April 1st, 2010 by Malayang Halalan
In the early part of this year, members of the opposition took turns in warning that a revolt will certainly follow should election fail in 2010.
On the surface, such statements can look like our senators and a number of candidates are merely pressuring Comelec and Smartmatic-TIM to make sure that the country’s first automated polls succeed.
However, if you look more deeply into the statements made in the early part of this year and the statement made by Presidential Candidate Noynoy Aquino about two weeks ago, you might get a feeling that the so-called revolt may not be so much a warning but an actual “PLAN B” in a strategy to end President Gloria Arroyo’s hold on power.
Actually, looking back at history, particularly with reference to the “walk out of Comelec canvassers” in 1986, you will see that it really doesn’t take much to justify a revolt.
Here’s an entry in Wikipedia about the 1986 walk out of Comelec canvassers:
The elections were held on February 7, 1986.[1] The official election canvasser, the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), declared Marcos the winner. The final tally of the COMELEC had Marcos winning with 10,807,197 votes against Aquino’s 9,291,761 votes. On the other hand, the final tally of the National Movement for Free Elections (NAMFREL), an accredited poll watcher, had Aquino winning with 7,835,070 votes against Marcos’ 7,053,068 points.[15] This electoral exercise was marred by widespread reports of violence and tampering of election results, culminating in the walkout of 29 COMELEC computer technicians to protest the deliberate manipulation of the official election results to favor Ferdinand Marcos. The walkout was considered as one of the early “sparks” of the People Power Revolution. The walkout also served as an affirmation to allegations of vote-buying, fraud, and tampering of election results by the KBL[16].
Because of reports of alleged fraud, the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) issued a statement condemning the elections. The United States Senate also passed a resolution stating the same condemnation.[1] US president Ronald Reagan issued a statement calling the fraud reports as “disturbing”.[17] In response to the protests, COMELEC claimed that Marcos with 53 percent won over Aquino. However, NAMFREL countered that the latter won over Marcos with 52 percent of votes.[18]
On February 15, Marcos was proclaimed by COMELEC and Batasang Pambansa as the winner amidst the controversy. All 50 opposition members of the Parliament walked out in protest. The Filipino people refused to accept the results, however, asserting that Aquino was the real victor. Both “winners” took their oath of office in two different places, with Aquino gaining greater mass support. Aquino also called for coordinated strikes and mass boycott of the media and businesses owned by Marcos’s cronies. As a result, the crony banks, corporations, and media were hit hard, and their shares in the stock market plummeted to record levels.
Prior to the Snap Election in 1986, people opposed to the Marcos Regime expressed doubt and cynicism over the elections. Some openly said that the elections would be ‘lutong macau’ or that its results would be pre-determined or that the results would be manufactured to favor Marcos.
Back then, Marcos — perhaps in a bid to give the elections additional credibility — touted that canvassing would be conducted using computers to ensure the accuracy of results.
To stage a reprisal of the series of walk outs after the 1986 snap elections, it would necessary to put a number of things in place long before the elections:
1. Doubt over the electoral process.
2. An independent count that would show results favoring Noynoy Aquino.
3. A series of dramatic events to bolster claims that elections had either failed or were rigged.
In terms of sowing doubt in the electoral process, Noynoy Aquino yesterday was reported as saying:
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20100331-261721/Aquino-fears-failure-of-election-scenario
With just 41 days left before Election Day, Sen. Benigno “Noynoy” Aquino III voiced doubts that the Commission on Elections (Comelec) could prevent a failure of elections and urged the public to remain vigilant.
In a press conference, Aquino said he had directed his campaign staff in the Liberal Party to confer with the church, election watchdogs, the diplomatic community, the military and police to avert the elections from being sabotaged through cheating or forced failure.
Aquino, the LP’s presidential candidate in the May 10 elections, said the military should be reminded to remain “apolitical,” calling the armed forces “a very necessary institution in preserving the stability of the state.”
In the rest of the article, Florencio Butz Abad (the LP campaign manager) enumerated a number of scenarios of how elections could fail.
1. “He said that the ultraviolet safety features of the PCOS machines had been disabled. “Fake ballots can pass through the machines.’”
2. “Abad also warned against what he said was the absence of a plan to conduct random auditing and a backup plan in case of computer breakdown and the delayed training of the board of election inspectors and technicians.”
3. Abad said one of three worst-case scenarios could occur in May—massive and wholesale cheating to favor the President’s candidate; partial failure of elections (no proclamation for the president, vice president and the senators) leaving the new House to elect its Speaker to take care of government; and a complete failure of elections with a military junta taking over.
The first two issues brought up by Abad have already been answered by officials of the Comelec as well as the officers of Smartmatic-TIM.
An independent count, however, may not be possible in the way that NAMFREL did a quick count in 1986 as well as 2004.
All things considered, we think it would be wise for Noynoy Aquino and members of the LP to refrain from casting doubt on the electoral process even before the first ballot is cast. For all we know, if in case Noynoy Aquino wins, his nearest rival — Manny Villar — may use the issues raised against poll automation to claim that he was cheated.
Then, where would we be?
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 28th, 2010 by Malayang Halalan
ABS-CBN’s Harapan: The Tandem Presidential Debate has been cancelled… or has it?
So called leading Presidential contenders have backed out of a debate which would have further allowed the 50 million strong voting population of the Philippines learn more about their positions on various issues.
The ABS-CBN Presidential debate may not be patterned after the US Presidential Debates where only two candidates would be given time to elaborate their stands on various policy issues and would be given time to grill one another, to expose flaws in each other’s positions.
But, even then, it would have given people the opportunity to see how they answer serious questions about what they claim to be their position on various issues.
It’s easy to claim that one will lift people out of poverty or fight corruption — anybody can do that. What ABS-CBN’s Harapan and other such debates or fora offer is the opportunity to test those claims.
For example, if Noynoy Aquino really wants to prove that he is a man of integrity and will fight corruption, we ought to hear about his definite and concrete plans to combat corruption. How does he plan to eliminate corruption in the most corrupt government agencies? Or better yet, how does he intend to eliminate corruption in just one government agency?
As for Manny Villar and his claim that he’ll lift people out of poverty, perhaps he’ll want to lay out his plan for turning residents of a place like Payatas into middle class micro-entrepreneurs.
Then again, Villar and Aquino may soon have to speak up in debates as they approach the limits (if they haven’t exceeded it already) set by Comelec on political advertisements.
Related Posts:
March 6th, 2010 by Malayang Halalan
This blog post comes from a blog called “The View from Below” and what is written here is worth considering when one is reading the latest news about Presidential surveys.
While most Filipinos may not understand the pertinent political issues that should define an election and therefore mold its outcome, surveys reduce complex Philippine political realities into something that is generally understandable — a numbers game.
It is a numbers game, perhaps, more in the sense that the candidate who has the most numbers is in a certain way viewed as the winner of the game.
However, the manner in which survey organizations come up with the numbers has been challenged and subjected to severe critique — usually by those who are in the bottom rung of the surveys or in certain instances, by the leading candidate who gets displaced from pole position.
Given the doubts cast on Philippine political surveys and the capacity of the common Filipino to understand the intricacies of survey design, implementation issues, and the mathematical analysis involved, surveys usually end up as publicity fodder for the leading candidate.
The Survey Says…
Pulse Asia and Social Weather Station (SWS) have been asking the question in their surveys: “If the elections were held today, who would you vote for?”
Worse, now they ask” If the elections were held to day, who in this list would you vote for: Noynoy, Manny, etc etc etc….?
Former Gallup executive David Moore notes that such “vote choice” is a “a forced choice” question that glosses over voter indecision. It does not take into account that statistically, most voters are undecided up to the final moments when t hey actually have to vote.
“The worst sin in poll reporting,” Moore notes, “was hedging.” This is what happens with a “forced choice” question. He also notes that in the US, the undecided can range from a low of 20 percent to as high as 70 percent—depending on how far away the election is.
In his book, The Opinion Makers, Moore makes the startling conclusion that pollsters “do not measure public opinion, they manufacture it.” He anchors this contention on the practice of polling firms to gloss over “voter indecision” during an election campaign. Moore notes:
Moore points out: “There is crisis in public-opinion polling today, a silent crisis that no one wants to talk about. The problem lies not in the declining response rates and increasing difficulty in obtaining representative sample, though these are issues the polling industry has to address. The problem lies, rather, in the refusal of media polls to tell the truth about those surveyed and about the larger electorate. Rather than tell us the essential facts about the public, they feed us a fairy-tale picture of a completely rational, all-knowing and fully engaged citizenry. They studiously avoid reporting on widespread public apathy, indecision and ignorance. The net result is conflicting poll results and a distortion of public opinion that challenges the credibility of the whole polling enterprise. Nowhere is this more often the case than in election polling.”
Isn’t it funny that candidates – even the front runners in the Pulse Asia and SWS surveys — subscribe to these pollsters but actually use other pollsters and studies confidentially at the same time for their strategic planning?
The answer is simple: The confidential studies reveal the true measure of their success (or failure) and accurately guide them in their plans. SWS and Pulse Asia results have been bought and are instruments of public (and media) manipulation. They are there to condition minds to a pre-determined result or, worse, manipulate them ino thinking there is a bandwagon for these cadidates, and not following it will be a waste of votes.
Lokohin niyo lola niyo!
Related Posts:
March 6th, 2010 by Malayang Halalan
The Philippine Daily Inquirer’s report on a survey showing that Manny Villar lost six percentage points while Joseph Erap Estrada gained six percentage points seems to suggest that the two candidates share support from the same pool of voters.
In their political ads, both candidates emphasize claims of being one with the poor and promise to lift people out of poverty.
Villar loses 6 points; Estrada gains 6 points
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 01:43:00 03/06/2010
MANILA, Philippines—Not even Sen. Manuel Villar’s speech at the Senate claiming innocence with regard to the C-5 road extension controversy could avert the drop of 6 percentage points in his ratings in the latest Pulse Asia survey.
The results of the February 2010 Pre-election Survey for National Elective Positions conducted on Feb. 21-25 showed that support for Villar, the standard-bearer of the Nacionalista Party, had declined by 6 percentage points (or from 35 percent to 29 percent), and that his closest rival, Sen. Benigno “Noynoy” Aquino III of the Liberal Party, would have won the presidency if the elections were held last month.
With the noncommissioned survey’s margin of error of plus or minus 2 percentage points, support for Aquino was statistically unchanged from 37 percent in January (when he and Villar were on a statistical tie) to 36 percent in February.
The big mover in the survey was Joseph “Erap” Estrada of the Pwersa ng Masang Pilipino, who was ousted from the presidency in 2001, convicted of plunder in 2007 and pardoned weeks later.
His support rose to 18 percent last month, up 6 percentage points from January, placing him third in the presidential race.
“This means that Erap has reclaimed the support of the majority of our poor voters, those in the D and E economic classes,” Reuters quoted Estrada’s spokesperson Margaux Salcedo as saying.
Aquino leading in ABC
Pulse Asia noted in its report to the media Friday that Villar’s privilege speech in the Senate clearing himself of wrongdoing in the C-5 road extension project, and the senators’ failure to vote on the committee report seeking to censure him, were among the events that dominated the news headlines in February.
The survey results showed Aquino enjoying a significant lead in Metro Manila (40 percent) and among social classes ABC (43 percent) and D (36 percent).
He shared the top spot with Villar in Luzon outside Metro Manila (33 percent for him, 31 percent for Villar); Visayas (39 percent for him, 38 percent for Villar); and among the poorest class E (36 percent for him, 33 percent for Villar).
The rating of Gilbert Teodoro, the administration’s standard-bearer, rose by 2 percentage points (from 5 to 7 percent). But it is statistically insignificant in light of the survey’s margin of error.
The ratings of the remaining candidates were statistically unchanged.
Bro. Eddie Villanueva of Bangon Pilipinas (2 percent) and Sen. Richard Gordon of Bagumbayan (1 percent) garnered ratings similar to those in Pulse Asia’s January survey.
Those who received ratings of less than zero were Sen. Jamby Madrigal (0.3 percent), Nicanor Perlas (0.2 percent) and JC de los Reyes (0 percent).
Still included in the survey was Vetellano Acosta of the Kilusang Bagong Lipunan (0.04 percent), who has just been declared a nuisance candidate by the Commission on Elections.
VP race
Aquino’s running mate, Sen. Manuel “Mar” Roxas II, maintained a significant lead over other vice presidential candidates with 43 percent.
Roxas was followed by Villar’s running mate, Sen. Loren Legarda (27 percent), and Estrada’s running mate, Makati Mayor Jejomar Binay (15 percent).
The other candidates posted 1-digit ratings: Bayani Fernando (4 percent), Eduardo Manzano (2 percent), Perfecto Yasay (1 percent), Jose “Jay” Sonza (1 percent) and Dominador Chipeco Jr. (0.1 percent).
The survey used face-to-face interviews with 1,800 Filipino adults. For the electoral preference module, Pulse Asia used a sample ballot measuring 8.5 x 26 inches, the size of the official ballot of the Commission on Elections.
The respondents who chose a presidential candidate were asked why they did so.
Among the reasons they cited were: Not corrupt/clean record (26 percent); cares for the poor (22 percent); can do something, is doing something, will do something (14 percent); helps, helping others (11 percent); good person (10 percent); used to governing, has experience (7 percent); knowledgeable/ intelligent (5 percent); listens to people (3 percent); and other reasons (1 percent).
Still undecided
Six percent of Filipino voters have yet to decide on their presidential preference or have no candidate in mind, according to the survey.
Seven percent of voters have no vice-presidential preference. Lawrence de Guzman of Inquirer Research, with a report from Reuters
Related Posts:
