Dick Gordon and the rule of law; Meritocracy is thrown out

Richard “Dick” Gordon is an oddity. He has an American name but he is also a descendant of Filipino hero Colonel Jose Tagle, who is known as the hero of the Battle of Imus. Ironically, his Filipino hero connection comes from his American father because Jose’s daughter, Veronica is his paternal grandmother. His father was James Leonard Tagle Gordon. 

In 2010, when he ran for President, I told him he would have been my candidate but he did not have a ghost of a chance to win. I got a scolding instead. He said all those who said they would vote for him if he were a winner add up to his defeat. Why can’t we just vote for him if we thought he was qualified and had the track record to run for President?

I warned him about the chaos that will ensue with the Smartmatic PCOS machinated elections in 2013 because of the suit against Dominion in Delaware. It was Dominion that owned the automatic electoral system. I know many who have said he was their only choice in a line-up of know nothings and opportunists. He was steadfast in his belief that the Philippines could be governed and prosper under the rule of law.

As predicted the Smartmatic PCOS election was a mess. Gordon found himself at the center of it as the author of the law on automated  elections. The task for challenging Comelec’s actions fell on his lap.  He now has to prove that rule of law was possible and brought it before the Supreme Court. He is unmindful that he could be pursuing a lost cause under a government that has shown its capacity to destroy the rule of law.

He said to me in a telephone interview that  it was his obligation to take on the Comelec for violating the law.  He has no choice but to defend it.  Moreover, the impunity with which the law is being mocked angers him.

Although there are several issues covered by the omnibus motion to the Supreme Court, it is focused on a single issue — to compel the Commission on Elections to allow political parties to examine the source code that Comelec says it has. It will prove whether or not there was fraud in the May 13 polls.

*      *      *

He hopes the Supreme Court justices, intimidated or not, would see the urgency to uphold the law or we all descend into lawlessness that we shall later regret.

The source code is the set of computer instructions to the machine that should reflect accurately how the votes were counted.

Under the law Comelec does not have the luxury to decide whether or not to allow the political parties to review the source code. It is mandatory.

He cites Section 14 of the Automated Election Law which says that the COMELEC “shall promptly make the source code of that technology available and open to any interested political party or groups which may conduct their own review thereof.”

He is concerned that up to now Comelec has refused to make the source code available for review and inspection while admitting at the same time that it has it.

The Urgent Omnibus Motion by Bagumbayan and Gordon asks for two things in its prayer:

That the SC order Comelec to make the source code used in May 13, 2013 elections available to the petitioners in “a complete compilable digital copy and secondly, but more importantly, for a TRO to stop Comelec from removing the PCOS machines from “their respective precincts, schoolhouses or present whereabouts.”

The second petition of the motion, it said is made on behalf of the Filipino people, to “preserve their legal right to determine whether or not the Source Code encoded, loaded and or compiled into the said PCOS machines used in the May 13, 2013 elections is identical to the Source Code provided by Comelec to Bagumbayan/Gordon.

By taking up the challenge, Gordon can lead and unite all the disparate groups fighting against fraudulent elections.

*      *      *

I was shopping in Greenhills in the weekend when a shop assistant said, “Ayon si  Grace Poe, senadora na ngayon yan.” Then the shop assistant quickly turned around to tend to her goods for sale. Four other women milled around Poe. There was no visible sign of adulation that could be said was the reason for the unprecedented number of votes she got that catapulted her to the top. She may be a good girl and adopted daughter of a good father but that does not qualify her to become a senator.

This is at the heart of our political difficulties. We do not have a system through which we could elect meritorious and capable candidates.

This column notes what the worldwide Meritocracy Movement says about meritocracy in political systems and elections:

“Suffrage reflects the will of the people, and therefore is the foundation of a legitimate government. Arbitrary whims of tyrants are no good measure for effective governance, and as Abraham Lincoln made clear, a truly legitimate government is of, by, and for the people.

Therefore, along with constitutionality, voting is something that shall necessarily be maintained as a fundamental tenet of the Merito-democratic Republic that is carried forward from the democratic republic, and just like constitutionality, will be upgraded to a more advanced form.

So while the election of public officials will still be the modus of the Merito-democratic Republic, it will no longer be based on universal suffrage, but on Qualified Universal Suffrage. (In the case of the Philippines it means re-structuring the body politic.)

It is simply irrational that in democratic republics, a Ph.D. in history or policy has the exact same vote as a completely uneducated person with zero regard for politics or intellect. Whether this pertains to a direct vote like a presidential election or to a vote for a representative in Congress, you can be absolutely sure that, just as a business caters to its customers to get sales, politicians are going to cater to their constituents to get votes — and surely, when there is no standard of intellect among those constituents, the quality will remain eternally subpar.

A single bad hair day or gaff can blow an election, or a single good joke or smile can make one; so fickle, superficial, and shallow are the values of the voting masses with ever decreasing attention spans.”