Do the pro-Arroyo's really want the truth?

If we wanted to know who really won in the 2004 presidential elections, we had every opportunity to do so in a constitutional way during the canvassing of votes in Congress and in the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET). Why did our legislators waste this chance by responding to every challenge to the certificates of canvass with the perfunctory word “noted”? And why did the Supreme Court justices, sitting as PET, dismiss the quest for truth behind Fernando Poe Jr.’s formal election protest after he died? Why did they not allow his widow to substitute for him, not as candidate but as petitioner, a seeker after the truth? Why were they content to deal with the divisive issue of a presidential election protest by invoking a technicality?

Good questions rom Randy David. About invoking technicalities to defend the fake president, you have to ask MLQ3's buddy and pro-Arroyo apologist Rep. Teddyboy Locsin, who is an expert at that. LOL.