Category: Rules of Court

Election law & election campaigns, Rules of Court, The President

For transparent elections in May 2010: CenPeg vs. Comelec: Release the Source Code now (“source codes” are instructions to the computer)

 

artwork by www.cenpeg.org
artwork by http://www.cenpeg.org

Source codes are defined as follows:

Quote “26.1. Section 2(12) of RA 9369 defines the Source Code thus: “12. Source Code – human readable instructions that define what the computer equipment will do.” (from the CenPeg Petition for Mandamus, by Attorneys Pimentel and Joaquin) :

In other words, in simpler terms, the “source code” would spell out,  in a way understandable to ordinary people, the set of instructions programmed in the software; these instructions show what the  computer would do with our votes.

XXX

CenPeg (Center for People Empowerment in Governance) had asked the Supreme Court to compel the Comelec to immediately release the source code of the automated election system; the Comelec had responded that it would do so after Feb 6, when the system had been certified by an “international certifier” it has chosen.

Cenpeg can either wait for a motion/ pleading from the Comelec lawyers; the Comelec lawyers would probably say  that since the Comelec would release the source code on Feb. 6,  the issue was now resolved (“mootness”); CenPeg can either wait for such a motion or pleading to respond to;  or CenPeg can pre-empt by pointing out in a supplemental petition that Feb. 6 is too late and would render the Petition and  the objective of being able to review the source code moot and academic.

Here are excerpts from the Petition for Mandamus of CenPeg (underscoring supplied):

 

Atty. Joaquin filing the case for CenPeg; photo by www.cenpeg.org
Atty. Joaquin filing the case for CenPeg; photo by http://www.cenpeg.org

Quote “28. It is necessary to review the source code.

Quote “28.1. Since the source code is, simply, a set of instructions which the computer will follow, the public has the right to know if the

instructions given to the computers will promote free, orderly,

honest, peaceful, credible and informed elections and will ensure

the secrecy and sanctity of the ballot and all election, consolidation and transmission in order that the process shall be transparent and credible and that the results shall be fast, accurate and reflective of the genuine will of the people.

Quote “28.2. The purpose of the review is to ascertain that the software:

Quote “28.2.1. may not be used to corrupt and thwart the genuine will of the people;

Quote “28.2.2. faithfully implements the provisions of the Automated Election System Law (RA-9369) and the COMELEC Terms of Reference, that is, does not contain glaring and serious programming errors or bugs;

Quote “28.2.3. uses safe programming practices like stack overflow

checking, buffer overflow checking, proper memory allocation and deallocation, proper signal handling, etc.;and,

Quote “28.2.4. will be executing under proper environment settings that are not prone to easy manipulation nor vulnerable to malicious external attacks

Quote “28.3. The review will reveal if the software to be used is not  xxx vulnerable to malicious codes and bugs which may be used to corrupt the thwart the genuine will of the people.

Quote “29. Time is of the essence in the review of the source code.

Quote “29.1. The reviewers will need sufficient time to first familiarize themselves with the program structure and architecture.

Quote “29.2. The reviewers will then review each line of code. For the AES (automated election system) technology selected by COMELEC to be implemented, it is estimated that there will be One Hundred Thousand (100,000) lines of code to be reviewed and analyzed.

Quote “29.3. In order to sufficiently review a source code of such magnitude, it will take at least three (3) months for a team of programmers working full time.

Quote “29.4. Should there by any anomalies discovered, more time must be allotted to remedy the same.

Quote “29.5. Any remedy must also be reviewed.

Quote “29.6. There are only seven (7) months until the May 10, 2009 Synchronized National and Local Elections.

Quote “Conclusion

Quote “The delay and/or refusal by COMELEC to make the source code available have no basis and are devoid of merit. The consequence of such delay and/or refusal is none other than the erosion of the trust and confidence in the very process which the State declares to promote.

Quote “Prayer

Quote “WHEREFORE, premises considered, petitioner respectfully prays that this

Quote “Honorable Court immediately direct:

Quote “1. COMELEC to immediately make the source codes available to petitioner and all other interested parties; and,

Quote “2. COMELEC, and any other person acting under its authority, to cease and desist from unnecessarily dictating upon, interfering with, much less preventing, petitioner and other interested parties in the conduct of the review, which would tend to make such review inutile.

Quote “Petitioner likewise prays for such other reliefs this Honorable Court may deem just and equitable under the premises.

San Juan, Metro Manila for the City of Manila. 01 October 2009.” Closed quote.

For CenPeg:

AQUILINO LL. PIMENTEL III

Counsel for CenPEG

JOAQUIN ADARLO & CAOILE LAW OFFICES

Collaborating Counsel for CenPEG

FRANCISCO G. JOAQUIN, III

Co-counsel for CenPeg

 

 

Original videos photos music-slides, Rules of Court

Happy National Heroes’ Day! video:eddleth. initially shaky camera maybe ‘cuz of the crowd

Credits: “Lumuha Ka Aking Sining”  [or “Weep, my beloved Muses”…. or “Weep, Thy Muses” (translation mine, with apologies.) The literal translation of the line is “Cry, My Art” “Lumuha Ka Aking Sining”  — if you want it more literal, it’s “You Cry, My Art”].

Read by Celeste Legazpi adapted from National Artist Amado Hernandez’s “Lumuha ka Aking Bayan” [“Cry, My Beloved Country” or “Cry, O Motherland” (translation mine with apologies) ; the literal translation is: “Cry, My Country”.]

