Disqualification case vs Poe filed

A disqualification case was filed on Monday against Sen. Grace Poe before the Commission on Elections (Comelec) for allegedly misrepresenting her qualifications when she ran for a Senate seat in 2013.

Radio commentator Rizalito David, a former legislative staff officer of former senator Francisco Tatad, filed the case.

He earlier filed a petition asking the Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET) to unseat her on similar ground.

In his 20-page petition, David said, “The material facts include her statement of being a natural-born Filipino citizen, her period of residence in the Philippines before 13 May 2013, and her being eligible for the office she sought to be elected to.”

According to him, the senator violated Section 262 in relation to Section 74 of the Omnibus Election Code (OEC) for allegedly misrepresenting the facts of her citizenship, period of residence in the country before the 2013 polls and her eligibility to be elected as senator.

“When Llamanzares falsely stated the facts in her COC [certificate of candidacy], she committed an election offense and thus may be proceeded against for a criminal prosecution under Section 262 in relation to Section 74 of the Omnibus Election Code,” David said as he used Poe’s married last name in his pleading.

David anchored his argument on a 2007 ruling of the Supreme Court in Lluz vs. Comelec which states, “In case there is a material misrepresentation in the certificate of candidacy, the Comelec is authorized to deny due course to or cancel such certificate upon the filing of a petition by any person pursuant to Section 78.”

David explained that although the law does not specify what would be considered as a material representation, the court has interpreted it in a line decision applying Section 78 of the OEC, when it stated, “Therefore, it may be concluded that the material misrepresentation contemplated by Section 78 of the code refers to qualification for elective office.

“This conclusion is strengthened by the fact that the consequences imposed upon a candidate guilty of having made a false representation in [the] certificate of candidacy are grave to prevent the candidate from running or, if elected, from serving, or to prosecute him for violation of the election laws…”

From the foregoing, David pointed out, “The SC emphasized that before any complainant can proceed to prosecute any criminal offense… the false representation must be material, such as the entries must pertain to qualifications of the candidate and not just innocuous matters such as professing or husband’s family name.”

David also cited Section 3, Article VI of the Constitution, which prohibits a person to run as senator unless he is a natural-born Filipino citizen and, on the day of the election, is at least 35 years of age, and a resident of the Philippines for not less than two years immediately preceding the day of the election.

He said Poe misrepresented the facts of her being a natural-born citizen and her period of being a resident of the Philippines.

“Having misrepresented two facts about her qualifications, Llamanzares naturally committed another offense when she categorically stated that she is eligible for the office she sought to be elected to,” David added.

He presented copies of Poe’s COC, petition for retention and/or reacquisition of Philippine citizenship and travel information in support of his petition.

David, moreover, mentioned that as a foundling, and under Section 3, Article IV of the 1935 Constitution, she can only be natural-born Filipino citizen from birth if her father is a Filipino citizen.

“However, there is no evidence that she has a known Filipino father. Thus, being a foundling, or a child with unknown biological parents at birth up to the present time, she cannot claim or acquire the status of a natural-born citizen,” the petition read.

Regarding her citizenship, David said that Poe is an alien from the time she went to the US in 1991 and became an American citizen in October 2001 and until she returned to the Philippines under the assumption that she reacquired Filipino citizenship in July 2006.

The benefits of the Citizenship Reacquisition Act, he pointed out, are only available for former natural-born Filipino citizens.

Popularity breeds criticsPoe’s growing popularity has placed the pre-election survey leader in a virtual fish bowl where all eyes are glued on her in the run-up to the filing of certificates of candidacy for next year’s elections.

But Poe’s supporters in the House of Representatives are unperturbed with the turn of events.

“I am convinced that she is qualified to run for President. If she is not doing very well in the polls, no one would bother,” Speaker Feliciano Belmonte Jr., also vice chairman of the administration-backed Liberal Party, said.

Belmonte was referring to Poe’s emergence as a viable 2016 bet, with pre-election surveys showing she is ahead by her potential rivals by at least 10 percent both in the presidential and vice presidential races.

“Clearly, the move is to discourage her from seeking a higher position at the same time to harass her. To my mind, the petition has no legal basis,” said Rep. Silvestre Bello 3rd of 1-BAP party-list, who was Justice secretary in the Ramos administration said.

