March 15th, 2010 by Malayang Halalan
Those questioning certain party-list organizations are basically questioning the legitimacy of certain party-list organizations because of its supposed ties to the Gloria Arroyo administration.
I have yet to look at the figures to compare between the number of party-list organizations running in the 2010 elections and the number of party-list organizations that ran in 2007. If at all the number of 2010 party-list organizations running for seats in Congress are more numerous this year, it can be for several reasons and perhaps one of them could be that the vote of partylist organizations in 2010 will be crucial in determining whether a new attempt at revising the Philippine Constitution will succeed or fail.
As far as party-list organizations are concerned, here is an article from Father Joaquin Bernas in Inquirer Politics.
Who can be a party-list rep?
Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J.
Philippine Daily Inquirer
WHEN word went around that Rep. Mikey Arroyo, anticipatedly displaced by his mother from his seat in Pampanga, might run for a position in Congress as party-list representative, true or not, people naturally wondered if this was constitutionally allowable. For that matter, a similar question was asked about Secretary Angelo Reyes.
It is a legitimate question because there is a distinction between the qualifications of a district representative and those of a party-list representative.
We are familiar with the qualifications of district representatives. They must be natural-born Filipino citizens, at least 25 years of age on the day of the election, registered voters in the district to be represented and residents of the district they hope to represent for at least one year immediately preceding the election. No qualities of the person are prescribed, no level of education, no party affiliation, no profession. One can be a lawyer, a doctor, a billionaire, a laborer, or even a Cardinal. Yes, even a Cardinal, because the Constitution says that no religious test shall be imposed for the exercise of civil or political rights.
Clearly, Mikey Arroyo or Secretary Reyes can be one of them. Not everyone, however, can be a party-list representative.
The birth of the party-list representative came with the party-list system. Both arose out of the desire to give voice to the underrepresented and marginalized classes of society. The Constitution has reserved 20 percent of the total membership of the House of Representatives for party-list representatives. According to current jurisprudence and on the basis of the total number of representatives today, party-list representatives can be as many as 55—a force to reckon with if strategically deployed.
Constitutionally, a party-list representative has the same qualifications as a district representative, except for the fact that party-list representatives, since they do not represent a district, can be registered voters in any place of their choice. Since, however, they are to represent a party-list organization, they must also be bona fide members of a party-list organization.
The Constitution says that the party-list members must be chosen, as provided by law, from “the labor, peasant, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, women, youth, and such other sectors as may be provided by law, except the religious sector.” Hence, if Mikey Arroyo is to become a party-list representative, he must fit into one of these classes. This may take a lot of doing!
In 2001 the Supreme Court thoroughly discussed the issue as to what kind of organizations may participate in the party-list system. The current doctrine on this subject is summed in the Epilogue to the 2001 decision:
“The linchpin of this case is the clear and plain policy of the law: ‘to enable Filipino citizens belonging to marginalized and underrepresented sectors, organizations and parties, and who lack well-defined political constituencies but who could contribute to the formulation and enactment of appropriate legislation that will benefit the nation as a whole, to become members of the House of Representatives.
“Crucial to the resolution of this case is the fundamental social justice principle that those who have less in life should have more in law. The party-list system is one such tool intended to benefit those who have less in life. It gives the great masses of our people genuine hope and genuine power. It is a message to the destitute and the prejudiced, and even to those in the underground, that change is possible. It is an invitation for them to come out of their limbo and seize the opportunity.
“Clearly, therefore, the Court cannot accept the submissions of the Comelec and the other respondents that the party-list system is, without any qualification, open to all. Such position does not only weaken the electoral chances of the marginalized and underrepresented; it also prejudices them. It would gut the substance of the party-list system. Instead of generating hope, it would create a mirage. Instead of enabling the marginalized, it would further weaken them and aggravate their marginalization.
“In effect, the Comelec would have us believe that the party-list provisions of the Constitution and RA 7941 are nothing more than a play on dubious words, a mockery of noble intentions, and an empty offering on the altar of people empowerment. Surely, this could not have been the intention of the framers of the Constitution and the makers of RA 7941.”
