theilocosguilder

7 OUT OF 10 FILIPINOS REJECT ECONOMIC REVISIONS TO CHARTER

March 30, 2009

IBON Survey / 27 March 2009

Majority of Filipinos do not favor amendments to the economic provisions of the 1987 Constitution, according to the latest nationwide survey conducted by research group IBON Foundation, Inc.

Of the number of respondents who are aware of current proposals for Charter change (Cha-cha), 87.7% said they do not favor reforms to the Constitutional provision prohibiting foreign ownership of land. Meanwhile, 85.7% opposes the revisions allowing foreign ownership of utilities and natural resources extraction.

Amendments to the economic provisions of the Constitution are among the proposals under House Resolution 737 filed by House Speaker Prospero Nograles. The committee on constitutional amendments approved Nograles’s resolution in February.

Respondents also opposed other proposed amendments to the Charter. Almost 58% said they are not in favor of local government autonomy through a federal system, while 55% opposed the shift from presidential to parliamentary system.

Asked if they were in favor of removing the provision prohibiting foreign troops, 60.5% said no. Meanwhile, 67.7% said they are not in favor of removing the nuclear free provision in the Charter.

The latest IBON survey was conducted on January 7-16 among 1,500 respondents across various sectors and regions nationwide and has a margin of error of plus or minus three percent.

Below is the tabulation of results of the people’s perception on the proposed amendments to the Philippine Constitution.

Do you know the Arroyo administration has a proposal to amend or change the 1987 Philippine Consitution (Cha-Cha)?

	October 2008	January 2009
Yes	72.36	81.73
No	27.18	17.60
No Answer	0.47	0.67
Total	100.00	100.00

The following items are some of the filed reforms to the Constitution. Are you in favor of each of these?

Local government autonomy through a federal system

	January 2009
Yes	16.88
No	57.59
Don’t Know	24.63
No Answer	0.90
Total	100.00

Presidential to parliamentary system

	January 2009
Yes	20.07
No	54.98
Don’t Know	23.41
No Answer	1.55
Total	100.00

Foreign ownership of land

	January 2009
Yes	5.71
No	87.68
Don’t Know	5.14
No Answer	1.47
Total	100.00

Foreign ownership of utilities and natural resources extraction companies

	January 2009
Yes	7.34
No	85.73
Don’t Know	6.04
No Answer	0.90
Total	100.00

Removal of nuclear free provision

	January 2009
Yes	17.86
No	67.70
Don’t Know	12.64
No Answer	1.79
Total	100.00

Removal of prohibition of foreign troops

	January 2009
Yes	23.57
No	60.52
Don’t Know	13.87
No Answer	2.04
Total	100.00

The full results of the January 2009 survey may be viewed at www.ibon.org.

IBON Foundation, Inc. is an independent development institution established in 1978 that provides research, education, publications, information work and advocacy support on socioeconomic issues.

Posted by theilocosguilder at 1:38 pm | permalink | comments[1]

Comelec’s poll automation will make fraud more dangerous

ISSUE ANALYSIS No. 05
Series of 2009

OMR creates the danger of placing the fate of the elections in the hands of a profit-oriented multinational company – the winning bidder – and on the Comelec which remains ill-prepared to run an election technology let alone in checking fraud.

By the Policy Study, Publication, and Advocacy (PSPA)
Center for People Empowerment in Governance (CenPEG)
March 25, 2009

When at most 70 percent of some 50 million voters go to the polls on May 10, 2010, they won’t be able to track how their votes are counted or canvassed. Winners in the national and local elections led by a new president will be declared two or three days after – and the whole nation will be at a loss in knowing whether the election results are real. Protests may probably be hard to file not only because of a lack of paper trail but also for lack of time.

The trouble with the Precinct Count Optical Sensor (PCOS) adopted by the Commission on Elections (Comelec) for use in the 2010 elections is that it does not guarantee an open, transparent, and credible automated system. Under the PCOS, the voter shades a ballot which s/he then drops inside a ballot box. Because voters are unfamiliar with the new technology voting will be slow and is extended to 6 p.m. after which all ballot boxes are brought to the precinct counting center – about 80,000 of them all over the country. Here, the ballots are fed into the optical mark reader (OMR) for counting and an election return (ER) is generated. The ERs are then electronically transmitted via the OMR simultaneously to the municipal, provincial, and national canvassing centers and, voila, the winners are proclaimed.

Engrossed with implementing RA 9369 which mandates the automation of elections, the Comelec appears to have glossed over the fact that Filipino voters have been looking for open, transparent, and credible elections. Making the counting and canvassing of election results fast may be a positive move which the poll body claims to be addressing. But unless elections are credible – which previous polls have been bereft of due to widespread fraud – then more and more voters will shy away from the polls.

Machine vulnerability

Poll automation feeds the wrong impression to the public that elections will be clean and credible. Because it is a machine, it is powerless against any fraud that takes place before, during, and after the elections. And, because it is just a machine, it is vulnerable to human intervention such as software attack, glitches, and other technical problems that could result in wholesale electronic cheating. (See www.cenpeg.org for papers and powerpoints on election automation.) The high stakes in the 2010 elections, including choosing a new president, administration attempts to make sure that the next president is friendly to Gloria M. Arroyo, as well as the 17,000 national and local seats up for grabs by some 90,000 candidates will make fraud machineries sabotage the whole electoral process using both the traditional and modern technology.

If pilot tests determine what technology makes for credible elections, then the conduct and results of the August 2008 Autonomous Region for Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) should make the OMR machine not suited for the coming polls. In that automated election, at least 23 common errors and other deficiencies were recorded in relation to the use of OMR and the Digital Recording Electronic (DRE). Based on the tests, the Comelec Advisory Council (CAC) in its October 2008 report found the poll body technically ill-equipped to meet the complexities of an automated election system (AES). Meanwhile, ARMM poll watchers conceded that open cheating was rampant in many precincts thus effectively influencing the outcome of the elections. Incidentally, multinationals Smartmatic and Avante whose technologies were tested in the ARMM polls are again making a bid for the P11.3 billion election automation equipment to be used in the May 2010 polls.

Given the expected operations of fraud machineries in the coming elections, one way by which the present Comelec can at least minimize cheating is to make poll automation open, transparent, credible, and participatory. It does not make sense that the poll body has chosen the OMR which makes counting and canvassing of votes invisible to the eye with Comelec perhaps hoping that the poll officials, machines, vendors, software developers, electronic transmission systems, and other technical services can be trusted.

The technology’s lack of transparent procedures and mechanisms make OMR vulnerable to fraud. Some Comelec commissioners admit that their schedule is tight thus making it inevitable that any delay in any of its calendared activities could damage the whole process. What this implies is that all the technological, human requirements and safeguards for the automated elections may not be in place on the eve of election. Serious technical and political implications are not remote.

Lacks transparency

The Comelec itself lacks transparency. Its hardline predisposition to adopt the OMR has prevented other groups not only from adequately presenting their critique of this technology but also from proposing other technologies which they believe is suitable to Philippine conditions while being compliant with RA 9369. According to sources, Comelec Chair Jose Melo has overruled the Open Election System (OES) being endorsed or supported by a former Comelec head, IT specialists, academic experts, and some political parties simply because it is not legally compliant with RA 9369 as far as full automation is concerned.

Had any of the commissioners and advisers given the OES proponents more time, then they would have found that, compared to the PCOS, this technology is more compliant with the AES law. OES uses manual voting and open counting at the precinct level and uses tested computer technology developed by Filipino software programmers for the encoding, transmission, canvassing, and consolidation of election returns. Its added advantage is the use of a public website where election data is constantly updated and posted for public tracking and monitoring; where figures can be verified against ERs not only by voters but also poll watchers, candidates, and political parties.

Aside from being cheaper and “cost effective” (P4 billion versus the PCOS’s P11.3 billion), it conforms to RA 9369 which promotes the use of “the most suitable technology of demonstrated capacity” as well as “transparency, credibility, fairness, and accuracy of elections.”

OMR creates the danger of placing the fate of the elections in the hands of a profit-oriented multinational company – the winning bidder – and on the Comelec which remains ill-prepared to run an election technology let alone in checking fraud. It even makes poll watching harder if not futile. Voters want to see the next polls entirely different from previous rigged elections – one that is people-participator y and where they can decide on the outcome. The open and transparent features of the OES at least make it equal to the voters’ democratic expectations.

Reference:

Bobby Tuazon
Director, Policy Study, Publication and Advocacy (PSPA)
Center for People Empowerment in Governance (CenPEG)
TelFax +63-2 9299526; mobile phone: 0915-6418055
E-mail: issueanalysis2009@ cenpeg.org, cenpeg.info@gmail.com
http://www.cenpeg. org

Posted by theilocosguilder at 1:00 pm | permalink | Add comment

COMELEC SHOULD EXTEND REGISTRATION FOR YOUTH

March 28, 2009

This a News release from Kabataang Pinoy urging the COMELEC to extend registration to first time voters. We are reposting it here to help the cause to inform the youth and those who are not yet registered voters to make the first step to activly participate in our electoral process and be an active force in shaping our future.

Shorter voters’ registration means disenfranchisement
Extend registration period to January 2010, COMELEC urged

22 February 2009

Youth group Kabataang Pinoy today criticized the decision of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) to cut short the period for voters’ registration for the 2010 elections to October 21 instead of December 15.

Kabataang Pinoy Spokesman Vencer Crisostomo said COMELEC’s recent move could significantly impede registration of first-time voters as well as the re-registration of eligible citizens.

“Shorter registration means massive voter disenfranchisement. By resetting the deadline for registration two months earlier, COMELEC is shoving away two million potential young, first-time voters, not to mention a significant number of eligible Filipino adults who have not yet registered and voted in an election,” Crisostomo said.

“COMELEC is mistaken about its priorities. While it is important to prepare for the automation project, it is equally vital that COMELEC ensure an inclusive electoral process that would protect the right of all qualified voters to suffrage. The Commission should not pit these two against each other,” he pointed out.

“COMELEC should even extend the registration up to January 2010, if it wants higher voters’ turnout and participation in the coming elections,” he said.

Online registration during school enrollment sought

Meanwhile, Crisostomo said COMELEC should come up with more creative ways of encouraging potential voters to register for the 2010 elections.

“COMELEC should reach out more and make the registration process easier and more accessible to people by conducting more satellite registration in schools, public markets and business centers.”

Crisostomo also urged COMELEC to explore the possibility of conducting an online registration and hold it simultaneously with school enrollment. He said the system had already been used in some colleges in the United States where students can also register to vote when they enlist for classes online.

Kabataang Pinoy is a socio-civic group aimed at empowering the youth by promoting social involvement and awareness on national and sectoral issues. #

Reference: Vencer Crisostomo, 09224290258

Posted by theilocosguilder at 10:44 pm | permalink | Add comment

Primer on the Right to Reply Bill

Prepared by the College Editors Guild of the Philippines (CEGP)
February 2009

This primer seeks to shed analysis and explain in detail why the College Editors Guild of the Philippines is steadfastly rejecting the Right of Reply Bill.

What is the Right of Reply Bill?

In June 2004, Senate Bill (SB) 1178 was filed by Senator Aquilino Pimentel during the 13th Congress. The said bill, however, passed the third reading but failed to get approved due to lack of time. When Congress resumed sessions in June 2007, Pimentel immediately re-filed his bill and gained Senate approval by June 2008. SB 1178 was then effectively substituted by SB 2150.

On July 29, 2008, the Senate passed SB 2150, otherwise known as: “An Act Granting the Right of Reply and Providing Penalties for Violation Thereof,” on its third reading. It was supported by Senators Ramon Bong Revilla Jr., Francis “Chiz” Escudero, Mar Roxas, Loren Legarda and Pimentel, among others.

Meanwhile, Bacolod City Representative Monico Puentevella filed House Bill (HB) 1001 and Aurora Congressman Juan Edgardo Angara filed HB 162 as counterparts of SB 2150 in the Lower House. These two bills were combined and were substituted by HB 3306. HB 3306 is currently being heard in the Lower House, with Congressmen Bienvenido Abante, Angara and Puentevella as main sponsors.

It is interesting to note that although SB 2150 and HB 3306 were filed in different houses, they bear identical titles and has a hair strand difference.

The Right of Reply Bill would mandate media companies, outfits and entities to provide “equal space or airtime” to anyone who is a subject of critical reports, to reply or react as form of the latter’s freedom of expression, thus, the right to reply. The bill, furthermore, stipulates that this be done within three (3) days of a news item’s publication or airing.

The House measure furthermore seeks to punish the publisher and editor-in-chief of a publication or the owner and station manager of a broadcast outfit if they fail to comply or give “equal treatment” to a complainant’s reply to a specific report.

The Senate approved the passage of the bill by a vote of 21-0. Congress, on the other hand, has delayed the hearing of the bill following strong opposition from media organizations and civil society groups. Supporters of the bill in the House of Representatives, however, are preparing a so-called ‘watered down’ version of the said bill following strong opposition from various media organizations.

Senators Escudero, Legarda and Roxas have also retracted their signatures on the Senate version, while Malacanang has vowed to veto the bill if and when Congress approves it.

This initial triumph of exposing the Right of Reply Bill can only be attributed to the overwhelming unity of campus press, media practitioners and concerned groups over the bill’s threat to press freedom and freedom of expression.

Why reject the Right of Reply Bill?

1. The Bill is unconstitutional. It violates Article III, Section 4 of the 1987 Constitution, “No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances,” as well as several principles of criminal law.

National Union of People’s Lawyers (NUPL) secretary general Neri Colmenares cited the overly broad and vague provision in the bill mandating the right of reply of all persons “who are criticized by innuendo, suggestion, or rumor for any lapse in behavior in public or private life” in saying that the elements of a supposed crime are “not clear.” “Who decides what is ‘innuendo, suggestion, rumor or lapse in behavior’?” Colmenares said.

Moreover, once the bill is signed into law, Filipinos will also, directly or indirectly, be denied of their right to information which is the building block of any sound judgment that will lead to actions meant to preserve the rights and welfare of the citizenry.

2. The Bill is repressive. Should the bill pass into law, many journalists and/or media outfits will be hindered from performing their prime tasks as watchdogs of society out of fear of paying sums of pesos as punishment for not printing the reply of a “ridiculed or maligned” person.

The Guild believes the bill, which requires or mandates media outfits to publish or air replies in the same space, be it front page or inside story, encroaches on the right of the editorial board to determine the content of publications according to the relevance of issues.

With this bill, the prerogative of the press to determine what to publish or broadcast is undermined for it compels the media to print or air the reply of the “aggrieved” person who does not even have the burden to prove that he has been affected by a report.

Prof. Danilo Arao of the University of the Philippines College of Mass Communications states, “As it is, the bill has negative repercussions on the workings of the press. Editors, normally referred to as the gatekeepers of information, should be allowed to choose which stories get published, aired or uploaded and which stories are given due prominence based on the time-tested elements of news. Instead of coming up with bills that seek to legislate how the media should function, it would do well for legislators to help strengthen self-regulation in media by creating an environment conducive for the effective practice of the media profession.”

Consequently, Section 3 of the Right of Reply Bill is sure to undermine especially the campus press. Due to lack of resources and its common operations, it is impossible for majority of campus publications to comply “not later than one day” as prescribed by HB 3306 or “not later than three days” according to SB 2150. Never has there been a daily student publication in the entire history of campus press.

Also, advocacy press, which includes student gazettes, would certainly fall victim to this bill due to the nature of their writings. It does not appease at all that the status quo of politics and press freedom in the country has been known to favor politicians and other prominent individuals in legal venues. Suffice to say, under such conditions that press people are working in, the Right of Reply Bill is not democratic at all, it is ultra democracy at the expense of press freedom and freedom of expression.

3. The Bill is pointless. There is no need for the Right of Reply Bill at all. The “aggrieved” person/s that the bill claims to protect has long been valued by the media in its practice of always getting two sides of the story.

While the Guild relents that media’s record is not entirely spotless, it echoes the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP) sentiment that “we cannot allow the sins of the few to be an excuse for the wholesale muzzling of a free press and the suppression of free expression. To do so would to allow bad governance to triumph.”

There are, also, inevitable reasons why sometimes only one side is aired or published: the person either refuses interview and/or the person is out-of-reach.

Moreover, as a practice, the media accommodates not just replies but even criticisms and statements through spaces such as the letter to the editor and opinion sections.

Furthermore, if the claim that this bill seeks to mitigate journalist killings in the country is to be believed, there is no reason, still, to discuss the bill at all. In resolving the culture of impunity, what the Philippine press needs is political will, not a mere bill.

What can we do?

1. Publish opposition to the Right of Reply Bill in campus papers, blogs and websites, emails and forum threads, or you may re-post this material. Write letters to the editors and opinion columns.

2. Organize fora and/or small group discussions in campus publication offices and other venues on the Right of Reply Bill. This primer may be reproduced or reprinted.

3. Email or send a letter rejecting the bill to offices of congressmen and senators, especially the bill’s sponsors.

4. Sign the petition against the Right of Reply Bill. (will update link soon).

5. Join protest actions against the Right of Reply Bill.

Gag us NOT! Reject the Right of Reply Bill! Defend Press Freedom! Uphold Campus Press Freedom!

Posted by theilocosguilder at 4:13 pm | permalink | Add comment