• PPCRV admits errors during quick count


    THE Church-based election watchdog Parish Pastoral Council for Responsible Voting (PPCRV) has admitted to errors during the conduct of its quick count of results of the May 9 elections.

    PPCRV Communications and Media Director Ana de Villa Singson on Monday said there were indeed “issues” that surfaced during the quick count, specifically in the party-list race.

    She, however, insisted that the group’s count was correct.

    “Our screens are networked. There was a networking connectivity issue rather than the data. The data was always correct. It’s just the connectivity issue, that is why the ones projected on the screen were wrong,” Singson explained.

    But she conceded that it is possible that the PPCRV may have projected the wrong screen shot.

    “That is the problem with having a lot of volunteers. Sometimes, they show you a lot of screens and we can’t control it, but in the central server, we were able to show the wrong screen,” Singson said.

    After learning of the error, she added, they corrected the figures being projected on their screen.

    “That only happened for a short period of time. And when we found out, we fixed it right away… we had to do adjustments to the script of the party-list,” Singson said.

    The Confederation of Non-Stock Savings and Loan Associations Inc. (Consla) party-list group filed a letter-complaint seeking an explanation of discrepancy in the votes it received.

    Consla said the PPCRV Quick Count showed on May 9 that they already had 342,513 votes.

    The next day, the party-list group noted that the PPCRV tally showed they already had 523,753 votes at 11 a.m. and 555,896 votes by 12 noon, to occupy Rank #14 in the tally.

    These results were posted on the Twitter feed of the PCCRV, which became the basis of the complaint by Consla.

    Earlier, a candidate for Buhay party-list group executed an affidavit attesting to the discrepancy in the votes garnered by Consla.

    The group questioned results of canvassing by the Commission on Elections (Comelec), which showed Consla getting 213,814 votes.

    PPCRV Chairman Henrietta de Villa expressed their readiness to explain before the Comelec or any other body that will probe issues raised by Consla.

    “I will let the IT [Information Technology experts] explain… if they [Consla] want some certification, we will give it,” de Villa said.

    Singson and de Villa maintained that their quick count was only partial and unofficial.

    Last week, Consla asked the Comelec to probe the alleged inconsistencies seen in the partial and unofficial results shown in the transparency server between May 9 and 10, and the final number of votes garnered by the party-list group.

    Several advocates of honest and free elections and poll experts have backed Consla’s demand for an investigation of the anomaly.


    Please follow our commenting guidelines.


    1. Duterte should have the smartmatic equipment seized and conduct a system audit then removed the people who won by cheating and jail the smartmatic and Comelec who committed fraud.

    2. ernie del rosario on

      Do PVTs (Parallel Vote Tallies) being done by PPCRV, Namfrel, etc. boost or destroy the credibility of elections ? These quick counts as commonly called are no longer necessary given the efficiency of results generation, transmission and consolidation at this time since everything are done electronically. They only provide confusion for being unofficial they are always have to be reconciled with the official count. So the more quick counts, the more versions to reconcile, therefore the more possibility of inconsistencies and the more confusion. The worst effect is they MAY be used for trending and in wrongly (whether deliberate or not) pre-empting of the real results of the election. For example, this PVT thing necessitated the installation of extraneous components on the AES network that are not really necessary and are avenues for possible fraud since these are not disclosed officially and even for some housed in secret locations and worse not subjected to source code review. Examples of these unnecessary computing components are the Transparency Servers (mirrored pa) and the Intermediary Server or Queue Server or the fourth server (rumored to be using super-computing capabilities (why the need for such ? what are these super computers super computing ?) which were never source code reviewed. All these are illegal components. The new administration MUST effect a full audit of the entire system and all the data that were contained in these components during the recent election.

    3. Matino na Pinoy on

      Why did CONSLA wanted the COMELEC to probe the alleged inconsistencies seen in the “partial and unofficial” result in the first place? Duh! Just look at the words such as “alleged”, “partial”, “unofficial” and this should tell you something that your request (CONSLA) to the COMELEC to probe is stupid and doesn’t make any sense. The election results was not based on partial and unofficial but rather, complete and official. To the people that advocates honest and free elections, you should have known this in the first place, as well. Marami din pala akong kababayan na mahihina ang mga kokote, and I should have known that myself, kaya pare-pareho lang tayo.

    4. How about that system audit to prove or disprove the cheating ?

      Comelec will not allow a system audit since that would expose the cheating.