The Court’s decision is a clear enunciation of what an organization must stand for if it is to be allowed to participate in the party-list system. It is a great idea which I myself supported in the Constitutional Commission. But it can also be a backdoor entry point for the undeserving. Hence, who should be elected to represent that organization?
Section 9 of the Party-List Law says that he must be “a bona fide member of the party or organization which he seeks to represent for at least ninety (90) days preceding the day of the election.” This should mean that a party-list representative’s heart and mind should belong to the organization he or she represents. It may not always be easy to substantiate this requirement. Conversely, it may be easy to feign possession of this requirement!
Related Posts:
March 13th, 2010 by Malayang Halalan
Singapore included in automated polls for overseas absentee voting
By Pia Lee-Brago
The Philippine Star March 09, 2010
MANILA, Philippines – The Commission on Elections (Comelec) has decided to include Singapore in the conduct of automated elections for overseas absentee voting (OAV), the Philippine Embassy in Singapore said yesterday.
The Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) said Hong Kong was the only other foreign service post in Asia where automated elections will be conducted. Singapore has the second highest number of registered overseas absentee voters in Asia at 31,851.
Hong Kong has 95,355 overseas absentee voters.
OAV will be conducted for 30 days, from April 10 to May 10, in all other Philippine embassies and consulates either by postal or manual voting.
Nine precinct count optical scan (PCOS) machines will be delivered to the Philippine embassy in Singapore.
At the end of the 30-day voting period, the poll results will be transmitted to the Comelec in the Philippines a few hours after the close of voting.
Philippine Ambassador to Singapore Minda Cruz reminded registered voters to vote as early as possible.
Cruz called on all registered overseas absentee voters to exercise their right of suffrage early, preferably during the first two weeks of voting, instead of waiting for the last week, to avoid long queues in the embassy.
Overseas absentee voters can only vote for the national elective positions of president, vice president, 12 senators and one (1) party-list representative, but not for local positions.
Registered voters in Singapore will be required to vote in person at the Philippine embassy at 20 Nassim Road from 9 am to 5 pm, except on the last day of voting when it will close at 6 pm.
Voters must bring their valid Philippine passport and identification card (PR card, S-Pass, E-Pass or Work Permit).
Voters can check if his/her name is in the Certified List of Overseas Absentee Voters (CLOAV) found in the Comelec website (www.comelec.gov.ph). Only those whose name appears in the CLOAV will be allowed to vote.
Related Posts:
March 12th, 2010 by Malayang Halalan
James Jimenez is the Director of Comelec’s Education and Information Department and the go-to-guy for any question about elections. He hasn’t renewed his Mensa membership but they let him keep the extra IQ points that come free when you join them.
In this bit of writing he did on Facebook, he talks about the theory of why being number one on any list makes a difference.
I guess this bit of discussion comes from the fact that Noynoy Aquino will not be number one on the 2010 election ballot, much to his dismay.
Read on, expand your mind — or what’s left of it.
Benford, shmenford
Today at 1:05am
I wish Dr. Felix Muga – an old friend from when I used to comment on Filipino Voices – could have explained Benford’s Law better to reporters. You see, ABS-CBN’s Ryan Chua quoted him.
Dr. Felix Muga, a mathematics professor at the Ateneo de Manila, cites Benford’s law in statistics, which states that “in lists of numbers from many (but not all) real-life sources of data… the first digit 1 is almost one third of the time, and larger digits occur as the leading digit with lower and lower frequency…”
Thus, if a candidate is associated with the numeral 1 or is first on the list, he or she has 30 percent more chances of “occurring” or being chosen than others. Those close to his or her name have good but lesser chances.
“The effect is usually on the undecided voters. Their tendency is to go to the number one on the list first,” Muga says.
Now, just from that snippet, it’s pretty hard to say whether it was the good Dr.Muga who gave the explanation or Mr. Chua, but it’s a deadringer for a wikipedia entry:
Benford’s law, also called the first-digit law, states that in lists of numbers from many (but not all) real-life sources of data, the leading digit is distributed in a specific, non-uniform way. According to this law, the first digit is 1 almost one third of the time, and larger digits occur as the leading digit with lower and lower frequency, to the point where 9 as a first digit occurs less than one time in twenty.
The only difference being that the first quote didn’t make sense (an editorial oversight, probably), while the second one was clear as crystal.
