Republic Act No. 9369, or the Automated Elections System Law, explicitly mandates that every automated voting machine used in an election shall generate a voter’s receipt, which shall confirm that the voter’s electronic ballot was properly tallied. In order for the voting machine to issue the required voter’s receipt, the Voter Verified Paper Audit Trail function of the voting machine must be activated. When the VVPAT function is activated, the voter’s receipt will be issued to the voter automatically.
The VVPAT is designed to reduce, if not eliminate, computerized fraud in the electronic canvass of votes. While the VVPAT is not a fail-safe guaranty of a fraud-free election canvass, it is expected to make election fraud more difficult to commit.
In the national and local elections held in 2010 and 2013, the voting machines did not issue any voter’s receipts despite the clear mandate of the law. Why not? It appears that the Commission on Elections disabled, or allowed the disabling of, the VVPAT function of all voting machines. Nobody noticed this anomaly, and the Comelec twice got away with an infraction of the law.
Last month, ex-Senator Richard Gordon, who is running for the Senate in the May 2016 polls, exposed to the news media this anomaly twice perpetrated by the Comelec against the electorate. He urged the poll body to comply with the law once and for all by activating the VVPAT function of the voting machines to be used in the coming elections.
Surprisingly, however, the Comelec rejected Gordon’s plea and opted instead for on-screen verification, a process where the electronic screen of the voting machine will indicate for 15 seconds the names of the candidates the voter marked in his electronic ballot. To justify this new but illegal measure, the Comelec said that activating the VVPAT will delay the voting process on election day by several hours. In effect, the Comelec said that it will not comply with the law because to do so will extend the voting hours on election day.
Where did the Comelec get that excuse? There is nothing in Republic Act No. 9369, or in any existing law for that matter, which allows the Comelec to disobey the law simply because the voting hours will be extended if the law is obeyed. Likewise, there is nothing in the Constitution which allows the Comelec to disregard a clear mandate of an election law. In fact, the Constitution provides that the Comelec must enforce all laws relating to elections. There are no ifs or buts about that.
Displeased with the action taken by the Comelec, Gordon elevated the issue to the Supreme Court.
Fortunately for the electorate, the Court sided with Gordon. Last Tuesday, the Supreme Court ordered the Comelec to cause the issuance of the corresponding voting machine-generated voter’s receipt to each voter casting his electronic ballot in the May 2016 polls. To make sure that vote-buyers will be unable to monitor who a voter voted for, the Court instructed the Comelec to make sure that after the voter’s receipt is inspected and confirmed by the voter, the voter’s receipt shall be deposited in a separate ballot box which shall not be taken out of the voting area.
Instead of accepting its fault, the Comelec brazenly asked the Supreme Court to reconsider its decision. The Comelec also told the news media that it did not expect the Supreme Court to decide the Gordon case the way it did.
By seeking a reconsideration of the ruling of the Supreme Court, the Comelec wants exemption from compliance with the law. The other constitutional commissions—the Civil Service Commission and the Commission on Audit—are required to obey the law. Why should the Comelec enjoy a special exemption?
The refusal of the Comelec to accept its defeat in the Gordon case is not an isolated case of non-compliance with the law. It reveals a continuing propensity of the Comelec to openly disregard the law, and to do what it feels like doing. Evidently, the Comelec has come to regard itself as an omnipotent superbody exempted from any and all restraints imposed by the Constitution or existing laws. This is seen in many recent actuations on the part of the Comelec.
Take, for instance, the party-list election system. The law requires every party-list group participating in the election for Congress to submit the names of five persons (nominees) who are to assume office for the party-list group concerned in the event that it obtains the requisite number of votes nationwide. In turn, these names are made available to voter scrutiny during the election period.
This list is important because under the law, once the list is submitted to the Comelec, the names cannot be changed. Under this arrangement, therefore, a winning party-list group cannot sell its seats to interested persons and then pass off these persons as the party-list group’s legitimate candidates. This way as well, the stealthy breeding of political dynasties can be monitored and, hopefully, prevented.
Late last year, however, the Comelec announced that it will no longer be requiring party-list groups to submit its list of nominees. As a result, the number of party-list groups has increased, and unscrupulous party-list groups are even more determined to win as many seats as they can, and to eventually sell these seats to the highest bidders.
Another example is the illegal plan of the Comelec to allow voting in private shopping malls. Under the Omnibus Election Law, a voting center cannot be established inside a private building or a building under the actual control of a private entity. The law has an exception, though—a voting center may be established inside a private school building only if no suitable public building is available.
It’s time the Comelec commissioners put a stop to their illegal acts and measures. If they don’t, then they may be inviting possible impeachment raps under the incoming administration.
