27/05/2025
A Rebuttal to Atty Dizonâs Argument Against Congressman Eric Yap Amid Comelec Proclamation Suspension and Pending Cases
Atty. Dizonâs commentary on the disqualification cases filed against re-elected Benguet Congressman Eric Yap attempts to position itself as a principled defense of the sanctity of public office. However, a closer examination of his piece reveals a PROBLEMATIC mix of faulty statistics, circular reasoning, speculative assumptions, and ironic self-contradictionsâundermining the very standards of objectivity and fairness he claims to uphold.
1. Flawed Math and Misleading Statistics
Dizon claims that Congressman Yap garnered only 34% of the votes, implying weak legitimacy. But his calculation is mathematically incorrect.
Letâs correct the numbers:
Yapâs vote tally: 144,093
Total votes cast: 207,401
144,093 Ă· 207,401 = 69.46%, not 34%.
That is not just a rounding errorâit is a gross misrepresentation of the democratic mandate the congressman received. Yap won by a landslide, securing over two-thirds of the votes cast. Dizon misleads the public by either miscalculating or deliberately downplaying the extent of Yapâs electoral support.
Moreover, the attempt to dilute Yapâs mandate by referencing the total general population (460,683)âincluding children, disenfranchised individuals, and those ineligible to voteâis irrelevant in assessing the legitimacy of his electoral win. The legal electorate determines election outcomes, not the entire population. To imply that a public officialâs legitimacy should be questioned because he did not win a majority of a population that wasnât even eligible to vote is both illogical and disingenuous.
2. Contradictory Framing: Is It About Fitness or Politics?
At the outset, Dizon claims the case is "not about fitness" or "validating the election," but rather about the âvindication and preservation of a public office.â Yet in the same breath, he questions Yapâs representativeness, support base, and moral standing. This is a contradiction. He cannot simultaneously argue that the case isn't about Eric Yap personally, while making it all about Eric Yap personally.
Worse, after denouncing political motivations, he ironically speculates on citizenship challenges and tries to anchor his argument on decades-old cases (Frivaldo v. COMELEC and Labo v. COMELEC), which have entirely different factual and legal contexts. Unlike in those cases, there has been no clear finding or proof that Congressman Yap lost or renounced his Filipino citizenship at any point. The use of these precedents without direct applicability only serves to muddy public perceptionâa tactic that reeks of the very political manipulation Dizon pretends to criticize.
3. Recycled and Hypothetical Citizenship Arguments
Dizon admits that he doesnât know the full facts of either the past or present cases against Yap, but continues to suggest that there must be something new or seriousâotherwise, they should be dismissed. This is pure speculation dressed up as legal analysis.
He leans heavily on the concept of âcontinuing qualifications,â implying that a new challenge is always valid as long as it's âtriggered.â But in law, mere suspicion is not enough. Due process demands clear factual and legal grounds. Rehashing old accusations or weaponizing vague insinuations of lost citizenship without evidence turns the legal process into a tool of harassment, not justice.
It is also important to note that earlier cases against Yap were dismissed or withdrawnâsome even openly admitted as politically motivated. This is damning evidence that supports the claim that the remaining cases might similarly lack merit.
4. Whoâs Really Politically Motivated?
Despite claiming he is not questioning Yapâs legitimacy or politicizing the issue, Dizonâs language is loaded with political tone: he cites "spurious representation," implies that the people of Benguet are being duped, and references an âincomplete mandateââall without acknowledging the reality that Yap decisively won the election. If anyone is making a political issue out of what should be a legal matter, it is Dizon himself.
5. Upholding the People's Mandate
Ultimately, in a democracy, the will of the electorate is supreme. Congressman Eric Yap won the trust of the peopleâlegally, clearly, and convincingly. Unless there is substantial, new, and verified evidence to overturn this democratic decision, speculative legal distractions should not be allowed to reverse or delay the peopleâs will.
The proper way to challenge a public official is not through weaponized legal processes, but through the ballot. And in that arena, Eric Yap has already prevailed.
To Congressman Eric Yap:
Stay firm and keep your head high. The truth is on your side, and so are the people who believe in honest, hardworking leadership. You have already proven your commitment to Benguet through action, not noise. Let this be just another chapter where you rise above political schemes with graceâbut also with courage and strength.
You have shown humility by letting go of past attacks. But this time, if people are abusing the legal process and deceiving the public with malicious intent, then it is not just your name thatâs under attackâitâs the very principle of fair and honest public service. Consider pursuing counterchargesânot out of vengeance, but out of duty.
Because holding people accountable for dirty politics is part of cleaning up the system. It sends a clear message: public service is not a playground for lies and manipulation. Let justice not only defend you, but protect future leaders from being dragged through the same baseless tactics.
You were elected not just to win a seat, but to lead. And leadership sometimes means drawing the line. Let your integrity be your shield, and let the law be your sword. Benguet stands with youânot because of politics, but because of proof.
