james jimenez

Apologies for this late post - although this was posted over at official website for quite some time now.

Anyhow, here are the salient points for the re-bidding of the OMR lot for the 2008 ARMM elections:

• Bidding for: Optical Mark Readers with an integrated Election Management System
• Deadline for the submission of bids: April 1, 2008.
• Opening of bids: April 1, 2008
• Pre-bid conference: March 25, 2008

The COMELEC yesterday released Bid Bulletin No. 5, relative to the bidding for the Automation of the 11 August 2008 elections in the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao.

Bid Bulletin No. 5, signed by COMELEC Executive Director Jose M. Tolentino Jr., amends those portions of the Request for Proposal which require that the automated election system (AES) to be procured by the COMELEC should have been successfully used in a prior public political election. In order to be considered in the bidding, an offered AES now only needs to have been successfully used in a prior election.

The requirement of successful use in a prior public political election was objected to by Filipino technology proponents who pointed out that local technology has never been used in any public political election. This, they said, would make the questioned requirement discriminatory as it would effectively disqualify local companies.

In authorizing the amendment, the Commission en banc acknowledged that many non-public and non-political elections - such as elections held by private organizations - have been successfully conducted by electronic means.

“Considering the widespread use of electronic voting systems in various non-political elections throughout the country, as well as the general acceptability of the results of those elections, it is abundantly clear to the Commission en banc that prior successful use in a public political election need not be the only applicable standard.”

Read Bid Bulletin No. 5 here.

At about 10:55 am, a man called the office and, in a hurried tone of voice, announced that the COMELEC would be blown up. He hung up. Moments later, he called again, this time spouting invectives but nothing more. Then, at around 11:05, he called again, this time explicitly saying that the (COMELEC Building) would be blown up “at 11 o’clock.”

His watch must’ve been slow.

A search of the building, conducted with bomb-sniffing doggies, turned up no bomb (yes, the image is there for aesthetic purposes only).

In less dramatic news …

The pre-bid conference for the automation of the ARMM elections went pretty smoothly. 11 potential bidders showed up and asked their clarificatory questions. The deadline for submission of bids will be on the 10th of March 2008.

The automation of the ARMM elections is an important preparatory step to the automation of the 2010 National and Local Elections. The COMELEC is aiming to use Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) technology - the kind that uses touch-screen voting and the like - for Maguindanao and Optical Mark Reader (OMR) technology - using paper ballots - everywhere else.

Unfounded suspicions

It is remarkable how quickly some quarters move to discredit the work being done on automation. Less than a week after the release of the bid documents for the Automation of the ARMM elections in August, some “local IT companies” have gone straight to their favorite columnists - instead of properly bringing up the issue directly with the COMELEC  right away or at the scheduled pre-bid conference - raising the spectre of irregularities simply because there is a provision requiring that the automated election system being peddled should have a track record. According to these companies, this effectively shuts out potential local participants.

The problem with this approach is that it gives the pundits a one-sided appreciation of the issue, which is then published or broadcast in the guise of giving the COMELEC the opportunity to respond. Well, why not give the COMELEC the opportunity to respond before slamming the project? (Isn’t that how journalistic objectivity used to be practiced?) If the official explanation remains unsatisfactory then publish the complaint. That way, there is at least the semblance of fairness. Otherwise, airing one-sided complaints only give rise to unwarranted suspicions about the project.

Fortunately, the Advisory Council’s (and PPCRV’s) Amb. Henrietta de Villa was on talk radio this morning confirming that the provision (A-13 in the bid documents) was supported by the Advisory Council as an important safeguard.

My opinion

Now for my own take on the specific issue of whether the track record provision should be used.

The complaint basically points out that local IT companies are effectively prevented from participating in the project. Integral to this complaint - and I believe the only substantial claim that can be derived anyway - is the issue of whether Filipino tech should be promoted.

Well, of course it should. But for the elections? Local IT companies trumpet their “innovations and inventions” which are supposedly suited for the “peculiar needs of Philippine elections.” The first question that comes to mind is: how sure are we that those innovations and inventions will actually work as advertised? Remember Namfrel’s much bally-hooed SMS-based reporting system? That was touted as a home-grown innovation as well and it crashed and burned nevertheless.

The point simply is this: do we want Philippine elections to be the guinea pig for these untested systems? While it is true that Filipino ideas and innovations should be supported, I doubt that we should do so at the risk of the electoral exercise. The COMELEC would be amiss in its mandate if it were to allow the use of technology that it knows is untested and carries with it a higher probability of failure.

It is true that Filipino developers must be helped; but not at the expense of elections.

About the Philippines being a unique electoral environment: true enough. Does this mean, however, that Filipinos have a monopoly of knowledge on how to deal with that unique environment? Technology is not about nationality.

Examples have been bruited about to bolster the complaints of these local IT companies:

Example 1: The ARMM elections in 1998 used machines that did have a track record. They did not work.  

False. The machines worked. The problem was with the ballot paper which was trimmed to the wrong size by an employee who had no training, much less authority, to do so. The machines themselves counted correctly.

Example 2: The ACMs for the 2004 elections. The argument goes if the South Koreans had imposed a “track record” requirement on their developers, they would never have built their own ACM.

Example 3: The Indian Electronic Voting Machine (EVM). Same argument; if the Indians had the same prohibition … so on and so forth.

Not quite the same thing. In South Korea and India - especially in India - they have a multitude of small elections nearly every year. We have one BIG election every three years. The stakes are much higher in this country because one failed election affects major elective offices like Senator and Member of the House of Representatives. In 2010, the stakes are even higher: President and Vice-President. Will the nationality of the technology used be any comfort when we fail to elect a President because we used an untested system?

