PET Case No. 005, November 17, 2020
Ferdinand “Bongbong” R. Marcos, Jr., Protestant, vs. Maria Leonor “Leni Daang Matuwid” G. Robredo, Protestee.

FACTS

Protestant Ferdinand Marcos Jr. and the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed urgent motions seeking the inhibition of Associate Justice Mario Victor F. Leonen as the ponente of the vice-presidential election protest. They alleged bias and inordinate delay. The grounds for alleged bias included Justice Leonen’s dissenting opinion in Ocampo v. Enriquez (the Marcos burial case), which they argued displayed deep-seated animosity towards the Marcos family. They also cited a past political conflict, alleging that when Justice Leonen was a government peace negotiator, Marcos, as a senator, blocked a related initiative, creating a motive for “vengeance.” Furthermore, they referenced a news article claiming Justice Leonen had pre-judged the case by circulating a memorandum recommending its dismissal long before deliberations.
The motions also argued that the proceedings had been unjustly delayed since Justice Leonen assumed the role of ponente, marked by repeated deferments and a recent referral of issues to other agencies that should have been done earlier. They contended this delay disregarded the statutory 20-month period for resolving election contests under Republic Act No. 1793 and violated public policy by undermining the electorate’s will. The OSG, claiming to act as the “People’s Tribune,” echoed these points, asserting the delay kept the nation in suspense and that Justice Leonen’s past statements demonstrated disqualifying partiality.

ISSUE

Whether the motions for the inhibition of Associate Justice Mario Victor F. Leonen should be granted.

RULING

The Tribunal UNANIMOUSLY DENIED the motions for inhibition. The legal logic rests on the established principle that a judge’s prior legal opinions, expressed in the course of official duty, do not constitute evidence of bias or prejudice. Justice Leonen’s dissent in the Marcos burial case was a judicial act, part of his constitutional duty to express his legal views. Such opinions, even if strongly worded, are not a valid basis for inferring personal bias against a litigant in a separate proceeding. The Court has consistently held that bias must be proven by clear and convincing evidence of extrajudicial conduct, not from judicial rulings or written opinions.
Regarding the alleged delay, the Tribunal found the arguments unpersuasive. The conduct of proceedings, including the timing of referrals, falls within the sound discretion of the ponente and the Tribunal to ensure a thorough and just resolution. The cited news article about a pre-judgment memorandum was deemed an unreliable, extrajudicial source that could not override the presumption of regularity and the confidentiality of internal court deliberations. The alleged past political disagreement was also insufficient to prove a personal bias that would impair impartiality. The motions, therefore, failed to meet the high threshold required for mandatory inhibition, which demands more than mere suspicion or conjecture. The Tribunal maintained that Justice Leonen could continue to perform his duties with the objectivity and fairness presumed of all its members.