June 29th, 2010 by Malayang Halalan
Makati Representative Teodoro Locsin has released a report which dealt severe criticism against the recently concluded nationwide automated elections.
So, how exactly is Locsin going to stop poll automation in 2013?
On the eve of President Benigno Noynoy Aquino III’s inauguration, the headline on Philippine Daily Inquirer says “Locsin: May polls flawed”.
Locsin is the chair of the House committee on suffrage and electoral reforms, which on Sunday released a report based on its hearings that painted a far from ideal picture of the recently concluded automated elections.
The hearings took up the complaints of local candidates who claimed that they lost because of electoral fraud.
Interviewed over ABS-CBN News Channel (ANC), Locsin said Monday that cheating done under the automated system could be untraceable, unlike in manual elections where money and hard work could uncover a fake ballot.
Somewhere in San Juan, somebody might be saying “See, I told you so!” and someone in Cubao might have seen a flash of inspiration, a glimmer of hope. Perhaps, somebody will get some boot-taaaay tonight or the famed “insertion” that Senator Aquilino Pimentel so ungraciously accused another colleague of committing in his nuptial chamber.
But beyond the apparent doubt that it casts on the legitimacy of Aquino’s victory at the polls, the crucial question we have to answer is perhaps, “What are we going to do about it?”
One “flaw” that Locsin brought up is that the PCOS machines could be reset to zero:
Locsin said vote-rigging could have been done by resetting the PCOS machines to zero and then scanning ballots again. This was known through the explanations of Smartmatic, the technology provider of the Commission on Elections (Comelec).
“They should have told me though that their machine was capable of being reset to zero. I have no idea it was that easy to do it. The reason also why none of us, including myself, ever thought about that is that the critics of automation kept focusing on other issues,” he said.
If that is true, then the next question should be whether such was actually DONE on election day?
Locsin points to the fact that voting in some places occurred at 10PM and therefore could have used to send in results that would have swung the elections one way or the other for certain candidates. Granting that this is true, the next question would be, how many such machines transmitted at 10:00 PM? Moreover, who was the winner in those machine’s results?
The thing is, did the “flaw’ that Locsin is pointing to occur in so many precincts that it drastically affected the outcome of the elections? Did it happen and affect the outcome of local elections? Did it AFFECT THE OUTCOME OF RESULTS IN THE FIRST DISTRICT OF MAKATI?
Anyhow, Locsin goes on to say:
He also said cheating under automated and manual polls was very different, with manual polls providing a way to uncover concrete evidence.
“The difference between cheating in manual is that at the end of the road, if you have the money and the time, you can check whether the handwritten ballot is real or not,” he said.
Examining manual ballots is a flawed operation and just as problematic as examining allegedly fake signatures. Perhaps what Locsin is really pointing out is that with enough money in the pockets of the right people and a battery of election lawyers, you can find flaws that could invalidate the votes of your political rivals.
In anycase, Locsin is in a rather bad position to air these complaints… He was, after all, among the chief architects of Poll automation along with fellow former ACCRA lawyer, Senator Richard Gordon. He now seems to put the blame on poll automation critics for not spotting this flaw… a fact which shows that the critics were useless and that the oversight committee was ignorant of certain crucial aspects of poll automation.
“They should have told me though that their machine was capable of being reset to zero. I have no idea it was that easy to do it. The reason also why none of us, including myself, ever thought about that is that the critics of automation kept focusing on other issues,” he said.
Hindsight is always 20-20…
And oh, by the way, how do you suppose Congressman Locsin will be able to oppose the automation of the elections in 2013 after his wife (and political proxy) Maria Lourdes Locsin lost to Monique Lagdameo? Is it possible that Lagdameo will also act as proxy and support Locsin’s stand on Poll Automation?
Related Posts:
March 28th, 2010 by Malayang Halalan
Does the Commission on Election have the capability to accurately monitor the number of political ads taken out by candidates?
Well, apparently, it doesn’t have the capability to actually count the number of political ads that a candidate puts out. Otherwise, it would have been the first to warn candidate X, Y, or Z that they are already approaching their limits and should probably ease up on political ad spending.
What it basically relies on, believe it or not, is an ‘honesty’ based system — wherein candidates or political parties turn in reports of how much they have spent on political ads. A refinement on this ‘honesty’ based system is that they require TV stations, Radio Stations, and Print to submit reports on the advertisements sold to politicians.
As if such reports cannot be mis-reported in a way that would be favorable to the candidates.
Actually, for a small fee of about P150,000 a month, Comelec could have just hired a media mon
itoring agency (a company that does nothing but monitor radio, TV, and print media) to count the number of political advertisements. But apparently, after spending P7.2 Billion out of the P10 Billion allotted for automated elections, it didn’t think it could afford to pay for such a service which would have ensured that candidates (at least at the National level) would keep within the limits set by the Fair Elections Act or RA 9006.
