Asian Election Stakeholder Forum III (AESF III) August 22 – 26, 2016 Bali, Indonesia "Transparency & integrity for Quality Elections" General Election Commission Republic of Indonesia and General Election Asian Network for Free Elections (ANFREL)

1. Addressing Electoral Fraud
& Automating Election Process
The Philippine Experience
LUIE TITO F. GUIA
COMMISSIONER, COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS (PHILIPPINES)
3rd Asian Election Stakeholders Forum
Bali, Indonesia, 22-25 August 2016

2. Philippine Context
• More than a hundred years of election history
• Philippines is an archipelago with more than
7,100 islands
• Population of about 102,965,300 (2015)
• To be able to vote, a qualified citizen needs to
register in the Voter Registry
• Registered Voters – 54,363,844 (2015)
• Voter Turnout – 81.95% (2016), 77% (2013)
74% (2010)

3. Philippine Context
• Simultaneous Election for all contests (except the
villages) every three years
• Tradition of using One Ballot Paper for all
contested positions
• Constitutionally created EMB, with permanent
staff nationwide
– Manages Elections
– Resolve Some Disputes
• Festive Election Atmosphere
• Heavily engaged CSOs and the Media

4. Areas to Cover
• Voter Registration and Management of the
Voter Registry
• Voting Process, Counting and Tabulation of
Votes

5. “Manual” System of Registration
(Prior to 1997)
• Voters’ Lists are prepared by
hand and are stored and filed
in shelves.
• Challenges
– Multiple listing
– Padding of Voter Registry
– Falsified Identity
• Cumbersome to update
voters’ profile e.g. death,
transfer or change of status
Recording Data in the
Book of Voters

6. Automating the Registry List
• Law on continuing registration
and establishment of voter data
base (1996)
• Centralize database of voters to
allow monitoring of the list and
update of information
• Adoption of Biometrics
Verification Process
– Automated Fingerprint
Identification System
– Biometrics Information made
mandatory (2013)
• “Tamper Proof” Voter’s ID
• Voter Status Online Verification.

7. Gains from Automated Voters List
• A Registry Easier to Manage
and Update
• Double/Multiple Listing can be
better detected
• Generating demographic
information is facilitated
• Easier to Detect Entry Error
• Voters’ Registry is more
available for individual or public
scrutiny
• Better Identity Check during
voting

8. “Manual” Voting System
• Ballots are prepared by writing the
name of the chosen candidates in
the ballot.
• Substitute Voting
• Facilitates Vote Buying
• Ballot Switching
• Misreading and/or Mis-tally of
Votes

9. “Manual” System of
Counting and Tallying and Votes
• Tampering of Vote
Tabulation Forms
• Delayed Announcement
Winners
• Highly Tense Political
Atmosphere

10. Deciding to Automate
• Extensive Study and Analysis of the Gaps in
the Election Process (1992-1995)
– Comprehensive Strategic Plan
– Engaging International (UNDP) and local experts
(voluntary basis) on Systems Managements
– Study Tour
• Decision to adopt as system that uses paper
ballots (Optical Mark Reader )

11. History of Implementation
• Law allowing Pilot Test in one area of the country
(1995) using paper based optical mark reading
• Conduct of the Pilot Test (1996)
• Law on Adoption of Automated Election System (1997)
using Optical Mark Reader
• Pilot Test Again of the system under the New Law
(1998)
• New Law passed in 2007 including, as option, Direct
Recording Electronic (DRE) System
• 2010 – the First Nationwide ”Automated“ Elections

12. Automating the Counting and
Tabulation Process
• Optical Mark Reader (OMR)
reads the Ballots
• Mandatory Paper Copy of the
Election Results
• Precinct Election Results are
electronically transmitted
• Precinct election results are
electronically tabulated.

13. Transparency Features and Public
Engagements
• “COMELEC Advisory Council” composed of
Government and Civil Society reps
– Terms of Reference Drafting
• “Source Code Review” by interested parties
• “Random Manual Audit” of the Result
• Observation and Consultation of political party
representatives in the preparation
• Election Results Website with Polling Station
Result published.

14. Challenges
• Cost of establishment and maintenance of
database and biometrics system
• Inadequate ICT infrastructure to optimize the
benefit of technology
• Biometric Requirements imposes additional
qualification for voting.
• Data Security and Privacy Issues
– Hacking Incident
• Complaints on Missing Names Persist

15. Challenges
• High Cost of the System
• Several Procurement Issues
• Small number of technology providers
• Legal Framework is biased against local
developed technology
• Persistent Cynicism and Doubt by some
quarters about the integrity of the system
despite Public Opinion Surveys gave high public
acceptance rating

16. The kind of the
technology must be
appropriate, meaning:
1) Should address
specific election
problem (fraud)
2) Worth the resources
that the State can
devote
3) Trust of
stakeholders

17. Need for Mutual Understanding
EMB
• Guided by Paradigm of
Authority
• Legal Responsibility
• Regulation Framework
• Constrained by
Bureaucratic Structures
and Processes
• No Monopoly of
expertise in elections
EMO
• Guided by defined
norms and ideals
• Moral Responsibility
• Reform Framework
• Urgency of Reform
• No Monopoly of
Good Intentions

18. Fostering Mutual Understanding
• Realize common societal objectives
– Free and Fair Election
– Honest Orderly and Peaceful Election
– Inclusive Transparent and Accountable Elections
• Accept and Recognize Respective Roles
– EMB
• Holds Principal Responsibility for the Success of Elections
• Makes Final Decision in Election
– EMO
• Articulates the common standards

19. Ideal Relationship
• Built on Trust and Mutual Respect
• Continuing Dialogue and Opened Lines of
Communication
• Collaboration on finding solutions to problems
in electoral processes
• Sharing in the success of the conduct of
elections

20. Terima Kasih!
Maraming Salamat!