You are currently browsing the monthly archive for May 2010.
BY ROBERTO VERZOLA
It is too soon to declare the 2010 elections a success.
People want a successful election so badly, that it is easy to get carried away by flood of incoming election returns. Many want to believe that a clean and honest election has finally happened, at last.
But the vice-presidential election is yet to be settled. The contest between the 12th and 13th places in the senatorial race still has to be settled too. Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of local races also await to be settled.
Already news is coming in about delayed Election Returns (ERs), malfunctioning, missing or otherwise questionable memory cards, and other indicators of potential or emerging problems.
As in the manual system, the precinct level count is always the fastest. Even when election inspectors, watchers and the public counted votes by hand, most of the election results had always been available past midnight or early morning. Even under the manual method, the biggest challenge has always been at the municipal level and higher, where wholesale cheating operations occurred.
In fact, the automated election system failed spectacularly its first truly public test a week before election day, when many candidates got zero – a “bawas” — and some got more than the votes actually cast for them – a “dagdag”. The results were worse than most manual counts. Fortunately, the failures in the machine count were so obvious that the election inspectors and watchers noticed them immediately. An embarrassed Comelec quickly called off the public test, and traced the problem to misaligned ovals on the ballot. Because of a last-minute change from single-spacing to double-spacing in the ballot layout for local candidates, their oval locations did not anymore match the coordinates stored in a configuration file in a memory card within the PCOS machine.
Reconfiguring the memory cards was somewhat easier than reprinting ballots, so that is what the Comelec and Smartmatic tried to do.
Smartmatic only had 18,000 spare memory cards and there was little time to recall the rest, so in addition to the spares, Smartmatic recalled the cards that could still be recalled; imported the rest from Hongkong and Taiwan; edited each of the 1,631 ballot layout configuration files (unique for every town); programmed these configuration files into 76,340 memory cards (one for each machine); delivered the 76,340 newly reconfigured memory cards to the waiting machines all over the archipelago; found the right machines for the right memory cards; replaced the misconfigured memory card; and conducted a second round of public testing and sealing of the PCOS machines. All within a span of five days – 120 hours. Aside from some 400 machines that malfunctioned, the rest of the 76,340 machines worked fine and gave the country its first successful automated elections. So they say.
Can we now trust the machine results?
These machines had grievously failed to count a few days earlier. This was followed by a mad rush of recalls, importations, file reconfigurations, card reprogramming, deliveries, reinstallation, and a second round of testing and sealing. In the mad rush, were security procedures and chain of custody considerations still observed? Did anyone see an election inspector with an ultraviolet lamp to check for authentic ballots, for instance? (We have not found anyone who did.) Suppose there were also more subtle problems that a ten-ballot test set was insufficient to detect – ovals that were misaligned by only one or two millimeters, for example, just as the security marks were, or oval coordinates that were purposely changed slightly to shave votes from targetted candidates. Were tests done at all for these potential problems?
Suppose an ATM had earlier given you only half the money than it deducted from your account, and the bank tells you the machine is now ok. Wouldn’t you count your money at least once in subsequent withdrawals? Suppose most ATMs of a bank network shortchanged its clients, wouldn’t they demand that every ATM of that network be carefully tested and recertified for its counting accuracy?
For exactly the same reason, every candidate who lost – and won – in the machine-counted 2010 elections should demand thorough post-election testing and audit for accuracy of every counting machine and its results.
Losing candidates should demand it, because they might have actually won.
Winning candidates – especially those who lead by a huge margin – should demand it, because the gross machine errors a few days earlier and subsequent doubts about machine accuracy have devalued their victory.
Apparent president-elect Noynoy Aquino should demand it, if only for the sake of his running-mate Mar Roxas, who sacrificed his own presidential ambitions to give way to Noynoy.
There was no time for proper testing in the mad rush to the May 10 elections because few wanted the elections postponed. But we have fifty days before June 30, when the new set of elected officials are scheduled to take over. We still have enough time check, double-check, and be sure about the results of the 2010 elections.
In the meantime, the Comelec and local election authorities should not be in a hurry to proclaim winners and declare the elections a success.
COURT NEWS FLASH
May 6, 2010
By Jay B. Rempillo
The Supreme Court, with a 12-3 vote, today ordered the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) to disclose the complete details of its preparations, particularly the technical aspect, for the May 10, 2010 elections “given the alarming details in the run-up” to the said elections.
In a 20-page resolution penned by Senior Justice Antonio T. Carpio, the Court, granting the petition in part of Teofisto Guingona, Jr., et al., directed the COMELEC within two days from receipt of its resolution to disclose to the public the following: (1) the nature and security of all equipment and devises, including their hardware and software components, to be used in the May 10, 2010 automated elections, as provided for in sec. 7 of RA 9369; (2) the source code for review by interested parties as mandated by sec. 12 of RA 9369; (3) the terms and protocols of the random manual audit, as mandated by sec. 24 of RA 9369; (4) a certification from the Technical Evaluation Committee that the entire Automated Election System is fully functional and that a continuity plan is already in place, as mandated by secs. 9 and 11 of RA 9369; and (5) the certification protocol and the actual certification issued by the Department of Science and Technology that the 240,000 Board of Election Inspectors all over the country are trained to use the Automated Election System, as required by sec. 3 of RA 9369.
The Court said that it had granted only the specific reliefs prayed for by petitioners Guingona, Jr., et al. due to the proximity of elections which is four days away. It noted that petitioners can press COMELEC for the other reliefs after the May 10 polls.
Senior Justice Carpio was joined by Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno and Justices Conchita Carpio Morales, Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura, Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, Arturo D. Brion, Diosdado M. Peralta, Lucas P. Bersamin, Mariano C. Del Castillo, Martin S. Villarama, Jr., Jose P. Perez, and Jose C. Mendoza.
Dissenting were Justices Renato C. Corona, Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. and Roberto C. Abad.
The Court held that petitioners’ prayer to compel COMELEC to make full public disclosure of its preparations for the May 10, 2010 elections “finds overwhelming support in the Constitution, citing in particular, sec. 7, Art. III and sec. 28 of Art. II on the people’s right to information and the State’s corresponding duty of full public disclosure of all transactions involving public interest. Likewise, jurisprudential doctrines laid down in Valmonte v. Belmonte, Jr., Legaspi v. CSC, and Akbayan Citizens Action Party v. Aquino; as well as sec. 52(j) of BP 881 (Omnibus Election Code); sec. 5(e) of RA 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees); sec. 3 of RA 9184 (Government Procurement Reform Act); secs. 1, 11, and 12 of RA 9369 (An Act Amending RA 8436); and sec. 2 of RA 9525 (An Act Appropriating PhP11 Billion as Supplemental Appropriations for an Automated Election System).
“Respondent COMELEC cannot shirk its constitutional duty to disclose fully to the public complete details of all information relating to its preparations for the 10 May 2010 elections without violating the Constitution and relevant laws. No less than the Constitution mandates it to enforce and administer election laws. The COMELEC chairman and the six commissioners are beholden and accountable to the people they have sworn to serve. This Court, as the last bulwark of democracy in this country, will spare nothing in its constitutionally granted powers to ensure that the fundamental right of the people to information on matters of public concern, especially on matters that directly affect our democratic processes, is fully guaranteed, protected, and implemented,” the Court said. (GR No. 191846, Guingona, Jr. v. COMELEC, May 6, 2010)
PHILIPPINE DAILY INQUIRER
May 7, 2010
By Jerome Aning
MANILA, Philippines—Citing “alarming developments” concerning the reliability of the automated elections system, including the glitches that have developed in the Precinct Count Optical Scan (PCOS) machines’ software, the Supreme Court Thursday ordered the Commission on Elections (Comelec) to make public the complete details of its preparations for Monday’s polls.
Voting 12 to 3, the high court directed the Comelec to disclose to the public “the nature and security of all equipment devices such as software and hardware components; the source code for review by interested parties; the terms and protocols of the random manual audit; the certification from the technical evaluation committee that the entire automated system is fully functional and continuity plan is already in place; and the certification protocol and the actual certification issued by the Department of Science and Technology that the 240,000 Board of Election Inspectors all over the country are trained to used the automated election system”.
The decision, penned by Associate Justice Antonio Carpio, said the Comelec must comply with the requirements that are provided for under Republic Act 9369, or the Amended Automated Elections System Law of 2007.
Civil action
The high court was acting on a special civil action for mandamus filed last April 23 by former Vice President Teofisto Guingona Jr., Protestant Bishop Leo Soriano Jr., Quintin Doromal, Fe Maria Arriola, Isagani Serrano and Rodolfo Lozada Jr.
The justices said they were granting only the specific reliefs asked for in the petition because of the proximity of the elections. The petitioners can press the Comelec for other reliefs after the May 10 polls, they said.
The resolution cited news reports on Tuesday that with just six days to go before the May 10 elections, the Comelec has recalled 76,000 compact flash cards because of the widespread failure of the PCOS machines to read and tally votes during the testing conducted by the Comelec and Smartmatic-Total Information Management Corp., the systems supplier.
In its comment submitted on May 4, the Comelec said the petitioners had no legal standing to file the petition and that there was no proof that they had requested the release of the information contained in the documents mentioned in their petition.
The justices said the petitions had “overwhelming support” in the Constitution, citing in particular the provisions on the right to information and the state’s corresponding duty of full disclosure of all transactions involving public interest.
The court also cited the provisions in the Omnibus Election Code, requiring the Comelec to carry out a continuing and systematic campaign to educate the public about elections laws, procedures, decisions and other matters related to its duties; the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards, which mandates all public documents to be made accessible to, and readily available for inspection, by the public; and the Government Procurement Reform Act and RA 9525 (which appropriated P11.3 billion for the automated election), that required transparency in the procurement process and in the implementation of procurement contracts.
Democracy’s last bulwark
“[The] Comelec cannot shirk its constitutional duty to disclose fully to the public complete details of all information relating to its preparations for the May 10, 2010 elections without violating the Constitution and relevant laws. No less than the Constitution mandates it to enforce and administer election laws. The Comelec chair and the six commissioners are beholden and accountable to the people they have sworn to serve,” it said.
Calling itself “the last bulwark of democracy in this country,” the high court said it would spare nothing to ensure that the people’s right to information on matters affecting democratic processes is “fully guaranteed, protected and implemented”.
Concurring with the resolution were Chief Justice Reynato Puno and Associate Justices Conchita Carpio-Morales, Antonio Eduardo Nachura, Teresita Leonardo-de Castro, Arturo Brion, Diosdado Peralta, Lucas Bersamin, Mariano del Castillo, Martin Villarama Jr., Jose Portugal Perez and Jose Mendoza.
Dissenting were Associate Justices Renato Corona, Roberto Abad and Presbitero Velasco Jr.
***Article as posted in the Philippine Daily Inquirer Website:
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20100507-268525/SC-tells-Comelec-Bare-all-preparations-for-May-10-polls
PHILIPPINE STAR
May 7, 2010
By Edu Punay
MANILA, Philippines – Amid fears of a failure of elections due to reported glitches in the automated system, the Supreme Court (SC) compelled yesterday the Commission on Elections (Comelec) to make public details of its preparations for the polls on Monday.
By a vote of 12-3, the high court partially granted the petition of a group of concerned citizens, led by former Vice President Teofisto Guingona Jr., and ordered the poll body to fully disclose its preparations for the conduct of the automated elections because of recent “alarming developments.”
Comelec spokesman James Jimenez said the poll body respects the decision of the SC and would abide by its order but believed that the petition of Guingona’s group was unnecessary.
“The Comelec has always been very transparent in the implementation of the automation project,” Jimenez said.
In a 20-page resolution penned by Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio, the SC upheld the right of petitioners to information on the poll automation, which it said is “a matter of great public concern.”
“The people’s constitutional right to information is intertwined with the government’s constitutional duty of full disclosure of all transactions involving public interest. For every right of the people, there is a corresponding duty on the part of those who govern to protect and respect that right,” the SC explained.
“On election day, the country’s registered voters will come out to exercise the sacred right to suffrage. Not only is it an exercise that ensures the preservation of our democracy, the coming elections also embody our people’s last ounce of hope for a better future,” it stressed.
The information the Comelec needs to reveal include nature and security of all equipment such as software and hardware components, source code for review by interested parties; the terms and protocols of the random manual audit; and certification from the technical evaluation committee that the entire automated system is fully functional and continuity plan is already in place.
Also required to be disclosed are certification protocol and actual certification issued by the Department of Science and Technology that the 240,000 Board of Election Inspectors all over the country are trained to use the automated election system as required under Republic Act 9369 or the Poll Automation Law.
The SC granted the petition of Guingona’s group after the Comelec failed to cite any provision of law exempting the information sought by petitioners from the coverage of the government’s constitutional duty to disclose fully information of public concern.
It noted reports on glitches in the precinct count optical scan (PCOS) machines to be used for the automated election system a few days before the polls, citing for instance the recall of 76,000 compact flash cards following widespread failure of the machines to read and tally votes during the test conducted by the Comelec and contractor Smartmatic.
Eleven other magistrates, including retiring Chief Justice Reynato Puno, concurred in the ruling. Three others – Senior Associate Justice Renato Corona and Associate Justices Presbitero Velasco Jr. and Roberto Abad – dissented.
Public right to information
In a 21-page petition last April 23, the group of Guingona invoked the public right to information in pushing for full transparency of Comelec on the conduct of elections.
They said they sought relief from the court following what they described as “alarming developments that indicate poor and highly questionable acts of Comelec.”
Among these, they explained, are earlier reports involving the wrong ink used on ballots and the admission of Smartmatic-Total Information Management consortium of wrong supply of ultraviolet ink used in the printing of ballots that are unreadable by the PCOS machines.
Through lawyer Felix Carao Jr., petitioners feared that such an error or technical glitch could lead to massive cheating and failure of election.
They specifically wanted to know the status of the poll body’s negotiation for election supplies and paraphernalia, including contracts that did not undergo bidding, the nature and security of the machines, memory card and other software and facilities to be used for the election, including its current anti-hacking or tampering strategy.
They also wanted the Comelec to reveal the content of the source code review mandated under the Poll Automation Law and the terms of access by the public to the code.
The petitioners sought information on the schedule, venue and specifications of the random manual audit mandated under same act, as well as the terms and protocols under which manual voting would be implemented and failure of elections be declared.
In filing the petition, Guingona was joined by national broadband network whistleblower Rodolfo Lozada Jr., Bishop Leo Soriano of the United Methodist Church, the late Silliman University president Dr. Quintin Doromal, writer Fe Maria Arriola, and non-government organization leader Isagani Serrano.
Special session called
Yesterday, Chief Justice Puno called for a special session to resolve crucial election-related cases while the SC is on recess in deference to the elections on Monday.
SC spokesman Midas Marquez confirmed that the special session of the high court would start at 3 p.m. today.
Marquez explained that the special session called by Puno, who will retire on May 17, does not mean that the election recess of the SC has already been cancelled to accommodate the influx of election cases.
The SC adjourned last Tuesday and set the next session after the proclamation of the new president on June 30 and under a new chief justice to be appointed by President Arroyo.
Among the cases that the magistrates are expected to discuss is the petition filed by Concerned Citizens Movement, led by UP law professor Harry Roque Jr., asking the SC to order the Comelec to revert to the old system of manual voting and counting of ballots. – With Sheila Crisostomo
***Article as posted in the Philippine Star Website:
http://www.philstar.com/ArticlePrinterFriendly.aspx?articleId=573037
BY ROBERTO VERZOLA
We are spending P7.2 billion to lease these “smart automatic” machines. It turns out that they are not so smart after all. In fact, they seem downright stupid.
They can’t recognize a check mark or a cross. They can’t recognize ballpen or pencil marks. They need full, dark shadings to be convinced that you want to mark an oval. Isn’t that stupid?
When the security marks were misaligned by a mere one to two millimeters, the machines had trouble finding them. They were making so many mistakes that Smartmatic decided to forget “smart automatic” and go back to manual instead. They will just give election inspectors ultraviolet lamps; the inspectors will shine the lamp on each ballot and decide after an ocular inspection if the ballot is authentic or not. Still better than a dumb machine that can’t find the security mark.
A few days before the May 10 elections, these “smart automatic” machines are supposed to be unsealed for a final test in the field by election inspectors. Reports are now flooding in that many can’t read some of the marks, and can’t count some of the votes. Read the reports:
- Human error caused PCOS machines malfunction — Smartmatic
- Filipino poll panel allays concerns about faulty voting machines
- Glitch grounds poll devices
- 808 poll machines in Batangas encounter problems
- Special report — automated election
- Philippine vote counting machines malfunction in final tests
- No end to ‘horror’ tales 6 days to polls
- Error force Comelec to reset PCOS testing
- Smartmatic admits error in configuring PCOS flash cards
- Local bets get zero votes as PCOS machines malfunction
- Smartmatic assumes responsibility for PCOS machine glitches
- Defective data cards for poll machines recalled
- Smartmatic postpones testing and sealing of PCOS machines
- Smartmatic explains PCOS failure
- First Philippines automated election suffers technical glitches
For the sake of our elections, let us all hope and pray that these problems will be solved before May 10.
You may also want to visit Roberto Verzola’s Blog at www.rverzola.wordpress.com
BY ROBERTO VERZOLA
The erroneous counts reported during the final field testing of PCOS machines and traced to the gross misalignment of ovals on the local side of the ballots have shattered public confidence in the voting machines. As a result, two different proposals have been raised: one is to postpone the elections, and the other is to hold a manual count. However, the COMELEC seems to believe that the misalignment problem can still be remedied. Smartmatic is now trying to reconfigure memory cards to take into account the misalignment, and the COMELEC has made clear its intention to go ahead with the May 10 scheduled date of the automated elections, and to do so without any parallel manual counting.
Debate: Automated, manual or both? Postpone or not?
