|
THE delegates of the People’s International
Observers’ Mission (People’s IOM), representing 12 countries
from throughout the world, were dispatched from May 14 to 16, 2007,
in order to observe, document and report on the midterm national
elections from the ground in seven key voting regions throughout the
Philippines.
Participants in the People’s
IOM traveled from Australia, Belgium, Canada, Germany, South Korea,
Japan, Myanmar, Norway, Scotland, the Netherlands, Switzerland and
the US in response to an international appeal from numerous church
leaders, professionals, academics and grassroots organizations in
the Philippines to observe the democratic process in the face of
alleged electoral fraud, militarization and violence rampant during
the 2004 national elections.
The diverse array of 27 observers
who participated in the People’s IOM, including trade unionists,
students, social activists, clergy, academics, artists, and lawyers
from around the world have contributed an essential piece to the
popular effort to support the realization of democracy in the
Philippines.
Contrary to an internationally
publicized statement from President Arroyo that Filipino voters
“cast their ballot, free of coercion and according to their own
will,” representatives of the People’s IOM witnessed a
strikingly different reality including: notable voter
disfranchisement, deadly election related violence, direct
intimidation of voters by elements of the Armed Forces of the
Philippines (AFP), suspicious absence of Comelec officials at
numerous voting locations and incidents of overt coercion by
multiple campaigners.
Detailed information on the
election process collected by People’s IOM representatives working
throughout the country pointed to an intimate relationship between
systemic violations of the electoral process in 2007, the ongoing
socioeconomic crisis in the Philippines rooted in neo-liberal
economic policies and the terror of systemic extrajudicial killings
which have claimed the lives of over 850 people since 2001.
The People’s IOM
representatives collected multiple testimonies gathered from
community representatives outlining systematic harassment of voters
supporting legitimate political party-lists by the AFP in voting
districts throughout the country. Concrete documentation of an
organized vilification campaign carried out both overtly and
covertly by the AFP against legitimate party-lists was also
documented by the People’s IOM.
Throughout the Philippines overt
political coercion through electoral corruption, open “vote
buying,” rampant breaches of electoral regulations and outright
terror fashioned a context through which economic and ancestral
political dynasties attempted to secure political positions through
the midterm elections.
Election-related violence ranging
from killings to strafing, grenade-throwing to manhandling has come
to the IOM’s attention. Targets of attacks include candidates,
supporters, campaigners, organizers, and even innocent civilians.
The spiral of violence among the rival candidates and political
dynasties continued.
The People’s IOM teams gathered
comprehensive information on the Filipino electoral process,
including extensive interviews with affected voters, hours of video
testimony, hundreds of photographs from the following 10 areas:
Tondo, Manila; Makati City; Quezon in Southern Tagalog; Sorsogon and
Masbate in Bicol; Nueva Ecija and Pampanga in Central Luzon; Cebu in
the Visayas; Islamic City of Marawi in Lanao del Sur and Compostela
Valley in Mindanao.
Hereunder are the collation of
findings and initial recommendations of the People’s IOM:
Collation of Findings
of the People’s IOM
1. Strong military presence,
intimidation and harassment of voters: the military played an
extraordinarily active role in the elections, violating its proper
role in a democratic society. Extrajudicial killings, campaigning
for and against particular candidates, disenfranchising voters of
opposition candidates, intimidation and harassment, deployment in
opposition-influenced communities are many of the ways that the
military used and overstepped its constitutional duty.
a. The residents expressed their
deep fear over the military presence in their communities. Some of
them sought the intervention of church leaders, while others formed
alliances against the unprecedented deployment of their soldiers in
their communities.
b. While the AFP announced that
they will pull out of the urban poor communities before the
elections, residents reported that some of the soldiers stayed in
the communities dressed as civilians. These soldiers were later seen
roaming the polling areas in civilian clothes, obviously not
deputized by the Comelec.
c. On election day and during the
canvassing, police and military with heavy artillery were in polling
places and canvassing centers instilling fear and intimidation among
the voters, poll-watchers and the canvassers. Likewise, the presence
of military men in the Comelec offices, in full battle gear,
resulted in an atmosphere of fear.
d. The military conducted
house-to-house visits in the guise of doing census, interrogated
citizens on what organizations existed in the communities and who
were the leaders and organizers of specific party-list and
people’s organizations in the community.
e. The members of the mission
were also informed by the community residents that the military
showed films portraying certain party-list and people’s
organization as fronts of the CPP and NPA and the people were told
not to vote for these party-list groups.
f. Military checkpoints were
encountered by the IOM team and one team was stopped twice,
questioned, their names listed down and their photographs taken by
the soldiers against their will.
2. Perpetuation of political
dynasties: Political dynasties in the Philippines are
well-entrenched and very powerful; political power is increasingly
concentrated among members of a few families and clans that form the
elite in Philippine society.
a. The use of private armed
groups by political clans to terrorize voters and contenders in
local politics made the conduct of free and honest elections
difficult, if not impossible.
b. Rivalries between clans
escalate into a vicious cycle of violence and reprisals.
c. Barangay officials are
mobilized to intimidate and coerce voters in the polling centers.
These barangay officials also intimidate poll watchers to prevent
them from exercising their duties specifically those opposed to the
dominant political party in the area.
d. Members of the same family are
fielded to multiple elective positions simultaneously.
3. Labeling, use of fraud,
harassment, and force against legitimate party-lists and opposition
candidates:
a. The killings of the leaders
and members of these party-list groups along with hundreds of other
critics of the present administration are clear evidence of criminal
attempts by state forces to drive these groups from the electoral
arena and deprive the people of their democratic right to elect
their own representatives.
b. The military warned the people
through barangay assemblies, film showings, and house-to-house
visits, against voting for specific party-list groups such as Bayan
Muna, Gabriela and Anakpawis and told the residents that these are
fronts of the CPP-NPA. They strongly endorsed other “party-list”
organizations.
c. Voters who are members of
people’s organizations and supporters of opposition candidates
were disfranchised, raising doubts that it is a deliberate action to
ensure defeat for these specific candidates.
d. Many cases of these
“deactivated voters” also come from areas where AFP troops
operated and conducted campaigns against legitimate party-list
groups.
e. Attempts were made to unseat
incumbent local officials critical of the government through
suspension and filing of charges that are suspect in timing and
basis.
4. General chaos, irregularities
and vulnerabilities to manipulation of election results:
a. Late delivery and lack of
election paraphernalia causing delay and discouraging early voters
from casting their votes.
b. Names of voters were
transferred or distributed to other voting precincts causing
confusion. Many did not find the precinct where they were
transferred.
c. High number of
“deactivated” voters which surprised many who were neither
informed nor given clear explanations why they were
“deactivated” by Comelec.
d. Discrepancies in Comelec data:
names of deceased still on the list; names not in voters’ list;
names transferred from one precinct to another.
e. The assignments of election
officers were changed at the last minute resulting in further chaos
and raising doubts as to their independence.
f. Many voters cast ballots
several times. A voter was encouraged by the BEI to vote under
another name just to speed up the process. Minors voted, instigated
by supporters of candidates. Others admitted to being flying voters.
In some areas, the so-called indelible ink can be easily washed off
with soap and water or alcohol, while others had more than one
finger marked with ink.
Continued on Monday
|
