Technology, Democracy & Elections in the PhilippinesDR. FRANCISCO A. MAGNO
OutlineI. Technology, Turnout and Credibility
II. Youth Engagement and Technology
III. Overview of Automated ElectionsI. History of Automated Elections in the
PHII. How the AES WorksIII. The AES and its Security Features
IV. Performance Assessment and Election Credibility
I. COMELEC Performance ScorecardII. Random Manual Audit ResultsIII. Views from Civil Society
V. Conclusion
Election Technology❖Often refers to software programs, Internetplatforms and electronic equipment that areadopted for the purpose of reducing oreliminating over votes, spoiled ballots, undervotes as well as other related problems underthe manual voting system.
Turnout and Credibility❖Researchers have studied various aspects ofthe electoral process to determine the integrity,or credibility, of the outcome, and the commonfinding points to the importance of voterturnout in measuring the credibility of electionresults.
Youth Engagement and Technology❖According to Iyengar and Jackman, no other groupis as disengaged from the electoral process as theyoung population. While they are often involved ininformal, politically relevant processes such as civicengagement or activism, they are not formallyrepresented in national political institutions andmany of them do not participate in elections.
Youth Engagement and Technology❖Consequently, coming up withsolutions for the problem ofpolitically disengaged youth hasattracted considerable attention overthe past few years. Many agree thatthe current revolution in informationtechnology provides a significant newopportunity for connecting youth tothe electoral process since they arein the vanguard of computer-basedmedia.
Youth Engagement and Technology❖Various proponents argue that usingtechnology to modernize the electionprocess, especially the implementation ofremote electronic voting (e-voting) orinternet voting, could boost electoralparticipation.
❖However, it is also important to combinepolitical content and interactivetechnology in order to effectively engageyoung people throughout the entireelectoral process, and not just duringelection day.
History of Automated Elections ❖In 1992, Operation Modex which stands for“Modernization and Excellence” was initiated byCOMELEC to modernize the electoral process.
❖Republic Act No. 8046 was the first electoralreform law in the Philippines. Signed in 1995, itallowed the COMELEC to conduct a nationwidedemonstration of a computerized election systemas well as a pilot test in the ARMM for the 1996elections.
History of Automated Elections ❖In 1997, Republic Act No. 8436 was passed into law whichauthorized Comelec to implement an automated election system inthe May 1998 elections as well as in subsequent national and localelections. But the automated system was only used in a number ofprovinces – Lanao del Sur, Maguindanao, Sulu, and Tawi-Tawi – in the1998 elections because of the lack of preparation and budget on thepart of the Comelec.
❖It was not until after the 2004 elections that the use of theautomated system was again given attention owing to thecontroversy caused by vote padding and shaving. Republic Act No.8436 was then amended by Republic Act No. 9369 in 2007 or theElection Automation Law.
History of Automated Elections in the PH❖During the 2008 elections in the ARMM, the paper-based system as well as the direct recording electronic(DRE) election system were tested.
❖Subsequently, Republic Act No. 9525 whichappropriated the sum of Php11,301,790,000.00 for anautomated election system was passed.
❖An automated election system was conductednationwide during the 2010 elections.
History of Automated Elections in the PH❖Both the 2010 and 2013 elections made use of thepaper-based election system and a Precinct CountOptical Scan (PCOS) machines.
❖For last year’s elections, the PCOS machines werereplaced by Vote Counting Machines (VCMs)because of the PCOS’ irregularities during previouspolls. And the same technology provider of thePCOS machines, Smartmatic, supplied the VCMs forthe 2016 automated elections.
How the AES Works
The AES and its Security Features❖Section 7 of R.A. 8436, as amended by Sec. 7 of R.A. 9369,states that the most appropriate, secure, applicable and cost-effective technology should be applied in the AES, in whole orin part; and that the AES should comply with the followinggeneral requirements:
1. Testing and Pre-sealing
2. Source Code Review
3. Voting, Counting, Canvassing, Transmission
4. Random Manual Audit
5. Continuity Plan and Analogous Contingency Measures
Performance Assessment❖Almost all respondents think that the releaseof election results in their place was fast(92%), characterize the conduct of theelections in their respective areas as orderly(93%), and claim that they did not observe anyoccurrence of electoral violence (95%).
❖Sizeable to huge majorities, on the otherhand, opine that there was no vote buying andcheating in their place (66% and 83%,respectively) and label the electoral results asbelievable (89%). Such were the predominantsentiments across geographic areas and socio-economic classes.
ULAT NG BAYAN SURVEY (JULY 2 TO 8, 2016)
Election Credibility❖In addition, sizeable to bigmajorities consider the results ofthe 2016 polls to be more credible(63%) and the pace of the releaseof electoral results to be faster(78%) as compared to the 2010elections. These are also themajority opinions in everygeographic area (55% to 71% and74% to 81%, respectively) andsocio-economic groupings (59% to65% and 75% to 81%,respectively).
COMELEC Performance Scorecard❖The COMELEC adopted a specific strategyfor the 2016 automated elections:improve upon its performance in the 2010and 2013 polls, learn from the lessons ofthese elections, as well as demonstratehow processes could be improved (refer toFigure).
❖This led to the identification of seven (7)key resolved areas/performance indicators(KRAs/KPIs) against which the Comelecwould be measured, and which eventuallyled to the development of the Comelecperformance scorecard.
COMELEC Performance Scorecard (1)
KRA/KPI: VOTER TURNOUT
2010 2013 2016
TOTAL VOTERS IN
THE PH
50,653,828 51,345,478 54,363,844
TURNOUT 74.99% 77.57% 81.95%
TOTAL OVERSEAS
FILIPINO VOTERS 589,830 737,759 1,376,067
TURNOUT 25.99% 16.11% 31.25%
TOTAL LOCAL
ABSENTEE
VOTERS25,663 12,732 24,727
TURNOUT 74.33% 65.59% 77.76%
COMELEC Performance Scorecard (2)
KRA/KPI: BALLOT PRINTING
2010 2013 2016
TOTAL NO.
OF PRINTED
BALLOTS50,850,939 52,333,801 55,736,801
TOTAL NO.
OF DAYS TO
COMPLETE
PRINTING
81 57 49
COMELEC Performance Scorecard (3)
KRA/KPI: VOTER EDUCATION CAMPAIGN
2010 2013 2016
CANDIDATE
DEBATE
Media
Sponsored
Media
Sponsored
Comelec-
led
ELECTION DAY
SIGNAGES AND
POSTERSNone None YES
VCM
ROADSHOW
YES No YES
SEPARATE
INFORMATION
WEBSITEYES No YES
COMELEC Performance Scorecard (4)
KRA/KPI: ACCURACY
2010 2013 2016
RANDOM
MANUAL AUDIT
235 235 715
TRANSMISSION
OF RESULTS
90% 76% 96.14%
VOTER RECEIPT No No YES
AUDIO
SUPPORT FOR
DISABLED
VOTERS
No No YES
COMELEC Performance Scorecard (5)KRA/KPI: SECURITY
2010 2013 2016
DIGITAL
SIGNATURE
Machine Machine Machine + 3
DATA
ENCRYPTION
128 bit 128 bit 256 bit
PROTECTION OF
MEMORY CARDS
CF Cards cannot
simultaneously
save data in the
main and back-up
cards
CF Cards cannot
simultaneously
save data in the
main and back-up
cards
SD Cards capable
to simultaneously
save data in the
main and back-up
cards
UV-DETECTION
FEATURE
No YES YES
COMELEC Performance Scorecard (6)KRA/KPI: TRANSPARENCY
2010 2013 2016
MOCK
ELECTIONS
9 Locations
09 Feb 2010
28 Locations
02 Feb 2013
40 Locations
13 Feb 2016
SOURCE CODE
REVIEW
1 Month
before the 2010
elections
4 Days
before the 2013
elections
7 Months
before the 2016
elections for
initial review
3 Months
before the 2016
elections for final
review
PUBLIC BALLOT
PRINTING
TRACKING
SYSTEM
No No YES
RESULTS
WEBSITE
No No YES
COMELEC Performance Scorecard (7)KRA/KPI: ELECTION SERVICES
2010 2013 2016
ACCESSIBLE
POLLING PLACE
None 4
Voting Centers
289
Voting Centers
LEGAL
ASSISTANCE
None None 14
Regions
MEDICAL
ASSISTANCE
None None 2,446
Voting Centers
ELECTION
RELATED
VIOLENCE166 109 90
ACCESSIBILITY
AUDIT
None None 479
MALL
REGISTRATION
None None
Approximately
500,000
Registrants in
190 Malls
Random Manual Audit Results❖The Random Manual AuditCommittee reported the AES 99.9%accurate after months of testing over700 clustered polling precinctsrepresenting legislative districtsnationwide.
❖The Random Manual AuditCommittee composed of theCOMELEC, NAMFREL and PhilippineStatistics Authority stated that datafrom 687 precincts show audit countsmatched 99.9023 percent accuracy.
Conclusion❖The 2016 elections have been managed far better thanthe past two automated elections held in 2010 and2013, with the electorate seemingly having moreconfidence in the election system. While there are stillsome problem areas to look into, these do not detractfrom the generally perceived credible and orderlyconduct of last year’s elections.
❖There are several avenues to be taken to furtherimprove the election system in the country:o Comelec should explore ways to intensify current efforts
and work alongside political parties and CSOs to fully utilizesocial media to reach the youth and encourage theirparticipation in elections;
o may want to consider alternative registration proceduresfor IPs and for PWDs. E.g. enumerators may be sent to theirrespective areas or residences and online registration mayalso be extended to PWDs;
o should reproduce its “right and wrong ways to mark a ballot
paper” poster on laminated sheets to be handed among,and discussed by, voters waiting in line;
o consider appointing a 4th polling official, at least in busierprecincts, to mitigate potential bottlenecks in polling;
o RMA protocols should carefully distinguish between ballotpaper marks not scanned in accordance with VCM settingsfrom outright failure of VCM scanning;
o the term “Digital Signature” should be placed in the law,and be defined in an Amendment to the AES Law; shouldplace relevant information on the VVPAT to make it a moreeffective transparency measure;
o the Source Code Review should not be limited to onlyreading the codes, but should also allow the use of softwaretools to test the system;
o and the Comelec should restore the NLE 2016 Results in itswebsite or in a separate one linked to the Comelec websitefor public access