Finally, automated elections

Filipinos who have seriously doubted the wisdom of participating in the voting exercise, saying a good many candidates win because of shameless cheating in the polls, may now witness honest elections, be assured that their vote will be counted, that there will be no flying voters, and no dagdag-bawas (adding and subtracting votes) — starting with the 2010 polls. And that’s on account of the passage of RA 9369, or the Amended Elections Automation Law.

The Senate approved on the evening of March 5 the P11.3-billion budget that the Commission on Elections needs to fully automate the May 2010 presidential elections.

Independent Senator Richard “Dick” Gordon, principal author of RA 9369, lauded the Senate’s approval of the budget, saying that it “sends a strong signal that the Philippines stands firm in protecting and safeguarding the sacred votes of its people.” The House of Representatives had passed its own bill the previous evening.

There was no joint bicameral committee to reconcile the House and Senate bills. Since there were no conflicting provisions between the two bills, the House passed on third and final reading the P11.3-billion supplemental budget.

Now there is no reason for the Comelec not to implement a fully automated election in 2010.

This week, President Gloria Macapa-gal-Arroyo is expected to stamp her approval on the law, paving the way for automated elections.

Gordon must be commended for his dogged determination, his persistence and commitment to have the law passed.

He had began working for automation as early as 1995, but it was not until Dec. 22, 1997 that RA 8436, the law that authorized the Comelec to use an automated election system, was passed. However, this law was not implemented for two reasons. One, the requirement that the counting machine to be used must be an “optical scanning/mark-sense reading device” unduly limited the technology to be used. Two, the Supreme Court scrapped the billion-peso automated election contract awarded to Mega Pacific Consortium due to anomalous bidding, rendering the counting machines useless.

Consequently, the May 2004 elections were done manually, from the voting to the canvassing of the results. Gordon recalls that the process “was slow, tedious, and subject to criticism since the security of the electoral process and its capacity to preserve the sanctity of the ballot and the will of the electorate was put to question.”

In his privilege speech before the Senate, Gordon said the Automated Election System (AES) proposed uses “appropriate technology for voting, counting, consolidating, canvassing, transmission of election results, and other processes in the conduct of electoral exercises.”

AES also assures electronic transmission of electoral results from the precinct level to Congress, the various board of canvassers, the parties, the accredited citizens’ arm, and the media. “This prevents wholesale cheating because tampering with the Certificates of Canvass will no longer be possible. The election returns and certificates of canvass transmitted electronically and digitally signed shall be considered as official election results and shall be used as basis for the proclamation of a candidate.”

Gordon said the greatest source of doubt in the credibility of any election is “the number of hands that handle the ballot.” The automated process will respond to this concern “by limiting the amount of human handling of the ballots, through the use of technology, thus limiting the opportunities to tamper with them.

“Automation also means speed, giving no time for the sore loser to tamper with the ballot. The longer the period between the time that the vote is cast and the time that the winners are announced, the greater the time and opportunity to tamper with the results. This leads to violent elections as losing candidates who feel the stab of every vote counted against him or her, begin to resort to extra-legal means to change the tide of their fate. The psychological effect of impending loss, and the shame of losing face prompt losing candidates to use guns, goons and gold to tamper with the ballot.

“For Filipino candidates, when guns, goons and gold prove inadequate, they resort to filing electoral protests, which clog our courts and the Comelec. Millions of pesos are spent on resolving these cases, resources which are better spent addressing the immediate needs of the communities represented by these candidates. Losing candidates become perpetual roadblocks to the efforts of winning candidates, sowing animosity and disunity in the community.

The Automation Law, he said, is “more than just an Automation Law. It is a commitment to respecting the right of our people to choose those who will lead them. It is a launching pad for a renewed sense of unity among our countrymen through the assurance that the process through which they choose their leaders is clean, free and credible. Let us be united in trying to bring about transparent, free and clean elections.”

*      *      *

My e-mail: [email protected]