IN the wake of the recent decision of the Supreme Court (SC) voiding the contract for the diagnostics and preventive maintenance of the Precinct Count Optical Scan (PCOS) machines, it isn’t entirely surprising that murmurs of “manual elections” have grown more vigorous. Unfortunately, this resurgence has also been mirrored by the proliferation of arguments that—perhaps, deliberately—misrepresent the true import of the SC’s decision.
For some, the voiding of the preventive-maintenance contract is being touted as proof that the automated election system (AES) in use since 2010 is flawed, and should be abandoned. So again, to set the record straight, there was nothing in the announcement by the SC that could even be remotely considered as an indictment of the accuracy or reliability of the AES.
It is, therefore, unlikely that the decision itself—which, as of this writing, has not been released by the Court—will delve into those issues. As announced, and as will probably be seen from the full text of decision when it is finally released, the recent ruling of the Court clearly spoke only of the nullity of the contract for the diagnostics and repair of the PCOS machines.
The fact that the decision so clearly focuses on this specific issue directly implies that, if the proper procedure was followed, i.e., public bidding, then there ought to be no issue with regard to the use of the PCOS machines for the 2016 elections. Right out of the gate, therefore, there remains the possibility that the 81,000 PCOS machines can still be used. In fact, were it not for the unilateral declaration of the Commission on Elections (Comelec) that undiagnosed and unmaintained PCOS would not be used for elections, there wouldn’t even be any question of a return to manual polls.
Nevertheless, that’s the situation the Comelec finds itself in now. The question, therefore, is whether the Comelec will simply bid out the diagnostics and maintenance contract, time permitting, or allow those PCOS machines to sit out the coming elections, relying instead on the innovative use of the limited number of optical- mark reader machines now undergoing the final stages of procurement via public bidding. Manual elections barely even register on the radar of possibilities.
So where is all this nostalgia for manual elections coming from?
I suspect it is because the Comelec has refused to say that manual elections have been ruled out completely. And rightly so.
In the very unlikely event that the Comelec finds itself with absolutely no capability to mount automated elections—a situation that can only be arrived at if literally everything being done now goes sour—then it would much sooner revert to manual elections than hold no elections at all.
There are those who maintain that, since the law mandates automation, the inability to automate is tantamount to a declaration that elections simply cannot be held as scheduled. This rather literal interpretation of how things work totally ignores the fact that overarching the law’s automation dictat is the Comelec’s mandate to conduct elections. It equally glosses over the reality that Republic Act 9369 does not prohibit the use of manual counting if an automation solution is unavailable. At this juncture, however, we can hardly say that an automation solution is unavailable, and so retrogression to manual elections remains a remote possibility.
Another point that can be gleaned from all of this is that the Comelec’s staunch refusal to revert to a manual system is not rooted exclusively in the automation law’s declaration of policy. Equally important is the Comelec’s commitment to the gains derived by the country as a whole—from automation.
At the risk of being repetitive, automation has eliminated vote padding and vote shaving; it has removed election workers from the crosshairs of those who seek to subvert elections; and it has dramatically sped up the reporting of election results, directly contributing to the robustness of the mandate enjoyed by elected officials.
It has increased transparency, too, by making it possible to document—and later review—the original appearance of the ballot at the very moment it is slipped into the ballot box by the voter himself, free from subsequent, fraudulent alterations.
These are not trivial achievements, despite what the murmurers say. We, as a people, should, therefore, take it with a grain a salt whenever we are lectured about how we should turn our backs on these gains and dismiss them in favor of a system we have already proven to be leakier than a colander.
****
James Jimenez is the spokesman of the Commission on Elections.