According to the Wikipedia, Benford’s law simply states that in many lists of numbers most of the first digits will be a one (1). Two’s are less common, three’s are even rarer, and nine’s are the least common of all. You get it, right?
Okay. So,where does it say that “Thus, if a candidate is associated with the numeral 1 or is first on the list, he or she has 30 percent more chances of “occurring” or being chosen than others. Those close to his or her name have good but lesser chances.”
That word “thus” in that quote is so misplaced because Benford’s rule apparently doesn’t support the conclusion being forcibly drawn from it. Writing a multi-digit number that starts with the number one is such a far cry from “picking the first on the list” that it boggles the mind how such a connection could even be made. That’s like a textbook non sequitur, baby. It simply does not follow.
In fact, it CANNOT follow.
The closest that Benford’s law has so far come to elections is when it was used to “hint” at possible fraud in the Iranian elections recently.
To dig deeper, Boudewijn Roukema of Nicolaus Copernicus University in Torun, Poland, used a mathematical tool called Benford’s law. In many random sets of data, numbers are more likely to begin with 1 than any other digit. The next most frequent starting digit is 2, then 3 and so on, in a precise relationship. The law applies to any set of numbers scattered randomly on a logarithmic scale.
Any deviation from this pattern could suggest that figures have been manipulated. This has been used to uncover tax fraud and false expenses claims, and Roukema now says it points to fraud in the Iranian election. He analysed the vote counts reported for the four candidates in 366 districts. Votes for three of the candidates fit expected patterns, but Karroubi has an unexpectedly large number of counts beginning with the digit 7. The chance of such a large deviation from Benford’s law happening without foul play is only 0.7 per cent, Roukema says. “The simplest interpretation would be that someone interfered in the overall counts per district.”
So, to simplify: Benford’s law does not speak of the choices people make – in particular, selecting the first name on a list – rather it speaks of how numbers randomly appear on huuuuuge lists. In fact, it is precisely when human choices are introduced – as when cheaters make up fictional election results – that Benford’s law breaks down. That breakdown then becomes the indicator of fraud.
So it’s kinda irresponsible to be invoking Benford’s law to say that your candidate is disadvantaged because he isn’t number one on the list. Benford has NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT.
If I had a dirty mind, I would be so tempted to say that invoking Benford’s law is meant to take advantage of the average joe’s ignorance; meant to bludgeon him into submission with the use of magic words that he won’t understand anyway so he’ll just have to rely on the credentials of the person making the announcement – ‘after all, he did say it was based on a law of statistics, uh-huh, yessuh! Not just a theory, mind yuh, but a gosh-darned full-fledged law!’
But then I don’t have a dirty mind, so I’ll just go see how those Acosta cups are doing over at 7-11.
Related Posts:
March 10th, 2010 by Malayang Halalan
BY MARLEN V. RONQUILLO
Sunday Stories
www.manilatimes.net
You can’t blame the bishops for breaking tradition to endorse the presidential candidacy of Ang Kapatiran’s J.C. de los Reyes. He is young and earnest—and he looks like an overly-devoted Catholic lay leader. Dress him with a cleric garb, he would easily fit into the image of a dedicated priest.
But if he were a Spanish priest during the time of Spain’s turmoil, in the bloody war between the Republicans and the right-wing zealots of General Franco, I would say that he belongs to Franco’s devoted followers among the religious. Young maybe, but a poster child for the status quo.
Young and for the status quo? There seems to be nothing more contradictory that these two. Youth presupposes dynamism, a break with tradition, a forward-looking mind-set. But JC de los Reyes, despite his public call that Philippine politics should have an alternative, is really a creature of the status quo.
Why do I say this?
Any young politician who loves his people and cares for their future will not only support a Reproductive Health (RH) bill. He would even propose something that is more ambitious—family planning with everything there except abortion (which we really don’t do).
We belong to the planet’s top ten in child production. Our population growth outpaces important benchmarks: economic growth in real terms, yearly increase in food production, health and education investments.
This year, we will be importing a world-record of 2.4 million metric tons of rice and for this the rest of the world is crucifying us (because our massive rice imports have been jacking up rice cost in the world market). Our fraying and aging infrastructure will suffer more stress. There will be a bigger gap between demand on social overhead and actual state investments to meet the widening gap.
