DAVAO CITY – The camp of presidential aspirant Rodrigo Duterte said that there is no truth to the alleged plot to “unmask” Duterte’s rival Senator Grace Poe.
In a statement on Saturday, April 9 , the Duterte camp said they “cannot prevent people from expressing their apprehensions over the cloud of doubt” over Poe.
“While the Supreme Court allowed her to run for president even if the Commission on Election had disqualified her, legal luminaries are still questioning the ruling whether she has complied with the residency requirement and her status as natural-born citizen,” said Duterte’s spokesman, Peter Laviña.
He added that the Supreme Court “still left to the Senate Electoral Tribunal the onus of deciding any electoral protest that may arise from Poe’s candidacy on the subject of residency and citizenship.”
“Mayor Rodrigo Duterte has always treated Grace Poe with deference. But it is the people that are questioning her authenticity and sincerity,” said Laviña.
Duterte’s camp also denied that the information on Poe’s husband as a former member of the US Air Force came out from them, nor that his sons are US citizens.
“Poe’s husband, Teodoro Llamanares, holds dual citizen ship and is now employed as an executive of the Cojuangco-controlled San Miguel Corporation. Poe admitted that the airplanes she is using for her provincial sorties are owned by San Miguel Corporation,” the statement read.
“All these information, which only came out during the campaign, did not come from us. Neither did these come for Poe herself. So there is no compendium of truth to the allegation of her spokesman,” Laviña said.
SC uphelds decision
On Tuesday, April 5, the Supreme Court upheld its decision allowing Poe to run in the elections. The SC added that they will not entertain further pleadings or motions.
The resolution was released on Saturday, April 9 which reads: “The Court resolved, by the same vote of 9-6, to deny with finality the…motions for reconsideration as the basic issues raised therein have been passed upon by this Court and no substantial arguments were presented to warrant the reversal of the questioned decision.” (davaotoday.com)