 |
 |
| ON THE OTHER HAND |
| Cheating in 2004 By Antonio C. Abaya Written June 08, 2005 For the Philippines Free Press, June 18 issue As far as I can tell from the portions of the controversial tapes that I have heard on TV, whether Paguia�s edited and spliced version or Bunye�s �original�, there was no explicit order from President Arroyo to either �Gary� (whoever he was) or to the presumed Comelec Commisioner Virgilio Garcillano that she was said to be talking to, to go out and cheat for her in the 2004 elections. But that there was cheating in those elections and that the cheating was massive, there is absolutely no doubt. There are, however, caveats to that statement. One caveat is that even if cheating had been minimal, which it was not, President Arroyo would probably still have won in the vote count, but only by a very slim margin. That was the basis for my article of May 13, 2004 (or three days after the elections) titled �GMA By a Hair.� The other caveat is that the cheating was not confined to the padding of the certificates of canvass (COC), which was the basis for the proclamation of the winner by the joint session of Congress convened as the national canvassing board. The other half of the cheating was in the form of disenfranchising voters in which up to four million voters (including my family and I) were not able to vote because our names had disappeared from our precinct�s voters list and from the Comelec�s master list. Those who want to read the nitty gritty details of how the vote count evolved over the six weeks after May 10 may access my seven election-related articles, from May 13 to June 23, 2004, all archived in www.tapatt.org. Because of space limitations, I can only summarize the main points here but I hope readers can follow the logic. The shares of votes of each candidate, expressed in percentages, in the pre-election surveys of SWS and Pulse Asia and in the exit poll of the SWS were as follows (Lacson is PL, Roco is RR, and Eddie Villanueva is EV): GMA FPJ PL RR EV others Pulse Asia poll (Apr 26-29) 37 31 11 7 5 undecided: 9 SWS poll (May 1-4) 37 30 11 6 4 undecided: 12 SWS exit poll (May 10) 41 32 9 5 5 no answer: 8 Clearly the key to the true results of the elections is how the 8%, who gave no answers in the SWS exit poll, actually voted. The tabulation of Namfrel, which was based on actual election returns at the precinct level, not on the easily faked COCs, showed that most of the 8% voted for FPJ. Namfrel started releasing its tabulations on May 12 and continued till June 5, when it had tabulated 24.8 million votes from 79.21% of precincts. Its data were posted in the website inq7.net, updated twice, sometimes thrice, a day. The table below is compressed because of space limitations. As before, vote shares are in %. Date total votes GMA FPJ PL RR EV GMA lead precincts 5/13 1.764m 37.8 37.8 11.9 5.8 6.8 00 5/15 5.408m 39.9 35.7 11.8 6.2 6.3 4.2% 17.55% 5/16 7.587m 44.9 31.8 11.0 6.0 6.2 13.1 23.93 5/17 9.261m 45.8 32.2 10.4 5.6 6.0 13.6 29.16 5/18 10.457m 45.3 32.6 10.6 5.5 6.0 12.7 32.84 5/19 12.917m 44.7 33.6 10.5 5.3 5.9 11.1 40.62 5/20 15.457m 41.7 35.6 11.0 5.5 6.1 6.1 48.56 5/21 17.234m 40.7 36.7 10.9 5.6 6.2 4.0 54.85 5/22 19.747m 40.27 36.54 10.79 6.30 6.11 3.73 62.80 5/24 19.954m 40.26 36.53 10.79 6.27 6.15 3.73 63.40 5/25 20.334m 40.44 36.48 10.72 6.24 6.13 3.96 64.56 5/28 21.487m 40.02 36.62 10.60 6.69 6.06 3.40 68.20 5/29 22.605m 39.47 36.75 10.80 6.80 6.18 2.72 71.83 5/31 22.859m 39.29 36.62 10.87 7.03 6.19 2.67 72.67 6/02 23.577m 39.33 36.72 10.83 6.93 6.18 2.61 75.04 6/05 24.777m 39.05 36.97 10.85 6.97 6.16 2.08 79.21 SWS exit poll 41 32 9 5 5 no answer: 8 Namfrel showed its pro-GMA bias by dumping votes from GMA bailiwicks like Pampanga and Cebu early in its count, on May 16 and 17, apparently to give the impression that GMA was enjoying a large and insurmountable lead. But this lead was whittled down everyday, from a high of 13.6% on May17 to only 2.08% on June 5, at which point Namfrel stopped publicly tabulating the election returns. You do not have to be a rocket scientist to conclude that if the vote shares of GMA and FPJ were plotted on an xy graph, the descending curve for GMA would likely intersect the ascending curve for FPJ, meaning the two were going to end up in a dead heat, or FPJ might even overtake GMA, since 20.79% of the precincts were still unheard from in the incomplete Namfrel count. Comparing the Namfrel counts of June 5 with the SWS exit poll of May 10 shows that 62% (4.97 out of 8.0) of those who, for reasons of their own, gave no answers in the SWS exit poll actually voted for FPJ. With 24.777 million votes from 79.21% of the precincts tabulated by Namfrel as of June 5, GMA�s lead over FPJ of only 2.08% amounted to only 515,000 votes, very much lower than the 1.1 million votes that Comelec and the national canvassing board gave as the winning margin of GMA over FPJ, based on a 100% tabulation of the COCs. It should be kept in mind that the Namfrel tabulations were based on actual election returns at the precinct level. The tabulations of the Comelec and the joint session of Congress sitting as the national canvassing board were based on certificates of canvass or COCs prepared at the municipal and provincial treasurers offices, supposedly based on summaries of election returns from the precincts. But in actual fact, this is where wholesale cheating occurs and did occur in 2004. Unknown to me and working independently of my own analysis of the stats, Roberto Verzola came up with some revealing data, which were published in the June 20, 2004 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer. Most readers who saw that full-page story probably did not bother to read it, because it was full of numbers. It would have been as exciting as reading the telephone directory. But Verzola is an engineer, and my own academic background is in Chemistry, so neither of us is intimidated by numbers. From my June 23 article: Knowing the percentage of votes tabulated by Namfrel per region (data not available to me then), Verzola extrapolated what the �final lead� per region would have been if Namfrel had completed its count, on the reasonable assumption that the untabulated votes in each region would reflect, more or less, the same choices as the tabulated ones, especially if the tabulated ones made up the clear majority of total votes, as was the case here. Verzola then summed up those �final leads� per region and came up with a �final lead� nationwide - 354,084 votes or about 1.1% of votes cast - as GMA�s total lead over FPJ if Namfrel had completed its count. Which vindicated my conclusion of May 13 that it was �GMA By Hair.� Verzola then compared GMA�s �final lead� nationwide in Namfrel (354,084 votes) with her final lead in the Comelec tally (1,097,937 votes) � 1,123,576 votes in the Congressional canvass � and calculated the discrepancy at 210.08%, which he classified as �huge.� Breaking down the comparisons between the Namfrel and the Comelec tallies, region by region, Verzola found �huge� discrepancies in Western Mindanao (396.85%), the ARRM (310.07%) and Northern Mindanao (128.33%), and a �major� discrepancy in Central Mindanao (62.79%), all in favor of GMA. All other regions had only minor discrepancies or no discrepancy at all, except the Ilocos Region and Central Luzon, which had a �minor� and a �major� discrepancy (15.59% and 118.22%, respectively) in favor of FPJ. So to prove that there was massive cheating in the 2004 elections, one can just compare the tallies of Namfrel (based on actual election returns at the precinct level) with the tallies of Comelec (based on easily faked COCs) in Western Mindanao and the ARRM. The officials of Namfrel, supposedly an impartial citizens� watchdog, could not have but known that there was a huge and unaccountable discrepancy between their totals � extrapolated or otherwise � and the totals of Comelec and Congress. Yet they chose to remain silent, apparently because they wanted GMA to win or did not want FPJ to win. They thus became a party to the fraud. No wonder then Deputy Speaker (now Secretary of Justice) Raul Gonzalez, co-chair of the canvassing board, blocked any and all requests by the opposition to open the election returns anywhere. Granted that this was the rule, in the interest of transparency and to defuse a situation that is now reaching flashpoint, some leeway should have been allowed. But then that would have blown the fraud sky-high as early as June 2004, even if GMA would likely still have emerged the winner, but with a very much smaller lead. Cheating by disenfranchisement, which really sealed the victory for GMA, will be discussed in another article. ***** Reactions to [email protected] or fax 824-7642. Other articles in www.tapatt.org |
| OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Reactions to �Cheating in 2004� "A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against government" Edward Abbey 1927 - 1989 Dick Powell, [email protected] June 13, 2005 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Sir: Even if we endorse Jesus Christ for President and he wins, in Philippine politics losers still will charge Him that He cheated and accepted payola from jueteng. That�s our culture in politics. Alexander Carranceja, [email protected] Kuwait, June 13, 2005 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Tony, Cheating in any form is deplorable. Cheating in a presidential elections is highly condemnable. More so, if cheating is personally abetted and "supervised" by PGMA herself in order to "force-fit" the designed results (e.g. a lead of not less than 1M votes), then it is such an abominable act deserving of the mini-crisis situation the nation is facing at the moment. Hence, the Filipino people is once again faced with a dilemma and confronted with the proverbial devil and the deep blue sea. God bless us. Jerome Escobedo, [email protected] June 13, 2005 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww to mr. abaya Election cheating should not be allowed. Cheaters should be punished. Oscar R. Landicho, [email protected] June 13, 2005 Sydney, Australia wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Mr. Abaya: I think that it is not only the content of the tape that will make PGMA liable, but the mere action of talking to a COMELEC commissioner during election period is a violation of the law. Ding Teleron, [email protected] June 14, 2005 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Hi Tony, I agree with you! Thanks, Mary Ann O�Connor, [email protected] Vancouver, BC, Canada, June 