ONLY winners are happy with the results of the 2010 and 2013 elections.
Losing candidates who protested the election results and want to go back to the precinct results have no way of proving that they were cheated.
The findings of the various watchdogs can be summed up in those of the UP-based Center for People Empowerment in Governance (CenPEG). It listed flaws in the 2010 elections that made its result doubtful and unacceptable: “Mismatched time and date stamps on all Precinct Count Optical Scan [PCOS] machines; transmission failures; erroneous COCs [certificates of canvass]in 57 provinces and cities; ballots and CF [compact flash]cards delivered manually for canvassing; discovery of the [unauthorized]console port in all machines making the PCOS vulnerable to tampering; [and]erroneous entries of total number of voters and votes cast in the national canvassing center and Congress.”
These failures happened all over the country. That, said CenPEG, “tainted the integrity, credibility, and accuracy of the PCOS machines and election system.”
In the 2013 elections, the same problems were present and the transmitted results from the PCOS machines did not have the digital signatures of a person–a human being–as required by law. Again thousands of losers protested but their just and correct complaints could not be resolved.
Not only former Comelec official Gus Lagman but also countless other Filipinos of unquestionable probity believe that the 2013 elections were not credible because of the same flaws and additional anomalies that attended the machine counting, the tallying of votes and the transmitted numbers.
Our columnist Nelson Celis, who has 34 solid years of experience in Information Technology and Management, who received the 2012 Most Outstanding Electronics Engineer Award from the Institute of Electronics and Communications Engineers of the Philippines, who was responsible for making the Philippines Y2K bug-free when he was the president of the Philippine Computer Society and Commissioner of the Presidential Commission on Y2K Compliance in 1999, and is the spokesperson of AES Watch (Automated Election System Watch), wrote some days ago about a most essential matter regarding our elections.
In his column “Back to basics: IRR of RA 9369 needed” he points out that “the Comelec failed to comply with the election automation law or Republic Act (RA) No. 9369 simply because of the missing link; that is, its implementing rules and regulations (IRR). Section 37 stipulates that “The Commission shall promulgate rules and regulation for the implementation and enforcement of this Act.” It’s been seven years but there has been no promulgation.”
Why don’t the Comelec Commissioners, headed by Chairman Brillantes, prepare the IRR of the election law?
Aren’t they culpable of disregarding the law and of grave wrongdoing for implementing RA 0369 without promulgating its IRR?
The Comelec follows the interpretation of Smartmatic, the controversial supplier of the grossly expensive PCOS machines, that there have been digital signatures as required by law: the digital signatures of the machines.
But Celis points out that, “RA 8792 or the e-Commerce Law of 2000 and the Supreme Court’s (SC) Rules on Electronic Evidence of 2001 define such digital signatures as any distinctive mark, characteristic and/or sound in electronic form representing the identity of a person?” Therefore, Smartmatic’s PCOS machine cannot ever be acceptable as the signatories. And anyway, these PCOS machines can be tampered with and have been seen malfunctioning so much, so how can you rely on them and their digital signatures.
With these violations, Comelec had no legal and truthful basis to proclaim winners in the 2010 and 2013 elections because the election returns from the PCOS machines and certificates of canvass sent by the human beings making up the Board of Election Inspectors and the Board of Canvassers did not have their proper digital signatures.