Abalos described the visit as historic because ‘much has been said about the successful conduct of electronic voting in India’. Chairman Abalos wants national and local elections in May 2007 because it is ‘immoral’ not to have them. The question is whether the Indian machines or any other will be on time for 2007? In talks that my husband and I had with Tandon and his technical assistant, Rajesh Aggerwall, it seems not.
I wanted to see the demonstration that morning at the COMELEC but forgot that my husband and I were to lunch with Rafael Garcia III, the computer whiz behind ‘Botong Pinoy.’ Incidentally he was named one of the people of the year by Max Soliven’s PEOPLE Magazine. Raffy had worked with my husband, Bert in Meralco in pre-martial law days so it was more like a social catching-up. Bert was then vice-president and general manager of Meralco Securities Corp., the equivalent of First Philippine Holdings today. At that time, (before we went on exile because of the Imelda book and unknown to others, also the corporate struggle in Meralco!) one of Bert’s projects was to separate Meralco’s computer system to spin-off a money making computer services that could be outsourced to others. Raffy, a rising executive at that time was his man in charge.
Raffy told us that he has tried to convince our officials that ‘Botong Pinoy’, the computerized electoral system he has devised would not only answer the need for credible elections, it would be cheaper than anything else on offer. Moreover the machines can be used by schools when it is not in use for elections once every five years (if the charter is changed). So far he has not gone very far with convincing officials about Botong Pinoy because he can’t even get past the door. He, too would like to demonstrate the system and how it works. All he wants is the time to show what it can do. I hope he will not be refused because ‘local’ lang siya.
So in two days I heard about different systems on offer if we are to have credible elections through computerized voting. If Raffy can demonstrate that his system is cheaper and better than the Indian voting system, I do not see why we should need to import Indian technology? Incidentally, I wonder what all those guys talking their heads off for elections in 2007 (by the way, it is the flavor of the month among the chattering class) are doing about making sure elections in 2007 are credible?
Of the Concom majority, only Chairman Jose Abueva was formally invited. The rest of us, (limited to only six) were given gallery seats in the audience. As soon as I entered the room I could sense hostility from the senators particularly Chairman Richard Gordon and Senator Joker. The honest ‘Joker’ has already announced that as far as he was concerned constitutional reform was a no-no. So I did not quite figure out what the hearings were for and what he was doing there. But still, if the Senate calls you, come regardless of the use they have of it. I was told that even before we arrived, the naysayers to the Concom report had a field-day disputing the output of the group. Moreover, Azurin asked the Senate that they reprint the minority report and distribute it widely. Oh?
By the time we arrived, the discussions were on whether the House can go it alone for charter change. These were great legal minds and seasoned legislators so they trotted out their knowledge of constitutional law concluding that the House simply does not know what it is talking about if they think they can go it alone. What?!? As far as I know, the House would like nothing better than if the Senate were to join them in deliberations on the proposed charter change but that it has been curtly refused time and again and I thought as many others do, this was a closed book. Senator Joker had said so eloquently "Why should we write our own obituaries?"
There was a chink in the seemingly futile hearing. One resource person asked what happens if the two Houses had different versions about charter change. I think it was Senator Enrile who replied this can be sorted out within Congress just like the bicameral committee does when the House and Senate have different versions of a bill. When the hearing was over, I reminded Sen. Enrile that it was Senate intransigence, especially Senate President Franklin Drilon’s, that led the House to study different options if the Senate continued to refuse to debate charter change. This is mandated by the Constitution.
What was the point of the hearing if it was meant to confirm that the House cannot do so without the Senate at the same time that it refuses to cooperate? I think the more responsible response would be to welcome discussions and deliberations on charter change. The House would then have no business claiming it can go it alone. Senator Ponce Enrile said cryptically, "Maaayos din yan".
As for the disgruntled minority, a little birdie told me that after the hearing, Senator Gordon later rounded them up to have a chat after the hearing. Whatever for, I do not know. I would have hoped for a more impartial and responsible Senate and surprised they favored members of the group who have refused to accept the majority report and would now wreak their revenge? Shouldn’t the Senate be above that and behave as an impartial body tackling substantial issues of the report instead of taking sides in the guise of a public hearing. The seating alone in that Senate hearing told it all. I would have expected the senators would have wanted to know what the Concom report was all about. Senator Gordon, ever the showman, told the press cavalierly this is just one of several hearings. I am not optimistic the Senate hearings are intended to enlighten themselves or the public.