbents from the San Pedro Town Council, and Chairman Alberto August think that the PUP's challenge to the March 7 Election results are a complete waste of time.

Alberto August - Chairman, UDP
"It looks to me, without seeking to prejudice, of course, the outcome of the case - but it seems to me like it's just a waste of time. We're dealing with numbers. 1 and 1 is equal to 2. I am seeing it like they are putting these people on the stand, and they're taking them for fools on the stand."

Daniel Ortiz
"While that's your position, there are those who are concerned the UDP's are simply trying to discredit complaint because you all stand to lose if the court rules against you all."

Alberto August
"Well, not exactly, like I said, it's up to the judge to make that decision."

It's the same reasoned position that the UDP's attorney shared with us after day one in the trial.

Estevan Perrera - Attorney for Incumbent STC
"I do believe its frivolous and I do believe that anyone who looks at the actual petition and the numbers will recognize that there was an error and an oversight in terms of minor miscalculations that were later remedied and that it's not sufficient enough for court to set aside an entire election based on the facts or position presented by the petitions."

Eamon Courtenay, SC - Attorney for the PUP 7
"Anyone who says that, I believe is being politically partisan and not legal. We are now in court and not in the political arena."

And he gave us a brief synopsis of why he thinks Returning Officer Catherine Cumberbatch and Chief Elections Officer Josephine Tamai both made mistakes which gives the PUP complaint credibility.

Eamon Courtenay
"The witnesses we called, we believe, gave evidence to show very clearly that there was a non-compliance with the law. A number of these incidents of non-compliance was actually confirmed by the returning officer, Miss Cumberbatch, and by the chief elections officer, and then again by their witness, Mrs. Flowers. Ballot Box (CA) is one of the most important pieces of evidence. What happened there is that there were 675 ballots that were made available. I think that there are 800+ voters in that CA. At the end of the balloting, they only put on the form 400. The question was where was the additional 275 ballot. What they did - and this is the point we were making to the Chief Justice - what the Elections and Boundaries Commission, and Miss Cumberbatch, in particular, did was that they realized this mistake, and simply put on the form, oh, strike out the numbers, and add 275. Change around the numbers and say, oh, that is accurate. And I pointed out to Ms. Cumberbatch, you can only certify that if you went yourself, and checked the actual ballots, and said, yes, 275 were actually accounted for, and then, put it on the form. She did not do that, and therefore, her certificate of correcting it, in our submissions, cannot be relied on. That is just a mathematical correction to try to reconcile what they had on paper. This case is not about mathematics. It's about the politics and the votes. And the question is, what were in those ballot envelopes with the ballots? And she didn't count them, so she can't testify to their accuracy."

Reporter
"When it comes to the Chief Elections Officer's handling of the ballots and taking it to her office, is that proper? Is that correct?"

Eamon Courtenay
"I think the regulations are very clear. Once those ballots have been counted, the presiding officer should seal the envelopes, hand them to the returning officer, in sealed envelopes, and the law is very clear that they should not be opened until and if they are brought to court by an order of the court. And we have the Chief Elections Officer with her own mouth, saying that she opened them, and she counted. We have, now, no confidence as to where those ballots are, the status of them, whether they're all accounted for. The point is that all of these irregularities, we say, are sufficient to ask the Chief Justice to say that the elections must be re-held."

As you've realized, the legal team intends to register each and every single infraction that they think the E&B officials committed in the San Pedro elections. The supporters from island town are behind them 100%. We found them demonstrating against the elections in the broiling sun hot.

Daniel Ortiz
"The sun is hot. Do you guys intend to stay here the entire time that the case is on?"

Crowd
"Yes!"

Santos Acosta - Supporting Lawsuit
"That is the case. As you can see, we're standing for our rights. We're standing for what we believe in."

Shelly Huber - Supporting Lawsuit
"When we went for elections, they went and vote their rights, and we did not expect that they were going to be so blatant in stealing the elections from us."

Daniel Ortiz
"But, ma'am, I have to challenge you. You say "steal", but there is no determination of that yet. That's why it's in court."

Shelly Huber
"That is why it is in court, because the same people that were running the Elections and Boundaries, they have seen a lot of discrepancies."

Daniel Ortiz
"Litigation is a risk. There is a very chance - just like there is a big chance that you can win, you can also lose. Do you acknowledge that?"

Santos Acosta
"Yes, we understand that the case my go against us, but you know what? Again, let me say what the sign says, "Stand for something". And that's what we're standing for. We're standing for legality, and we're standing for the rule of law."

And the UDP attorney in this case wants them to suffer the full consequences of that litigation risk.

Estevan Perrera
"This morning we found that the witnesses for the petitioners actually had more admissions in support of our position. We believe that the case is actually sided in our benefit at this point in time. We're saying that the purported errors are so minor, that simply by looking at the forms, one can actually make those corrections, and recognize where the little errors were made on the actual forms."

As you saw in our story, both sides were asserting that they won the day. The chief Justice has adjourned this case for continuation on May 28.

We'll be there to tell you how it goes.