56
Chasing the Wind: Assessing Philippine Democracy
Aside from the continuing cases of electoral violence, the endemic flaws in
the electoral system are further seen in the rampant practices of vote-buying,
vote-padding and shaving (dagdag-bawas), voters' list rigged with ghost voters
or double registrants, and overall weak electoral governance by the
COMELEC.10 For instance, in 2011 Governor Esmael Mangudadatu of
Maguindanao estimated that in his province “about 40-60 percent of the current
number of registered voter registrants are either ghost voters or double
registrants” (Quiros 2011: A17). COMELEC data also indicate unusually large
increases in the numbers of registered voters in the ARMM and Lanao del Sur
from 2007-2010 with the former showing an increase of 42 percent and the latter,
83 percent. As for the well-established practice of vote-buying, NAMFREL
observed that in the automated 2010 elections “the going rate for vote-buying
ran from a low of P500. to occasional reports of up to P5,000. The high rates were
attributed to multiple candidates trying to buy a vote from a single voter.”
(NAMFREL 2010)
Election Automation
Pursuant to a new law (Republic Act No. 9369) approved in 2007 that
sought the automation of elections in the country, the COMELEC put in motion
an automated election system (AES) in the May 2010 simultaneous national and
local elections. With a bidding process marked by controversy involving
disqualification of bidders and reconsiderations by COMELEC, the joint
venture firm, Smartmatic-TIM, won the contract for the automation project
after being initially disqualified. A Barbados-registered company, Smartmatic,
in partnership with another company, SAHI Technology, Inc., also won the bid
for the 2008 ARMM election automation project. While deemed a success by the
COMELEC and government officials, the automated elections in 2008 at the
ARMM was given an overall assessment rating of “Poor” by the Asian Network
for Free Elections (ANFREL), an independent, international elections
monitoring group. ANFREL noted rampant electoral fraud, including among
others, pervasive vote-buying, casting of multiple votes and phantom votes,
appointing relatives of local officials as Board of Election inspectors, cases of
voters being confused by the new technology, and an overall atmosphere of fear
with the pervasive presence of local officials in the voting precincts and
restricted movement of people days immediately prior to the election (ANFREL
2010). Local civil society organizations such as the Center for Peoples'
Empowerment in Governance (CenPEG) and the Legal Network for Truthful
Elections (LENTE) which sent observation teams to the 2008 ARMM elections
also shared this negative overall assessment of the process (CenPEG 2008).
Select target paragraph3
Connect to a paragraph
Connect to an entity
Disable highlights
Add to table of contents