YouTube original video by eddleth;started off with shaky camera work maybe because of the crowd.

For my National Heroes’ Day post, i’ve ran out original videos (i’ve stopped producing original videos, stopped ashtanga yoga practice for a month, then resumed once, stopped two weeks, then resumed once; so i’ve no right to produce original videos of warrior poses or other poses so….i surfed YouTube and found this.)

The update of this is: the Supreme Court issued a TRO enjoining or stopping GMA and the Palace from handing out the National Artist Award this year; a first in the history of the National Artist Award as i understand it. As everybody knows, a TRO from the Supreme Court is of indefinite duration. The matter is now being litigated as the Palace was asked to file a Comment. For non-Filipinos reading this: it will be recalled that the Palace, without any explanation, inserted its own National Artist Awardees to the nominees submitted by the committee responsible for recommending the nominees. The Palace nominees were known supporters of GMA and one was even a presidential appointee with a conflict-of-interest, being a member of the board that screened the National Artist awardees. When the protest gained momentum with rallies and other mobilization, the Palace spokespersons turned up their noses and replied, “Hale us to the Supreme Court. ” Yeah, they really said that, in a longer press statement; can you believe it; it’s the equivalent of, “So, sue us!” Coming from a public official and from the Palace, “So, sue us!” is the equivalent of “We’re in power, tough!” or “We’re in power, we can do whatever we want.” (Ba’t sila ganun?…Nagtanong ka pa!) It disregards the principle behind the constitutional right of citizens to petition their government for redress of grievances. So, they were hauled off…. and now, it’s…hail! (i’m just practising my alliteration).

Hail to the artists, writers, concerned citizens, professors, and lawyers, who led this movement and to the justices of the Supreme Court! Happy National Heroes’ Day!

constitutional law, Rules of Court

CJ Puno : “(There’s no) open invitation for the ignorant and the ignoble…(who) prove nothing but their cerebral deficit.”

The full quote from Supreme Court Chief Justice Reynato Puno Jr  in the Supreme Court  resolutiondismissing the con-ass case (petition) filed by Oliver Lozano, et al(i just shortened it in the title due to space constraints)is:

“( And) while the Court has taken an increasingly liberal approach to the rule of Locus Standi, it is not an open invitation for the ignorant and the ignoble to file petitions that prove nothing but their cerebral deficit. ”

Chief Justice Puno was both eloquent and cutting. “ignorant and ignoble… (who) prove nothing but their cerebral deficit.” Ouch! Guess at whom that was obliquely directed.

When the CJ waxes — he shines.

Do you want that in Filipino? Here’s a faithful translation. (Webster’s defines “ignoble” as dishonourable. “Deficit” is “pagkukulang”)“Walang paanyaya…. para sa mga ignorante at walang-dangal…. na walang mga pinapatunayan…. kundi ang kanilang pagkukulang sa pag-iisip.”Ouch!That’s the Chief Justice for you, kiddo.

The full resolution has not been uploaded in the Supreme Court website; i took the quote from parts of the resolution quoted in the official press release of the Supreme Court found in their website at www.sc.judicary.gov.ph

Quote “SC Dismisses Petitions to Nullify “Con-Ass” Resolution

Quote “Posted: June 16, 2009

Quote “The Supreme Court en banc, in a unanimous resolution penned by Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, has dismissed the “con-ass” petitions for being premature and for lack of locus standi.

Quote “The Court refused to exercise its jurisdiction over the two consolidated petitions filed by concerned citizens Atty. Oliver O. Lozano together with Atty. Evangeline J. Lozano-Endriano, and Louis C. Biraogo, which both asked for the nullification of House Resolution No. 1109 calling for a Constituent Assembly in Congress, because “the fitness of petitioners’ case for the exercise of judicial review is grossly lacking.”

Quote “ The Court’s power of review “is limited to actual cases and controversies dealing with parties having adversely legal claims, to be exercised after full opportunity of argument by the parties.” The resolution further explains that “The case-or-controversy requirement bans this court from deciding ‘abstract, hypothetical or contingent questions.’”

Quote” The petitions filed were found to be premature or unripe for review because it lacked the showing of any proven “adverse injury or hardship from the act complained of.” The court also notes that “no actual convention has yet transpired and no rules of procedure have yet been adopted.” In fact, “no proposal has yet been made, and hence, no usurpation of power or gross abuse of discretion has yet taken place.” Thus, “the House has not yet performed a positive act that would warrant an intervention from this Court.”

Quote “Furthermore, petitioners Lozano, Endriano, and Biragao were found to have no standing to sue because they have no personal stake in the case. The claim that they are all concerned citizens and taxpayers do not warrant them a personal stake, as “a taxpayer’s suit requires that the act complained of directly involves the illegal disbursement of public funds derived from taxation.” In the case at hand, there has been no allocation or disbursement of public funds yet.

Quote ” Neither can they claim locus standi based on “an issue of transcendental importance or [by showing that a] paramount public interest is involved,” because “the possible consequence of House Resolution No. 1109 is yet unrealized.” Locus Standi is a constitutional requirement – the Constitution mandates courts of justice to settle only “actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable.”

Quote”And “while the Court has taken an increasingly liberal approach to the rule of Locus Standi, it is not an open invitation for the ignorant and the ignoble to file petitions that prove nothing but their cerebral deficit.”

Quote” Ten justices concurred with the Chief Justice. One justice took no part while the other was on official leave. There are currently two vacancies in the High Court.” closed-quote