Thus, a debate now rages about the best option to take in the interest of a clean, honest and credible elections. As a contribution to this debate, let us clarify the various options and the pros and cons of each option:
- Automated count is the process implemented by Smartmatic using PCOS machines to scan and count the votes cast as shaded ovals, with the results being transmitted electronically or transported physically to municipal/city canvassing centers
- Manual count is the process managed by the board of election inspectors based on the old method of reading each vote aloud – now based on marked ovals beside candidate names – and recording the vote in tally sheets and the totals in manually filled-up election returns
- Postponement means setting a new date for the elections one to four weeks after May 10 to give either the automated or the manual count or both enough time to complete the preparations, tie up loose ends, patch up problems, and generally ensure that the elections can be successfully held securely, accurately and credibly and a new set of elected officials proclaimed by June 30.
Here’s an exhaustive list of the different combinations of these three options:
- No elections. Although some officials currently occupying elected positions or military junta advocates may wish for “No-El” as their dream option, it will not be considered an option here.
- Back to the manual count. This is the electoral process that cheats are now so familiar with that they can probably pad and shave votes in their sleep. While few will defend the old manual system of Philippine elections, it should be noted that votes in many other countries are counted manually through various processes that are generally acknowledged as clean, honest and credible. It should also be noted that even in the Philippines, a majority – perhaps up to 80% — of election jurisdictions conduct the counting, canvassing and consolidation of votes in a clean, honest and credible way, just as it is done in other countries. It is those few corrupt local and national election officials who chronically sell their services to equally corrupt candidates that give a bad name to Philippine elections. Because cheats are rarely prosecuted, much less get meted the punishment of imprisonment and perpetual disqualification from public office that await convicted election offenders, they will surely welcome a return to the familiar manual system, whether it is conducted on May 10 or a subsequent date.
- Automated only, no postponement. This is the COMELEC’s position. Their reasons have been well-reported in media: automation will solve the problems of delay and cheating; conducting a manual count will only confuse the public. delay the process, and provide an opening for the cheats to operate in familiar territory; it is still possible to provide the solution to the misalignment of local ovals, thus there is no need to postpone. Unfortunately for the COMELEC and Smartmatic, their credibility has been shattered by the gross errors of the PCOS machines. Winning back public confidence may take more than a few days. It is impossible now to look at a PCOS machine without asking the question: will it count accurately this time? Under these conditions, it is hard to imagine how can the machine results can be credible. Because a 10-ballot test set is inadequate for weeding out slightly inaccurate machines, and the voter verification feature of the machine has been disabled, this question about the true accuracy of the machine will remain unanswered.
- Automated only, with postponement. This is the Macalintal proposal. Many have reacted negatively to this proposal raised by the lawyer of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, who was herself caught in the act of micro-managing election fraud in 2004 with her field operator Comelec commissioner Virgilio Garcillano. Her party and the Ampatuans did it again in 2007, when they made Zubiri senator over the real winner Pimentel through statistically impossible results in six Maguindanao towns. That they got away with these crimes has hugely reinforced the sense of impunity among election cheats. Malacanang design is perceived to be behind the Macalintal proposal. Postponement is seen as a slippery slope that can lead to open-ended extra-constitutional scenarios that Malacanang is suspected of planning. The proposal also suffers from the same infirmity as the COMELEC position, with regards to its automated-only aspect. The public now knows that PCOS machines make mistakes too, and grievious ones at that. Once short-changed by an ATM machine, a depositor will want to carefully double-check every withdrawal made from these machines.
- Parallel count, no postponement. This is the NAMFREL proposal. The proposal for a parallel count has been raised earlier under a different name. Cong. Felicito Payumo was one of the earliest to propose a 100% manual audit. HALAL had likewise raised a version of the Payumo proposal. There have been variations, from HALAL’s president-only proposal, expanding the audit if significant discrepancies are found, to the business sector’s president, vice-president and mayor, to the Philippine Bar Association’s five-positions proposal. A parallel run is part of the usual industry methods of phasing in automation projects: pilot phase, dry run, parallel run, manual on standby, and so on. Given the shattered credibility of the PCOS machines when they gave grossly erroneous counts in the final 10-ballot testing, it now seems necessary for the machines to go through a parallel run before they can recover, if ever, this credibility. Unfortunately, the COMELEC remains adamant against a parallel count.
- Parallel count, with postponement. This is the Perlas proposal. Although Perlas wanted “up to three months”, variations that are being considered include a few days to a few weeks. Parallel run considerations have been covered above. The main concern about a postponement – especially since Perlas had said that “an extension of the Arroyo term was better than chaos and violence in the streets” – is that it would become open-ended and a prelude to the term extension of Arroyo, who seems ready and willing to do anything to hold on to power. This is the reason NAMFREL and others have called postponement “a dangerous option” and would not touch this option with a 10-foot pole.
Let us take a deeper look at both the parallel-run and postponement options:
Parallel count
The obvious role of a parallel run in any automation project is to mitigate the impacts of potential technology failures. In addition, a parallel-run will also make the work of cheats doubly hard, because they have to doctor both the machine and the manual counts. If the fraud creates significant discrepancies, public demand for explanation can trigger a cascade of investigations that may eventually uncover the cheating and expose the cheats. Because the technology is new, the cheats may not have mastered the fine art of electronic cheating, as they have manual cheating, hence keeping discrepancies to the minimum may be harder the first time around. For this reason, a parallel run will add to, not detract from, the credibility of an election outcome. With the shattered credibility of the PCOS machines (and Smartmatic/COMELEC as well), the COMELEC may have no choice but to agree to parallel run – unless it allows sheer stubbornness and unwillingness to admit mistakes color its decision-making. But then, it cannot anymore sweep under the rug any inaccuracy that the PCOS will probably still show, after their memory cards are recogfigured.
A credible parallel count needs more time
Unfortunately, the automated and the manual processes required for a parallel count are both not ready, less than a week before election day. The automated process has been under terrible time pressure from the beginning of the project. Today, that pressure has reached incredible proportions. Under this pressure, people will tend to make more wrong decisions, commit more mistakes, forget minor details (like the side-effect of changing ballot designs), and so on. Haste makes waste. The automated process has to work to turn the parallel run into reality. For this to happen, the technicians and engineers who are trying to make it work must be given enough breathing space and the incredible time pressure they are now working under must be eased up. HALAL has already pointed out from the beginning that the chance of success of the automation project was unacceptably low. Given the recent partial failures in the project, it is even lower today. Our analysis of the SysTest report shows that there are other problems that might have been masked by the gross errors displayed by the PCOS at the last minute. Most of these subtler problems cannot be corrected anymore. Their effect is to make the PCOS machine less accurate and more open to insider attacks, which, however, can be detected with a parallel run. At best, a postponement can give us PCOS machines that are only somewhat accurate, possibly 98-99% or even lower, that can still serve to flag the gross effects of pad-and-shave operations by cheats who have mastered the manual system.
Even a manual count, the other side of a parallel run, needs time to make it work. HALAL has a former COMELEC commissioner among its convenors, and Comm. Sadain estimates that at least three months is needed to fully prepare for a manual election. It is true that no additional ballots need to be printed, and 30% of the canvassing paraphernalia have been printed (if COMELEC statements are to be believed), but put the harried COMELEC personnel under more time pressure by making them produce and deliver the remaining 70% within a few days invites its own set of problems.
Thus insisting on a parallel run on May 10 may lead to having automated voting only in some areas, manual-only in other areas, both in still other areas, and perhaps none at all in a few areas – a formula for confusion and chaos.
It seems obvious, from a technical perspective at least, that a little extension will do both the automated and the manual aspects of a parallel run a lot of good, if only to ease up the terrible time pressure that election workers have been working under for several months now.
Is postponement constitutional?
HALAL considers the constitutionality of any postponement another important factor to consider. If legal luminaries all agree that any postponement will be unconstitutional, then it is pointless to postpone. Any winner proclaimed in a postponed election can be questioned before the Supreme Court and we are back in political limbo.
This is what Article VII Section 4 of the Philippine Constitution says: “Unless otherwise provided by law, the regular election for President and Vice-President shall be held on the second Monday of May.” While the date leaves no room for flexibility, initial qualifying phrase seems to create an loophole that can make postponement constitutional if a law provides for it. Is there such a law?
Section 5 of the Omnibus Election lists the grounds for postponing elections: “any serious cause such as violence, terrorism, loss or destruction of election paraphernalia or records, force majeure, and other analogous causes of such a nature that the holding of a free, orderly and honest election should become impossible in any political subdivision.” Again, the reference to “other analogous causes” might be interpreted as another loophole that can justify postponement.
Postponement: slippery slope
Although this matter can probably be settled with finality only in the Supreme Court, the larger concern against postponement is not its constitutionality but that it may create the opening for Malacanang term-extensionists, junta advocates, and other plotters and conspirators. A fifteen-day postponement (as proposed by Villanueva and Estrada), can easily become a month or more. Beyond a month, issues of constitutional succession kick in. In addition, volatile public mood primed for elections can turn frustrated and angry, spill over into the streets, and provide perfect excuse for a declaration of emergency and even martial law. Public anger, a mailed-fist response, and the chaos may be interpreted by the Left as a new revolutionary upsurge, triggering a new vicious cycle of confrontation politics. Indeed, postponement may turn out to be a slippery slope into a political blackhole.
Overall, then, we have been pushed into a corner, with no viable option left.
This was all triggered by a suggestion of changing a single-spaced layout to a double-spaced layout. Several questions come to mind: did the suggestion come from the Smartmatic or the Comelec side? Why did the Comelec approve the suggestion? When Smartmatic requested a second round of PCOS tests to double-check the new layout, why did the Comelec disapprove the request?
The above questions will have to remain unanswered for the moment. The next question may be easier to answer: who benefits from the shattered credibility of the automated elections? In fact, since the Comelec refuses to consider a parallel run or a 100% manual audit, then the credibility of the electoral process itself has been shattered.
Can the 2010 elections still be credible?
The answer may lie on the irreconcilably antagonistic relationship between Arroyo and survey frontrunner Aquino. The latter’s campaign promise to investigate the former’s misdeeds has led Arroyo to reportedly adopt an “anyone but Noynoy” policy. Since Arroyo was herself caught cheating in 2004, and again led her party in the 2007 cheating for Zubiri through the Ampatuans and other ARMM warlords, can we be faulted for expecting that she will use – perhaps even improve on – these tactics again in 2010? Threatened with prosecution and possibly a similar fate as Estrada, or even Marcos, of course we can expect Arroyo to use every means fair or foul to make sure frontrunner Aquino does not become president.
But cheating has its limits too. Consider Estrada’s case in 1998. The administration party had prepared the time-tested methods of election fraud against Estrada. But because he led by a landslide, they did not dare. The cheating would been too obvious and still would have failed to accomplish its goal anyway. Consider again Obama’s case in 2008. The Republicans were ready to cheat through the voting machines, most of which were controlled by Republican vendors/supporters. But because of Obama’s landslide lead, the Republican cheats didn’t dare. But the close contests of 2000 and 2004 are now seen by an increasing number of people in the U.S. as stolen elections.
If Malacanang believes in the surveys and anticipates a landslide win for Noynoy, the cheating option is not viable anymore.
But another option is left: to disrupt and discredit the electoral process itself, robbing of victory what Malacanang anticipates to be the most probable winner of the 2010 elections, without taking efforts anymore to help the runner up overcome the frontrunner’s lead through fraud. That is exactly what the innocuous ballot layout change has accomplished.
This analysis is speculative, but it explains the events quite well.
All we need to do now to test the speculation is to trace where the suggestion to change the ballot layout came from.
You may also want to visit Roberto Verzola’s Blog at www.rverzola.wordpress.com
MANILA BULLETIN
by Marvyn N. Benaning
April 26, 2010, 6:02pm
Former vice president Teofisto Guingona Jr. and Bishop Leo Soriano of the United Methodist Church (UMC) have found common cause with ZTE whistleblower Jun Lozada in asking that the Commission on Elections (Comelec) show how it could guarantee clean, honest and credible elections next month.
Guingona, Soriano and Lozada last Friday filed a petition for mandamus before the Supreme Court (SC) to compel Comelec Chairman Jose Melo to publicly reveal the preparations for the country’s first computerized elections on May 10.
“Even without a Supreme Court order, the Comelec should exercise transparency in dealing with problems concerning the poll automation.
It is a public right to know, and it is the Comelec’s duty to properly inform the people,” Guingona said.
The petitioners said it is mandatory on the part of Comelec to reveal the preparations and contingency plans. It is for this reason they want the poll body to show to the public how it can handle problems that would arise on May 10.
Lozada, who has been a vocal critic of the Comelec and Smartmatic-Total Information Management Corp., said the filing of the petition was meant to make the people aware that such public right exists.
***Article as posted in the Manila Bulletin Website:
http://www.mb.com.ph/node/254737
PHILIPPINE STAR
By Edu Punay
Updated April 28, 2010 12:00 AM
MANILA, Philippines – The Supreme Court (SC) yesterday ordered the Commission on Elections (Comelec) to answer a petition of a group of concerned citizens led by former Vice President Teofisto Guingona Jr. seeking to compel the poll body to present to the public details of its ongoing preparations for the country’s first automated elections next month.
SC spokesman Midas Marquez said the Court gave the Comelec three days to file its comment.
In a 21-page petition last week, Guingona and his group invoked their public right to information in pushing for full transparency of Comelec on the conduct of the May 10 polls.
Guingona was joined by national broadband network whistleblower Rodolfo “Jun” Lozada Jr., Bishop Leo Soriano of the United Methodist Church, Dr. Quintin Doromal, writer Fe Maria Arriola and NGO leader Isagani Serrano in filing the petition.
They argued that Republic Act 6713 (Omnibus Election Code) mandates the poll body to inform the public and the electorate of its election laws, procedures, decisions and other matters relative to its duty to ensure clean, free, orderly and honest elections.
“In line with this duty, RA 6713 requires that all public documents must be made accessible to, and readily available for inspection by, the public within reasonable working hours,” petitioners stressed.
They said they sought relief from the Court following what they described as “alarming developments that indicate poor and highly questionable acts of the Comelec.”
They said that there are earlier reports involving the wrong ink used on ballots and the admission of Smartmatic-Total Information Management consortium of wrong supply of ultraviolet ink used in printing of the ballots that are unreadable by the precinct count optical scan machines.
Through lawyer Felix Carao Jr., petitioners expressed fear that such an error or technical glitch could lead to massive cheating and even worse, failure of election.
***Article as posted in the Philippine Star Website:
http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=570444&publicationSubCategoryId=63
BUSINESS MIRROR
Sunday, 25 April 2010 19:24
ELECTIONS Commissioner Gregorio Larrazabal on Saturday denied reports that there were 57 “ghost polling precincts” that might cast doubts on the accuracy and credibility of automated polls on May 10.
From the 76,000 clustered precincts, some surveyors reported on Wednesday that they discovered that there are 57 polling precincts that are nonexisting.
The ghost precincts were allegedly found mostly in Metro Manila and at least seven provinces; majority of these found in the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao and some parts of Luzon and the Visayas.
The report came from the surveyors of the joint venture of Smartmatic and Total Information Management (Smartmatic-TIM), the company who will provide the 82,200 Precinct Count Optical Scan (Pcos) machines. But Larrazabal said that the 76,000 precinct are all existing and have registered voters.
“The Comelec is working double time. We’re working hard. A lot of our people are taking extra steps to make these successful. We won’t allow people to torpedo the elections. We will ensure that it will be successful,” Larrazabal said in a press briefing on Saturday.
Larrazabal said that the poll body is currently drafting a narrative report that would shed light into the alleged ghost precincts and will released it shortly.
Reveal preparations, Comelec asked
THE Comelec is duty-bound to reveal the preparations for the May 10 elections to address the growing anxiety over the possibility of cheating or failure of elections owing to major technical problems.
“Even without a Supreme Court order, Comelec officials should tell the people how they plan to address public concern about the conduct of the computerized election,” lawyer Felix Carao Jr. told reporters during the weekly forum Kapihan sa Sulô Hotel.
Roberto Versola of Halalang Marangal (Halal), an election watchdog, said the filing of the petition is justifiable, noting that the poll body has not made any serious attempt to address the issues and concerns raised by concerned groups and individuals.
He said the poll body needs to account the preparations and address all those issues to assure the public that contingency plans are really in place to ensure smooth flow in the conduct of the election, and that cheating will not take place.
Carao, who filed the petition for mandamus asking the Supreme Court to compel the poll body to present under oath its preparations for the country’s first-ever computerized election, asserted that it is the people’s right to know and the agency’s duty and responsibility to ensure clean, honest and credible election.
He said the filing of the petition for mandamus was prompted by alarming developments that indicate the Comelec’s poor preparations and major blunders committed by its computer service provider, Smartmatic-TIM, which recently admitted supplying the wrong ultraviolet ink used in the printing of the ballots, thus, making it unreadable by the Pcos machines it has supplied.
Sealed ballots for local absentee voting sent
DAVAO CITY—The Comelec distributed on Saturday the sealed envelops containing the ballots for local absentee voting.
“All that we know is that the counting would be manual. We don’t know if it would use the shading [system] but I think that it would be done the old way,” said lawyer Danilo Cullo, the election officer for the city’s First District.
Cullo and John Paul Cubero and Monalisa Coda-Mamukid, election officers for the Second and Third Districts, said they just facilitated the distribution of the sealed envelops to 103 schools in the city and one each to the National Police and the military.
Local absentee voting allowed the teachers assigned to the Board of Election Inspectors, the police and the military to vote ahead of the May 10 elections.
The city has 207 voting centers but only 103 appeared on the list of those whose voters were allowed to vote in the April 28 to 30 schedule. “We would know exactly how many could vote during the voting,” a school official said.
A police representative who received the sealed envelops for the regional headquarters in Camp Catitipan said there were 300 personnel who were permitted to vote next week. He spoke on condition of anonymity. S. Fabunan, J. Mayuga and M. Cayon
***Article as posted in the Business Mirror Website:
http://businessmirror.com.ph/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=24493:what-ghost-polling-precinctscomelec&catid=23:topnews&Itemid=58