Our fabled natural resources, which we held infinite and always there for us, is mostly gone.
The root of all of these? The burgeoning population—which is being tacitly encouraged by bishops who harbor a fundamentalist view of reproduction. And who take “ Go forth and multiply” literally.
Amid all these, JC de los Reyes is not preaching the gospel of change and change of antediluvian mind-set.
Oh, he sounds like those right-wing nuts in the US—talking about moral values and sexual abstinence while the country is plunging into a deep recession.
Even on things earth-bound or on issues of economics, JC is completely clueless.
A bus operator-friend recently showed me a resolution from the city council of Olongapo City—which effectively bans the bus company from offering an alternative bus route between Olongapo City and Metro Manila via the SCTEX. JC de los Reyes, as a member of the city council, led the city councilors that signed the resolution.
You know the three things that JC de los Reyes and the other members of the city council invoked to ban a bus company from offering an alternative bus service? One was traffic congestion. Another was the route was saturated. The third was the crudest of all—a 1989 “verbal” agreement between then Mayor
Dick Gordon and then LTFRB Chairman Remedios Salazar-Fernando which saw no need for another bus service for the city.
For information of JC de los Reyes, who probably signed the city resolution without reading it, here are the facts:
1. The proposed alternative bus service was filed for approval in 2009, 20 years after that “verbal agreement.” So many things have changed since then, from population density, transport requirement etc.
2. The application for an alternative bus service proposes the use of the SCTEX. It will bypass the traditional route and it is an express service. It will not even affect the traditional operators there—who are probably friends of JC de los Reyes It will not even cause traffic congestion.
3. In 1989, Olongapo City was a mono-economy, dependent on a US military naval base. This was pre-Pinatubo, for God’s sake. Now, it is the 21st century.
The cruel cut in this sad incident is this: JC de los Reyes, who is offering himself as an “alternative” from traditional politics would not even recognize that times have changed radically and dramatically in Olongapo City. And there is a need for an alternative bus service.
And an alternative bus service is a break from tradition, one step for the public good, freedom from the grip of traditional operators.
JC is indeed young. But he stands for the status quo, if not the discredited old ways of doing things.
Related Posts:
March 10th, 2010 by Malayang Halalan
BY BERNICE CAMILLE V. BAUZON Reporter
www.manilatimes.net
The Commission on Elections (Comelec) on Tuesday junked the suggestion of the National Power Corp. (Napocor) to hold manual elections in Mindanao instead of the planned automated polls, saying that there are still ways to deal with the black out problems in the region.
Comelec Commissioner Gregorio Larrazabal said that lack of power is “not reason to hold manual elections” since the Precinct Count Optical Scan (PCOS) machines that will be used for the automation of the May 2010 polls are powered by external batteries.
He also said that the canvassing centers where the voting results will have standby generators.
The election machines, which will be in use for 11 hours, have batteries that can last for up to 16 hours, Larrazabal said.
Also, he added that the canvassing center in the cities and provincial levels will have generators to ensure that the counting and canvassing of the election results will not be hindered by the power failures in the region.
Mindanao grid has a generation deficiency of 700 megawatts, which resulted to the implementation of manual load dropping by the National Grid Corp. of the Philippines.
The power crisis in the region is being caused by drying up of water reservoirs because of the El Nino phenomenon.
Since last month, the three regions—Luzon, Visayas and Min-danao—have been experiencing rotating brown outs because of lack of sufficient supply of power. Hydro plants, which are the source of some 30-percent power generated for the whole country, have been malfunctioning because of lack of water.
The commissioner also said that poll body officials and the power industry players in Mindanao will be meeting this weekend to discuss plans on how they can minimize black outs in the region during election day.
According to Larrazabal, initial talks with industry official showed that “there is a possible solution” to the power problem in Mindanao. The poll body official, however, remained mum on what plans they are setting up.
He added that the poll body has directed their regional directors nationwide to submit the precinct maps to power companies “so that they know which towns need power on election day.”
But the Department of Energy, through Napocor, has already submitted contingency plans that will hopefully prevent power interruptions during the casting, counting, canvassing and transmission of votes on May 10.
Related Posts:
