automation election system
DESCRIPTION
English 103 PaperTRANSCRIPT
Cendaña 1
Mark Joseph P. Cendaña
Mr. Victor Primo
English 103
23 Oct 2009
Automation Election System: Hope of 2010 Elections
The 2010 Philippine national election is fast approaching. The
remaining months before May 2010 will be crucial to the Filipinos but also
exciting – we would hear candidate jingles and see media advertisements,
pamphlets and streamers posted and scattered around the place and
political rallies are about to give a bang. Are we excited for it? Or rather, we
should ask ourselves now, “are we really ready for it?”
In the Philippines, election is always looked forward to by most
Filipinos. Many are enthusiastic to know who will be the next set of officials
that will take over and lead the country for the upcoming years to come.
The optimism of most Filipinos is a sign of hope that we seek for good
leaders. We tend to look forward to a better tomorrow for our country as we
put our trust on leaders we voted. But despite all the hoping for a better
and stronger country, the undermining problems and controversies over the
years are still very much alive in the country. Election has been
accompanied by fear and injustice through the years. It is always
controversial as many fraud cases and issues have remained unsolved. With
the failure of manual voting in the Philippines, it is best that we try to know
what other alternatives that we could go for in order to avoid election frau
Cendaña 2
in the Philippines. The new system that the Philippines will have in 2010
election will be the Automated Election System or AES. Specifically it is an
optical scanner known as Precinct Counting Optical Scanner or PCOS that
would count the vote of a ballot through indentifying the shaded oval. With
this new electoral system, it is proper that we should know how this newly
imposed way of counting and canvassing will make a change for the
country’s future. Specifically, we sought to find answers on how we will
achieve free, orderly and honest elections as we pursue a nationwide
automation election system in the Philippines 2010 elections.
During the past elections Philippines, counting and canvassing is
manually done. Section 210 of the Omnibus Code of Elections describes the
whole process of manual election. It is a long process of counting. Every
vote shall be read aloud by the chairman of each precinct and tallied in
tarots. It requires rigorous security in counting and checking of validity of
each casted ballot before tallied by the poll clerk and be passed on to the
canvassing areas such as the municipal and national level (112-125).
For quite a long time, election in the Philippines has lacked freedom.
Freedom is compromised as well as the future of our country when there’s
manipulation of results. Externally, vote-buying is very visible in the
country. But in the election proper, during the counting process, vote
tampering and rigging is also a problem in the country. Even we would say
that many Filipinos volunteered to be poll watchers, the existence of these
problems could still be accounted to the fact that the electoral system in the
Cendaña 3
Philippines, especially the process of casting and counting votes, is very
troublesome and problematic. According to an interview with the Director
IV of Education and Information Department of Commission of Elections
James Arthur Jimenez, the teachers, who are the chairman of each precinct,
including the poll clerk and poll watchers experienced coercion during
election by some greedy running candidates who wanted to win instantly
through cheating. Their lives were compromised by threat. Furthermore, in
her book How to fight election fraud, Sen. Miriam Santiago mentions that
there are deliberate distortions of the entries in the election returns by
creating a variance of words and figures entered. Moreover, there is
destruction and theft of electoral returns as well (72). These situations
make us realize that manual voting is very vulnerable to election fraud in
the sense that the democracy, wherein freedom is much highlighted as
right, is not present. On worst scenario, in an article of Doronila, he
mentions that vote-tampering could ignite turmoil and rebellion on the
people (A13). The lack of freedom in elections would not only diminish our
democracy but also compromised country’s progress through time.
Honesty is also absent in the previous election. In the counting
process, Santiago tells us that there was deliberate misrecording in the tally
sheets as the votes are read by the chairman of precinct. Substitution of
ballot filled for counting (72). Even Jimenez describes to the researcher how
tarots in tally sheets are miscopied by the poll clerk deliberately. Imagine a
Cendaña 4
4 tarots is recorded as 5 because deliberately it is tallied to look like as if it
looked like 5 tarots already.
According to the Omnibus Code of Election, during elections, after
votes are counted and results are canvassed in the local precincts, ballot-
box containing the vote returns and results are transported to the municipal
or city office for further tabulation. Then the municipal or city results are
passed on the national level for final counting of winners (126-139). This
canvassing stage of elections has been always hindered by ballot-box
stealing cases, especially during the transit of these ballot-boxes containing
the results from the local precinct. There is also theft and destruction that
has happened along the way with the election returns. Sometimes, lives of
people are threatened by the coercive means of stealing. Ballot-boxes were
exchanged by same ballot-boxes containing altered results or ballots
(Santiago 72). Most of the time, cases like this would look like as if nothing
had happened. But this problem would make people’s votes and hope gone
for nothing as well.
Doronila says that for a long time, official results that are being
delayed are opportunity for vote-tampering (A1). As we look back in 2007
elections, we could notice that it would take months before results are
finalized. This problem during the election shows how disorderly the
election in the Philippines could be especially in the canvassing. For one
reason, the lack of centralization system in the country is still a problem.
Doronila asserted that the opportunities for altering results have been
Cendaña 5
perceived as a result of the delay of declaring official results. This had lead
to the undermining of public confidence in election and the skepticism of
validity of leadership transition in the country though the years (A1). The
rigorous process of counting and transit of election returns and canvasses
are vulnerable to fraud. The researcher further believes that as we
understand that our country is an archipelago, it is really hard to establish a
system that would connect each 7100 islands, 90 million people with each
other. This means it would be hard to have the results finalized and
announced as soon as possible after the casting of votes. Jimenez mentioned
also that the longer the election results will be finalized, the more unstable
the results would be.
After hearing a lot of news about vote-tampering, ballot box stealing,
violence during the actual election and the tiresome months of waiting for
the final official results, we end up with the question “how valid are the
results?” We question the honesty of process and results during elections.
Thus the researcher believes that there is a need for reviewing the flaws of
ballot-box manual system of election and propose a new system that would
be best and fitting to solve the lack of freedom, honesty and order in the
country.
As what the researcher had presented already, election in the
Philippines has been prevalently troubled by many cases of election fraud
for the past decades. According to a news report, the Philippines is known
to have a tainted history of elections wherein there is violence, massive
Cendaña 6
vote-buying, and electoral fraud that always ruin the elections in the
country (BBC News). We could point out that one of the underlying
problems in our country’s election is the use ballot-box system during
casting of votes. This manual election system has caused the slow pace of
the election and thus made it vulnerable to different election fraud cases. In
2007 elections, Center for Media Freedom and Democracy of the
Philippines reported that 3 days after the election day, official COMELEC
count for the Senate elections was laboriously plodding into the thousands.
On the other hand, TV networks counts were already past the millions. It
could be possible that the difference of count and time provides the window
of opportunity for election operators to manipulate the count as the weeks
drag on, and to undermine the people’s will (1).
This upcoming 2010 election is another crucial stage for the
Philippines. This is the time when we Filipinos cast our votes again and
decide who we will choose as leaders that will run the country for next 6
years. In the researcher’s own opinion, with such uncertainty on our
troublesome electoral system, it is important to note that we need to review
the form of election we have been using for quite a long time. But on the
other hand, no matter what changes we will consider or implement, we
should see to it that this 2010 elections will be free, fair and orderly. In an
article by Averdano et. al, he cited that Sen. Escudero’s words that we
should “push through elections – manual or automatic”, but he affirms that
we should see to it that, “[elections] are clean, honest, transparent and
Cendaña 7
accurately reflect the will of the people.”(A6). Moreover, in a pledge of Jose
Melo, Commission on Elections Chairman, he included that it will be a
fraud-free, peaceful, clean and honest election in 2010 (A1).
Why is there a need to change the electoral system of the Philippine?
Global institutions on electoral systems have suggested standards on the
proper roles, functions, organization, financing and management of
electoral management bodies (EMB) in countries. One of these standards
includes the automation of the electoral system in order to achieve
sustainability of the EMB. Given the fact that elections in the Philippines
have always been manually conducted, the Commission on Elections or
COMELEC, as the country’s EMB, has been proposing automation election
system not only to satisfy these international standards, but also to reduce,
or better yet, eliminate electoral fraud and violence (IDEA; ACE Electoral
Knowledge Network).
Electoral reforms are very important for 2010. Rene Sarmiento, a
COMELEC Commissioner himself, affirms that the COMELEC is the public
authority in our country today that has to undertake urgent electoral
reforms for the common good. He said also that the present state of the
Philippine elections is far from being admirable and commendable.
Philippine election is always critiqued for its four letter Fs, ‘flaws, fraud,
failures and familial dominance’ (1). He also mentions the sorry state of
electoral process in the country today, wherein there’s familial dominance,
few efforts to correct the flaws in the electoral system that leads to vote-
Cendaña 8
rigging scandal, ballot box snatching and ballot switching, uncleaned
voters’ lists, manual and agonizingly protracted vote count and murder of
political leaders (2). The researcher strongly believes that there is really a
need for the country to have an electoral reform with the prevalent cases of
election frauds.
Sarmiento cited “Empowering People to Build a Just Peace in the Asia
Pacific” of Prof. Ed. Garcia, Senior Policy Advisor of International Alert and
former Convenor of Amnesty International-Philippines, who says that bad
governance is the main cause of most problems in Asia today, and he
proposes that to deal with this evil, a house of peace must be built on four
solid foundations, namely: respect for human rights, socio-economic
reforms, political and constitutional reforms and security reforms. With
these, Sarmiento said that COMELEC, similar to the house peace, must rest
on four solid foundations of the 2010 electoral reforms namely: automated
election system, civic literacy and voter education,
capability-building/professionalization of the COMELEC and strengthening
ties with the civil society/election stakeholders (2).
With the statements mentioned above, the researcher strongly
believes that the COMELEC has a role to do with the electoral reforms in
the country. It is important that we should look for the best solution on how
to solve election fraud in the country by reviewing the flaws of the ballot-
box system. This would lead us to a search of a new solution to avoid cases
of cheating and violence in the country. Institute for Political and Electoral
Cendaña 9
Reform, Philippines or IPER suggests that it is only comprehensive political
and electoral reforms that can effectively broaden participation in
Philippine democracy specifically the decrease of election violence and
credible electoral dispute resolution can only be done if these reforms are
intact and functioning (9).
In the pursuit of a new electoral reform in the Philippines, specifically
in the casting and counting of votes wherein most cases of election fraud
happens, today’s technological advancements are good factors we need to
consider to establish our reforms. According ACE Electoral Knowledge
Network, technology exists and plays a vital role in activities related to the
electoral process. The use of technology includes for instance the following
activities in the election: to gather voter lists, to set electoral boundaries, to
train staff, to print ballots, to conduct voter education campaigns, to record
cast votes, to count and consolidate vote results and to publish election
results. Furthermore, it is cited that the appropriate usage and application
of technology to the election process can make an increase in
‘administrative efficiency’, lessen costs, and enhance ‘political transparency
(paragraph 1).
Giving emphasis on technology, it is best to review and understand
the mechanism and advantage of automated election system or AES for the
Philippines upcoming 2010 elections. Automated election system,
hereinafter referred to as AES – is a system using appropriate technology
which has been demonstrated in the voting, counting, consolidating,
Cendaña 10
canvassing, and transmission of election results, and other electoral
processes (Republic Act No. 9369). Since May to July 2009, newspapers,
television and other reporting media had continually emphasized the leap
action of the government especially the effort of COMELEC to consider and
push through with a full and nationwide automated poll election in the 2010
elections.
The idea of adopting an AES in the Philippines is not actually an
abrupt decision that happened in a blink of an eye. It is very essential to
review some republic acts of the Philippines that has been approved by the
government. This includes Republic Act No. 9369 approved last January 23,
2007 that emphasizes the responsibility and action of COMELEC for the
innovation of automating our poll election in the upcoming elections
especially in 2010 which would encourage transparency, credibility,
fairness and accuracy of election (Republic of the Philippines, Congress of
the Philippines). It is best that we put a good knowledge and understanding
on the advantages of this technology and its effect on the upcoming
election.
Senator Edgardo Angara mentioned that transparency is what is
needed by the country, and immediately asserted that it is through an
automated election that we ensure the Filipino citizens’ votes will be
protected and counted in order to arrive to the appointing the next
leaders of the country (Alave and Ubac A-6). Sen. Angara words are
Cendaña 11
important to note when we are in doubt of the credibility, neutrality
and security of the AES.
In the researcher’s opinion, there will be order in poll automation. The
uniformity of procedures in election will make a difference on effect. As for
some reasons, implementing an automated system of elections enables
mobility among voters and also raises voter turnout by offering additional
channels, widens access for citizens with disabilities, reduces cost, and
delivers voting results reliably and more quickly (Krimmer, 2006).
The promise of technology makes life easy. With AES, the results of
winners will be announced at most about 2 days or at least 36 hours after
the voting is over by 6pm according to COMELEC (Jimenez). The prolonged
process of election in the Philippines especially in finalizing the results
made it more vulnerable for the results and ballot boxes altered and stolen
as weeks had already passed from the day of casting the votes (Doronila A-
1, A-13). COMELEC also asserts that election with AES will be simple
wherein the process of voting, counting and generation of results will be
quick.
The great advantage of AES is at most the elimination of election
fraud. With the long records of election fraud cases in the Philippine, the
necessity of going for an electoral system that would best work or address
for the type of problem we have is very important. In his work Automating
elections: Electronic voting machines have made mistakes too, Verzola said
that the most common reason for abandoning manual elections and going
Cendaña 12
for automation is to eliminate the clerical errors that have been endemic of
manual election counts (1). In addition, the COMELEC mentioned that the
canvassing process is transparent, auditable with no human-intervention
(Jimenez). Thus security is assured in an automated poll election and also
our votes.
In the course of pursuing the AES system in the Philippines, Sen.
Angara made his analogy on why it is important for us to go for an
automated election in 2010. Angara mentioned that automation of our
election in the country is a response to the current economic recession we
are experiencing. There is a demand that our national elections will be
credible and accurate, and express the will of the people. In this case, we
could say that freedom, honesty and order will be achieved through AES. In
addition, he asserted that any doubt with its results could stir political
instability and would lead to a ‘downward spiral of political uncertainty’ and
‘economic mess’. This effective election can only happen if we will have
from clean, fair and credible elections (Senate of the Philippines paragraph
2). He also affirms that the going for an automated electoral system is a
crucial step towards clean and honest elections though it won’t really be the
total cure for all election frauds that had existed and might also exist in
2010 elections. But at least, automating the polls will eliminate a lot of the
human intervention like vote-rigging (Senate of the Philippines paragraph
4).
Cendaña 13
The researcher could most probably reflect what Sen. Angara said
about the AES with the interview conducted with Jimenez. In a summarized
list, he mentions that AES could foremost remove the teacher from coercion
and hoodlum of the dirty politics in the Philippines. It would be a quicker
and easier way for the election process especially in the counting and
canvassing stage. The system design specifically the PCOS is democratize
wherein transparency is much achieve. Every one after the election will
have access with the results through internet and other official institutions
such as NAMFREL and KBP. They made the system resistant to hacking
wherein tampering would turn out to be evident if there is any. With the
given possibilities of good outcome with new election system, COMELEC
hopes to achieve their goals in the upcoming election to the free, honest
and orderly.
The Philippines is in need of a new electoral system that won’t only
give a good transition of the positions in the government and have leaders
that the majority had chosen, but it is more of acquiring a system that
would address the existing cases election fraud in the country that had
seemed to have undermined our progress as a nation, politically, socially
and economically. Jimenez gave his remarks on the promising effect of AES
to the 2010 election by assuring that the counting and canvassing stage of
election will be at most free from the cheating and other means of
manipulating the results. Yet he leaves a remark that AES will not cure the
entire problem in our elections. Counting and canvassing is just part of it.
Cendaña 14
He asks “how about vote buying, stupidity and other coercion? How can we
address it?” These problems are not addressed by AES. But at most, he
assures that the winner of the election will be accurate. He said that there’s
hope for the country, but there’s more to be done.
Given the promise of automation election system, it really aims to
achieve the ideal concept we should have with our elections. That is, it is
free from any fraud cases due human intervention and corruption; there is
honesty in all means of knowing the truth about who has the most votes and
who cheated; and have order, or peaceful, wherein it won’t waste,
compromise or threaten lives of people who only wants to make the
elections a success in the country. Let’s us all be ready and critical with the
every changes in the country. In the end, the success of the 2010 election is
up to us if we will be vigilant about the truth and the good for our country
and for the betterment of the Filipino people.
Works Cited
ACE Electoral Knowledge Network. “Overview of Elections and Technology”
2009. ACE. 3 Oct 2008 <http://aceproject.org/aceen/topics/et/et10/?
searchterm=automation>.
Cendaña 15
Alave, Kristine, and Michael Lim Ubac. “‘Dream’ Polls Promised:
Smartmatic Vows 100% Accuracy, Winners in 3 Days.” Philippine
Daily Inquirer 5 July 2009: A1 and A6.
Averdano et. al. “Firm’s Pullout Very Suspicious, Say Gordon.” Philippine
Daily Inquirer 30 June 2009: A1 & A6.
BBC News. “Violence Mars Philippine Count”. 15 May 2008. BBC
International. 15 Oct 2009
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6655079.stm>.
Doronilla, Amando. “Dirty Polls in 2010 Can Spark Revolt.” Philippine Daily
Inquirer 29 June 2009: A1 and A13.
IPER. Understanding the Election-related Violent Incidence of 2007
Election. Manila: Institute for Political and Electoral Reform. 2008.
Jimenez, James Arthur. Personal Interview. 20 Oct 2009.
Krimmer, Robert. Electronic Voting. A Conference Proceeding from the 2nd
International Workshop Co-organized by Council of Europe, ESF TED,
IFIP WG 8.5 and E-Voting.CC. Bonn: KöllenDruck and Verlag GmbH.
2006.
Olivares-Cunanan, Belinda. “Go Manual Now and Make Our Machines in
2016.” Philippine Daily Inquirer 1 July 2009: A6.
Santiago, Miriam Defensor. Election Code Annotated (Omnibus Code of
Election). Quezon City: Phoenix Press, Inc., 2001.
Santiago, Miriam Defensor. How to Fight Election Fraud. Metro Manila:
Zita Publishing Corporation, 1991.
Cendaña 16
Sarmiento, Rene. Building the House of Electoral Reforms for 2010 and
Beyond. Forum in San Beda College, Alabang. 2008 Feb 27.
Senate of the Philippines. “Automated Elections: Vital Step Towards
Ensuring Credible Transition of Power – Angara.” 11 May 2009.
Senate of the Philippines 14th Congress. 2 Aug. 2009 <
http://www.senate.gov.ph/press_release/2009/0511_angara2.asp>.
Verzola, Roberto. “Automating Elections: Electronic Voting Machines Have
Made Mistakes Too”. HALAL Working Paper No.4. Social Science
Research Network. 20 June 2008.
References
ACE Electoral Knowledge Network. (2009). “Overview of elections and
technology”. ACE. Retrieve Oct 3, 2008, from
http://aceproject.org/aceen/topics/et/et10/?
searchterm=automation.
Alave, K. and Ubac, L. (2009, July 5). Dream’ polls promised: Smartmatic
vows 100% accuracy, winners in 3 days. Philippine Daily Inquirer, A1
and A6.
Averdano et. al. (2009, June 30). Firm’s pullout very suspicious, say Gordon.
Philippine Daily Inquirer, A1 & A6.
Cendaña 17
BBC News. (2008). Violence mars Philippine count. BBC International.
Retrieved October15, 2009, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-
pacific/6655079.stm.
Doronilla, A. (2009, June 29) Dirty polls in 2010 can spark revolt. Philippine
Daily Inquirer, A1 and A13.
IPER. (2008). Understanding the election-related violent incidence of 2007
election. Manila: Institute for Political and Electoral Reform.
Krimmer, R. Electronic Voting. (2006). A conference proceeding from the
2nd International Workshop co-organized by Council of Europe, ESF
TED, IFIP WG 8.5 and E-Voting.CC. Bonn: KöllenDruck and Verlag
GmbH.
Olivares-Cunanan, B. (2009, July 1): Go manual now and make our machines
in 2016. Philippine Daily Inquirer, A6.
Santiago, M. D. (2001). Election code annotated (Omnibus Code of
Election). Quezon City: Phoenix Press, Inc.
Santiago, M. D. (1991). How to fight election fraud. Metro Manila: Zita
Publishing Corporation.
Sarmiento, Rene. (2008, Feb 27). Building the House of Electoral Reforms
for 2010 and Beyond. Forum in San Beda College, Alabang.
Senate of the Philippines. (2009) Automated elections: vital step towards
ensuring credible transition of power – Angara. Senate of the
Philippines 14th Congress. Retrieved August 2, 2009, from
http://www.senate.gov.ph/press_release/2009/0511_angara2.asp.
Cendaña 18
Verzola, R. (2008, June 20). Automating elections: electronic voting
machines have made mistakes too. HALAL Working Paper No.4.
Social Science Research Network.