|
By Efren Danao, Senior
Reporter
Only the full computerization of
the election could eliminate most of the problems and controversies
surrounding the electoral process, Sen. Richard Gordon maintained in
an interview with The Times.
Gordon, chairman of the Senate
Committee on Suffrage and Electoral Reforms, was indignant that the
Commission on Elections did not implement the amended law on
computerized election, which Congress passed last January.
The poll body claimed lack of
material time in implementing the law, even if on a pilot basis in
selected key cities and provinces.
Gordon said that computerization
would make elections less expensive for candidates.
“For one thing, it will do away
with poll watchers,” he explained.
The main come-on of computerized
election is the assurance that the results of the election will be
truly reflective of the will of the people. With the faster
canvassing of votes, there will be a smaller window of opportunity
for operators to change the outcome of the election.
“But first, we must clean the
voters list to purge it of multiple registrants, of the birds and
the bees, and use biometrics to make sure only the registered voters
can vote,” he stressed.
Gordon said that besides the
computerization of election, the system of campaigning should also
be amended.
“Candidates for national
election should be allowed to campaign for six months, and the
Comelec should require all candidates to engage in debates instead
of campaigning by teams,” he said.
He maintained that 90 days of
campaigning is too short to make a national candidate better known
and his advocacies, properly amplified. The longer campaign period
would not necessarily result in higher campaign expenses, he
contended.
“Let the Comelec or the
Kapisanan ng mga Brod-kaster sa Pilipinas handle all ads so there
will be no over spending,” he said.
He noted that some candidates are
suspected of having spent more than the amount allowed for radio and
television advertisements.
Gordon also said that requiring
candidates to engage in debates would make the campaign more
peaceful and more informative.
“Rival candidates would be
required to go to a place together and engage in a debate. All
issues would be immediately joined,” he explained.
He is confident that with the
series of debates being the meat of the campaign, personal attacks
would be avoided and election tension would be minimized.
Comelec credibility
A description of the Comelec by a
group of Philippine NGOs and an international group supported by the
USAID, in relation to the 2004 election is incredibly applicable to
it in respect of the 2007 one.
“The Commission on Elections (Comelec)
did little to improve its credibility with the public in the pre-
and post-election period. Recent appointments of commissioners with
little election administration experience were perceived to be
political in nature and contributed to a perception that the
commission was no longer operating as an independent body.
Furthermore, Comelec’s failure to modernize the voting and
tabulation process resulted in the reliance on the same antiquated
voting system used in the Philippines since the 1930s and a counting
process that took several weeks.
• Election officials failed to
adequately prepare for and address potential obstacles to broad
electoral participation caused by the existence of two voter lists
that were released only days before the election in contradiction to
existing electoral law.
• An antiquated voting system,
system error and improper management of registration databases
caused the disfranchisement of thousands of voters.
An accurate and complete
assessment of any election must take into account all aspects of the
election process. These include: 1) conditions set up by the legal
framework for elections; 2) the pre-election period before and
during the campaign; 3) the voting process; 4) the counting process;
5) the tabulation of results; 6) the investigation and resolution of
complaints; 7) conditions surrounding the implementation of results.
No election can be viewed in isolation of the political process in
which it takes place; the pre-election period, including electoral
preparations, the political environment, and the degree of
participation by all actors, must therefore be given considerable
weight when evaluating the nature of elections.
Election management
and administration
Comelec suffers from a number of
serious institutional deficiencies that limit its capacity to
administer quality elections and which necessitate reliance on
extensive support from other government bodies and civil society. It
has limited professional and technical capacity, a weak and poorly
resourced field structure, organizational problems including a
commissioner in charge management style, and an absence of standard
operating procedures required to manage such a large organization.
Electoral modernization has been
an issue since the 1998 election and Comelec was required to
modernize the voting and canvassing system by 2004. This process was
hampered by an illegal bidding process and the purchase of less than
optimal equipment. In response, the Supreme Court stopped the
automation of the polling, counting and transmission of results.
Despite the problems cited by the
Court, it is unlikely that Comelec would have been able to
successfully implement the automation program. Ultimately, millions
of pesos were spent by the government, but with no resulting
modernization. Comelec was forced to rely on the antiquated default
system used since the 1930s.
In general, voter information and
education programs that might have helped to facilitate an orderly
and efficient voting process on election day were uncoordinated and
poorly implemented. Moreover, the training of polling officials was
done through parallel training programs developed by the Department
of Education (DepEd), Comelec, and civil society.
Ironically, Comelec’s training
was the least effective and most poorly organized of the three.
Comelec officials expressed
concern about lack of coordination between the headquarters in
Manila and its regional offices. This led to confusion over
activities to be implemented in the field including posting of
voters’ lists, procurement of election day materials, and the
debate over the implementation of an Election Day Quick Count.
Comelec field staff expressed dismay with the lack of election
administration experience among the commissioners and senior staff
of the organization, but was reluctant to complain for fear of being
transferred to another post. In response, the Comelec leadership
claimed a lack of necessary financial and human resources.
Election day was marred by
numerous logistical, procedural and organizational problems. In
addition to problems with the voters’ list and voters not knowing
to which precincts they were assigned, polling stations were poorly
organized. Overcrowding, particularly in urban polling stations,
combined with a poorly designed ballots, made voting difficult and
often compromised secrecy of the ballot. Numerous procedures were
not understood or were ignored as a result of inadequate training
and weak supervision.
The lack of modernization,
complicated ballot design, and unnecessary procedures led to a slow
counting process conducted over the course of more than four weeks.
While no significant incidents took place during this period, the
length of the count gave opposition parties ample opportunity to
question the credibility of the process and raise allegations of
fraud. The tabulation process, known as canvassing, is also complex.
Despite various safeguards, it suffers from perceptions of fraud.
Congress is responsible for tabulation of votes for president and
vice-president.
This leaves excessive room for
delay and politicization, as was vividly demonstrated in this
election. In addition, the complaints and adjudication process is
complicated, extremely slow, and plagued by complaints.
(From the Report of the Report
on the 2004 Philippine Elections by the National Democratic
Institute For International Affairs)
|
