Wexistence

The general public seem so thrilled about the automated polls generating such quick results that they’re willing to gloss over the problems that occurred. The technical glitches and the logistical problems just days before May 10, machines breaking down, disenfranchised voters, vote buying, violence, failure of elections in parts of the country. How sure are we that the votes cast were the votes counted? The organizations I’m affiliated with are receiving reports that PCOS machines in numerous areas did not count all the ballots that they were fed, which could spell the difference in extremely close mayoral and gubernatorial races. “Doomsayers” are being criticized for warning about possible election failure and cheating. Just because the worst case scenarios did not come to pass doesn’t mean that the threats weren’t real! There are still many issues that must be addressed before we can say the elections were a “success.”

The Movement for Good Governance (MGG) will release a statement soon.

There is so much I want to say about the recently concluded polls, but introspection will have to wait. I need to get back to work now.

Update May 15, 2010: IT expert and MGG convenor Gus Lagman assesses the May 10 elections

Update May 19, 2010: MGG chair Winnie Monsod tells Comelec to shape up

I work for an organization that does community-based education reform programs. Currently we are operating in 164 municipalities all over the country and our programs cover nearly two million public school children.

We rely on a number of assessment tools to gauge the academic performance of pupils in our sites. We track their performance over the years to help us measure the impact of our interventions. One of these tools is the National Achievement Test (NAT), which is administered yearly by the Department of Education (DepEd).

In the school years before SY 2008-2009, DepEd’s National Educational Testing and Research Center (NETRC) annually provided us a copy of the results for the entire country. They came in nifty Excel spreadsheets like this and showed the mean percentage scores (MPS) per division per region for that particular school year. It was a relatively hassle-free transaction.

In SY 2008-2009, DepEd, in typical government fashion, decided to make a simple process unnecessarily difficult. They decided that they would no longer release the results for the entire country. They made us make separate requests for each division in which we have projects. It took them forever to process our requests. We received some of the results, we didn’t receive the others.

Then to make matters worse, this SY 2009-2010 they issued DepEd Order No. 91, s. 2009 to “regulate” the use of the NAT results.

Before a “researcher” can obtain a copy of the results, he/she must first jump through the following hoops:

• Prove that he/she is qualified to do research work (They do not, however, specify what kind of proof they require. And anyway, what if I’m not “qualified” to do research work? What if I’m just an ordinary citizen who wants to know the levels of academic performance in different parts of the country?)
• Present a copy of his/her approved thesis/dissertation proposal signed by my thesis adviser (But… I’m not a student and I’m not going to use the results for a thesis/dissertation. Why is there the implicit assumption that the only people who want a copy of the results are students?)
• Submit an endorsement signed by his/her dean (What dean?)
• Sign a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) stating that he/she:
  • Will not compare regions, divisions, schools and examinees without taking into consideration other variables that may have a substantial effect on the outcome of the test (Well, what if I’m not going to use the results in a study? What if I’m going to present the results in an education summit to show a particular community just how badly their kids are performing compared to the national average and to drive home the point that their situation is dire and that they need to do something about it?)
  • Will furnish a DepEd a copy of my study (Paranoid much?)
• Pay the corresponding fee for the data requested (We didn’t have to pay for the data before. Now there’s a rate of 1 peso per pupil. I was aghast. So if we want the NAT results of 1.76 million pupils does that mean we have to pay 1.76 million pesos?!? I nearly fell out of my chair when NETRC said yes.*)

Furthermore, NETRC will only release 10% of the actual number of examinees per test per year. The 2009 NAT was taken by some 1.76 million pupils from 31,196 public and 2,386 private elementary schools nationwide. That means at most, we can only get the results for 176,000 students. Such a small percentage does not paint an accurate picture of academic performance in the country.

But that seems to be the whole point of Order No. 91. DepEd says they want to “safeguard and prevent the misuse, mishandling, misinterpretation, exploitation and manipulation” of the NAT results, but to me the subtext of that policy reads, “We don’t want to show anyone the results because they make us look bad.”

DepEd is perceived to be the least corrupt government agency and has an approval rating of 62%. I guess people don’t know just how bad things really are. How devoid the system is of professionalism, transparency and accountability. How bureaucratic and inefficient it is. How appallingly feudal the culture is, how superintendents are lords and their divisions their personal fiefdoms. How politicized appointments are and how much discretion there is over the use of funds.

One of the groups I’m involved with, the Movement for Good Governance, just held a roundtable discussion on education reform with leading experts on the topic. The results will be published in a paper that will form part of our 2010 development agenda. In the mean time, the following make for good reading on the subject:

• The Challenge of Governance in a Large Bureaucracy (Department of Education) by former DepEd Undersecretary Juan Miguel Luz
• Department of Education: When Refroms Don’t Transform (UNDP Philippine Human Development Report 2008-2009)
• United Nations: The Philippines trails Tanzania, Zambia in education
• Education for All – Global Monitoring Report 2010
• UNICEF EAPR Statistics on Philippine Education
• UNESCO Statistics on Philippine Education
• NSCB Statistical Indicators on Education

* So apparently there are packages of sorts. The NETRC guy I was talking to said that if we want to save we can opt to pay per school instead of per student. The sample computation they gave me for one of our schools in Tondo came up to 320 pesos for two school years (SY 2008-2009 and SY 2009-2010, which are the school years we don’t have data for). That rate brings the total cost down to a less shocking amount, but it’s still prohibitive. We have programs in thousands of schools! I can understand charging a small processing fee but their rates are unreasonable. These test results are public records and should be made available without restriction. Congress needs to pass the freedom of information bill post haste.

On the front page today:

(Click to read full article)

See, I’m a big fan of Facebook/Twitter/the internet in general! Who says I don’t appreciate the power of new media?

Multi-sectoral groups wave their banners in protest

I haven’t joined a rally since Edsa II. I was in college then, and I’ve since come to realize that there are more productive ways to expend time and energy if you really want to contribute to positive social change. Which is not to say that I don’t see the value in protest actions, because I do. It’s just that in the Philippines it seems like we’re marching onto the streets every other day and somehow the frequency lessens the impact.

But anyway, I was at the anti-con-ass rally on Ayala last June 10 because I felt strongly about the cause. I will not stand for a charter change that does not reflect the will of the people, for term extensions, for no elections in 2010 and for further abuses in government. I wanted to take part in an opportunity to raise awareness about the implications of con-ass.

It started out okay. I particularly liked the skit of Paq Yu (Gabe Mercado) and Juana Change (Mae Paner); I thought they summed up the issues nicely. It started going downhill for me when the politicians started talking. I would have much preferred it if the organizers had invited on stage more representatives of the various groups present, or even just ordinary citizens from different walks of life.

Political rivals sharing the stage: a show of solidarity for a common cause or just another campaign opportunity?

Chiz Escudero, Mar Roxas, Loren Legarda, Among Ed Panlilio among others addressed the crowd. Kiko Aquino Dy read a letter from his grandmother. (I’m sorry Tita Cory, but you lost credibility with me when you started hanging out with the shadier members of the opposition. I thank you for your service to and sacrifice for the country, but you are not the moral compass of the Philippines.) JV Ejercito relayed a message from Erap. (Your father was convicted of plunder and you have the gall to get up there and pontificate?) JV was the last straw for me. I left shortly after.

A banner with the faces of the representatives who supposedly voted for HR 1109

HR 1109 was approved through a viva voce vote. The ayes won simply because they were louder than the nays. There is no official record of who voted what, so we’re not sure if the lists floating around on the internet are accurate. Our best bet is the list of those who signed as co-authors of HR 1109. Obviously (with the exemption of Rep. Luis Villafuerte, who withdrew his signature), legislators will not vote against the measure they authored. I feel that propagating a list that has not been verified is unfair to the congressmen who may not have supported the resolution.

It seemed to me that people at the rally spent more time bashing PGMA and the con-ass congressmen than talking about con-ass itself. I wasn’t expecting a scholarly debate, but is it too much to ask that we focus a little more on issues and a little less on personalities? The backdrop of the stage read “Stop Gloria’s Con-Ass” as did many of the signs and banners people were carrying. I personally am against not just Gloria’s con-ass, but I’m against any attempt to violate our democratic institutions. It’s not just about the people involved in these shenanigans, it’s about what they represent. I don’t want to see just a change in political leadership, I want to see change in our entire political culture.

This will be my last rally for a while, unless something of Edsa I proportions happens.

On a lighter note, I thought this “Amazing Map of the Philippines” was really funny, though I’m not sure why someone was carrying it around at the rally:

“SHAPE LOOK LIKE ALIEN”

Earlier that day, at an MGG meeting in the Ayala Foundation conference room:

The view of Ayala at around 4:00 PM from 10th floor of the BPI building
Me, Paeng and Quintin with the crowd growing on Paseo de Roxas in the background,
Posing with Mae in her full Juana Change glory before the rally

View the full set of photos on Flickr.

I’m still a little bit stunned that we actually pulled it off. You’d never guess that planning for the event took place in under a month. The start of the show was incredibly stressful, with all sorts of last minute details and mini-crises to deal with. But once we got everyone settled inside the theater, I was able to relax and enjoy the show.

My favorite performances of the night were the hilarious remake of Bohemian Rhapsody by Jim Paredes, Buboy Garovillo, Isay Alvarez, Bituin Escalante and Robert Sena; Tempestuous Jones’ rendition of Nosi Balasi (which totally transported me back to the 80s); the sizzling hot dance number by hiphop champions Philippine All Stars (“Mainit! Mainit!”); and Yeng Constantino’s passionate appeal to the youth to “stand up, be counted, speak your mind.”

In between performances, 3 new Juana Change videos were premiered: “Rowbaht,” an explanation of the OMR vs. OES issue infinitely more entertaining than any of MGG’s press releases on election automation thus far; “Kulungan,” a satire about speaking the truth and social justice; and “Baligtaran,” a rejection of apathy and cynicism.

Towards the end of the program, Mae announced that she’s giving herself 365 days to lose weight. “Ano naman ang kinalaman niyan sa pagbabago ng bayan?” Jim and Buboy asked her. “Sino ba ang bayan?” Mae countered. “Di ba tayo?” Mae went on to explain in order to change the country, we need to look within ourselves and make a personal committment to change the things that need to be changed. In her case, she said that it was her lack of discipline and greed. Quoting Apolinario Mabini, she challenged the audience to undertake an internal and external revolution.

‘An internal and an external revolution are necessary at the same time.’ Mabini warned that unless citizens renounce their vices, and solidly anchor their moral education, the new nation would be plagued by civil war and internal dissent.¹

I got teary-eyed at the finale, when the entire cast performed Maniwala Ka as a huge Philippine flag unfurled from the balcony and the confetti rained down on the crowd. I was so moved by the response of the audience, who were on their feet clapping and cheering. There was a renewed sense hope and determination in the air. It was inspiring to feel part of something much larger than ourselves, and to realize that together we can change our destiny. Naniniwala ako na may pag-asa pa!

Congratulations, friends and colleagues in ArtistsRevolution and MGG. It’s a privilege to work with you. Here’s to 365 363 more days of blood, sweat and tears para sa bayan. Todo na ‘to!

365 Days to Change in the News:

Concert starts countdown towards change (Bandila)

Pinoy artists call for ‘revolution’ (ABS-CBNNews.com)

Belting out songs for change (Inquirer.net)

¹ Felice Sta. Maria, Visions of the Possibe: Legacies of Philippine Freedom, Publishing, Inc., Makati City, Philippines, 1998, p. 76

From the Gusto Ko Magrehistro, Gusto Kong Bumoto forum last Thursday:

COMELEC Commissioner Rene Sarmiento and Juana Change

The audience (photo stolen from Mark’s Facebook album)

ABS-CBN covered the event as part of their “Boto Mo Ipatrol Mo” series and asked the students and young professionals who attended why they were going to vote in 2010. If you spoke in front of the camera, you got this shirt:

I declined an interview (less because I was busy manning the registration table and more because I’m like a deer in headlights in front of a TV camera) but I would like to share my two centavos on the matter. English is my first language but since the question was asked in Filipino, I will attempt to answer it in Filipino:

Boboto ako dahil ito ay aking karapatan and katungkulan bilang mamayang Pilipino. Ang pakikilahok ng bawat mamamayan ay ang puso at budhi ng demokrasya. Kung gusto nating maging tunay na demokrasya ang ating bansa at kung gusto nating lutasin ang sakit ng ating lipunan, kailangan nating kumilos.

Ang pagboto sa 2010 ay unang hakbang laman tungo sa pagbabago at magandang kinabukasan. Ang katungkulan natin sa ating bayan ay hindi nagtatapos sa paghulog ng ating balota. Kailangan nating bantayan ang ating boto at tiyakin na malinis at tapapat ang pag bilang nito. Pag naluklok na sa puwesto ang ating mga kandidato, kailangan nating pasagutin sila sa kanila mga kilos at gawa. Ipatupad natin ang kanilang mga pangako at subaybayan nating ang pag ganap ng kanilang tungkulin. Iparinig natin ang ating mga boses at puwersahin nating silang aksyonan ang mga isyung mahalaga sa atin.

Ang kinabukasan ng bayan ang nasa kamay ng mamamayang Pilipino. Ang pagbabago ay hindi nangagaling sa itaas, mula sa pamahalaan. Ang pagbabago ay nagsisimula sa mga karaniwang tao tulad natin.

Upang magbago ang Pilipinas, kailangan munang magbago ang Pilipino. Hindi lang naman ang “trapo” ang korupt. Kapag nag hahanap tayo nang lusot sa batas, kapag nangaabuso tayo nang ibang tao, kapag iniisip lang nating ang sariling kapakanan — wala tayong pinagkaiba sa kanila.

Sikapin nating maging bayani sa ating pang araw-araw na pamumuhay. Maging sino man tayo, may kakayahan tayong paglingkuran ang ating bayan. Hindi natin kailangang maging mayaman o makapangyarihan upang makilahok sa ating mga komunidad and tumulong sa ating kapwa. Wag nating baliwalain ang ating mga malilit na kontribusyon – pag pinagsama-sama natin ang mga ito magugulat tayo sa kaya nating gawin. Taglay natin ang kapangyarihang baguhin ang landas ng ating bayan. Maniwala ka!

April 29, 2009

The Movement for Good Governance emphasizes the need for caution in the election automation project. While we are generally in favor of some form of poll automation, we feel that the project should be more focused on the automation of the canvass process, which takes much longer than counting and where more electoral fraud takes place. Historically, counting at the precincts has taken from 12 to 24 hours only while canvassing has taken up to 40 days after elections.

Moreover, we feel that the software and processes used must be made transparent to the public to assure voters that their votes are being counted accurately and that, if results should be disputed, there be recourse to going back to review paper ballots for validation purposes.

Finally, in the interest of fiscal prudence, we feel that the solution eventually selected should come at a price that is reasonable and affordable for the country. It makes little sense to lease or procure a proprietary system whose process is not transparent and comes at great cost to the public.

Ultimately our greatest concern revolves around the country’s ability to mount such a large scale computerization program given the lack of experience in carrying out such projects and in the COMELEC’s already-known deficiencies in information technology infrastructure. The COMELEC’s own internal reports already indicate problems with their IT abilities. The public has the right to know if the COMELEC has addressed these deficiencies.

We understand that the COMELEC is an independent Constitutional Commission and we respect its mandate as such. Following the principles of good governance and social accountability, we will continue to engage the COMELEC constructively to address our concerns.

View MGG’s IT expert Gus Lagman’s presentation on election automation here.

… a gazillion more to go leading up to the 2010 elections.

They almost had me this morning. I didn’t think they were going to show up.

A Call for Open, Transparent, and Participatory Polls

A Joint Public Statement
For Open, Transparent, and Participatory 2010 Elections

The people’s trust and confidence in the electoral system must be brought back in the May 2010 automated polls – the first automated national and local elections in the Philippines. The only way this can be done is to make the automated elections free, open, transparent, and with full people’s participation.

We are concerned that this is not being addressed by the Commission on Elections (Comelec) through its use of the Optical Mark Reader (OMR) technology. As proven in the August 2008 ARMM elections – for that matter, in many electoral exercises in other countries – this technology is vulnerable to hacking, technical errors, delays, and other problems. And as the Comelec Advisory Council (CAC) itself admitted in a report in October 2008, the poll body is ill-equipped for the technological requirements of the coming elections.

Worse, this automated technology does not guarantee an open and transparent election. OMR uses internal tallying thus preventing voters from knowing whether their votes are counted let alone from tracking poll results through electronic transmission, canvassing, consolidation, and finally declaration of election winners. Because every step is supposed to be quick, all these will make citizens’ poll watching more taxing if not a futile exercise.

While all these months the Comelec has prioritized the procurement of automated election equipment for the 2010 polls no attention has been paid on how to address the fraud mechanisms that are still in place all over the country. The use of automated technology will come to naught unless the poll body comes up with effective measures to make these powerful fraud mechanisms irrelevant. Such fraud mechanisms will come into play – possibly with greater force and vengeance – in the coming automated polls and no amount of modern technology will ensure the coming elections to be free, honest, and democratic. It will lead to wholesale electronic cheating. Election cheats from the national to local elections will continue to be unaccountable, as usual.

While there is still time the Comelec as well as Congress should welcome other proposals aimed at making the coming elections open, transparent, and participatory. One such proposal, the Open Election System (OES) combines manual precinct-level voting and counting with automated canvassing of votes at the city/municipality, provincial, and national levels. Aside from being a lot cheaper compared to the OMR, what makes this automated technology open, transparent, and participatory is the posting of election results on a public website that will be constantly accessible to all interested parties including the voters themselves as well as poll watchers and candidates. This system opens more guarantees for the verification of election data as well as ample time for the filing of election protests against anticipated widespread irregularities.

Moreover, the OES system complies with RA 9369 which calls for “transparency, credibility, fairness, and accuracy of elections” and prescribes “the adoption and use of the most suitable technology of demonstrated capability taking into account the situation prevailing in the area and the funds available for the purpose.”

This proposed system is adaptable to Philippine conditions and promotes the voters’ right to open and participatory election. It also requires less tedious and inexpensive training for both election officials and voters – so unlike in the OMR system. Based on the Comelec calendar, the only time the public and media will know the final customized and configured OMR election system is on February 22, 2010. This leaves only two months devoted to voters’ education and scrutiny by the public on the final configuration – contrary to the CAC’s recommendation of at least six months!

Center for People Empowerment in Governance (CenPEG)

TransparentElections.org.ph (TE.org)

March 18, 2009
Diliman, Quezon City

Note:
This statement will be read tomorrow in UP at the public forum entitled “Transparency in the 2010 Automated Elections.” The forum will hear inputs and updates on the Comelec plan for the automated elections and how it hopes to address electoral issues like fraud.

You can download the PDF version of the statement here.

Coalition aims 10M votes for good gov’t
By Doris Dumlao
Philippine Daily Inquirer

MANILA, Philippines—A critical mass of 10 million voters is what a new movement aims to mobilize to bring about good governance ahead of and beyond the 2010 elections.

The Movement for Good Governance (MGG), a coalition of reform-minded organizations, business leaders and individuals, has three long-term goals—voter registration and empowerment, election reform and leadership development.

But it is focusing on the 2010 elections as a major opportunity to exercise good governance and elect new leaders, the group said in a press briefing on Friday.

The organizations at the core of the coalition are Kaya Natin, Youth Vote, Young Public Servants, Hope, Transparent Election.org, Reform Coalition and RCN Visition 2010.

Some of its key movers are Milwida Guevara, a former finance undersecretary; Guillermo Luz, a former Makati Business Club executive director; information technology expert Gus Lagman; artist and youth leader Jaime Garchitorena; retired Gen. Jose Almonte and comedian “Juana Change.”

According to Guevara, the strength of MGG is how it has put together “a group of ordinary people who want to make a difference, who have hope and who would like to put a claim that this is our country.”

Guevara, president of the Synergeia Foundation which works with local government units in improving basic education, said MGG was not endorsing any particular candidate for president but “it’s possible that via an organic process ahead of the elections, views may converge to endorse a set of leaders.”

With regard to the first of its goals, the MGG will support the registration of young and first-time voters starting this month, mobilize 10 million voters to sign up and support good governance reforms and then organize communication platforms like public debates to help Filipinos understand the issues better and choose candidates wisely.

Effective automation

With respect to election reforms, MGG seeks effective automation to achieve transparent and faster canvassing of voters.

“Let’s use technology not only to prevent cheating but to make the elections more transparent,” said Lagman, of Transparent Election.org, who proposes the uploading of electoral results to the Internet after the manual canvassing of votes in the schools.

Luz said the country must fix the electoral system so that good candidates would be encouraged to run for office.

He said an online system would allow the candidates, voters, watchers the media and even the overseas Filipinos to keep track of poll results.

“Everybody will have power of information at their fingertips and that makes 40 million of us poll watchers, far better than the half a million that Namfrel can put up,” said Luz, formerly executive director of the National Movement for Free Elections.

Lagman, who was also IT chief at Namfrel, has designed a program called “Open Election System” that can speed up the canvassing of votes.

MGG seeks to encourage and empower grassroots and overseas Filipinos to monitor election results in real time and use available technology such as mobile phones and the Internet to protect the sanctity of the votes.

The coalition also seeks to guarantee the ability of overseas Filipinos to participate in and possibly influence the 2010 elections.

Direct mandate

On leadership development, MGG seeks to identify, empower and support “progressive political leaders who are sincere and effective in promoting reforms towards good governance.”

“We want to build awareness, get people to run, get good candidates to run, get people to register and get poll watchers from all walks of life,” Luz said.

Almonte, who was national security adviser to President Fidel Ramos, said that the mandate for Charter change must come directly from the people.

To ensure that any constitutional amendments would not benefit incumbent leaders, Almonte has proposed a referendum to be held simultaneously with the 2010 elections to ask the people if they wanted the Constitution amended.

If incumbent officials or those elected in 2010 would not benefit from the changes, Filipinos would likely vote “yes” in such a referendum, he said.