1. Martial law was an option provided for in the constitution. That is precisely why Marcos was able to declare it.
2. Marcos extended his term AFTER he declared martial law and there was a new constitution. His acts were all ratified by Congress and the Supreme Court. If we go by your argument, shouldn't you also have a presumption of regularity for this?
3. Anyone with even a hint of common sense and logic knows it is impossible for Robredo to have won. Just to cite one example that a friend relayed to me: his province is one of Mar Roxas's strongest bailiwicks. But Robredo is totally unknown there. A whopping majority in that province had Roxas as their choice for president, and Marcos as their VP, followed by Cayetano. But in the official Comelec results, Robredo got way over 50% of the VP votes, and the total number of votes she got was even much higher than what Roxas got. Now you tell me, how is this possible?
4. If the government was able to "collect a substantial amount" of the Marcos wealth, as you say, then why does the yellow camp still keep wailing for the Marcoses to "return what they stole"?
Finally, please consider the non sequitur in your position. Essentially, you are saying that because Marcos Sr. "stole", Robredo is not an impostor. Is that logical? Robredo's lack of legitimacy has nothing to do with Marcos, but everything to do with what she and her camp did to make it seem like people voted for her when in fact they did not.
All you have to do is look at people's social media feeds and talk to random people on the street. So, so many are questioning her supposed win. Robredo's lack of legitimacy is not something that Marcos or Marcos loyalists invented. She did it to herself.