| Namfrel Defended By Antonio C. Abaya June 16, 2004 My last column, �Namfrel Chickens Out,� drew a critical email from Vicky Garchitorena, one of the doyennes of civil society. I quote that email in part as follows: �Tony, I wish you would lighten up on Namfrel and, instead of focusing on what they could have done, or should do, also offer our appreciation for what they have done to help make our elections more credible. Your title �Namfrel Chickens Out� is a bit too insulting to the leaders of Namfrel and the hundreds of thousands of volunteers who have given of themselves in this year�s electoral process�..I think Joe Con and Bill Luz and Gus Lagman and Dick Romulo and the rest of the Namfrel team, all 300,000 or so of them, deserve the acknowledgement and gratitude of the entire Filipino people�..I think we should accept their decision to stop the count even as they continue their own audit and evaluation process. They also stand ready to offer their documents and volunteers if required by any electoral protest that may be filed. They have done what many of us have not the time, energy, or passion to do. They have earned their rest and our eternal gratitude. Vicky G.� (The same article drew the following supportive email from Pepe Miranda, head of Pulse Asia: �Tony, You are doing a great job analyzing these surveys and other official electoral data. Your �chattering class� will obviously continue to chatter. And you, I hope equally obviously, will continue to render much-needed public service. Pepe Miranda.�) I would like to state at the outset here that I have always supported and continue to support Namfrel in its self-appointed role as non-governmental protector of our electoral process. It is precisely because of my concern for its hard-earned reputation for integrity and impartiality that I disagreed with its decision, announced weeks in advance, to discontinue the public updates of its tally of the presidential and vice-presidential votes. The discontinuance at this critical juncture robs the process of transparency. Namfrel is, in effect, continuing its tally in total secrecy. Who has confidence in secret tallies? Whether they like it or not, the leaders of Namfrel (as distinct from its 300,000 hard-working volunteers) have put the entire organization under a cloud. Its assurance that it would release its �terminal report� before June 30 is not reassuring. Since it has a 100% coverage of the precincts and was going to do a 100% tally of the results, why did they stop making their updates public, after June 5, with 79.21% of the precincts and 24.777 million votes tallied? Why did they not continue with the public updates and thereby give the public an impartial and credible tally, while the canvass at the Batasan got bogged down in one controversy after another. By this time, Namfrel must have tallied results from at least 90%, possibly even 100%, of the precincts. The supporters of Namfrel, and the public in general, deserve to know what the real score is, literally, independent of the tally at the Batasan. Postponing release of its �terminal report� to �before June 30� fuels suspicion that Namfrel wants to tailor-fit its final tally to that of the Batasan. But suppose the Batasan tally turns out to be polluted with dagdag-bawas, will Namfrel play along with it? If so, then Namfrel�s reputation will go down the drain faster than you can say �COCs and SOVs prepared by SOBs.� Actually the results of the Batasan presidential tally are not a secret. It is following the very same sequence followed in the canvass of senatorial votes, which has been completed with very little controversy. (But it does not follow that since the COCs wee accepted at face value in the senate count, they should also be accepted at face value in the presidential and vice-presidential count.) In a full-page ad that appeared in the Philippine Daily Inquirer (and other broadsheets) on June 10, and signed by the �legal counsel of Sen. Rodolfo Biazon�, the results of the presidential tally is tabulated, COC by COC, all the way to the end, and show President Arroyo winning over Fernando Poe Jr. by 1,097,937 votes or approximately 3.5% of the votes cast. The Batasan canvass strictly follows the same sequence as the senatorial canvass, and the results are almost exactly the same. For example, after COC No. 108, the senatorial canvass showed FPJ leading GMA by 5,808 votes; so did the Batasan canvass. In the latest (as of this writing) tally, after COC no. 123, the Batasan canvass showed GMA leading FPJ by 462,825 votes; the senatorial canvass put the lead at 462,900. So there should really be no suspense at the Batasan canvass. But is it credible? The minority coalition is not allowed by the rules to go behind the COCs and publicly and officially check if the election returns (ERs) at the precinct level really add up to what are stated in the statements of votes (SOVs) and certificates of canvass (COC)s. They can do so only in a formal protest before the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET), but only AFTER the presidential and vice-presidential winners have been proclaimed by Congress. It is only Namfrel who can give the public an impartial and credible true picture of how the votes were cast on May 10. Namfrel has official copies of all ERs and SOVs from all precincts as well as all 176 COCs. Unlike the national board of canvass at the Batasan, Namfrel is not bound by any rules not to delve into the ERs and SOVs behind the COCs. In fact, one can surmise that Namfrel has indeed been looking into the ERs and the SOVs before tallying up the COCs. This will explain why its quick count has been the slowest �since the invention of Arabic numerals,� as I wrote in my article of June 2 titled �No Common Sense.� In that article, I also noted that it took Namfrel six days to tabulate the first 10 million votes, seven days to tabulate the next 10 million votes, and, it turns out, 12 days to tabulate the last 4.777 million votes, before it stopped making public updates. This delay must have been caused by some or many of the COCs in their possession not being justified by the SOVs and ERs also in their possession. The supporters of Namfrel and the public in general deserve to know, NOW, which, if any, of these COCs are questionable. Only Namfrel has copies of all official documents and at the same time has, or should have, the credibility and impartiality to tell it like it is. To repeat, when Namfrel terminated its public updates on June 5, GMA�s share of the votes had dropped from a high of 45.8% to 39.05; FPJ�s share had risen from a low of 31.8% to 36.97. President Arroyo�s lead over FPJ had shrunk from a high of 13.6% (after tabulation of the votes from Pampanga and Cebu, on May 16) to only 2.08%. These percentages are all based on Namfrel�s vote counts. If one were to plot the vote shares of GMA and FPJ on an x-y graph, the descending curve of GMA and the ascending curve of FPJ are bound to intersect soon, meaning FPJ will soon catch up with GMA and even possibly overtake her. Unless there are enough pro-GMA votes (after the Cebu and Pampanga votes had been tabulated) in the remaining 20.79% of the precincts to push the GMA curve up again. But we will never know that because Namfrel stopped its public updates on June 5. I myself believe that GMA won, though by a slim margin. But the vote count has to be credible, otherwise she may not be able to govern effectively in the next six years, even if she is proclaimed winner by Congress before, on or after June 30. Namfrel could have helped make that count credible, but it threw away that chance by going into secret mode, for reasons that we can only speculate about. ***** The bulk of this article appears in the June 26, 2004 issue of the Philippines Free Press magazine. OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Reactions to �Namfrel Defended� Another brilliant analysis from the master!!! Star really lost a lot when Soliven let you go! Jose Custodio, [email protected] June 18, 2004 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Tony, You are so very right. So, it's not only the public institutions like the DOJ and the PNP that are failing, but civil society organizations as well. When all institutions become bereft of public trust, what else is left - revolution? Regards, Toti Chikiamco, [email protected] June 18, 2004 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww I liked your original article better.the organization is more than just the sum of its parts. even though billluz and joe C. did heroic things..the organization's work and branding isnot the same as it was before.apologists are apologists. we can only love them for what is in theirhearts.cheers Eros Kaw, [email protected] June 18, 2004 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Mr. Abaya, I quite agree and in fact terribly disappointed that Namfrel decided to discontinue the count before the last vote was counted in. In basketball, how would you feel if the scoreboard was removed while one team leads by one point with still two minutes left in the game? They only made people feel "bitin". If they did this to avoid criticisms or because the Comelec had started its count, then what's the use of starting with the count in the first place. I think Namfrel should understand that no matter what good they do there will always be sore losers who never fail to look for an excuse to blame someone for their defeat. I was once an active Namfrel member in its early days in the early 60's when it was headed by Mrs. Fernanda Balboa so I know where I speak of. In a tight race as we're seeing today, where, as usual, claims of fraud are raised by both political camps, Namfrel could have played a key role in establishing the real facts by reviewing its copies of COCs and SOVs down to the precinct level so the people will know who is lying and who is not. But there is still time. Namfrel should dig up its copies and announce what it knows or suspects may have happened in areas where frauds were allegedly committed in order to help clear the air once and for all. We are no longer interested to know who the winner is, but we want to unmask the people who are trying to destroy the integrity of our election process and shame this nation before the world, if indeed massive fraud had been committed. And, if none is found, other than an insignificant and isolated few, then those who made false and unsubstantiated accusations or those who did in fact commit large-scale fraud should be severely punished. If the government will simply give these bastards a slap on the wrist and forget as if nothing has happened, then I feel strongly that Namfrel or some NGOs should take the lead and file criminal charges against these people. These low-life people continue to exist because nobody takes the problem seriously. No matter what others say, Namfrel serves the nation well and the people need Namfrel more than ever to help enlighten the minds of the electorate. We cannot rely on the demogogues who are forever at each other's throats to protect their selfish interests. Cesar M. de los Reyes, [email protected] June 20, 2004-06-21 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww The perception going around is that NAMFREL (not by their own free will) was directed by "people" to stop the counting since their total tally might be different from theirs and could cause CHAOTIC consequences if that happened and eventually get them caught of cheating (in whatever manner they were perceived to have done it). Reason behind the mobilization of the PNP and Military at this stage...in the name of democracy? People are not as dumb as they perceive them to be, this time. You are correct by saying that NAMFREL lost their chance to be CREDIBLE... Sayang, all thought NAMFREL was non-partisan and CREDIBLE.... they just missed their opportunity to prove just that. People are saying is : They should disband and go on with their own individual lives and forget Quick Election Count in the future. It just doesn't work in the Philippines. Just a waste of time and money for "vote results" to hopefully be called "Credible results". It is just not the Filipino way... Well, there is still the next presidential election in 6 years time...ho hum. Jose Genato, [email protected] June 19, 2004 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww. Here in abroad although i vote for eddie villanueva, i still believe that President GMA won. Majority of ocw voted for GMA, bcoz b4 the election i even ask some of my friends who is their bet and majority prefer GMA. Even me i will never vote to FPJ, only those who are no common sense will vote for him. Alexander Carranceja, [email protected] June 19, 2004 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Good evening. Perhaps NAMFREL may have done greater good to the public if it had an S.O.P. that would allow (or compel) them to continue canvassing the votes should the lead between the top two candidates be five percent - of the total votes canvassed - or less by the time 80 % of the nationwide votes have been counted. Of course, it would be ideal for NAMFREL to complete the count. Alas it's fait accompli. It would at least be something for Bill and Joe to consider next time. Eugene Earle, [email protected] June 19, 2004 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Of what use was the effort of 300,000 volunteers if its result would not be made known to the public on a timely basis? I suppose the 300,000 patriotic volunteers offered their services precisely for purposes of conducting a quick count that would inform more than 80 million Filipinos of the results of the elections at the shortest possible time. The results would also provide a guidepost that would suggest any significant "dagdag-bawas" in the votes being canvassed by Congress. Didn't NAMFREL officials betrayed the 300,000 volunteers by turning the latter's effort to naught through keeping the complete election results within the confines of NAMFREL? In effect, didn't the 300,000 volunteers ended up satisfying the curiosity of NAMFREL officials but not the need for a very vital information by more than 80 million Filipinos? Look, don't Filipinos look stupid before the whole world by not knowing on a definitive basis who won in their Presidential election more than one month after the election was held? NAMFREL officials do not own the information generated by their 300,000 volunteers. They do not have the right to keep the information to themselves. Doing that is tantamount to insulting millions upon millions of Filipinos through implying that they are not responsible enough to know the complete results of the elections! Marcelo Tecson, [email protected] June 19, 2004 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Tony, I agree with you 100%! Is Namfrel afraid of the truth, like the administration senators and congressmen? It does not matter if Arroyo wins by one vote, as long as the canvass is credible! Winning by a million with a doubtful canvass will cause more havoc. And Namfrel�s reputation is also at stake. I thought Namfrel was for TRANSPARENCY! Dr. Rodolfo Villarica, [email protected] June 20, 2004 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww |
 |
 |
| ON THE OTHER HAND |
| Mr. Abaya, Having read your column of June 16, I feel i must write to clear up a few misconceptions about NAMFREL and its work : 1. You wrote that NAMFREL was continuing its tally in total secrecy after June 5. That is incorrect. As we announced a few days before our last report of June 5, we would be entering our audit phase starting June 7 and would need a few weeks to complete the job. We also announced to the press that if any Election Returns which had previously been set aside because of missing Registered Voters (RV) or Voters who Voted (VV) figures were cleared and verified, then those would be encoded and entered into the count. The fact is, by June 5 (almost a month since the elections) very few Election Returns surface at that stage because we pretty well have most of them. 2. You wrote that our 100% coverage also meant a 100% tally. I am afraid that is not possible. In fact, it has never been done by NAMFREL. While we try to collect 100% of the returns, what normally happens is that not all returns are collected by NAMFREL for a variety of reasons. Sometimes, BEIs do not turn it over to us. Sometimes, we do not have volunteers in isolated places. Sometimes, hotspots are just too dangerous for even NAMFREL to operate in. Or sometimes, those ERs which are turned over to us have missing pages. In the final analysis, we typically pick up about 90% of the ERs. Of the ERs we pick up, not all of them can be tallied. Some of them can't be read while others contain discrepancies between the words, figures, and tallies. Other ERs do not contain all the necessary data such as RV and VV numbers, which force the volunteers to go through an extra verification process. For these reasons, another approximately 10% of ERs do not get tallied. Historically, NAMFREL has tallied around 70-77% (we did 77% in 2001, for instance). Our last report of 79.2% is in fact the highest we have ever done. 3. Regarding our "before June 30" terminal report deadline, this was a self-imposed deadline so we could discipline ourselves to finish all the necessary documentation. This is not, as you state, an attempt to tailor-fit our tally with the Congressional canvass. There is no needbecause our count has already been made public weeks in advance and is based entirely on ERs and not on COCs. Suppose the Batasan tally was polluted by dagdag-bawas, would NAMFREL play along with it ? Most definitely not. Please note that we also get our own provincial COCs and we monitor these tallies as well. 4. On the Quick Count being slow, you surmised that it must have been because some of our COCs were not being justified by the SOVs and ERs in our possession. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Quick Count was based entirely on ERs and was being done even before we began receiving the COCs. The comparison of ERs to questionable COCs could only be done after we had completed the Quick Count. 5. Your notion that you can plot vote shares on an x-y axis and find an intersection point assumes that the ascent or descent of the curves remain constant, something you cannot assume in electoral contests all the time. It is certainly something which NAMFREL does not do, which is to extrapolate election data. In closing, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. The NAMFREL Operation Quick Count tally results for the top 12 Senators (and beyond) were an exact match as the COMELEC canvass. The results for President and Vice President in terms of ranking were an exact match to the Congressional canvass. NAMFREL's tally of COCs for President and Vice President were also an exact match with the Congressional canvass, including the Overseas Absentee Voting countries where NAMFREL had operations. In the interest of fairness, I hope this receives the proper exposure in your column. Bill Luz, [email protected] June 22, 2004 MY REPLY: is embedded in my next article "Namfrel and Comelec" OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO |