 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|||
 |
||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
||||||||
Quezon City , Philippines
6 February 2009
delivered by
LEILA M. DE LIMA
Chairperson
Will the Automated Election System meet the Needs of the Vulnerable Sectors of the Electorate?
Good afternoon.
Some foreign political analysts made the observation after the revolt against the Estrada regime that Filipinos get what they deserve. Filipinos vote for the same people that they wish to impeach. In many respects, the current administration's perennial specter of impeachment can be cast away with the same observation – we get what we deserve. However, in the face of the age-old problems of participation and election fraud, does the Filipino really get what he or she deserves?
The Automated Elections Act of 1997 has come a long way before its realization. In the hope that the 1998 elections would partially be automated, the Philippine electorate had time and again faced very serious challenges resulting in the much-anticipated, yet wholly and disappointingly belated automated 2010 elections. With the modest success of the automated ARMM elections, the implementation of the same system for 2010 holds much promise. There are many questions that still hound the ability of the government to carry out automated elections, and there are many suggestions regarding the technology to be used. Yet with the promise of expedited and transparent elections, there is so much to look forward to, than to be skeptical.
Automation seems like a technological breakthrough for a country weaned on such a laborious and antiquated system of manually tabulated election results. Automation is hardly new elsewhere. For years, elections in Germany , for example, are conducted in one day, with the results released merely hours after the close of poll stations. In the United States , automation is so normal that it is hardly ever talked about. In fact, the biggest complaint is that everything else is done on-line – banking, payment of bills, registration for government documents and a host of other transactions – and therefore, why shouldn't elections be done on-line as well. In fact, the counting machines are perhaps in the technological category of money counters that you see in banks, operated by your friendly bank teller.
Our automation has been in the pipelines for over a decade now and the excitement that comes with it must be matched by the expectation that it must be effective, not only in counting ballots, mind you, but in being a factor in ensuring free, orderly, honest, peaceful and credible elections, and that elections should be fast, accurate and reflective of the genuine will of the people. We must lay enormous expectations on the COMELEC to produce a successful automation of the 2010 elections – not only because the much-vaunted automation system is tremendously tardy, but because our people has been placed through the wringer for too long, having to endure somewhat free, but always suspiciously less-than-honest elections.
Republic Act No. 8436, or Automated Elections Law of 1997, as amended by R.A. 9369, spells out the objective in unambiguous terms:
“Section 1. Declaration of policy. — It is the policy of the State to ensure free, orderly, honest, peaceful, credible and informed elections, plebiscites, referenda, recall and other similar electoral exercises by improving on the election process and adopting systems, which shall involve the use of an automated election system that will ensure the secrecy and sanctity of the ballot and all election, consolidation and transmission documents in order that the process shall be transparent and credible and that the results shall be fast, accurate and reflective of the genuine will of the people.”
Automation can be one of several weapons in our arsenal to obtain the genuine will of the people. Yet, it cannot be the only one. In fact, automation in general is only a tool for obtaining the genuine will of the people that actually vote. To obtain the true will of the people is a larger endeavor that encompasses the automation of elections.
For those who actually vote in 2010, automation can have some obvious advantages, especially for those from the vulnerable sectors. The elderly, indigenous persons, persons with disabilities or those who cannot write need not have to spell out candidates names. Generally, however, or except perhaps for those elderly or disabled whose physical condition render them unable to write, there aren't any technological hurdles that face vulnerable groups when it comes to filling out the ballots intended for automated counting. As required by the law, the system must not require computer literacy or any knowledge with respect to technology on the part of the voters. And as we can infer from the law, the ballot is still a ballot – crafted out of paper for the purpose of writing on it. (INSERT BRIEF EXPLANATION, RE: THE SYSTEM TO BE USED FOR 2010 – The Paper-Based Precinct Count Optical Scan or PPCOS)
The question that now remains is not whether there are challenges that the vulnerable sectors face with respect to the automated elections, but whether the automated election system and the election system in general can meet the needs of the vulnerable sectors. We have to ask if our system of elections can promote wider participation before asking if the automation of elections can more accurately encapsulate the will of the people. In spite of the benefits that automation brings to the table, the prior and more fundamental concern of participation must not be lost sight of.
In a forum held last September 2008, the Commission on Human Rights has identified six (6) vulnerable sectors, or those most prone to exclusion and discrimination as to their right of suffrage. Their right to electoral participation is constricted by government inaction, lack of resources and political will or inadequate legal framework. These sectors are: the persons with disabilities (PWDs), the elderly, the detainees, the indigenous peoples (IPs), the internally displaced persons (IDPs) and first-time voters (FTVs). The Commission concedes that there are other equally vulnerable groups such as the informal settlers, the migrant workers and the sick in the hospital, to name a few. It is our aspiration to also include these voices through other modalities in the future. But for now, we focus on the six above mentioned groups.
