FILE PHOTO
MANILA, Philippines鈥擡xactly three days until Election Day, the call for vigilance was loud enough as Filipinos, led by the group Kontra Daya, vowed not to let the credibility of the election process get undermined.
鈥淲e will reject any attempt to subvert the people鈥檚 choice and hold accountable all those who conspire to steal our hope for a better Philippines,鈥� members of the group said as they raised white ribbons outside the Manila Cathedral in Intramuros, Manila on Friday (May 6).
Kontra Daya, which was established in 2007 because of the need to keep a watchful eye on election cheating, was with Church leaders to call for 鈥渃lean and honest鈥� elections and ask Filipinos to be vigilant against all kinds of election-related lies and violence.
鈥淲e are here to let them know that we are ready, we are vigilant. If we need to act, we will, especially now that disinformation and all kinds of 鈥榚lection cheating鈥� are intensifying,鈥� it said.
As they signed Kontra Daya鈥檚 鈥淐all for Vigilance鈥�, they said 鈥渓et the people decide, let truth and fairness prevail鈥�.
Difficult times
University of the Philippines Prof. Danilo Arao, a convenor of Kontra Daya, told that since 2007, when the elections were still manual, cheating was already widespread.
鈥淭he abuses of the powerful are really evident because vote-buying is widespread. Likewise, disinformation is really intensifying, not only through historical denialism鈥攖hrough red-tagging as well,鈥� he said.
Since Kontra Daya was established, the first election year since the 鈥淗ello, Garci鈥� scandal broke out, Arao said some of the most prevalent ways of election cheating are vote-buying, harassment and intimidation, and misuse of government resources.
鈥淲hat鈥檚 different now is the disinformation. It already reached the point of historical denialism. Well-established facts are being dismissed through alternative facts,鈥� he said.
For Arao, who said that disinformation intensified this year, 鈥渢his is not acceptable because it prevents people from making the right decision on who to vote for鈥�.
GRAPHIC: Ed Lustan
Tricking the way to victory
黑料社 lists down the most prevalent ways of election cheating in the Philippines, as discussed by Arao, former Supreme Court Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio and the Administration and Cost of Elections Project (ACE).
- Vote-buying
The group Transparency International (TI) said that vote-buying is 鈥渙ne of the symptoms of a systemic lack of political integrity that weakens the trust that people have in their elected representatives and limits their ability to speak freely and safely against corruption鈥�.
Vote-buying, the Omnibus Election Code (OEC) stated, is the act of 鈥済iving, offering or promising鈥� anything of value to make him or her vote 鈥渇or or against any candidate or withhold his or her vote in the election鈥�.
Arao said that in elections鈥攎anual or automated鈥攙ote-buying is the most prevalent way of cheating. 鈥淭he rich and the powerful will always do everything it takes to stay in power,鈥� he said.
In 2020, TI asked 20,000 individuals from 17 states: Were you ever offered a bribe in exchange for votes? The results revealed that one in seven individuals was offered bribes in exchange for votes in national, regional or local elections.
As revealed by TI鈥檚 Global Corruption Barometer鈥擜sia, incidents of vote-buying were highest in Thailand and the Philippines, where 28 percent of voters were offered a bribe in exchange for their vote; Indonesia (26 percent); India (18 percent); Maldives (18 percent).
- Waylaying
The ACE鈥檚 list, which considers the significance of integrity in the election process, said that waylaying could be committed through these: fraud or stealth and intimidation or downright terrorism.
It has the same objective as negative vote-buying except that the voter has no financial gain: 鈥淲ith the connivance of the Board of Election Inspectors, the voter鈥檚 name is deleted from the list.鈥�
This then results in confusion and the disenfranchisement of the voter.
The OEC stressed that threats, intimidation, terrorism and coercion is the act of directly or indirectly threatening, intimidating or inflicting violence, damage, loss or disadvantage to any person, the immediate members of his family, his honor or property to prevent him or her from these:
- Registering as a voter
- Taking part in a campaign
- Casting of vote
Arao said that through the years, election-related violence has been prevalent鈥攔ivals are killed, the people backing him or her are killed. 鈥淭hat鈥檚 happening,鈥� he told as he said that the Ampatuan Massacre was the 鈥渨orst case鈥� of election-related violence.
- Voting for the rest
ACE said that one of the most prevalent ways of cheating in the elections, especially when it was not yet automated, is filling-up of ballots by only one person.
鈥淭he legitimate voters are driven away and the henchmen of the warlord are left to do the voting for them,鈥� it said.
There are likewise instances where the voting is done by persons other than the registered voters themselves.
Toward the end, the list is scanned for those who have not voted yet. Ballots are issued to persons other than the registered voters and are filled up by the co-conspirators of the cheating candidate.
鈥淎s expected, it is his name that will appear in the appropriate place,鈥� the ACE said.
- Disinformation
Like what Arao said, disinformation is what鈥檚 different in this year鈥檚 election鈥攆ake news is disseminated to mislead voters.
Kontra Daya said in 2018 that the prevalence of disinformation, especially online, is serious enough that it may be considered as a form of election fraud.
鈥淭he lies, misinformation and disinformation resulting from the activities of online trolls cannot be denied [鈥 Any attempt to deceive the electorate should be exposed and those responsible for it should be made accountable,鈥� it said.
For instance, Tsek. PH, a fact-checking initiative, revealed on Feb. 25 that out of the fake or misleading content about Vice President Leni Robredo online, 94 percent were negative while all of the content about her running mate Sen. Kiko Pangilinan were entirely negative.
Likewise, he said disinformation was even intensified through red-tagging: 鈥淭his is serious because the one being tagged, even the people backing him or her, will be at greater risk of danger.鈥�
- Pilfering ballots, tampering of SD cards
Last year, the automated election system (AES), Carpio said, is still prone to vulnerabilities鈥攑ilfering of ballots and tampering of cards.
鈥淭he ballots, as well as the flash cards containing the AES operating system, are manually delivered over several days by one logistics company. The delivery starts from the Comelec warehouses in Metro Manila and ends at some 100,000 precincts all over the country,鈥� he wrote in his INQUIRER column.
The first vulnerability, he said, is that unscrupulous persons can pilfer a percentage of the ballots and ask their chosen voters to insert the pilfered ballots, already shaded, into the voting machine when they vote.
This type of cheating, although difficult to carry out because the ballots are precinct-specific and cannot just be inserted into any voting machine, may still be resorted to by desperate parties.
This concern was likewise raised last year, when the Commission on Elections (Comelec) signed a contract with a logistics company owned by a businessman known to be close to President Rodrigo Duterte.
Since the Comelec awarded the contract to the company last August, concerns were raised because of possible conflict of interest in entrusting the transportation of election equipment and supplies to a company run by someone close to Duterte.
The second risk is that unscrupulous persons may tamper with the flash cards so that these cards, which are precinct-specific just like the ballots, will print out predetermined results in the election returns.
While Carpio said that, as evident in the election protests decided by the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, Senate Electoral Tribunal, as well as the Presidential Electoral Tribunal, no one has found a way to hack the AES.
However, hacking, which is the act of receiving information from the machine, altering it, then sending different results to the receiver could still happen.