Section 6 of this law is intended to make sure that all candidates have equal access to Media Time and Space, meaning that all candidates can advertise only within a specific set of limits.
Here is that section:
Section 6. Equal Access to Media Time and Space. – All registered parties and bona fide candidates shall have equal access to media time and space. The following guidelines may be amplified on by the COMELEC.
6.1. Print advertisements shall not exceed one-fourth (1/4) page, in broad sheet and one-half (1/2) page in tabloids thrice a week per newspaper, magazine or other publications, during the campaign period.
6.2. (a) Each bona fide candidate or registered political party for a nationally elective office shall be entitled to not more than one hundred twenty (120) minutes of television advertisement and one hundred eighty (180) minutes of radio advertisement whether by purchase or donation.
(b) Each bona fide candidate or registered political party for a locally elective office shall be entitled to not more than sixty (60) minutes of television advertisement and ninety (90) minutes of radio advertisement whether by purchase or
For this purpose, the COMELEC shall require any broadcast station or entity to submit to the COMELEC a copy of its broadcast logs and certificates of performance for the review and verification of the frequency, date, time and duration of advertisements broadcast for any candidate or political party.
6.3. All mass media entities shall furnish the COMELEC with a copy of all contracts for advertising, promoting or opposing any political party or the candidacy of any person for public office within five (5) days after its signing. In every case, it shall be signed by the donor, the candidate concerned or by the duly authorized representative of the political party.
6.4. No franchise or permit to operate a radio or television stations shall be granted or issued, suspended or cancelled during the election period.
In all instances, the COMELEC shall supervise the use and employment of press, radio and television facilities insofar or the placement of political advertisements is concerned to ensure that candidates are given equal opportunities under equal circumstances to make known their qualifications and their stand on public issues within the limits set forth in the Omnibus Election Code and Republic Act No. 7166 on election spending.
The COMELEC shall ensure that radio or television or cable television broadcasting entities shall not allow the scheduling of any program or permit any sponsor to manifestly favor or oppose any candidate or political party by unduly or repeatedly referring to or including said candidate and/or political party in such program respecting, however, in all instances the right of said broadcast entities to air accounts of significant news or news worthy events and views on matters of public interest.
6.5. All members of media, television, radio or print, shall scrupulously report and interpret the news, taking care not to suppress essential facts nor to distort the truth by omission or improper emphasis. They shall recognize the duty to air the other side and the duty to correct substantive errors promptly.
6.6. Any mass media columnist, commentator, announcer, reporter, on-air correspondent or personality who is a candidate for any elective public office or is a campaign volunteer for or employed or retained in any capacity by any candidate or political party shall be deemed resigned, if so required by their employer, or shall take a leave of absence from his/her work as such during the campaign period: Provided, That any media practitioner who is an official of a political party or a member of the campaign staff of a candidate or political party shall not use his/her time or space to favor any candidate or political party.
6.7. No movie, cinematograph or documentary portraying the life or biography of a candidate shall be publicly exhibited in a theater, television station or any public forum during the campaign period.
6.8. No movie, cinematograph or documentary portrayed by an actor or media personality who is himself a candidate shall be publicly exhibited in a theater, television station or any public forum during the campaign period.
In any case, the two leading candidates in the 2010 elections (Manny Villar and Noynoy Aquino) may actually have to regulate themselves because the Comelec either can’t do it or won’t do it.
What could be the punishment for exceeding political ad spending limits?
Comelec Resolution 8758 states:
SEC. 39. Election Offense. – Any violation of RA 9006 and these rules shall constitute an election offense punishable under the first and second paragraphs of Sec. 264 of the Omnibus Election Code in addition to administrative liability whenever applicable. Any aggrieved party may file a verified complaint for violation of these rules with the Law Department of the Commission.
Section 264 of the Omnibus Election Code states:
Sec. 264. Penalties. – Any person found guilty of any election offense under this Code shall be punished with imprisonment of not less than one year but not more than six years and shall not be subject to probation. In addition, the guilty party shall be sentenced to suffer disqualification to hold public office and deprivation of the right of suffrage. If he is a foreigner, he shall be sentenced to deportation which shall be enforced after the prison term has been served. Any political party found guilty shall be sentenced to pay a fine of not less than ten thousand pesos, which shall be imposed upon such party after criminal action has been instituted in which their corresponding officials have been found guilty.
In case of prisoner or prisoners illegally released from any penitentiary or jail during the prohibited period as provided in Section 261, paragraph (n) of this Code, the director of prisons, provincial warden, keeper of the jail or prison, or persons who are required by law to keep said prisoner in their custody shall, if convicted by a competent court, be sentenced to suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period if the prisoner or prisoners so illegally released commit any act of intimidation, terrorism of interference in the election.
Any person found guilty of the offense of failure to register or failure to vote shall, upon conviction, be fined one hundred pesos. In addition, he shall suffer disqualification to run for public office in the next succeeding election following his conviction or be appointed to a public office for a period of one year following his conviction.
Right now, we are wondering if either Villar or Aquino will do the right thing and SHOW THE PEOPLE THAT THEY WILL FOLLOW THE LAW.
Villar, Aquino exceed ad airtime limit, says private watchdog
By Nikko Dizon
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 16:26:00 03/26/2010
MANILA, Philippines—(UPDATE) The two leading presidential candidates in the May 2010 elections have already exceeded the 120-minute air time limit on political advertisements alloted to them in each of the country’s top two television networks, a consortium of non-government organizations monitoring candidates’ campaign spending said Friday.
Based on data provided by AC Nielsen, the Pera at Pulitika Network reported in a press conference that Nacionalista Party standard-bearer Sen. Manuel Villar has aired political advertisements with a total of 128.25 minutes over GMA-7 and 122.5 minutes on ABS-CBN.
His strongest rival for the presidency, Sen. Benigno “Noynoy” Aquino III of the Liberal Party, has 118 minutes of ads aired over GMA-7 and 129 minutes on ABS-CBN.
Deposed President Joseph Estrada has aired 77.50 minutes worth of ads over ABS-CBN and 65 minutes on GMA 7; Sen. Richard Gordon (Bagumbayan Party), 52 minutes on ABS-CBN and 43 minutes on GMA-7; former Defense Secretary Gilbert Teodoro (Lakas-Kampi-CMD), 3.50 minutes on ABS-CBN and 4 minutes on GMA 7; and evangelist Eddie Villanueva (Bangon Pilipinas Movement), 3.50 minutes on ABS-CBN and 1.00 minute on GMA-7.
Related Posts:
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:
February 2nd, 2010 by Malayang Halalan
According to the latest SWS survey, Noynoy Aquino is losing ground to Manny Villar. In the results of the SWS survey, Aquino slid down to 42% from 46%, Villar moved up to 35% from 27%, Estrada slid down to 13% from 16%, and Teodoro slid down to 4% down from 5%.
The survey was conducted in December, prior to the Senate hearing on the C-5 controversy where Villar’s colleagues were said to be set to censure him. One would expect that this heavily publicized political free for all at the senate — with several senators running for president — would cause Villar’s survey numbers to fall a couple of notches. At this point, the surfacing of the survey showing Villar gaining ground may actually be a ploy to project that Villar’s forward momentum was hardly affected by the negative publicity. It might be an attempt to project strength in the face of serious challenges.
Today, a news report in the Philippine Daily Inquirer has political analyst Ramon Casiple, executive director of the Institute of Political and Electoral Reform (IPER), attributing Villar’s “steady” rise in the surveys to the effective messaging of his political ads.
Certainly, the sheer Last Song Syndrome created by the bunch of kids singing Villar’s jingle may be enough to turn people into mindless voting drones. But Casiple proposes that Villar’s messaging may be helping him because of its emphasis and clarity on what he will do rather than what he will fight against.
Here’s what Casiple says:
Sen. Manuel Villar had been able to narrow the gap between him and Aquino not only because of his many ads but also because Aquino had not been able to get across his message of what he would do if he won the presidency.
Casiple acknowledged that Aquino “has come out strongly against corruption and against the sins of the Arroyo administration, but we are electing the nation’s leader here and people expect him to be able to do something about their myriad of problems.”
“The perception is Villar is saying ‘I will take you all out of poverty’ while for Noynoy, it’s like ‘I will think about it but I promise you I won’t steal,’” Casiple added.
Casiple certainly has his adherents and I don’t want to assail the integrity of his perceptual analysis, but it seems unlikely that mere messaging through political ads can trump actual issues. The article in the Inquirer seems, particularly this excerpt, seems to cast Casiple as endorsing Villar.
Reading the article further, Casiple’s analysis doesn’t come up all rosy for Villar as it indicates that although the candidate has made gains, these gains are coming at a slower rate.
While the SWS survey indicated that Aquino was vulnerable, the results showed that Villar’s surge had slowed down. “In the previous survey, his numbers jumped from 27 to 33 percent but now it only increased from 33 to 35 percent,” Casiple said.
He said this was because the number of undecided voters had gone down to just one percent and so for the candidates to move upward in the polls, they would have to raid voters from other camps. “This means the next stage of the campaign will really be a slugfest.”
Casiple further points out what Villar has to do in order to win over Aquino:
“If Senator Villar wants to go up, he will have to find a way to get Estrada’s support or cannibalize Erap. And since Noynoy is now vulnerable, I expect Senator Villar to continue going after him,” Casiple said.