In places like India, these machines were first rolled out in small elections, affecting small constituencies. This allowed them to field test the equipment with very limited adverse effects in case of failure.

So, does the track record guarantee success?

Of course not. What the track-record requirement does is it lowers the probability of failure.

When you get a system that has been used in other elections, what you get is a system that necessarily includes experience with unforeseen or unforeseeable  problems encountered in actual operation. When you get a virgin system, on the other hand, all you have are theoretical scenarios which do not necessarily cover 100% of all the things that might go wrong. If you have an untested system in place and an unforeseen problem crops up, then the support team for the system will not have a well-defined procedure for dealing with problem and they will likely be improvising as they go along. Again, you want to entrust the success of major elections to a bunch of people who, in essence, are just winging it? They may be geniuses - which they probably are in all fairness - but the stakes are simply too high.

Would you leave a nuclear power plant in the hands of a child prodigy?

In any case, the COMELEC reassures the public that this provision will be discussed fully during the pre-bid conference scheduled for the 26th of February (that’s tuesday next week). Everyone who thinks the track-record idea is wrong can go there and tell the COMELEC so. Of course, since this provision was already extensively discussed before it was even included in the bid docs, people should not expect the COMELEC to simply fold and take the provision out. Expect to be argued against. After all, it is through argument that we can ensure that the ensuing decision has the highest probability of being the right one.

Since February 25, 2008 is a holiday, the pre-bid conference for the Automation of the 2008 ARMM elections has been moved to February 26, 2008 - same time.

The Commission on Elections en banc has ordered the full automation of the 2008 elections in the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao. COMELEC Resolution No. 8415, dated 06 February 2008, called for the use of automated election systems based on two different kinds of technology: Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) technology in the province of Maguindanao and Optical Mark Reader (OMR) technology for the rest of the region. DRE allows voting through a touch-screen or touch-pad, while OMR requires voters to fill up a paper ballot which is then counted with a specially designed machine.

“The use of different kinds of automated election systems will allow the COMELEC to evaluate the suitability of the two different technologies of the Philippine setting, preparatory to designing an Automated Election System for nation-wide use in 2010,” COMELEC spokesman James Jimenez Said. “This set-up closely adheres to the recommendation of the Advisory Council.”

The only difference, according to Jimenez, was in the scope of the use of DRE. “The Council’s recommendation called for the use of DRE-based automated election system in only two cities or municipalities in the ARMM.”

The COMELEC resolution, however, cited concerns regarding the small scope. “Among other things, it was pointed out that if the implementation area is too small, there won’t be enough basis to say whether a DRE based automated elections will work nationwide,” Jimenez clarified. Other reasons cited by the Resolution included the concern that the small scope of the project would discourage technology proponents from bidding for it, and that the results would not be enough to make a comparison between OMR and DRE technology.

The resolution expanded the scope of DRE use to include the entire province of Maguindanao, citing the province’s level of development, as well as the contiguous nature of its geography. “The en banc determined that, comparatively speaking, the province of Maguindanao is the most viable implementation area for DRE-based automated elections,” Jimenez said.

The Advisory Council is the body of expert advisers created by Republic Act 9369 that is tasked to recommend to the COMELEC which technology to use for the automation of elections. Republic Act 9369 also states that “nothing in the role of the Council or any outside intervention or influence shall be construed as an abdication or diminution of the Commission’s authority and responsibility for the effective development, management, and implementation on the Automated Election System.”

###

Couldn’t post this last night, but it’s been up on eCOMELEC since yesterday. Other mentions here, here, and here. 

The message from Anthony Golez, Palace spokesman:

President Arroyo confirmed with the Manila media last night about her appointment of Justice Melo to the COMELEC during a coffee break with Manila reporters in Davos, Switzerland.

And that ends the speculation, I should think.

A quick update on automation: Last monday, 14 January 2008, the COMELEC received a draft terms of reference and request for proposal (TOR/RFP) from the Advisory Council. The document was vetted by the AC and found to be consistent with its recommendations - that the ARMM polls be automated; and that the solutions offered could be direct recording electronic (DRE) or based on optical mark reader (OMR) technology. The TOR/RFP has since been reviewed by the COMELEC for consistency with the governing law (RA 9369) and existing policy - mostly to do with period for doing things, especially in relation to the timetable for counting and canvassing.

Last friday, 18 January, the reviewed TOR/RFP was returned to the AC and the Technical Evaluation Committee (TEC) for its consideration of the suggestions made by the COMELEC senior staff. We expect that the AC will then finalize its recommendations and submit a completed final draft TOR/RFP to the Commission en banc. When the en banc approves it, the TOR/RFP gets sent out and will hopefully attract bidders.

The AC is composed of representatives from the Commission on Information Communication Technology  (CICT), the DOST, the DepEd, the UP, and various representatives from the private sector including people from the ICT industry and from civil society, such as PPCRV. The AC also sits in the Bids and Awards Committee as a non-voting member.

Indiana’s strict laws on the use of state-issued voter identification cards finally challenged. Considering how American jurisprudence often enjoys persuasive powers on Philippine jurisprudence, this bears watching.

Commissioner Rene V. Sarmiento has attracted some flak for saying that he thinks former President Joseph Estrada is Constitutionally barred from running for President in 2010. There are those who say that Sarmiento had pre-judged the case.

I think it needs to be pointed out that Sarmiento was one of the authors of the 1987 Constitution. Because of that, I think he has a unique perspective into this whole scenario, quite apart from his being a COMELEC Commissioner. And I think it is in that context that his statement should be appreciated.