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