He said Estrada was vulnerable because the public was already thinking that this was going to be a fight between Aquino and Villar.
Casiple said Villar still faced an uphill battle if he wanted to top Aquino because his surge had slowed down.
“The latest survey showed that he got one percentage point from Aquino over the last three weeks. At this rate, it means a deduction of 1 percentage point [from Aquino] every three weeks [but] we only have around 90 days left. So, it’s really going to be hard,” he said.
Only at the foot of the article do we see Casiple saying that the C-5 controversy may actually affect Villar’s numbers:
Casiple added that Villar’s numbers might also be affected in the next survey by the raging C-5 controversy in the Senate.
“It’s expected to be bad for him and I don’t think the Liberal Party will just take this (latest survey results) sitting down,” he said.
I think that the article as a whole might have been poorly constructed and in its construction lent the impression that Casiple was favoring Villar in his analysis.
top 4 in Latest SWS survey: Aquino 42% (down from 46%), Villar 35% (up from 27%), Estrada 13% (down from 16%), and Teodoro 4% (down from 5%)
Related Posts:
February 2nd, 2010 by Malayang Halalan
Who will succeed Gloria Macapagal Arroyo?
A recent article from Reuters identified “Five political risks to watch in the Philippines” and these are:
1. The successor to President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo
2. Internal security
3. Corruption and the rule of law
4. Government effectiveness
5. Environment
Identified as a crucial element to watch out for under the heading of ” SUCCESSOR TO PRESIDENT GLORIA MACAPAGAL ARROYO” is if the country’s electoral system produces a clear and credible winner for the position of President in the May 2010 polls.
Here’s that excerpt:
The Philippines elects a new president on May 10, and many of the candidates are already making populist policy promises. The race remains wide open and there is no clear favourite at this stage despite the son of revered former President Cory Aquino taking a strong lead in opinion polls. Former President Joseph Estrada is also among the candidates, which is a worry for markets because of his lack of fiscal discipline and stories of policy being formulated during late-night drinking sessions with gambling buddies. Other frontrunners are billionaire property developer-turned-politician Manuel “Manny” Villar, and former defence chief Gilberto “Gibo” Teodoro. [ID:nSP510426]
What to watch:
– The candidates and their platforms. As clear frontrunners emerge, their policy pledges and the implications for investment, governance and security will impact markets. [ID:nMAN118467]
– The stance of leading candidates on fiscal management will be a particular focus, given the necessity of boosting revenues and curbing spending to reduce the budget deficit.
– The worst-case scenario for markets would be a failed election that does not produce a clear and credible winner. This could be because of severe election violence and intimidation, or possible problems in a new automated voting system that is being tried for the first time. This outcome would weaken the peso <PHP=> and the stock market <.PSI>, with some analysts saying the main stock index could tumble below 2,600 points. [ID:nSGE60K025]
What strikes me is that despite the obvious importance of ensuring the success of the country’s first ever automated elections, more attention has been given to the possibility of its failure than the clear and definite strides made toward ensuring that poll automation runs without a hitch in May.
In November and December last year, whenever Comelec Chairman Jose Melo said that he was worried over what he virtually described as a “lack of progress” in the automation of the May polls, the statement hogged the frontpages of newspapers and first gaps of broadcast news programs. In a way, it seemed that the Comelec was saying that if automated election failed, it would not be the fault of the Comelec and all blame would fall on the supplier — Smartmatic-TIM.
All considered, poll automation doesn’t have many friends and a lot more people would benefit from its dismal failure rather than its success.
Politicians, despite all their chest thumping about their personal integrity and calls for clean elections, would rather have manual elections because this would enable them to resort to their huge store of tried and tested formulas for winning at all costs — or prices, if you want to be direct about it.
Certainly, the hoards of middlemen and brokers of industry of “winning at all costs” certainly don’t want automated elections to succeed because there is no way to manipulate the results. You can manipulate the voters, for sure, but that would be a costlier enterprise than just waiting for the ballots to arrive at the canvassing centers and doing their magic in the comfort of a hotel. Money won’t change hands for an assured win at the polls, or at least, not as much.
As the election draws near, we think that what is more crucial is not spotting the kinks in poll automation and wailing that the world is about to end. What we ought to be doing is to plan out steps and make ready to ensure that it does succeed.
Poll watchers, instead of devoting their time to watching the tally of ballots at precincts, should be mobilized to ensure that everyone who can vote, actually goes out and vote. They should also re-orient themselves to reporting any untoward incidents (ballots and PCOS machines not being delivered to the precinct, violence, and other activities that would disrupt the order on elections day.)
If poll automation succeeds, it will be unlike other elections were only candidates win. If poll automation succeeds, every Filipino would have won a crucial victory against the proven evils of manual elections and be on the road towards a real, monumental change in political culture.
Related Posts:
