Testing the Right to Vote

It certainly was a privilege to have attended the oral arguments in the Supreme Court yesterday concerning the nationwide automation of the May 2010 elections. The Concerned Citizens Movement headed by Prof. Harry Roque had initially filed a motion for the issuance of a temporary restraining order. The motion was not granted but the Court ordered that oral arguments should take place between CCM and the COMELEC, TIM and Smartmatic.

Many issues emerged in the course of the oral arguments but one particular argument proffered by Prof. Roque involved Sec. 6 of RA 9369 which provides for the use of the AES (automated elections system) in at least two highly urbanized cities and two provinces each in Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao. CCM argued that the proviso was mandatory given the wording the law. In fact, Prof. Roque quoted Sen. Richard Gordon, one of the bill’s sponsors, for using the term “pilot testing.” The COMELEC was of the position that it was not mandatory and that even if it were, it had complied with the proviso by in its use of an AES in the recent ARMM election.

Statutory construction has offered three possible interpretations for the said provision which could support either view. However, in examining the said provision, I am of the position that the mandatory view finds its support in another realm apart from legal verbosity.

I do know from experience how tedious a systems project can be. The process itself is far from a walk along the Elyssian Fields. Before a system can be delivered to the end user, an important aspect is testing. Testing in itself has a number of stages such as unit testing to system testing to user acceptance testing with each stage undergoing a number of iterations. Factor in Murpy’s Law and you start feeling the need for a regular dose of Paracetamol. But the bad news comes when you realize that no matter how many times testing is done, glitches and bugs can still make their grand appearance in the actual environment.

I am supposing that Smartmatic has conducted hardware testing on its counting machines along with a systems testing of the software to be used by the machines. However COMELEC intends to go full blast with the implementation of the AES come May 2010 and that is where my reservations come in. The machines are essential in determining the outcome of the elections thus they should at least have some semblance of reliability. Reliability, in turn, is assured by a system which is stable and should perform according to its intended function. These are the very attributes which testing is going to highlight. The “pilot testing” intended by the law will reveal possible system problems which could be encountered including user difficulties, system defects, bugs, environment problems and the like.

Knowing that these counting machines are crucial in reflecting the choices I make as to who should comprise this government come 2010, it is therefore reasonable to demand integrity, reliability and stability. I don't think we should be entitled to any mistakes when it comes to election automation because there is a way for ensuring the system's reliability. The right of suffrage is the very cornerstone of our democratic society and I would certainly want to be assured that my vote was counted – and counted properly, at that. No matter how some pessismists argue that this is nothing but legal fiction, there is certainly no way that I would allow my voice to fall into a crevice, all thanks to a mere machine.