Rep. Rodel Batocabe of Ako Bicol party-list smells ill motive on David’s filing of disqualification cases against Poe.

“These cases are jokes designed to vex and embarrass Grace Poe personally as this always strikes her heart and very existence,” Batocabe said.

source:  Manila Times

The ban on political contributions from corporations

The Philippine national election to elect the president, vice-president and senators is barely a year away. Very soon, we will be bombarded with television commercials, radio jingles and print advertisements extolling the achievements and virtues of candidates in the hopes of securing our coveted votes. The streets and billboards in the metropolis will soon be plastered with campaign posters and tarpaulins. Once campaign season officially begins, an avalanche of T-shirts, bumper stickers, caps, pins and other campaign giveaways will be handed out. During political rallies, food and drink will flow, resembling distribution of relief goods during natural disasters.

Amidst all these is the curious phrase “Paid for by Friends of” this or that politician, which follows every campaign commercial, poster and paraphernalia. One then wonders: Who are these so-called “friends” of said politician? Are these individuals? Or perhaps big corporations which certainly can afford to sponsor the election campaign of a politician (or two)? All the big spending involved certainly gives the impression that making political contributions on the part of corporations is allowed and that there must be some tax benefit to doing so.

On the contrary, under Section 36, paragraph 9 of the Philippine Corporation Code, there is an absolute prohibition on corporations, both foreign and domestic, donating to any political party or candidate, or for the purpose of any partisan political activity. Said provision enumerates the powers and capacities of a corporation registered under the Corporation Code. These corporate powers include “[T]o make reasonable donations, including those for the public welfare or for hospital, charitable, cultural, scientific, civic, or similar purposes, provided, that no corporation, domestic or foreign, shall give donations in aid or any political party or candidate or for purposes of partisan political activity.”

The above prohibition is absolute and total. In terms of the corporate entities covered, it includes domestic corporations as well as foreign corporations licensed to do business in the Philippines as a representative office, branch, regional operating headquarters or any other entity. The nationality of a corporation is of no moment as all corporations, regardless of percentage of foreign ownership, are forbidden to make any kind of donation for partisan political activity. In terms of prohibited activities, the wording is broad and general enough to include any form of donation or contribution to any political party or candidate in relation to an election campaign or any other partisan political activity.

In a July 2015 opinion, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) emphatically pronounced that there is an absolute prohibition for corporations, both foreign and domestic, from giving donations to any political party, candidate or for the purpose of partisan political activity. In said opinion, the SEC was asked to clarify whether Section 95 of B.P. Blg. 881 or “The Omnibus Election Code of the Philippines”, which enumerates certain juridical entities that are prohibited from making political contributions, amends or repeals the more general prohibition provided in Section 36, paragraph 9 of the Philippine Corporation Code.

Section 95 of the Omnibus Election Code provides an enumeration of natural and juridical persons, including corporations, who, because of benefits, privileges, license or franchise received from government are prohibited from making contributions, directly or indirectly, for purposes of partisan political activity. Apparently, the enumeration gives the impression that the prohibition applies only to the entities listed therein, and, conversely, all other entities not specifically included are permitted to give contributions for the purpose of partisan political activities.

The SEC categorically stated that Section 95 of the Omnibus Election Code did not amend or repeal, whether expressly or impliedly, Section 36, paragraph 9 of the Corporation Code. The SEC explained that since the repealing clause of the Omnibus Election Code does not include the Corporation Code or any part thereof, the former did not expressly repeal the latter.

Neither was there an implied amendment or repeal because the two provisions are not inconsistent or repugnant to each other as to render either one ineffective. The SEC held that there is no conflict between the two provisions and both can be harmonized and given effect insofar as “the Corporation Code provides a prohibition specifically applicable to corporations making political contributions while the Omnibus Election Code imposes the same prohibition on all natural and juridical persons falling under the specific categories enumerated”.

Section 95 of the Omnibus Election Code can be considered an amplification of the absolute prohibition contained in the Corporation Code and illustrates some specific circumstances of the evil sough to be avoided in both provisions of law. The SEC opinion even added that if anything, the presence of these two laws, especially as they affect corporations, serve as a more effective deterrent for corporations planning to make contributions for partisan political activities.

Thus the prohibition on corporate political donations cannot be any clearer. To complement this ban, political donations or contributions cannot be claimed as tax deductions as these are not ordinary business expenses. Under Section 34 (H) of the Tax Code, donations for religious, charitable, scientific, youth and sports development, cultural or educational purposes or for rehabilitation of veterans or social welfare or donations to nongovernment organizations are allowed as deductible expenses. Donations to a political party or candidate or any contribution for partisan political activities are not included as part of the allowable deductible expenses. In effect, there is no tax benefit in the form of a deductible expense against income, for corporations making political contributions.

While a corporation is expressly prohibited from making political donations, there is no similar ban on individuals contributing to a political party or candidate. However, such donations likewise cannot be claimed by said individual as a deductible expense as the same cannot be considered ordinary and necessary business expenses. Similarly, under the above-mentioned provision of the Tax Code, political donations by individuals are not among the allowable deductible expenses.

When the Philippine national elections take place in May, it is individuals who will make the contributions. Their motivation to allocate personal resources to support the campaigns of their chosen political party and candidates will be anchored on their strong belief in the capabilities, achievements and platform of government of these politicians regardless of any tax benefit that may be realized therefrom.

Tata Panlilio-Ong is a Director with the Tax Advisory and Compliance division of Punongbayan & Araullo.

source:  Businessworld

Four nagging questions about Grace Poe’s eligibility

I agree with Ateneo’s Dean Tony la Viña, a legal luminary, that the disqualification case filed with the Senate Electoral Tribunal by losing senatorial candidate Rizalito David against Sen. Grace Poe should be thrown out. Not being a legal expert, I can only react with disapproval over the purported ground for disqualification: her being a foundling, with no information on the citizenship of her biological parents.

Nonetheless, I still have serious doubts about the eligibility of Poe to run for national office -- and that includes her candidacy for senator -- owing to the circumstances surrounding her claimed “reacquisition” of Philippine citizenship, ostensibly based on Republic Act 9225, the Citizenship Retention and Reacquisition Act of 2003.

In this regard, a very prominent Fil-Am community leader -- a lawyer who wrote a book on getting a green card, lobbied actively for the passage of the Overseas Absentee Voting Act and RA 9225, and led a group called US Pinoys for Noynoy-Mar (now US Pinoys for Good Governance) -- sent me the following e-mail concerning Poe’s case:

“You are right. As a matter of law, she did not perform what all of us dual citizens did to reacquire our Filipino citizenship -- go to the Consular General or at the Philippine immigration Office, swear allegiance to the Filipino Flag pay the fee of $50 And get a certificate of being Filipino once more.

“It seems Grace Poe did not do that. She just renounced by her action of not using her American passport. Why is nobody but you asking those questions?”

Hopefully, someone will question Poe’s eligibility based on something with a clearer in law than being a foundling.

By that means, she will be constrained to prove her legitimate reacquisition of Philippine citizenship and her Philippine residency, in compliance with the Constitution.

Meanwhile, the following nagging questions remain unanswered:

1. Did Poe ever formally become a dual citizen by reacquiring Philippine citizenship while still a US citizen? (She appears to have answered that in the negative but it is best for her to confirm it).

2. Alternatively, upon renunciation of US citizenship, did she formally reacquire Philippine citizenship by taking the Oath of Allegiance to the Philippines and complying with the requirements for reacquisition, as mandated by the Bureau of Immigration and stipulated by the Department of Foreign Affairs?

3. When did her renunciation of US citizenship become effective?

4. Does her claim to have reestablished her domicile in the Philippines even while she was still a US citizen comply with the specific provisions of the Constitution that state:

“ARTICLE VI. THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. Section 3. No person shall be a Senator unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines and, on the day of the election, is at least thirty-five years of age, able to read and write, a registered voter, and a resident of the Philippines for not less than two years immediately preceding the day of the election.

“ARTICLE VII. EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT. Section 2. No person may be elected President unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, a registered voter, able to read and write, at least forty years of age on the day of the election, and a resident of the Philippines for at least ten years immediately preceding such election.

“Section 3. There shall be a Vice-President who shall have the same qualifications and term of office and be elected with, and in the same manner, as the President. He may be removed from office in the same manner as the President.”

Poe asserts (based, presumably, on an opinion given in a recent newspaper column by former Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban) that the period of her Philippine residency, even while still a US citizen, is in compliance with the provision of the Constitution on the residency of candidates for senator, vice-president or president.

With due respect to the former Chief Justice, he may not necessarily be correct.

The provision clearly stipulates and enumerates, in simple English, what, in effect, is a “package” of qualifications. To assert that each qualification can be taken separately and not in the total context surely deserves a challenge before the Supreme Court.

The residency question is rendered even more confusing with the varying versions of when Poe’s renunciation took effect. She says she made her renunciation on October 20, 2010 before a Philippine public official. By US law, that was not valid and Poe remained an American citizen. In fact, US records indicate that she ceased becoming an American only in 2012.

In various media interviews, Poe has stated that (a) she never lost her Philippine citizenship based on the provisions of RA 9225; (b) all she had to do was renounce her US citizenship and by that means, she “automatically” reacquired her Philippine citizenship; and (c) she did not have to do anything else such as, presumably, taking the Oath of Allegiance to the Philippines and complying with the requirements of the Bureau of Immigration, which are also stipulated by the Department of Foreign Affairs.

A news report following the attempt of David to file a disqualification case against Poe, quoted her rationale: “The deliberation in Congress clearly proves that it was the intention of the law,’ the senator said, stressing that her status before she became a naturalized US citizen was a natural born Filipino, thus, when she repatriated, she is not deemed to have lost her Filipino citizenship.”

In an interview with GMA News, Poe stated: “To revert back to Filipino citizenship, ire-renounce mo lang yung US citizenship mo. Yun lang ang ginawa ko. Yun kasi ang conditionng Dual Citizenship Law. Hindi iyon to reacquire Philippine citizenship kasi it reverts back to that automatically.” (To revert back to Filipino citizenship, you simply renounce your US citizenship. That’s all I did. That is the condition of the Dual Citizenship Law. You need not reacquire Philippine citizenship because it reverts back to that automatically.)

Again, on May 18, 2015, in a news report, Poe “explained that to be able to regain her Filipino citizenship, all she had to do was to renounce her US citizenship as required by Republic Act 9225 or the Citizenship Retention and Reacquisition Act of 2003.”

In all of these public statements, Poe made no mention of ever taking the Oath of Allegiance to the Philippines to formalize her reacquisition of Philippine citizenship. For perspective, following are the pertinent provisions of RA 9225:

“Section 2. Declaration of Policy -- It is hereby declared the policy of the State that all Philippine citizens of another country shall be deemed not to have lost their Philippine citizenship under the conditions of this Act.

“Section 3. Retention of Philippine Citizenship -- Any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding, natural-born citizenship by reason of their naturalization as citizens of a foreign country are hereby deemed to have re-acquired Philippine citizenship upon taking the following oath of allegiance to the Republic...” (The text of the Oath follows).

Section 2 clearly establishes that automatic retention of Philippine citizenship occurred upon effectivity of RA 9225 -- not before. And nowhere in the text of RA 9225 does it say that a renunciation of foreign citizenship “automatically” restores Philippine citizenship. The law, in fact, clearly mandates taking the Oath of Allegiance to effect reacquisition.

Hopefully, the Supreme Court will resolve this matter, if and when a case is filed against Poe on these issues, assuming, of course that she decides to run for president or vice-president. Even before that, David could probably amend his complaint against Poe to include the validity of her “reacquisition” of Philippine citizenship.

Meanwhile, Sen. Grace Poe must consider it a matter of duty and honor to confront this challenge in the spirit of honesty and integrity, which she claims to be her guiding principles.

Greg B. Macabenta is an advertising and communications man shuttling between San Francisco and Manila and providing unique insights on issues from both perspectives.

gregmacabenta@hotmail.com

source:  Businessworld

Why is Comelec still dealing with Smartmatic?

DURING the Joint Congressional Oversight Committee hearing on August 6, 2015, I read a statement which I am reproducing below, with some minor editing:

For our elections to be credible, three things must be present: 1) accuracy of the counting; 2) transparency of the process; and 3) speed. All three must be present.

How does Smartmatic’s PCOS fare with respect to these requirements?

Accuracy.
• No mock election conducted by Smartmatic has produced the required accuracy rate of 99.995% or better (1 error in 20,000 marks)

• The 2010 Random Manual Audit (RMA) resulted in only a 99.6% accuracy rate (80 errors in 20,000)

• The July 24-25, 2012 mock elections in Congress resulted in only a 97.215%accuracy rate (557 errors in 20,000)

• The 2013 RMA resulted in only a 98.86% accuracy rate (228 errors in 20,000)

• In 2010, 9% of the PCOS units failed to transmit the Election Returns (ERs) to the Transparency Server; in 2013, 23% of them failed.

• The huge differences between the PCOS and manual counts in the election cases in General Tinio, Nueva Ecija, Isulan, Sultan Kudarat, and Dinalupihan, Bataan are clear proofs of PCOS’ inaccurate counting and/or vulnerability to internal tampering. There surely would have been more had the protest process not been seriously impaired

• Smartmatic’s counts and canvassing results were so arbitrary. This was exemplified by the progress of Senator Poe’s total votes. In the May 18, 2013 report, with only 42% of the votes canvassed, she already garnered 20,147,423 votes. Extrapolating the total with the remaining 58% would have brought her total to more than the voter turn-out of 39 million. But instead, in the June 7 report, she only gained 189,904 votes. Some suspect that the results were massaged. And then, in the June 11 report, her total votes went down to 16,340,333. No explanation that I know of.

Transparency. Any system that automates precinct-counting loses transparency. And it follows therefore that all succeeding steps after precinct-counting would also be questionable. Loss of transparency is the common reason why Germany, Netherlands, Ireland, Australia, and 14 other countries out of the 30 that automated their elections, went back to manual precinct-counting.

Speed. If the Smartmatic system had run properly, the final results would have been released at half the time it took, especially in 2013.

Since Smartmatic’s PCOS machines are inaccurate and non-transparent, and only the speed requirement was somewhat met, why is Comelec still entertaining bids from this vendor? It just doesn’t make sense! And it would make our elections a sham.

Further proof of the unreliable Smartmatic system is the very recent fiasco (in June 2015) that occurred in Tabasco, Mexico, where their system failed miserably.

Should we allow Comelec to continue dealing with this vendor and putting the 2016 elections at risk? The Comelec recently awarded a contract to Smartmatic for the supply of 23,000 more PCOS machines and will bid out another 71,000, which, based on the existing liaison between Comelec and this vendor, will most likely be won again by Smartmatic. Comelec is digging a deeper hole for us that we will soon find difficulty extricating ourselves from.

Comelec cannot say that there are no other alternatives. There are two … and they are both Filipino-developed. If it still prefers an OMR (Optical Mark Recognition) system, there’s TAPAT, which, apart from being accurate, has the VVPAT feature (Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail), which PCOS does not have.

If it doesn’t mind a system that may take some 10 hours longer, there’s PATaS, which, apart from being accurate, does not only bring back transparency into the system, but enhances it even more. It includes a public website that is updated every 30 minutes, showing the progress of counting in each precinct. This website can be accessed by anybody anywhere in the world. I know of no system today that can match that.

And, by the way, it is not true that PATaS will cost P36 billion, as Comelec has been maliciously announcing. That was a work of fiction worthy of inclusion in Ripley’s Believe It or Not. It must have been computed by the same group, within Comelec, that came up with the cost of P700 million for ballot-secrecy folders for the 2010 elections.

Our estimate of the equipment cost of PATaS is only P4 billion and they can be donated to public schools after each election, thus saving on warehousing and maintenance expenses. This, plus the other expenses (bloated, still) that I picked up from the Comelec version, our total comes up to P13 billion, against PCOS’ P20 billion (plus P400 million a year for warehousing and P1.8 billion – or is it P3.1 billion? – for repairs.

It is also not true that it would take one year to develop the software. The Consolidation and Canvassing System (CCS) was developed in three months when I was still with the Comelec. It might need another one or two weeks for “stress” testing.

And for the nth time, I dare the Comelec lawyers and the pro-Smartmatic Congressmen to review R.A. 9369 and then show us what provision in that law is violated by PATaS.

As a Filipino saying goes, “Pag gusto, mayparaan; pag ayaw, may dahilan.” (If they want it, thereis a way. If they don’t, there’s always a reason.) Or how about this? “Mahirap daw gisingin ang nagtutulug-tulugan lamang.” (It’s said that Nothing is harder than to wake up someone who’s pretending to be asleep.

source: Manila Times Column of Gus Lagman

FREE, FAIR, AND CREDIBLE ELECTIONS: Pipe dream or reality?

Elections is about the quality of the count and the quality of the vote.

ON THE QUALITY OF THE COUNT
The Commission on Elections (Comelec) under its Chairman Andres B. Bautista has very little time to choose the system and the machines to be used, partly because there was undue delay in replacing retiring commissioners, when everybody knew when the vacancies would occur.

Secondly, all the commissioners are lawyers, which is not the design of the Constitution because elections is not just a legal problem. It is an administrative, behavioral, systems and, above all, a management problem. Hence, under the Constitution, 3 of the 7 commissioners need not be lawyers. Every president has instead given preference to political patronage in this regard. More important, the Comelec under Mr. Bautista is faced with a task that is framed by decisions that are imprudent at best and corruption-tainted at worst.

(a) First is the purchase by the Comelec -- then under its Chair Sixto S. Brillantes Jr. -- of the Smartmatic machines against the advice of its own Advisory Council, its citizens arms, the Philippine Computer Society and IT professionals. This is a system that did not comply with all the safeguards required by law. That decision is costing the country a lot of money, some of which will likely end up in the wrong pockets.

(b) I am sure Mr. Bautista is aware about the issues that have to be resolved -- the universal advice of international experts that a “vendor-driven system is a big no-no in the choice of a system, which was the case in 2010 and 2013 when Smartmatic practically controlled the process; the compact flash (CF) card mistake in 2010; the lack of (1) ultraviolet safeguard, (2) time stamps, (3) a voter-verified paper trail, (4) signature authentication, (5) validation of an accuracy of 99.995% and the poor performance by the Parish Pastoral Council for Responsible Voting on the random manual audit; the incomplete logs and data stored in the Precinct Count Optical Scan machines’ CF cards and in the Central Server; the underperformance of electronic transmission (9% in 2010, 23% in 2013); the matter of the source code review, etc.

(c) As of 2013, 18 of the 30 countries which had adopted automated counting through direct-recording electronic (DRE) machine had reverted to manual counting.

The reason?

The German Constitutional Court puts it this way -- the use of a computer count and determination of the results that cannot be examined by an ordinary citizen reliably and without specialist knowledge violates the principle of the public nature of elections, i.e. lack of transparency in a private count by a machine.

The dilemma of the Comelec is that the voters, the Comelec field people, the teachers and the politicians like the automated count because the “shading” procedure is easy, less burdensome to teachers, speedy results/early posting although (some of this is smoke and mirrors in terms of final results). Moreover, Smartmatic does not exactly enjoy the trust of many people, especially the IT professionals, but will still likely be the default machine and system supplier.

(d) I am glad to hear that the Comelec under Mr. Bautista plans to revisit the systems issue for the 2019 elections. In that regard, I suggest that three issues to be addressed: first, the definition of “appropriate technology” suitable to our needs and circumstances.

What it is not is that it must be either optical mark recognition or DRE and that hybrid systems do not qualify, which is legalism that if necessary, should be amended.

Second, the issue of a private vote and a public count as a basic principle of elections.

Third, the need for adjustments in legal procedures to make them more applicable to automated elections. The existing protest framework is basically analog and paper-based, when the evidence and processes are already digital. The Supreme Court is aware of this, not just in elections and is already beginning to do something about it.

ON THE QUALITY OF THE VOTE
The question is: What’s the point of an expensive, accurate and speedy count when what is being counted are votes that have already been devalued by (1) the improper, even illegal, use of money, mostly government funds, which practice is rooted in a serious poverty problem that politicians exploit; (2) dysfunctional political parties that limit our choice of candidates, (3) warlordism and entrenched political dynasties?

Reforms on these problems are dead in the water because Comelec has been pre-occupied with the issue of automation and the congressional oversight committee is not doing its job. Moreover, there is a fourth factor that is increasingly becoming a problem -- a media that is losing its independence because of money.

THE QUESTION BEGS TO BE ASKED: IF THE STRUCTURAL PROBLEMS ARE NOT ADDRESSED, IS AN EXPENSIVE AUTOMATION SYSTEM WORTH IT? PUT ANOTHER WAY, IF THE STRUCTURAL PROBLEMS ARE ADDRESSED, DO WE NEED TO AUTOMATE? (Parenthetically, this is the advantage of the developed countries which can choose to revert to manual systems, an advantage we do not have.)

Elections is the only right in a democracy where everybody is supposed to be equal with the one-man, one-vote rule. That is changing to a one-peso, one vote rule. As money increasingly rules, we do not have a democracy but a fiction of it. And this must change.

However, let me say that despite the limited choices the Comelec faces -- plus the delayed appointments, the failure to seriously study alternatives, the likelihood of another Smartmatic-driven elections, I believe that, barring a big blunder at the Comelec head office that results in selective hackings of the system at the local level or a massive failure of logistics, the 2016 elections will be considered by the people as generally credible, in its limited definition, if only for one reason -- the capability and the hardiness of the Comelec people at the ground level -- at the city and municipal levels -- to handle difficult situations.

I am a believer in the bureaucracy. I know that is counter-intuitive to many of you.

But the biggest lesson new commissioners learn is this -- there are many good people in the front lines who know what to do when given the chance to do it. They know how to improvise when systems fail or the unexpected happens. This is, of course, a double-edged sword that can be used for the right or the wrong purposes.

Moreover, a bureaucracy also tends to second guess their leaders because they have been burned many times by false reformers or by people, including commissioners, who want to use the Comelec as a stepping stone to higher office such as the Supreme Court.

Hence, the need to earn their trust and, in turn, to trust and support them in difficult times.

Mr. Bautista is on the right track on this and if he stays the course, my experience and instinct tell me that an inspired field organization of the Comelec can rise to the challenge.

Before I close, allow me to say that recently, the President gave an impressive list of his accomplishments.

I don’t disagree that he deserves congratulations for what he has done. But he was silent on what is most important to the poor -- social reform.

Certainly education and health are basic income reform programs but they are longer-term solutions. There is also asset reform to address immediate problems of mass poverty and inequality which are covered by four laws that all the administrations since EDSA have poorly implemented, not just the most recent Arroyo administration which unfortunately was in many instances the limited comparative horizon of the President -- agrarian reform, urban land reform, and housing, ancestral domain and fisheries reform -- which address the plight of the poorest of the poor in our country and whose lives have largely remained unchanged since EDSA, despite the fact that the central theme of the new Constitution is social justice.

This is bad news for the poor. It is not a problem for those of us in this room.

Because all of us somehow know directly or know somebody who is connected to the elected and those appointed by the elected in government.

We are all part of the ruling elite of 1% of the families -- about 18,500,000 in all -- that have stayed in power through changes in administration.

For want of a better term, our society can be described as “feudalistic” and we are the basket case in our part of the world in rate of growth the past 50 years, real per capita income and inequality.

And unless radical changes take place, we face an uncertain if not turbulent future because the poor can only wait so long. The President was right, his administration is only the beginning. That is why the next election and the next ones after that, in other words elections through the next generation, are critical. We need a new generation of leaders who know how it is to be poor.

That is why the next election must be about a leadership that will not only not compromise with corruption but must also be totally committed to social reform with the poor as the center of development, which every administration has not been, including the Aquino administration.

As Jeffrey Sachs noted in describing Asia, the most important factor for development is policies and in the Philippines, the shortcomings in that regard outweigh all the other factors combined. But all this is for another forum which I hope the Management Association of the Philippines (M.A.P.) will organize in the near future.

I have one parting advice to the Comelec: to paraphrase Albert Camus when he received the Nobel Peace Prize -- let us put ourselves at the service not of those who make history but of those who suffer it.

(The article reflects the personal opinion of the author and does not reflect the official stand of the Management Association of the Philippines or the M.A.P. This was lifted from the speech delivered by the author in a recent M.A.P. General Membership Meeting.)

Christian S. Monsod is the former Chair of Comelec and the Founding Chair of Legal Network for Truthful Elections or LENTE.

map@map.org.ph

christiansmonsod@gmail.com

http://map.org.ph

source:  Businessworld