By here, I mean after the launching of the National Transformation Council (NTC) in Lipa last week. What are the next steps to be taken after the Lipa declaration that called for President Aquino to resign?
* * *
I have friends, even relatives who throw up their hands and say what can we do? One relative thinks the whole idea of changing the Constitution might work against reform with Aquino using it for his own purposes – to extend his term. That would be catastrophic not just for him but for the entire country. It can take only so much of the mismanagement and bad policies of his government. The record speaks for itself that he has been the worst president of the Philippines. He and his allies seem unfazed by these criticisms and has boldly challenged the Supreme court for its 13-0 decision against the DAP creating a constitutional crisis.
This is his own idea of what to do with the people’s money for governance said to be P60 billion in 2010-2012 in PDAF and P147 billion for DAP. He calls his constitutional violations as done “in good faith.”
The usually conservative Catholic Church and other religious allies have been forced out of their wait and see attitude with bishops headed by Cardinal Vidal leading the movement to find solutions on how to stop the Aquino government from further ruining the country.
* * *
With the National Transformation Council organized the stage has been set for more drastic measures including calling in the military to perform its mandate under the Constitution to protect the state (encompassing the people, the economy and the nation). It may not be a foreign invader but conditions have been so exacerbated that the security of the country is in peril.
Constitutional analysts say that we should watch closely the continuing investigation of the Smartmatic-PCOS elections in 2010 and 2013. With the failed elections of 2010 and 2013 in effect there is no constitutionally valid government. It becomes the duty of the people through the National Transformation Council to organize one,
* * *
In an email interview with a constitutional expert he said to this column that “the allegiance of the military is not to any person including the President. Their allegiance is to the Constitution. The Constitution proceeds from the sovereign power of the people themselves.
When the Constitution lays down the rules under which public office is to be held by any person, those rules including any enabling law such as the Omnibus Elections Law and Automated Election Law, must be strictly followed. Any disregard of these guidelines as we have seen in the implementation of the Automated Election System, is not only a brazen repudiation of the Constitutional mandate, but that all those occupying public office necessarily by reason of a seriously flawed elections have no right whatsoever to hold on to their public offices.”
* * *
In effect, the National Transformation Council, as the civic authority, with the protection of the military can organize government. In that case, the NTC becomes both the de facto and de jure government because of the failed elections, he added. The people can demand the removal of those in public office now with the continuing investigation proving that the PCOS did not count correctly the votes as definitively shown in the case of Nueva Ecija.
In Cebu, ballot images show the PCOS adding votes and subtracting votes at the same time for the same candidate in the same precinct. This shows no one is definitively sure who won in the elections in 2013.
At the hearing Glenn Chong, the complainant had the evidences that he presented in the Joint Congressional Oversight Committee rebutting the lies of COMELEC Chairman Brillantes.
In the hearing he also asked the JCOC to cite Brillantes for contempt by deliberately misleading the JCOC and the public.
Finally, the people do not need to explain its own collective act with each and everyone of its own members. The cases once proved are enough.
Two of the cases cited during the hearing were as follow. In case no. 1 “the Audit Log Report of Clustered Precinct 7805002 (Barangay Bacolod, Culaba, Biliran) clearly showed that no successful transmission was ever made to all three servers after several attempts, including the MBOC/CCS of Culaba. The last entry in the Audit Log Report was recorded at 8.39 p.m. of May 10, 2010 before it was turned off. However, in the MBOC/CCS of Culaba, a successful electronic transmission of results was received and recorded at 11:23 p.m. of May 10, 2010 from IP address 10.12.3.143. Plainly, the MBOC/CCS of Culaba received an electronic transmission of results 2 hours 44 minutes and 22 seconds after the PCOS was already physically turned off.
The modem of each PCOS is dependent on the power supply of the PCOS itself. So much so that if the PCOS had already been turned off, no power supply is available to the modem to be able to transmit. Where then did this transmission come from?
In case no. 2. “the MBOC/CCS Print Log indisputably shows receipt of an electronic transmission of results purportedly from Clustered Precinct 7805006 (Brgy. Bool West, Culaba, Biliran) at 1:55:36AM of May 11, 2010 from IP 10.15.2.121. However, the same MBOC/CCS Print Log subsequently received and recorded another electronic transmission of results purportedly for the same Clustered Precinct 7805006 at 3:41:51AM of May 11, 2010 but from a different IP 10.15.3.43. The last recorded entry or event in the Audit Log Report of CP7805006 was 3:08:38AM of May 11, 2010. Therefore, the second transmission of results received and recorded by the MBOC/CCS server came 1 hour 46 minutes 15 seconds after the supposedly transmitting PCOS (CP7805006) had already been physically turned off.
Seven (7) clustered precincts in two (2) different municipalities in Biliran exhibited exactly the same characteristics of double transmission of results (i.e. [1] hours apart [2] after the subject PCOS had been physically turned off [3] 2nd transmission coming from a different IP address than the 1st transmission) as shown by their respective MBOC/CCS Print Logs and Audit Log Reports.
There is no way to independently verify if the results for each of subject clustered precincts differ from one another because the MBOC/CCS Print Log only show the tally numbers identifying the results but not the actual numerical results.
There is no way to independently identify which of the results is the genuine one because of the absence of digital signatures which could have enabled us to identify the genuine results coming from the subject clustered precinct.
There is no proof as to how the MBOC/CCS server handled the second transmitted result, i.e. whether it disregarded the second result or it had overridden the first result.