14, 2005 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Tony, Cheating is cheating, no matter the end result. If GMA cheated, she's guilty of a crime - even if it wouldn't have changed the end result. One way she very blatantly cheated was to spend over the limit in the campaign, and to use government funds (the street-sweepers and their thousands of signs is just one example). Also whether she directly influenced Garcillano to cheat, or not is also not so much the issue. The very fact that as a candidate she spoke privately to someone who was counting her votes was unethical at the very least. I suspect it's against the law in most democracies. As always, enjoyed your analysis: it gets me thinking (a harder and harder job as we grow older) and I value you that. Peter Wallace, [email protected] June 14, 2005 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Tony, The Pampanga votes were entered by NAMFREL from provincial totals rather than by precinct. They may have entered the precincts afterwards. But the trending was established as you pointed out. I don�t know whether the same was done for Cebu votes. Mano Alcuaz, [email protected] June 14, 2005 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Tony, Justifications are being made that GMA's "say many things but do nothing" presidency is a calculated concession to the political dynamics. On the contrary, I think that her paradigm for governance is simply out of sync with political realities. She's out of touch like any other traditional politician. Indeed, reforms must also stand the test of political viability. But if others say that GMA's failure to provide good governance is a calculated attempt to forge at win-win solutions, then clearly she's miscalculating. For promoting wasteful governance, ignoring corruption and favoring vested interests, she has managed to gain a 59% dissatisfaction rating against a 26% satisfaction rating. This is a net dissatisfaction rating of 33%, worse than even that of Marcos during martial law. Moreover, GMA is now in real danger from being ousted from the presidency. She certainly could've don better. Forced by circumstance to plug the loopholes and increase the rate of the VAT, GMA could've have mitigated resistance and cultivated support with a generous helping of good governance. She should've avoided bloating the bureaucracy with wanton political appointments. She should've been resolute in disposing wasteful state corporations now controlled by her appointees. She should've followed the advise of tax experts to withdraw the proposed amnesty for wealthy delinquent taxpayers. She should've resisted the lobby of vested interests to reduce the rates of sin taxes. Being seen as cracking down hard on corruption alone would've have made GMA an enormously popular president. She could've loudly supported the desire of the Ombudsman to acquire its own investigative capability. This would've enabled the anti-corruption body to be more aggressive in conducting lifestyle checks and pursuing corruption cases following the experience of Hongkong. Lifestyle checks and corruption cases would've made good media copy to GMA's great advantage. Right now, ordinary citizens are simply outraged at being burdened with additional taxes while they see government tolerating wastefulness and corruption and giving the wealthy favored treatment. The wisdom of GMA's political management escapes me. The same goes for her economic policy making. Sure, removing protection from selected industries such as plastic resins, cement, shipping, banking and airline would've made a few thousand people including Lucio Tan unhappy. But it would've made millions of others in the entire economy greatly appreciative. The benefits are immediate with no time lag required, particularly, in these industries mentioned. The partial liberalization of the banking and finance industry during the Ramos administration has immediately created jobs for millions of fresh college graduates and increased the salaries of bank employees to more than double. It has also created gainful employment to millions of others in the insurance industry. Bank mergers have indeed displaced a few thousand employees, but they've easily found jobs with other banks and insurance companies aggressively positioning themselves in a more competitive market. The liberalization of the shipping industry would've had the same effect. Our food processing company, for instance, is poised to activate two additional production lines with 500 additional employees within a month of shipping liberalization. I imagine that thousands of other food processing companies would also be doing the same if not more. Shipping cost now comprises 30% of our product cost. This makes it uneconomical for us to serve a large part of this archipelagic country. The liberalization of the shipping industry is going to bring down our shipping cost to just 10% of product cost. This would enable us to profitably ship our products even to Batanes! The industries that would be negatively affected by liberalization actually possess the capacity to make a quick adjustment. It is merely greed that keeps them from investing to be competitive. Some industries, such as sugar, may have to be given a time to adjust. This is because of the gestation period required to modernize sugar refineries. I'm not concerned about the owners of these refineries. They've already earned their blood money selling high priced sugar to Filipinos since the birth of the republic. I care more about the displacement of small cane growers should some refineries opt to close. A one year adjustment period though would be enough to assist these farmers to shift to other more productive crops. Now, imagine and multiply the same direct effect of liberalization mentioned above to the packaging, tourism and construction industries. We're not even talking about multiplier effect yet which would've come within a year at the longest. Why has she not done these things? It would've been easy, painless and quick. It would've "shocked and awed" the Filipino people. GMA has actually been in office for the last four years missing out on a lot of win-win opportunities. Maybe its time for her to ask her political advisers to find other employment. On account of their own political advise to the president, they may find this propsect rather unattractive. If only GMA has had her political calculations right, I'm sure Majar Mangahas' computers at SWS would've been churning out positive rather than negative responses to the satisfaction surveys. There would've been no need to unleash Comelec Commissioner Garcillano for special ops. There would've been no revealing cellphone conversation to wiretap. By the way, GMA's appointment of Garcillano to the Comelec and of many other Garcillanos in other sensitive positions in government are among the many high profile reasons for her loss of popularity. The impression is that she actually has been laying the ground for systematic mischief and looting right at the start. Owing perhaps to his size, Big Mike has been taking the flack since then. The suspicion remains though that she is actually dragon lady behind everything. My disappointment with GMA's non-performance is also personal. During the anti-Erap mobilization, I've been tasked to go around Region 11 convincing anti-Erap forces to unite and accept her as legitimate successor. The main beef against her then has been her "say nothing and do nothing" posture as Vice President. I've tried to correct this "misimpression" by arguing that she's just bidding her time and that as a "learned economist" she certainly deserves to be president. Alaskado tuloy ako ngayon. I'm again being asked to help mobilize support for GMA now. Consultations on whether or not she still deserves support are currently ongoing all over the region. If only the people moving against her presidency were more credible, withdrawing support would've been unanimous at the onset. As I've earlier mentioned, the main beef against her now is her "say many things but do nothing" posture as president. Can we still expect anything more from GMA? Her Independence Day address is replete with the same vague promises of "reforms" spiced with finger pointing and bravado. There're no specifics to spur hope. People have been expecting more from pero wala talaga. Ano kaya kung bumaba na lang si GMA at si Noli? This is to allow Drillon to take over and preempt the extra-constitutional moves against her presidency. This moves may not succeed but they will paralyze government and the economy. Drillon can simply ask for patience which the people I think will grant. The revenue measures are in place and other economic reform measures can wait. Drillon can crack down on corruption to keep the people entertained. His main task though is to clean up the Comelec, convene a constitutional convention, mainly to convert government into federal and parliamentary form, and hold elections within a year. The emerging consensus in the region now is that GMA's presidency is beyond redemption. No thanks to win-win solutions GMA style. Gico Dayanghirang, [email protected] Davao City, June 14, 2005 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Mr. Abaya, I share your view that there was massive cheating during the 2004 Presidential Elections. Though I was here in the USA during that period, I was able to monitor the results and gather data and information through the Internet. Actually, I joined Obet Verzola's group (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/namfrel2004tally/) to search for the truth and know for my self how and where these irregularities and manipulations happened. After listening to the different "audio tapes", for me, I think the voice of GMA can easily be recognized. But, I concentrated on the transcripts of the conversations because I wanted to know if it has similarities on what has actually transpired during those time. And, my conclusion is on the positive. It's very much similar. You know, these taped conversations are the "causes" of the cheating. And, the "effects" were the irregularities that we saw during the counting and canvassing. Let us continue our fight in search for the truth. Mabuhay po kayo! Edilberto L. Opetina, [email protected] Atlanta, Georgia, June 18, 2005 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww That's what I call a well-founded opinion. Does Joecon have a copy? Manny Lim, [email protected] June 18, 2005 MY REPLY. Joecon is in our distribution list. OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO |