Adversarial and controversial

It is sad to note that politics and the art of government in this country have become so adversarial. Every administration who assumes power seems to be determined to blame and get back at their predecessor for all the perceived ills they are trying to but cannot solve. The latter on the other hand protect themselves by obstructing and criticizing all the moves of those who have wrested power. And so the power struggle continues as the best interest of the people is relegated to the background. Governance in this country has deteriorated into a vicious cycle of directly or indirectly retaining and regaining power for selfish interest rather than rendering genuine public service for the common good.

This is precisely what is happening now. Because of the adversarial nature of politics, those in power have the tendency to be more arrogant. And because of this arrogance of power, some of their moves are rashly done, thereby giving the other side or even the non government groups enough ammunition to shoot them down. On the other hand the other side also sometimes merely opposes for the sake of opposing without even carefully studying the merits of their opposition and the interest of the country and people. So the result is always an unending controversy with both sides claiming they are right and thus overlooking some good points in each other’s position.

One example here is the Comelec decision to buy the precinct count optical scan (PCOS) machines used in the last elections, the first ever automated elections in this country that catapulted the current P-Noy administration to power. Despite some of the good points raised by some non government organizations (NGOs) against the deal, the Comelec decided to purchase the said machines worth P1.8 billion and just dared those who opposed it to question their decision in court. Recently that challenge has been accepted when several NGOs headed by prominent persons like Davao City Archbishop Fernando Capalla and former Vice President Teofisto Guingona Sr. filed petitions before the Supreme Court (SC) questioning the purchase. And so we now have another unsettling controversy that will somehow set back efforts to realize our long held dream of making our elections more credible and cleaner.

Obviously this controversy could have been avoided if the Comelec immediately looked into the defects and abnormalities of the machines clearly observable during the last elections. Actually, it could have already ascertained the veracity of those defects and glitches right after or even during the May 2010 elections in order to arrive at a more prudent and less questionable decision on whether to buy them or not. In fact it had more than one and a half years to do so because under the contract it had until December 31, 2011 within which to exercise the option to purchase.

The first opportunity is with regards to the Random Manual Audit (RMA). It should have strictly enforced the mandate of the Automated Election Law (RA 9369) requiring the RMA in at least one precinct of every Congressional District, and the Local Board of Canvassers to announce the results thereof before proclaiming the winners (Section 29). Records show however that there are numerous cases where the Comelec upheld the proclamation of winning candidates without announcement of those results. Hence doubts remain whether the results of the automated elections tallied with the results of the random manual audit; or more specifically, whether the PCOS machines indeed worked accurately.

The second instance concerns the readable instructions that define what the computer equipment will do, or the master blueprint that reveals and determines how the machine will behave, technically called the “source code.” As early as September 25, 2010, the SC has already ordered the Comelec to make the source code available to Center for People Empowerment in Governance (CenPEG), a group wanting to conduct their own review of how the machine works. This SC directive is pursuant to the law itself (Section 12) and has long become final and executory. But up to now there has been no report on whether the Comelec has already made the source code available in compliance with this directive. Maybe this is one aspect which the SC can look into as it hears and resolves the latest petitions now pending before it.

It is therefore highly questionable for the Comelec to cite lack of time before the 2013 elections as the reason for purchasing the PCOS machines even without proper verification of their defects. It had plenty of time to ascertain whether the machines are really defective or not, but it did not do so until its option to purchase the same expired. Indeed its recent move of simply consenting to Smartmatic’s decision to extend the option to purchase so it could still purchase the machines even after the expiration of the option looks highly suspicious. It appears to be an attempt to skirt the bidding requirements imposed by RA 9184 or the Government Procurement Reform Act that may even render the purchase null and void.

The Comelec cannot also validly argue that no solid evidence about those defects has so far been presented. Neither can it say that there are no solid evidence of fraud, cheating and disenfranchisement of voters with the use of those machines in the last elections. In the first place it is their duty to determine the existence or non-existence of those evidences. Secondly, it did not or failed to allow other interested groups to get those evidences by making available to them the source code or by strictly implementing the RMA. As aptly stated by the group of petitioners headed by Archbishop Capalla, “the need and desire to automate our election process must be safeguarded by the diligence of our constitutionally mandated electoral agency that can properly and prudently implement a well conceived automated election system. It could not and should not exchange this (duty) with the excuse of expediency and cost efficiency.”