164 Chasing the Wind: Assessing Philippine Democracy, Second Edition mandated election ofcials, all election returns will have to be viewed as unauthorized and illegal. And, without a legal basis, no candidate can legally be proclaimed a winner (or, for that matter, a loser). Although Comelec took no meaningful action on any of the anomalies reported or complained about, Comelec chairman Brillantes, in his usual bullying tone, proclaimed this “the best election the country ever had”. On the contrary, no one – except the cabal that controls the electoral process – really can know what the May 2013 election outcomes actually were. The policy studies group CenPEG noted, “As in the 2010 presidential elections, voters could not really tell who won and who lost in the recent mid-term elections.” In fact, to indecently rush the proclamation of “winning” candidates, Comelec chairman Brillantes concocted a legally non-existent instrument, the “group canvass report”. Then, as CenPEG pointed out, Brillantes “was quoted by the press as saying that the proclamation of winning senatorial candidates was based on vote projection and not on the 100% completion of certicates of canvass (COCs).” Brillantes's words were, “We rely not on the exact number of votes but on the projected number of votes [that] we anticipate.” Really? This is unprecedented and unbelievable and unconstitutional. Could this old ler of election protests actually be ignorant of our election laws? Since when are ofcial election results based on “projections” and not on an actual count? Former Supreme Court Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban pointed out in his Inquirer column of May 18, 2013, “In my long years as a lawyer, this is my rst time to hear of these electoral instruments [group canvass reports]. In any event, law and settled jurisprudence require ofcial COCs [Certicates of Canvass], not any other documents, as bases of senatorial proclamations.” The former Chief Justice stressed, “The entrenched legal and commonsensical rule is that winners can be proclaimed only after all ballots have been ofcially canvassed.” At the time Brillantes proclaimed the “winning” senatorial candidates, the Comelec had only canvassed some 20% of the election returns. AES Watch challenged Comelec to release the real source codes, the transmission and audit logs, and all the other election documents and data it appeared to be hiding. Effectively accusing Comelec chairman Brillantes of both a lack of integrity and malicious intent, an AES Watch statement asserted, “The corruption and commercialization of the election process continues with the deliberate and systematic denials of critical documents and information by an election body that is beholden to the powers that be and chaired by an election lawyer who at one time counselled the Ampatuans of the infamous Maguindanao massacre and now takes pride in maligning vocal citizens groups and stiing legitimate dissent by any and all means, such as the use of presidential discretionary funds to conduct surveillance of election critics.” AES Watch contended, “Comelec should rst be held accountable for the major violations of law before it is able to take the path to genuine reforms now