The concerns of persons with disabilities and the elderly center around the rights to accessibility, the right to information and the right to education. On accessibility, access to the physical environment of the polling precincts has always been an issue. Precincts located in buildings that are not structurally friendly to persons with disabilities, or lack ingress, or simply precincts that do not provide voting booths on the ground floor for PWDs and the elderly make it extremely difficult for these two sectors to vote. On the right to information, many PWDs are not aware of the provisions of law that enumerate who may provide assistance in the preparations of a ballot. On education, PWDs and the elderly face serious challenges on misinformation or lack of awareness on the normative framework on the right to vote.
Some of the challenges that the election system, automated or not, that we must meet, is how to overcome the physical space requirements, the education of both election staff and voters from these sectors and the need to develop a PWD database that paves the way for facilitating the voting process for PWDs and the elderly.
For the vulnerable sector of detainees, access to polling places, registration and information are the challenges that the COMELEC must meet. The Omnibus Election Code prohibits polling places from being located within any prison compound. Considering that 95% of prison detainees are incarcerated pending final resolution of their respective court cases, they are presumed innocent and therefore, retain their right to vote. Thus the Legislature in an amendatory law, or COMELEC in a resolution must clarify the definition of “prison compounds” and harmonize this with detainee’s right to vote. The establishment of polling stations inside prisons is not without precedent. In the 1978 interim Batasang Pambansa Elections, precisely this had been done; also in Iraq where prisoners were allowed to vote. In the same way, voter registration can be conducted inside prisons. Finally, voter education and information campaigns must be conducted inside prisons, especially since access to candidate information is limited within such facilities. Think about it: according to our detainees their right to vote will actually usher in improvements on the conditions of the prisoners and detention facilities as candidates seeking for the detainee would naturally commit (at least during the campaign period) to improve prisoners’ plight
The concerns of internally displaced persons with respect to the right to vote covers a wide range of problems. Some cannot return to their precincts of origin because of on-going armed conflict. Some do not have a home to return to, especially those displaced by calamity. In some situations, the dire need for shelter and food outweigh any concern with suffrage. As it stands, the national disaster framework does very little to address the needs of IDPs beyond food and shelter. Provisions for continuing education, livelihood and compensation do not exist, much less provisions for facilitating the right to register and vote. Finally, security in the midst of armed conflict remains a challenge for the COMELEC.
There have been very thoughtful recommendations in relation to voter-IDPs. Some of the best feedback from workshops on electoral participation have been to set-up provisions for mobile polling and registration stations, the promulgation of COMELEC rules on IDP voting, and the enactment of an IDP Law that addresses among others, the right of IDPs to vote.
The concerns of Indigenous Peoples with respect to their right of suffrage are matters well beyond the subject of automation. Issues of (1) dissemination of information to the far-flung areas inhabited by indigenous peoples, and in a language understood by them, (2) the problem of civil registration – the right to a name, identity and citizenship, (3) access to registration stations located in municipal centers, (4) concerns over the infestation of armed groups in far-flung areas, thereby limiting the opportunities for candidates to campaign and finally (5) exploitation and harassment of IPs are just some of the problems that IPs face.
Finally, the concerns of first time voters and the youth include the issues of (1) voter registration conducted during school and work hours, thereby leaving them with little opportunity to register, (2) the great lack of information drives on the process of registration and (3) the lack of interest in politics among the youth.
Just from this overview of the challenges facing the six vulnerable sectors of society, participation remains the key to obtaining election results that truly represent the will of the people. The implementation of the Automated Elections Act of 1997, as amended by R.A. 9369 is a very welcome development, especially in the fight against election fraud. Yet, even the cleanest tabulations of votes cannot truly represent the will of the Filipino people if not all qualified Filipinos are given the opportunity to vote and the information to vote wisely.
At some point, long after the automation of elections is finally implemented, it will be ordinary, and not even news-worthy, just as it is no longer spoken of in other countries. This should be our expectation. It should work and it should work flawlessly. It should pave the way for the end of the violence that gravitates towards ballot boxes and persons defending these boxes. It should pave the way for the end to gaps in the manual tabulation process, riddled with opportunities for dagdag-bawas. Finally, the automation of our elections should be forgotten – a mere part of the backdrop of the election system, as is its rightful place.
Thereafter, when we know that the votes that we cast will truly be counted, then there will be no excuse for a lack of participation. In the past, it had been said of our elections that the Filipino people gets what it deserves. Hopefully, with a clean ballot counting process and our drive towards full participation, the Filipino gets what he or she actually votes for.
Maraming salamat po.