ELECTION lawyer Romulo Macalintal admitted that there were “glitches” in the precinct count optical scan (PCOS) machines used in the 2010 elections, but stressed that the faults in the system did not affect the accuracy of vote counting.

Macalintal said that the “defects” noted on the 2010 PCOS machines were merely “formal defects,” which did not materially affect the results of the elections.

Formal defects, he said, are instances when the election returns do not contain the signature or thumb marks of the watchers, lack signature of one of the members of the board of election inspectors and lack of paper seals and similar formalities which, as decided by the Supreme Court in many cases, will not affect the accuracy and authenticity of the results.

“To date, those who claimed that the 2010 PCOS machines had defects or could be manipulated and used in cheating have not shown any concrete, real or material evidence to prove that the results of the 2010 polls were manipulated, cheated or rigged,” Macalintal said.

‘This is the reason why no election protest involving the 2010 elections had been successfully pursued at the Commission on Elections [Comelec] where . . . the picture images of the ballots were decrypted or decoded which showed the images of these ballots when they were prepared by the voters at the precinct level,” he added.

Cebu Archbishop Jose Palma, president of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines, earlier expressed belief that the PCOS machines used in 2010 elections were flawed and wanted the machines to be thoroughly examined before using these in the 2013 polls.

He said that the PCOS machines would be on the agenda of the Catholic church meeting in January because many people had reason to believe that the machines had “a lot of defects.”

Palma’s doubts on the PCOS machines echo those of Sen. Aquilino “Koko” Pimentel 3rd.

On Wednesday, Pimentel called on the country’s computer experts to hunt for glitches in the source codes that the Comelec will use in the machines.

But Macalintal said that the alleged “manipulation” or “cheating” was not done through the PCOS machines because these were man-made irregularities perpetuated by election shenanigans.

The election lawyer argued that the only way by which PCOS results could be manipulated is when there is actual terrorism or violence inside a particular precinct or area where armed men prepare the ballots and fed these into the PCOS machines.

“This does not only happen in an automated election but also in any form of election, be it manual or automated. And the remedy of the aggrieved party is to file a petition to declare a failure of election or annul the results of the election in the said precinct,” he said.

“Instead of looking back into the 2010 PCOS results, all stakeholders should now focus on how these alleged “glitches” or “defects” in the PCOS machines could be avoided or corrected in the 2013 polls,” Macalintal added. “Unless their claim of PCOS defects could be proven with precision that they could affect the results of the elections, it is the responsibility of election experts in information technology to encourage the electorate to trust our electoral system instead of sowing fear that the 2013 elections will be marred with such unfounded claim of fraud and irregularities.”

Made by the Argentinian company Smartmatic International, PCOS machines may be turned on by using a security key entrusted to the polling precinct’s board of election inspectors. Security pins are needed to configure the machine and show that there is no entry or vote in its memory.

The machine scans the marked ballots fed into it by voters. At the end of the balloting, the machine counts the votes and prints the returns.

The returns can be electronically transmitted to the poll body central server and the board of canvassers at the municipal, city, provincial and national levels.