“MAPping The Future” Column in INQUIRER – 29 March 2010
A 100 Percent Manual Audit of the AES?
by FELICITO C. PAYUMO
Lately, there have been enough people who, previously, were giving the COMELEC the benefit of doubt in
making the Automated Election System (AES) “systems ready” before the May elections but are now clamoring
that it switches to a “completely manual mode.” It is not just the readiness of the system but the acceptability to
the public of the machine count that is being questioned. But a fully-manual system means going back to the 45
days of nerve-wracking waiting game and making our country again a laughing stock while the rest of the world
watches our slow motion count. And wouldn’t that put to complete waste the P7.2 Billion rental payment to
Smartmatic?
Do we have no other option but to make a giant leap of faith in the untried and distrusted AES or revert to the
fully-manual system of counting and canvassing of votes? Are they our only two ineluctable choices?
While the law requires a Random Manual Audit (RMA) of one precinct per congressional district, everyone
agrees that that sample size is woefully inadequate. Suggestions have been made to increase it from ¼ of 1
percent of the population to 7.5 percent - the bigger the sample, the less margin of error - but the COMELEC
has been non-committal. Equally important is the transparency of the RMA by the BEI auditors using the
traditional manual counting witnessed by official watchers of political parties and accredited observers. The
results of both the PCOS machine count and manual count should be posted in the precincts. Needless to say, in
case of discrepancy, the “root cause of the discrepancy” should first be determined as required by law, but the
count that is most transparent – i.e. manual count - should be the one transmitted electronically. It is common
sense for us to expect that there be no proclamation of candidates before the manual audit. The argument that
waiting for the manual count will cause delay betrays the “rush to proclaim” intent.
100 Percent Manual Audit - This brings me to a third and preferred option - a 100 percent parallel manual
audit - this, being our first nationwide automated elections. The parallel audit shall have all the ballots counted
by the 75,471 PCOS machines to be manually counted in the traditional fashion before the public at the precinct
level. I can almost hear the COMELEC officials cry “why did we have to spend for the machines if we are going
to do 100 percent manual count anyway? It will mean extra cost and delay.” Even the technical experts among
my friends think that a 100 percent manual audit is an overkill.
But they miss the point! Public acceptance of the election results of the local contests is equally important as
acceptance at the national level. A given sample size may be adequate to determine the accuracy of the count for
national candidates but not at the local level. To illustrate, SWS or Pulse Asia, with a sample size of 1200 in
their poll surveys, can give results with a + or – 3 percent margin of error for national candidates. But the same
sample size - divided into 4 areas, namely, 400 for Metro Manila, 400 for Luzon, 400 for Visayas and 400 for
Mindanao – is too small to read the preferences for Governor, Congressman, and especially, Mayor with the
same degree of accuracy. In like manner, a sample size for RMA good enough to determine the winners at the
national level, will certainly not be acceptable to determine the winners at the local level. A candidate for
Mayor, especially, who does not have trust in the machines, will not accept his loss when only, say 1 or even 5
precincts, have been manually audited in his municipality.
Hence, a 100 percent manual audit of all machine counts is not an exercize in superfluity. It is imperative that
there be public acceptance of the election results from the national down to the local level. Public acceptance is
indispensable in a democracy.
It also serves as the first block in building confidence for the AES considering that this is the first time we are
jumping from 100 percent manual to 100 percent automated elections. Should the results show a high
congruence between the machine and manual count, then the AES will encounter less public resistance in the
2013 and subsequent elections, even without a parallel manual count but subject only to normal safeguards. The
funds spent for the machines, therefore, will not have been wasted, and automation, still a consummation
devoutly to be wished, will be attained. With respect to the objection that extra cost will be incurred for the
manual audit, the same BEIs attending to the voters in their precinct can be used as BEI-auditors for other
precincts. Even if we assume they have to be paid an additional P1,000 each as remuneration for the extra hours,
75,000 clustered precincts x 3 will require a total of 225,000 BEI-Auditors. At P,1000 per auditor, the total is
only P225 million. That is a small amount to be paid for public acceptance of the election outcome.
After paying a staggering P7.2 Billion to foreigner Smartmatic for mere rental of the PCOS machines, and yet
COMELEC still quibbles about a pittance to be paid for the service of our own teachers and officials in the
interest of a credible election, the public has the right to ask, “ Is there a sinister agenda that we do not know”?
(The article reflects the personal opinion of the author and does not reflect the official stand of the Management
Association of the Philippines. The author was a three-term Representative of the First District of Bataan and former
Chairman and Administrator of the Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority. He is Chairman of the Board of the University of
Nueva Caceres. Feedback at map@globelines.com.ph. For previous articles, please visit <map.org.ph>.)
G:\mapping\mapping - fcpayumo - 29March2010.doc::mel