Fast flimsy alibis for Comelec flops

Comelec never runs out of ruses. Here’s its latest – for myriad complainers last Election Day that their voter receipts didn’t match the ballots they cast:

Submit a notarized affidavit. That will form an election protest, spokesman John Rex Laudiangco advised.

Really? Does he expect voters to take off from work or school, seek legal advice on affidavit writing, spend P200-plus for printing and notarizing, then commute to the Comelec office to file?

Forget it, those voters will sigh. Each will think s/he’s just one of 68 million voters, so better luck next time.

Besides, Comelec Chairman George Garcia already belittled their rants last Monday: “Sa mga sinasabi na hindi tumutugma ’yong kanilang resibo sa balota, wala kaming proof on that. Napakataas ’yong posibilidad na nakalimutan nila ang binoto nila, o kahit na hindi ’yon ang binoto nila, ’yon ang nailagay nila.”

But of course, there’s no evidence. Photographing ballots or voter receipts is forbidden. Poll watchers merely shrugged when the cheated voters grumbled.

Garcia further blabbered: “The best evidence is later this evening, kasi makikita natin yong mga ballot pictures ng ballot review. Mabibilang manually ‘yong lahat ng balota. In fact, ‘pag nakita niyo na ‘yong ballot review, nando’n lang ‘yong mga pangalan ng mga kandidato na binoto sa bawat position. Hindi niyo na po makikita ‘yong mga pangalan ng hindi binoto. Summarized po ‘yon.”

Phooey! Assuming that the cheated voter stayed on till nightfall, how would s/he have known which of the 600 to 800 ballots was his/hers? Marking a ballot is prohibited. Besides, it’s the voter receipt that’s at question.

Garcia was unstoppable. He switched to Namfrel’s planned audit the next day in 60 out of 93,287 precinct clusters nationwide. That supposedly would show the accuracy of voting machines.

What? Would the little voter from barangay Kapuputan or barrio Salapingaw or sitio Maputik monitor that process when all s/he wanted to know was why his/her receipt added one or two wrong names?

All that could have been avoided had Garcia et al. heeded a simple suggestion weeks before E-Day from ex-information-communications technology secretary Eliseo Rio and former-FINEX president Edwin Fernandez:

Let the precinct watchers photograph each receipt, and tally the entries when everything’s over. That way, they would have checked if the machine read the ballots and transmitted the results correctly.

Those are two crucial checks if the machines – used for the first time in any election worldwide – were worthy of the P18 billion that voters/taxpayers paid for.

*      *      *

Namfrel and PPCRV had transparency servers ready to broadcast “unofficial partial” national and local counts. But up to Monday midnight, both had nothing to show.

The first few data dumps they received from Comelec were blank.

Only after complaining did Comelec dump a large file. And when they checked it, they both had five million more votes than Comelec’s transparency server for news media outfits.

Garcia alibied that Namfrel and PPCRV supposedly did not first clean up the files, whereas Comelec had a software to do so. With its software, he said, Comelec was able to delete duplicating transmissions from precincts. “Nakapaglinis kami. Dapat naglinis din sila.”

Only at dawn Tuesday were the watchdogs able to match their national and local counts with those of Comelec. By which time, their “quick counts” no longer mattered because slow and late.

Namfrel’s Lito Averia and PPCRV’s Anna Singson separately told reporters they will confront Comelec about the snafu.

Aside from Garcia’s blather, Comelec has yet to formally reply.

Whatever the poll body will say should comply with the 2007 Automated Election Systems Law.

The AES Law requires one continuous process flow – from precinct count to transmission to canvassing/consolidation at municipal/city, district/provincial and national levels.

Every voting machine should “send to all” servers at the same time. Such transmission, if “machine-readable,” should instantly be translated to “human-readable.”

So how come Comelec had a thingamajig that its accredited watchdogs didn’t have?

For voting machines, ballot paper and canvassing computers, Comelec contracted for P18 billion Korea’s Miru. Plus, local partners Integrated Computer Systems, Centerpoint Solutions Technologies and St. Timothy Construction Corp. The third backed out as financier.

For transmission, Comelec spent P1.4 billion on partners iOne Resources Inc. and Ardent Networks, Inc.

For P127 million, Pro V&V of Alabama should have certified all the above. Filipino computer experts should have been allowed to review all the source codes.

Will Congress’ Joint Congressional Oversight Committee have the courage to investigate the glitches? Will it include Comelec’s overseas online voting, which did not issue voter receipts, in breach of the AES Law? Senatorial election tailender Imee Marcos chairs the JCOC.

Electees fear Comelec. The poll body is headquartered in Palacio del Gobernador in Intramuros, Manila. That’s where Spanish governors-general resided and presided for 300 years, including dispatch of Guardia Civil. Modern-day guards every election time are AFP, PNP, NBI and all other armed agencies of government.

*      *      *

The European Union Election Observation Mission will likely flunk Comelec, if it renders a report at all.

The 200-plus foreigners were aghast that, four days before E-Day, Comelec barred them from entering polling precincts but just peek from windows. “To look through a window is not to observe,” EU EOM chief Marta Temido harrumphed.

In inviting them months ago, Comelec guaranteed access to precincts, only to renege when the observers arrived. “Not only was agreed access denied, but police were also instructed by Comelec to prevent us from entering,” European parliament mission head Vladimir Prebilic lamented.

Garcia claimed that the law lets in only precinct inspectors, watchers and voters. Yet past electronic elections had foreign observers.