A tale of two events in Manila

I told my driver we had to be on time when the Supreme Court hears the oral arguments of the PCOS trial. “Maam, we have to avoid Roxas Boulevard. Matrapik din doon dahil sa ADB meeting. Of course. That is probably a good metaphor for two contrasting events, one a meeting of bankers and the other a trial about elections in the Philippines.

* * *

I could not believe and so did others who were in the Supreme Court that the PCOS machines and consequently the 2010 elections would have ever been tried. The case against it has been stonewalled, pilloried, ridiculed for so long that it would take divine intervention to hear the facts on what really happened in the May 2010 elections. Worse it has been shunted aside in media for trivial news. Tapos na, they reasoned why rake the coals? Isn’t that censorship? Please don’t talk about freedom of the press in the Philippines if news as important as a failure of election is suppressed.

But the divine or whatever power there was out there did intervene. Hubris was at work when Comelec was so confident the May 2010 elections was now beyond questioning. This emboldened Comelec officials to renew the same machines that wrecked democratic elections in the Philippines. This was too much. Fortunately, there are hardy Filipinos who will continue raking the coals. Disenfranchising the electorate in a democratic election was simply not acceptable.

* * *

There were technical questions about the machines and defects of the contract I could write about. But the heart of the issue was the constitutionality of the last elections using those machines. It was unconstitutional then and it is unconstitutional now.

I refer to Atty. Zeus Librojo speaking on behalf of petitioners S4S: “Besides the technical difficulties there was the constitutional infirmity of the machines in question.”

 If the Constitution was violated using those PCOS machines that is within the remit of the Supreme Court to rule upon.

Librojo cited Roque v. Comelec where this Honorable Court citing section 6.7 of the AES contract ruled that COMELEC did not abdicate its constitutional mandate.

“Aware of this ruling, the proposition that petitioners S4S raise is that the shared responsibility provided section 6.7 of the AES contract amount to an unconstitutional delegation of the exclusive powers of the Comelec.

He gives the reasons why. “Petitioners submit that the contract providing the use of PCOS machines unlawfully delegates COMELEC functions to Smartmatic-TIM during the conduct of the elections. This is not allowed by the Constitution, because the power to enforce and administer election laws is a delegated power given exclusively to COMELEC (Art. 9-C, Sec. 2, Constitution).

* * *

The “Shared responsibility” given to Smartmatic-TIM in the conduct of the elections is therefore repugnant to the Constitution.

“By itself, this proposition seems harmless. However, in the light of the principle of republicanism enshrined in our Constitution and the exercise of the people’s right of suffrage to determine the people who will represent them in government, contracting out the process of voting, counting, transmission and consolidation of votes cast will have devastating consequences.

Clearly, this is not what the law on Automated Election prescribes, and this is definitely not allowed under the Constitution. Though petitioners support the people’s desire for an automated election, we must however be conscious of the means by which we are to achieve that end, and not set aside the very essence of our democratic and republican state.

The end is not simply “automated election,” it is to ensure that there is a representative democracy where the people has ultimate control.

In conclusion, the use of the PCOS violated and will continue to violate the principle of Republicanism enshrined in our Constitution.

What secures to a representative democracy its popular character is the ultimate control that the people possess over their government.

We submit that the unconstitutional delegation of the powers of the COMELEC in the use of PCOS machines, removes this control.

Comelec abdicated its Constitutional mandate and responsibilities by surrendering its managerial control and functions of the 2010 electoral process to Smartmatic-TIM.”

* * *

We do not begrudge the success of the 45th annual ADB meeting in Manila. As others have already said it was a good opportunity to showcase tourism in the country.

But it had a disquieting black mark and it has to be said. Why was there a need to cover the slums standing by a bridge on the way from the airport to the PICC. To me this smacks of insincerity. Would the visitors have minded the slums? If they did then they had no business talking about the creeping gap between the rich and poor in the Philippines. Their call that the Philippines or any other country has to do more to help bring down the benefits of the economy to the teeming poor sounds hollow. The slums are there and it would have been better appreciated if the bankers saw what poverty really means in this country.

Some comments have already been made comparing the ADB gala event to Imelda’s sumptuous reception for bankers when the World Bank met here in Manila during martial law. So it is déjà vu for Filipinos.

Bankers talk about poverty but are prevented from seeing poverty. We may be the hottest emerging country but of what use is it to the poor? Where is the will to end the squalor of slums instead of putting temporary measures like fencing them out of sight.

Still let us see what will be done after the event that put together more than 4,300 political leaders, finance officials and development experts descended upon Manila. Growing inflation, spikes in fuel prices, austerity measures in the eurozone and worsening impacts of climate change were discussed as the region’s problems.

Lee Kuan Yew once said after speaking to Marcos that he felt uneasy because it seemed that the Philippine president believed that talking about reforms was the same as doing it.

I hope that is not the case with the ADB meeting where there was much talking about reforms. We should watch how the reforms envisaged by the bankers, businessmen and our government will be translated into real life. If fencing off the slums is indicative of the will to reforms, I am afraid there is not much to look forward to. We just gave an expensive party and hope that the guests had fun in the Philippines.