Tag: Comelec

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

 

 

Criminal law, Election law & election campaigns, Rules of Court

My notes on d video of alleged signing of Comelec bid docs on P11.3 billion poll automation inside a Comelec toilet


Photo right-clicked from the Comelec website used here for non-commercial purposes

Photo right-clicked from the Comelec website used here for non-commercial purposes

 

         My notes on the video of the 11.2- billion-peso poll automation bidder allegedly being assisted by the Comelec bid chair in signing bid documents inside a Comelec toilet last May 6 during a recess in the bidding process: I embedded the video below without endorsing it and, since i do not know the source, without giving it any kind of credence, and shown here only for purposes of ease of explanation.

This is a 27-second video stretched (repeated or looped) to three minutes to give running time to certain factual allegations and conclusions shown as crawlers or chargen (computer-generated text, or simply running captions).

The factual allegations and conclusions seem to be two sets:

1) the first, by the uploader, alleging that one of the persons in the video is Comelec special bidding chair Atty. Rafanan; and

2) the second, by what seems to be the original producer of the video being quoted by the uploader, alleging that Comelec special bid chair Atty. Rafanan gave F.F. Cruz Co. time, or three hours, to look for their missing documents during the bidding process and that Comelec bid chair Atty. Rafanan waited for said bidder to comply, and to provide these documents, and that the video shows the bidder, F.F. Cruz, completing and signing those bid documents inside a Comelec toilet.



This video has not been authenticated, the scene or scenario has not been authenticated, Atty. Rafanan has denied; only the location, the Comelec restroom, was confirmed by Comelec Chair Jose Melo in an interview today, but he said that the person was not Atty. Rafanan.

The following need to be established, and are not established by the video alone: 1) identities of all the parties in the video; 2) what documents are being signed; 3) date; and 4) context: why were those persons signing the documents inside the toilet.

Without more, or by itself, what this video tells/ shows me are: 1)there are three individuals inside a Comelec toilet , holding carefully, sheaves of papers stapled together; 2)one of the individuals, a grey-haired man in barong, is initialling or signing every page of the documents; 3) he is being assisted by a man in blue shirt who has the same hair style as Comelec bid chair Atty. Rafanan, but persons who know him say it is not him. This person glances sideways so you have a one-second view of his face. You can slow-mo it then freeze frame, then light it up and sharpen it to see the face clearly. 3)They seem to be in a hurry. 4) They’re in such a hurry that they choose the nearest private place, which was the Comelec rest room. 5)Two of them are glancing sideways to check no one is looking. That’s it. It needs more. In any case, the second set of factual allegations is easily verifiable by the records: 1) Is it true that Comelec bid chair Atty. Rafanan gave F.F. Cruz Co. three hours to look for missing bid documents? 2) If there were other bidders who had the same deficiency, were they given the same treatment? 3) If those in the video were F.F. Cruz and staff members complying with said requirement, that establishes the context of the video; but was there preferential treatment; or undue influence; or switching of bid documents; or bribery; or falsification? 4)there would be an anomaly if Atty. Rafanan had given preferential treatment to F.F. Cruz and did not give the same kind of opportunity to bidders with deficiencies; or if there were falsification of records; or if there were switching of documents; etc. By the way, under the Rules on Electronic Evidence of the Rules of Court, streaming video and video tapes are admissible as evidence of the content of the video if the person who took the video could be presented as witness to authenticate the video.

Election law & election campaigns

Poll automation: D public should be able 2 see each vote transmitted real-time & d region, or else it’s not transparent, not credible

automated-forum

This electronic visual material was produced by CenPeg (Center for People Empowerment in Governance) emailed  and reproduced here as invite to the public. Thanks.