Comelec junks proposal for parallel manual count

The Commission on Elections (Comelec) on Thursday threw out a proposal to conduct a full parallel manual count for the 2010 national and local elections on May 10, saying that a parallel count is a “regressive step” that will only “introduce error and fraud” into the automated election system.

In a seven-page resolution unanimously agreed upon by all commissioners, the Comelec said that it is denying the request to conduct a parallel manual count because hand counting and manual canvassing can open the door to old modes of cheating such as dagdag-bawas (padding-shaving) and the resurrection of sleeping Garcis.

The 2004 elections for president allegedly went the way of candidate Gloria Arroyo through fraud that was said to have been engineered in her favor by former poll official Virgilio “Garci” Garcillano.

The poll body said that a parallel manual count might lead to delayed proclamation of 2010 poll winners.

“The discovery of discrepancies—whether real or fabricated—in the count will open the floodgates of protest, leading inevitably to significant delays in the resolution of results-related issues. In theory, at least, this could even result in enough delay to prevent a proclamation of the President-elect before the 30th of June 2010,” the resolution said.

The law states that the incumbent president must step down from power by June 30 while the president-elect should be proclaimed before the same date.

If the Comelec decides to grant requests for a parallel manual count, a mere difference of 1 percent between the electronic count and the manual tally will compel the poll body to conduct a full manual count of all votes nationwide.

In the resolution, the poll body said that with cheating mechanisms of the past, it will be easy to reach the 1-percent discrepancy required to conduct a full manual count.

“[Discrepancies] will force an abandonment of the electronic count . . . [which would mean] that the old vulnerabilities of a manual count and canvass will once again be present and exploitable . . . casting much graver doubt on the credibility of the election results than mere automation ever could,” it added.

Comelec spokesman James Jimenez said that during a manual count, anyone could deliberately shade additional ovals or deface the ballots’ security marks “to make it appear that more ballots were read than should have been.”

It will only take 10 errors out of 100 votes to trigger a full manual count, Jimenez noted. “You have an electronic count . . . but you are introducing an element that introduces instability [to the system]. It is easy to take advantage of human fallibility . . . it will give a passport back to the old system.”

He said that no politician would accept defeat if there was an alleged discrepancy between the manual count and the electronic tally since “everyone wants a shot at winning.”

Jimenez said that the Comelec will hold a random manual audit in only about 1,143-clustered precincts nationwide. He added that the random audit is enough proof that the poll body would like to ensure the credibility of the 2010 elections.

A random manual audit would mean five-clustered precincts per congressional district undergoing manual count to compare the results with the electronic tally.

One of many groups that had batted for the manual count, the elite Makati Business Club, in a statement also on Thursday, said that it was “deeply disappointed” with the Comelec resolution junking the proposal. –BERNICE CAMILLE V. BAUZON Reporter, Manila Times