Information and Communication Technology and election administration in the Philippines: an assessment of the nationwide automation of the 2010 and 2013 synchronized elections

Abstract

This article makes an assessment of the nationwide automation of the 2010 and 2013 synchronized elections in the Philippines from a viewpoint of election administration. It first reviews the traditional manual system of pre-automation, identifies its problems regarding fraud and inefficiency, and traces the historical process of introducing Information and Communication Technology (ICT) into election administration in the country. On the basis of both quantitative and qualitative data obtained from election and other statistics, various published and unpublished materials, interviews and field visits, the article then examines the 2010 and 2013 election automation in its four phases, namely, (1) voter registration, (2) voting, (3) tallying, and (4) data consolidation, and makes an assessment in terms of three frames of reference, namely, (1) voting right protection, (2) fraud prevention, and (3) administrative rationality which includes accuracy, efficiency, and economy. Finally, the article argues that, although it had many problems, the automation as implemented in the two sets of elections should be considered a success in the sense that it managed elections much better than the previous manual system.

Keywords::

• electoral studies
• election administration
• election automation
• electronic elections
• electronic voting
• Information and Communication Technology (ICT)
• Philippine elections

Acknowledgements

This article would not have been possible without the cooperation extended to the author by many people. My special thanks go to the people at the COMELEC, among them the late Atty. Ma. Josefina dela Cruz, Exec. Dir. Jose M. Tolentino, Jr., Dir. James Arthur B. Jimenez, Dir. Eduardo D. Mejos, Dr. Saga D. Mabaning, Mr. Buenafe R. Valido, Jr., and Mr. Vincent C. Nicolas, all of whom provided the author with indispensable data and information. Atty. Deo Natividad and Mr. Dan Barrera of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, Ms. Nancy G. Cañete of the Senate Electoral Tribunal and Prof. Ronald D. Holmes of De La Salle University were also helpful in the author's data gathering. Finally, the author acknowledges the comments and suggestions of two anonymous reviewers but takes full responsibility for any errors that may remain in the manuscript.

Notes

^1. These studies are listed, for example, in the reference sections of Pintor (2000) and International IDEA (2006).

^2. Many of these works are kept in the digital library of the IFES (http://www.ifes.org).

^3. The research interests involved were diverse, ranging from voting technologies (Stein et al. 2008), election administrators (Kimball and Kropf 2006), early and absentee voting (Fortier 2006), overseas voting (Pew Center on the States 2009; International IDEA 2007), problems of decentralized election administration (Fogg 2004), voter confidence (Atkeson and Saunders 2007), to comparative studies (Mayer 2007).

^4. These materials include the Carter Center (2010), CenPEG (2010), and the House of Representatives (2010).

^5. For example, Alvarez and Hall (2008) discuss electronic voting in terms of civil rights, fraud, and electoral failure, which roughly correspond to the three frames of reference employed in this article. Fortier (2006) studied early and absentee voting in terms of protection of voting rights and prevention of fraud. There are studies that adopt a single viewpoint. For example, overseas absentee voting tends to be investigated from the viewpoint of voting right protection.

^6. For a historical description of electoral fraud, see Calimbahin (2009, 37–157).

^7. For a more detailed historical account, see Kimura (2009).

^8. Interview with James Arthur Jimenez (Director, Education and Information Department), COMELEC, Manila, 12 August 2014.

^9. Technically, family members such as overseas workers who have been away at the time of censes but are expected to be back within five years from the date of departure are included as members of a household, while emigrants such as permanent residents of their host countries are excluded.

^10. Interestingly, there were cases where a voter was given a new ballot when his/her ballot was rejected. There are usually ballots left unused, as 100% voter turnout is unlikely. Interview with James Arthur Jimenez (Director, Education and Information Department), COMELEC, Manila, 12 August 2014.

^11. Interview with James Arthur Jimenez (Director, Education and Information Department), COMELEC, Manila, 12 August 2014.

^12. Interview with James Arthur Jimenez (Director, Education and Information Department), COMELEC, Manila, 12 August 2014.

^13. These congressional protests include quo warranto cases numbering 3 in 2004, 9 in 2007, 15 in 2010, and 10 in 2013.

^14. Interview with Atty. Deo Natividad and Dan Barrera, House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, Quezon City, 14 August 2014 and 20 January 2015; interview with Buenafe R. Valido, Jr. (Assistant Division Chief, Judicial Record Division) and Vincent C. Nicolas (Administrative Aide IV, Judicial Record Division), Electoral Contests Adjudication Department, COMELEC, Manila, 14 August 2014 and 20 January 2015.

^15. For example, failure to seal the CF card input slots of the PCOS after testing, and lack of digital signature for electronically transmitted election returns.

^16. These discrepancies were caused by human error, such as transmission of the results of pre-election testing, or possibly by fraud.

^17. This figure does not include the amount (about 1.1 million pesos) spent on the automation project that was halted by the Supreme Court decision. Interview with Eduardo D. Mejos (Director, Finance Service Department), COMELEC, Manila, 21 September 2010.

^18. If voting technologies that make it impossible for a voter to let others know how he/she has voted are developed, it may be possible to contain coercion and bribery.

Additional information

Funding

Part of the research for this article was supported by the Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research Program of the Ministry of Education and Science of Japan from 2010 to 2013 [grant number 22530111].

Notes on contributors

Masataka Kimura

Masataka Kimura is a professor in the College of Humanities, Ibaraki University, where he teaches international relations and Asian politics. He has published extensively on elections and related subjects, and is currently studying representation of demographic and social diversity and electoral systems.