30 December 2012

Digital Signatures in the Automated Election System



Digital signature” refers to a “person” not a machine


An “electronic signature” is a “distinctive mark, characteristic and/or sound” that “(represents) the identity of a person”, and is attached to an “electronic document.”i

A person is the subject of legal relations that may acquire rights or incur obligations.ii A person is either a natural or juridical person.iii

An “electronic document” refers to information written in electronic form that establishes a right, extinguishes an obligation or proves a fact.iv

A “digital signature” is a type of “electronic signature” that uses an asymmetric cryptosystem.v An “asymmetric cryptosystem” is a system that generates a key pair, consisting of a private key to create a digital signature, and a public key to verify the digital signature.vi

A “digitally signed” document refers to an “electronic document” that bears a “digital signature.”vii

Notably, the statutory laws, implementing rules and regulations and judicial rules of evidence define a “digital signature” as the SIGNATURE OF A PERSON.viii There is no law or rule whatsoever that defines a “digital signature” as the signature of a property.

Under the premises, it necessarily follows that the view expressed by Smartmatic International Corporation and adopted by the COMELEC that the “machine signature” of a precinct count optical scan (PCOS) machine may be the functional equivalent of the “digital signature”, is manifestly CONTRARY TO LAW.ix As distinguished from a person, property such as a PCOS machine cannot be the subject of legal relations because it can neither acquire rights nor incur obligations.x Property can only be the object of legal relations, that may be owned by a person.xi


Electronic election returns” must be “digitally signed”

Under the old election law that employed the manual counting of votes, the members of the board of election inspectors are enjoined to sign or affix their signatures to the election returns, under pain of criminal sanction if they fail to do so.xii

Under the present election law that employs the automated counting of votes, the members of the board of election inspectors are similarly enjoined to sign or affix their signatures to the printed electronic election returns, likewise under pain of criminal sanction if they fail to do so.xiii

Consistent with the provisions above, the present election law also mandates that the “election returns transmitted electronically” must be “digitally signed” in order to be “considered as official election results” and “used as the basis for the canvassing of votes and the proclamation of a candidate.”xiv

By necessary implication, “election returns transmitted electronically” but NOT “digitally signed” CANNOT be “considered as official election results”, NOR “used as the basis for the canvassing of votes and the proclamation of a candidate.”xv

The nullity of “electronic election returns” without “digital signatures” is apart from the criminal sanctions imposed on the members of the board of election inspectors who utilize without authorization or otherwise transmit electronically “election returns” that are not “digitally signed.”
xvi

Under the premises, it necessarily follows that Sec. 40(f), (g) and (h) of Comelec Resolution No. 8786 dated 04 March 2010, directing all the Boards of Election Inspectors nationwide NOT to sign the transmission of the electronic election returns with their respective BEI digital signature keys, is evidently CONTRARY TO LAW. The language of Sec. 22, Par. 6 of Rep. Act No. 8436, as amended by Rep. Act No. 9369 is clear and simple that admits of no exception or qualification whatsoever.


Constitutional implications of electronic election returns without “digital signatures”


Under these premises, where none of the “electronic election returns” nationwide bear any “digital signatures”, then it necessarily follows that the constitutional mandate to secure the “sanctity of the ballot” has been grossly violated during the May 2010 national and local elections.xvii



This article was written ex-gratia by
Demosthenes B. Donato for Tanggulang Demokrasya.

All intellectual property rights are granted to the public domain.

27 November 2011. Makati City, Philippines.
i Electronic Commerce Act, Section 5. Definition of Terms- For the purposes of this Act, the following terms are defined, as follows:  (d) "Electronic signature" refers to any distinctive mark, characteristic and/or sound in electronic from, representing the identity of a person and attached to or logically associated with the electronic data message or electronic document or any methodology or procedures employed or adopted by a person and executed or adopted by such person with the intention of authenticating or approving an electronic data message or electronic document. 
IRR of the Electronic Commerce Act, Section 6. Definition of Terms. -  For the purposes of the Act and these Rules, the following terms are defined, as follows: (g)Electronic signature” refers to any distinctive mark, characteristic and/or sound in electronic form, representing the identity of a person and attached to or logically associated with the electronic data message or electronic document or any methodology or procedures employed or adopted by a person and executed or adopted by such person with the intention of authenticating or approving an electronic data message or electronic document.
Rules on Electronic Evidence, Rule 2, Section 1. Definition of Terms. – For purposes of these Rules, the following terms are defined, as follows: (j) “Electronic signature” refers to any distinctive mark, characteristic and/or sound in electronic form, representing the identity of a person and attached to or logically associated with the electronic data message or electronic document or any methodology or procedure employed or adopted by a person and executed or adopted by such person with the intention of authenticating, signing or approving an electronic data message or electronic document. For purposes of these Rules, an electronic signature includes digital signatures.
ii Civil Code of the Philippines, Art. 37 Juridical capacity, which is the fitness to be the subject of legal relations, is inherent in every natural person and is lost only through death. Capacity to act, which is the power to do acts with legal effect, is acquired and may be lost.

iii Supra Civil Code, Art. 37.  Juridical capacity, which is the fitness to be the subject of legal relations, is inherent in every natural person and is lost only through death. Capacity to act, which is the power to do acts with legal effect, is acquired and may be lost.

Art. 46. Juridical persons may acquire and possess property of all kinds, as well as incur obligations and bring civil or criminal actions, in conformity with the laws and regulations of their organization.

Supra IRR, Section 6. Definition of Terms. -  For the purposes of the Act and these Rules, the following terms are defined, as follows: (m) “Person” means any natural or juridical person including, but not limited to, an individual, corporation, partnership, joint venture, unincorporated association, trust or other juridical entity, or any governmental authority.

iv Supra Act, Section 5. Definition of Terms- For the purposes of this Act, the following terms are defined, as follows: (e) "Electronic document" refers to information or the representation of information, data, figures, symbols or other modes of written expression, described or however represented, by which a right is established or an obligation extinguished, or by which a fact may be prove and affirmed, which is receive, recorded, transmitted, stored, processed, retrieved or produced electronically.

Supra IRR, Section 6. Definition of Terms. -  For the purposes of the Act and these Rules, the following terms are defined, as follows: (h)Electronic document” refers to information or the representation of information, data, figures, symbols or other modes of written expression, described or however represented, by which a right is established or an obligation extinguished, or by which a fact may be proved and affirmed, which is received, recorded, transmitted, stored, processed, retrieved or produced electronically.  Throughout these Rules, the term “electronic document” shall be equivalent to and be used interchangeably with “electronic data message.”

Supra Rules, Rule 2, Section 1. Definition of Terms. – For purposes of these Rules, the following terms are defined, as follows: (h) “Electronic document” refers to information or the representation of information, data, figures, symbols or other modes of written expression, described or however represented, by which a right is established or an obligation extinguished, or by which a fact may be proved and affirmed, which is received, recorded, transmitted, stored, processed, retrieved or produced electronically. It includes digitally signed documents and any print-out or output, readable by sight or other means, which accurately reflects the electronic data message or electronic document. For purposes of these Rules, the term “electronic document” may be used interchangeably with “electronic data message”.

v Supra Rules, Rule 2, Section 1. Definition of Terms. – For purposes of these Rules, the following terms are defined, as follows: (e) “Digital Signature” refers to an electronic signature consisting of a transformation of an electronic document or an electronic data message using an asymmetric or public cryptosystem such that a person having the initial untransformed electronic document and the signer’s public key can accurately determine:
(i) whether the transformation was created using the private key that corresponds to the signer’s public key; and,
(ii) whether the initial electronic document had been altered after the transformation was made.

vi Supra Rules, Rule 2, Section 1. Definition of Terms. – For purposes of these Rules, the following terms are defined, as follows:
(a) “Asymmetric or public cryptosystem” means a system capable of generating a secure key pair, consisting of a private key for creating a digital signature, and a public key for verifying the digital signature.
(c) "Certificate" means an electronic document issued to support a digital signature which purports to confirm the identity or other significant characteristics of the person who holds a particular key pair.
(m) “Key Pair” in an asymmetric cryptosystem refers to the private key and its mathematically related public key such that the latter can verify the digital signature that the former creates.
(n) “Private Key” refers to the key of a key pair used to create a digital signature.
(o) “Public Key” refers to the key of a key pair used to verify a digital signature.

vii Id, Rule 2, Section 1. Definition of Terms. – For purposes of these Rules, the following terms are defined, as follows: (f) “Digitally signed” refers to an electronic document or electronic data message bearing a digital signature verified by the public key listed in a certificate.

viii Supra Act, Section 5. Definition of Terms- For the purposes of this Act, the following terms are defined, as follows: (d) "Electronic signature" refers to any distinctive mark, characteristic and/or sound in electronic from, representing the identity of a person and attached to or logically associated with the electronic data message or electronic document or any methodology or procedures employed or adopted by a person and executed or adopted by such person with the intention of authenticating or approving an electronic data message or electronic document. (emphasis supplied)

Supra Act, Section 8. Legal Recognition of Electronic Signatures.- An electronic signature on the electronic document shall be equivalent to the signature of a person on a written document if the signature is an electronic signature and proved by showing that a prescribed procedure, not alterable by the parties interested in the electronic document, existed under which-
(a) A method is used to identify the party sought to be bound and to indicate said party's access to the electronic document necessary for his consent or approval through the electronic signature;
(b) Said method is reliable and appropriate for the purpose for which the electronic document was generated or communicated, in the light of all circumstances, including any relevant agreement;
(c) It is necessary for the party sought to be bound, in or order to proceed further with the transaction to have executed or provided the electronic signature; and
(d) The other party is authorized and enable to verify the electronic signature and to make the decision to proceed with the transaction authenticated by the same. (emphasis supplied)

Supra Act, Section 9. Presumption Relating to Electronic Signatures-In any proceedings involving an electronic signature, it shall be presumed that,
(a) The electronic signature is the signature of the person to whom it correlates; and
(b) The electronic signature was affixed by that person with the intention of signing or approving the electronic document unless the person relying on the electronically designed electronic document knows or has noticed of defects in or unreliability of the signature or reliance on the electronic signature is not reasonable under the circumstances. (emphasis supplied)

Supra IRR, Section 6. Definition of Terms. -  For the purposes of the Act and these Rules, the following terms are defined, as follows: (g)Electronic signaturerefers to any distinctive mark, characteristic and/or sound in electronic form, representing the identity of a person and attached to or logically associated with the electronic data message or electronic document or any methodology or procedures employed or adopted by a person and executed or adopted by such person with the intention of authenticating or approving an electronic data message or electronic document. (emphasis supplied)

Supra IRR, Section 13. Legal Recognition of Electronic Signatures.  An electronic signature relating to an electronic document or electronic data message shall be equivalent to the signature of a person on a written document if the signature:
(a) is an electronic signature as defined in Section 6(g) of these Rules; and
(b) is proved by showing that a prescribed procedure, not alterable by the parties interested in the electronic document or electronic data message, existed under which:
(i) A method is used to identify the party sought to be bound and to indicate said party’s access to the electronic document or electronic data message necessary for his consent or approval through the electronic signature;
(ii) Said method is reliable and appropriate for the purpose for which the electronic document or electronic data message was generated or communicated, in the light of all circumstances, including any relevant agreement;
(iii) It is necessary for the party sought to be bound, in order to proceed further with the transaction, to have executed or provided the electronic signature; and,
(iv) The other party is authorized and enabled to verify the electronic signature and to make the decision to proceed with the transaction authenticated by the same. (emphasis supplied)
The parties may agree to adopt supplementary or alternative procedures provided that the requirements of paragraph (b) are complied with.
For purposes of subparagraphs (i) and (ii) of paragraph (b), the factors referred to in Annex “2” may be taken into account.

Supra IRR, Section 14. Presumption Relating to Electronic Signatures. - In any proceeding involving an electronic signature, the proof of the electronic signature shall give rise to the rebuttable presumption that:
(a) The electronic signature is the signature of the person to whom it correlates; and  
(b) The electronic signature was affixed by that person with the intention of signing or approving the electronic data message or electronic document unless the person relying on the electronically signed electronic data message or electronic document knows or has notice of defects in or unreliability of the signature or reliance on the electronic signature is not reasonable under the circumstances. (emphasis supplied)

Supra Rules, Rule 2, Section 1. Definition of Terms. – For purposes of these Rules, the following terms are defined, as follows: (j)Electronic signature” refers to any distinctive mark, characteristic and/or sound in electronic form, representing the identity of a person and attached to or logically associated with the electronic data message or electronic document or any methodology or procedure employed or adopted by a person and executed or adopted by such person with the intention of authenticating, signing or approving an electronic data message or electronic document. For purposes of these Rules, an electronic signature includes digital signatures. (emphasis supplied)

ix See Final Report of the Joint Forensic Team, 09 June 2010, which reads in part as follows:

“Absence of Machine Digital Signatures.

“Examination of the PCOS machines revealed that there was no evidence found to prove the existence of digital certificates in the PCOS machines, contrary to the claims of Smartmatic. The technicians of Smartmatic were not able to show to the forensic team the machine version of the digital signature, alleging that they do not have the necessary tool to show the same. More so, they were at a quandary as to how to extract the said machine signatures - to the dismay of the forensic team.

“If there are digital certificates then these were supposed to be revealed. The forensic team tried to extract the digital signatures but to no avail. Hence, the forensic team is of the opinion that there exists no digital signatures in the PCOS machine.”

x Supra Civil Code, Art. 414. All things which are or may be the object of appropriation are considered either:
(1) Immovable or real property; or
(2) Movable or personal property.

xi Id.

xii Omnibus Election Code of the Philippines (Batas Pambansa Blg. 881), Section 212. Election returns. - The board of election inspectors shall prepare the election returns simultaneously with the counting of the votes in the polling place as prescribed in Section 210 hereof. The return shall be prepared in sextuplicate. The recording of votes shall be made as prescribed in said section. The entry of votes in words and figures for each candidate shall be closed with the signature and the clear imprint of the thumbmark of the right hand of all the members, likewise to be affixed in full view of the public, immediately after the last vote recorded or immediately after the name of the candidate who did not receive any vote.

The returns shall also show the date of the election, the polling place, the barangay and the city of municipality in which it was held, the total number of ballots found in the compartment for valid ballots, the total number of valid ballots withdrawn from the compartment for spoiled ballots because they were erroneously placed therein, the total number of excess ballots, the total number of marked or void ballots, and the total number of votes obtained by each candidate, writing out the said number in words and figures and, at the end thereof, the board of election inspectors shall certify that the contents are correct. The returns shall be accomplished in a single sheet of paper, but if this is not possible, additional sheets may be used which shall be prepared in the same manner as the first sheet and likewise certified by the board of election inspectors...

If the signatures and/or thumbmarks of the members of the board of election inspectors or some of them as required in this provision are missing in the election returns, the board of canvassers may summon the members of the board of election inspectors concerned to complete the returns.

Omnibus Election Code of the Philippines (Batas Pambansa Blg. 881), Section 261. Prohibited Acts. - The following shall be guilty of an election offense: (bb) Common to all boards of election inspectors and boards of canvassers: (2) Any member of any board of election inspectors or board of canvassers who, without justifiable reason, refuses to sign and certify any election form required by this Code or prescribed by the Commission although he was present during the meeting of the said body.

Omnibus Election Code of the Philippines (Batas Pambansa Blg. 881), Section 264. Penalties. - Any person found guilty of any election offense under this Code shall be punished with imprisonment of not less than one year but not more than six years and shall not be subject to probation. In addition, the guilty party shall be sentenced to suffer disqualification to hold public office and deprivation of the right of suffrage. If he is a foreigner, he shall be sentenced to deportation which shall be enforced after the prison term has been served. Any political party found guilty shall be sentenced to pay a fine of not less than ten thousand pesos, which shall be imposed upon such party after criminal action has been instituted in which their corresponding officials have been found guilty.

In case of prisoner or prisoners illegally released from any penitentiary or jail during the prohibited period as provided in Section 261, paragraph (n) of this Code, the director of prisons, provincial warden, keeper of the jail or prison, or persons who are required by law to keep said prisoner in their custody shall, if convicted by a competent court, be sentenced to suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period if the prisoner or prisoners so illegally released commit any act of intimidation, terrorism of interference in the election.

Any person found guilty of the offense of failure to register or failure to vote shall, upon conviction, be fined one hundred pesos. In addition, he shall suffer disqualification to run for public office in the next succeeding election following his conviction or be appointed to a public office for a period of one year following his conviction.

xiii Rep. Act No. 9369, Sec. 19. Section 18 of Republic Act No. 8436 is hereby amended to read as follows:

SEC. 22. Electronic Returns. - Each copy of the of the printed election returns shall bear appropriate control marks to determine the time and place of printing. Each copy shall be signed and thumbmarked by all the members of the board of election inspectors and the watchers present. If any member of the board of election inspectors present refuses to sign, the chairman of the board shall note the same copy in each copy of the printed election returns. The member of the board of election inspectors concerned refusing to sign shall be compelled to explain his or her refusal to do so. Failure to explain an unjustifiable refusal to sign each copy of the printed election return by any member of the board of election inspectors shall be punishable as provided in this Act. The chairman of the boards shall then publicly read and announce the total numbers of registered voters, the total number of voters who actually voted and the total numbers of votes obtained by each candidate based on the election returns...”

Rep. Act No. 9369, Sec. 28. Section 29 of Republic Act No. 8436 is hereby amended to read as follows:

"SEC. 35. Prohibited Acts and Penalties. - The following shall be penalized as provided in this Act, whether or not said acts affect the electoral process or results:
"(a) Utilizing without authorization, tampering with, damaging, destroying or stealing:
"(1) Official ballots, election returns, and certificates of canvass of votes used in the system; and
"(2) Electronic devices or their components, peripherals or supplies used in the AES such as counting machine, memory pack/diskette, memory pack receiver and computer set;
"(b) Interfering with, impeding, absconding for purpose of gain, preventing the installation or use of computer counting devices and the processing, storage, generation and transmission of election results, data or information;
"(c) Gaining or causing access to using, altering, destroying or disclosing any computer data, program, system software, network, or any computer-related devices, facilities, hardware or equipment, whether classified or declassified;
"(d) Refusal of the citizens' arm to present for perusal its copy of election return to the board of canvassers;
"(e) Presentation by the citizens' arm of tampered or spurious election returns;
"(f) Refusal or failure to provide the dominant majority and dominant minority parties or the citizens'' arm their copy of election returns; and
"(g) The failure to post the voters' list within the specified time, duration and in the designated location shall constitute an election offense on the part the election officer concerned."
"Any person convicted for violation of this Act, except those convicted of the crime of electoral sabotage, shall be penalized with imprisonment of eight years and one day to twelve (12) years without possibility of parole, and perpetual disqualification to hold public office and deprivation of the right of suffrage. Moreover, the offender shall be perpetually disqualified to hold any non-elective public office."

xiv Rep. Act No. 9369, Sec. 19. Section 18 of Republic Act No. 8436 is hereby amended to read as follows:

SEC. 22. Electronic Returns... "The election returns transmitted electronically and digitally signed shall be considered as official election results and shall be used as the basis for the canvassing of votes and the proclamation of a candidate." (emphasis supplied)

xv Id.

xvi Rep. Act No. 9369, Sec. 28. Section 29 of Republic Act No. 8436 is hereby amended to read as follows:

"SEC. 35. Prohibited Acts and Penalties. - The following shall be penalized as provided in this Act, whether or not said acts affect the electoral process or results:
"(a) Utilizing without authorization, tampering with, damaging, destroying or stealing:
"(1) Official ballots, election returns, and certificates of canvass of votes used in the system; and
"(2) Electronic devices or their components, peripherals or supplies used in the AES such as counting machine, memory pack/diskette, memory pack receiver and computer set;
"(b) Interfering with, impeding, absconding for purpose of gain, preventing the installation or use of computer counting devices and the processing, storage, generation and transmission of election results, data or information;
"(c) Gaining or causing access to using, altering, destroying or disclosing any computer data, program, system software, network, or any computer-related devices, facilities, hardware or equipment, whether classified or declassified;
"(d) Refusal of the citizens' arm to present for perusal its copy of election return to the board of canvassers;
"(e) Presentation by the citizens' arm of tampered or spurious election returns;
"(f) Refusal or failure to provide the dominant majority and dominant minority parties or the citizens'' arm their copy of election returns; and
"(g) The failure to post the voters' list within the specified time, duration and in the designated location shall constitute an election offense on the part the election officer concerned."
"Any person convicted for violation of this Act, except those convicted of the crime of electoral sabotage, shall be penalized with imprisonment of eight years and one day to twelve (12) years without possibility of parole, and perpetual disqualification to hold public office and deprivation of the right of suffrage. Moreover, the offender shall be perpetually disqualified to hold any non-elective public office."

xvii 1987 Constitution, Article V, Suffrage, Section 2. The Congress shall provide a system for securing the secrecy and sanctity of the ballot as well as a system for absentee voting by qualified Filipinos abroad.
The Congress shall also design a procedure for the disabled and the illiterates to vote without the assistance of other persons. Until then, they shall be allowed to vote under existing laws and such rules as the Commission on Elections may promulgate to protect the secrecy of the ballot. (emphasis supplied)

22 December 2012

Assault on the Powerful

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,870146,00.html

TIME Magazine
Friday, 07 September 1962


In the Philippine Republic, where political power and economic power are closely intertwined, few have ever played the double game so well as the brothers Lopez —Eugenio, 61, and Fernando, 58. The older and dominant brother, wizened, unsociable Eugenio. presides over "the Molasses Fund." the war chest out of which the Philippines' potent handful of big sugar planters underwrite the politicians of their choice. Personable Brother Fernando, the team's working politician, served as Vice President in the sleazy administration of President Elpidio Quirino (1948-53), and is currently president protem-pore of the Philippine Senate.

Wrong Bet. With easy access to government credit as their prime instrument, the Lopez brothers have parlayed their family's 3,700-acre sugar plantation on Negros Island into one of the Philippines' biggest business empires. In 1947, Eugenio bought Manila's morning Chronicle (circ. 44,750), and by adding to it a string of 25 TV and radio stations soon emerged as a communications king. In 1951, with a generous loan from the state-owned Philippine National Bank, he bought Asia's largest sugar refinery, the Binalbagan-Isabela Sugar Co., Inc. Last year, after expanding the Lopez holdings to include more sugar mills, a cement company and a jute-bag plant, the brothers pulled off their biggest coup. Worried by a campaign against foreign ownership of Philippine utilities that was sparked by the Lopez-owned Chronicle, the U.S.-owned General Public Utilities Corp. decided to sell off its big, well-run Manila Electric Co. Head of the government-underwritten Philippine syndicate that bought Manila Electric: Eugenio Lopez.

Just at this triumphant point in their careers, however, the brothers made a bad political bet. They backed the unsuccessful efforts of President Carlos Garcia to win a second term for his discredited regime. When crusading Winner Diosdado Macapagal moved into Manila's presidential palace last January, he went after politically entrenched businessmen in general, and the Lopez brothers in particular. The Lopez group, Macapagal bluntly told the nation, "is using political power and influence to promote the interests of its business empire."

Unfinished Business. In the past, when confronted with reform administrations, Philippine businessmen have pulled back a little and waited for normalcy to return. Adhering to this tradition, Eugenio Lopez agreed to sell off for $9,000,000 the Philippine Planters Investment Co., the holding company that controlled the Lopez sugar, cement and jute interests. Buyers: a syndicate of Philippine and U.S. investors headed by Vincent Checchi, a Washington, D.C., management consultant. The Philippine government gave its approval. But President Macapagal was not finished with the Lopez brothers. Fortnight ago, the government brought charges of personal income tax evasion against both brothers and accused Fernando of illegal interests in government contracts. Last week Macapagal ordered a probe of the profits the Lopez brothers made in the sale of Philippine Planters, and levied a $347,580 back-tax assessment against the company, which the Lopez brothers are to challenge in court. To the wonderment of Manila, wealth and influence no longer seemed to be an automatic guarantee of immunity in the Philippines.





27 November 2012

People of the Philippines vs. COMELEC & Smartmatic

I. BREACH OF WARRANTY OF OWNERSHIP OF SOFTWARE

Smartmatic: “71. COMELEC has requested from Smartmatic certain modifications, comprising enhancements and improvements to the Licensed Products or, alternatively, Additional Project Assistance, some of which require adjustments to the Licensed Technology. Pursuant to the Agreement, which obligates Dominion to provide Smartmatic with technical support and assistance to make such requested modifications and improvements, Smartmatic specifically requested Dominion’s assistance with those modifications that required adjustments to the Licensed Technology. Because the Licensed Technology includes Dominion’s proprietary source code and intellectual property, Smartmatic requires Dominion to perform its support obligations under the Agreement for the purpose of the 2013 Philippines elections and also to release the Escrowed Materials to Smartmatic to enable Smartmatic to provide the support which Dominion refuses to provide.” (emphasis supplied)

Dominion: “RESPONSE NO. 71: Dominion lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in the first sentence of Paragraph 71 of the Complaint. Dominion denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 71 of the Complaint, except admits that Smartmatic has requested that Dominion International make certain modifications and enhancements to Dominion voting systems related to the Philippines. By way of further response, Dominion states that Dominion International has no further obligations with respect to the 2013 election because the License Agreement has been terminated and the initial SOW has expired and/or been terminated.”

Tandem: The admission by Smartmatic that another entity Dominion in fact owns the proprietary source code and intellectual property to the PCOS based AES, proves beyond reasonable doubt that Smartmatic FOOLED the Filipino people when it deceitfully made an express warranty that the software and systems were the “exclusive property of Smartmatic.” Contract for the Provision of an AES for the May 10, 2010 Synchronized National and Local Elections, Article 10, Section 10.1.



II. BREACH OF DUTY TO PLACE SOURCE CODE IN ESCROW

Smartmatic: “117. Section 5.2 of the License Agreement obligates Dominion International to place in escrow, within thirty days of the date of the License Agreement, “all of its source code for the firmware and EMS, as well as all hardware design and manufacture documents as per Exhibit B.” See Agreement at § 5.2. Exhibit B to the License Agreement states that “the concept Source Code and IP to be placed in escrow by Dominion applies to the current vision and the immediate prior version” of the subject technology, source code, and other information as enumerated in that Exhibit. See Exhibit to the Agreement. In the event Dominion International breaches its obligation to provide products or support, and fails to cure such breach within thirty days of receipt of notice from Smartmatic, “the escrowed materials shall be released to Smartmatic for the sole purpose of providing such products or services that Dominion failed to provide.” See Agreement at § 5.2.”

Dominion: “RESPONSE NO. 117: Dominion denies the allegations in Paragraph 117 of the Complaint, except admits that the paragraph selectively quotes from or cites to the License Agreement. By way of further response, Dominion respectfully refers the Court to the License Agreement for its full and accurate contents.”

Smartmatic: “118. Based on information and belief, Dominion International failed to place in escrow any of the required materials until May 7, 2012. Moreover, Smartmatic International subsequently learned that the material Dominion International placed in escrow was not the current version and the immediate prior version of the required information, but was instead an outdated and possibly encrypted version of these materials, rendering them ineffective. In response to Smartmatic’s request to fulfill its escrow obligations, Dominion International notified Smartmatic International on June 11, 2012 that it was under no obligation to place in escrow the materials described in the License Agreement and Exhibit B to the Agreement. Dominion International’s failure to place in escrow the source code and other required information as set forth in the License Agreement is a breach of that contract. Dominion International’s failure to fulfill its contractual obligations is not excused by any reason.”

Dominion: “RESPONSE NO. 118: Dominion denies the allegations in Paragraph 118 of the Complaint, except admits that Dominion International placed in escrow the version of software that had been deployed in the Philippines.”

Tandem: The admission by Smartmatic that it never had the source code, and that the real owner Dominion placed it in escrow only belatedly 07 May 2012, proves beyond reasonable doubt that Smartmatic FOOLED the Filipino people when it made them believe that it deposited the subject “source code” with the BSP before the 10 May 2010 elections. Contract for the Provision of an AES for the May 10, 2010 Synchronized National and Local Elections, Article 9, Section 9.5.



III. SUPPLY OF DEFECTIVE SOFTWARE FOR 2010

Smartmatic: “12. In 2009, Smartmatic International and Dominion International executed a License Agreement in which Dominion granted to Smartmatic a worldwide license to market, make, use, and sell precinct count optical scan (“PCOS”) voting systems utilizing Dominion’s optical scan voting system technology. The License Agreement obligated Dominion International to provide Smartmatic International with, among other things, the hardware, software, firmware, and technical support needed to enable Smartmatic to exploit the broad license granted by Dominion. As set forth more fully below, Dominion International breached its obligations under the License Agreement by ...

(2) failing to deliver fully functional technology for use in the 2010 Philippines national election;

(3) failing to provide timely technical support during and after the Philippines election...”

Dominion: “RESPONSE NO. 12: Dominion denies the allegations in Paragraph 12 of the Complaint, except admits that, in October 2009, Smartmatic International and Dominion International entered into the PCOS Framework License Agreement (the “License Agreement”) (a redacted copy of the License Agreement, with confidential pricing information excised, is attached hereto as Exhibit A), which granted to Smartmatic a license to market, make, use, and sell precinct count optical scan (“PCOS”) voting systems utilizing Dominion’s optical scan voting system technology...”

Smartmatic: “37. During a test of the automated voting system conducted shortly before the Election, COMELEC and Smartmatic discovered a defect in the Licensed Technology— Dominion International’s software failed to correctly read and record the paper ballot. Once Dominion acknowledged the problem with the software and proposed a solution, Smartmatic International had to obtain, load, distribute, and install new memory cards with the reprogrammed software to over 76,000 PCOS voting systems, most of which had already been delivered to the various polling stations located throughout the 7,100 islands in the archipelago. These steps were necessary to ensure the correct interpretation of votes cast on approximately 50,000,000 paper ballots that had already been printed and were ready for use. Remedying this programming error—for which Dominion International contemporaneously acknowledged responsibility—caused Smartmatic International to incur significant monetary damages and reputational harm, and allowed some to cast doubt as to the legitimacy of the elections themselves. Not only did Smartmatic incur over thirteen million dollars in remedial expenses, but as a direct consequence of Dominion International’s failure to perform, COMELEC withheld funds owed to Smartmatic International, initiated a public investigation into Smartmatic’s handling of the election and delayed its decision to purchase the voting products and systems (the “Goods”) pending additional technical verification. This failure also led to a series of judicial challenges questioning the use of the Licensed Technology for future elections, which continue to this day. Smartmatic has incurred damages in excess of $20 million as a result of Dominion’s failure to deliver functional Licensed Technology.” (emphasis supplied)

Dominion: “RESPONSE NO. 37: Dominion lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in the first, second, and third sentences of Paragraph 37 of the Complaint, except denies that it acknowledged legal responsibility for the costs of addressing issues with the system. Dominion denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 37. By way of further response, Dominion avers that, upon information and belief, Smartmatic failed to control processing and delivery timelines and as a consequence failed to conduct standard and routine industry-wide testing of the voting system prior to deployment despite the fact that Dominion International had told Smartmatic that it was standard and routine in the industry and needed to be done and despite the fact that Smartmatic had known the necessity of such testing and conducted such testing in prior elections in other countries. Dominion further avers that it nevertheless proposed a solution to issues that arose during belated testing post-deployment, which solutions would have been easy and inexpensive to implement had Smartmatic conducted such timely routine and standard industry-wide testing prior to deployment.” (emphasis supplied)

Tandem: The admission by Smartmatic that the PCOS system it supplied COMELEC for the 2010 elections was NOT fully functional, failing to correctly read and record the paper ballots, confirms its non-compliance with the minimum accuracy rate of 99.995%, and proves beyond reasonable doubt that Smartmatic and its staunch ally COMELEC, continuously deceived the Filipino people by disregarding all citizen complaints against the reliability of the system, when it knew all along that its system had a basic defect in its scanning function.



IV. SUPPLY OF DEFECTIVE SOFTWARE FOR 2013

Smartmatic: “12. In 2009, Smartmatic International and Dominion International executed a License Agreement in which Dominion granted to Smartmatic a worldwide license to market, make, use, and sell precinct count optical scan (“PCOS”) voting systems utilizing Dominion’s optical scan voting system technology. The License Agreement obligated Dominion International to provide Smartmatic International with, among other things, the hardware, software, firmware, and technical support needed to enable Smartmatic to exploit the broad license granted by Dominion. As set forth more fully below, Dominion International breached its obligations under the License Agreement by ...

(2) failing to deliver fully functional technology for use in the 2010 Philippines national election;

(3) failing to provide timely technical support during and after the Philippines election...”

Dominion: “RESPONSE NO. 12: Dominion denies the allegations in Paragraph 12 of the Complaint, except admits that, in October 2009, Smartmatic International and Dominion International entered into the PCOS Framework License Agreement (the “License Agreement”) (a redacted copy of the License Agreement, with confidential pricing information excised, is attached hereto as Exhibit A), which granted to Smartmatic a license to market, make, use, and sell precinct count optical scan (“PCOS”) voting systems utilizing Dominion’s optical scan voting system technology...”

Smartmatic: 91. Under the terms of the License Agreement, Dominion International was obligated to provide to Smartmatic International the technical support needed to incorporate the “hardware, software, firmware and EMS developed by Dominion” into the Licensed Products. The initial SOW, which the Agreement expressly incorporates, further obligated Dominion International to provide “Project Assistance” as set forth on Tables 1 and 2 of the initial SOW and “Additional Project Assistance,” as set forth in Section 5 of the initial SOW. Despite these obligations, Dominion International failed to provide Smartmatic International with timely technical support in accordance with its contractual obligations. Dominion International failed to address timely Smartmatic International’s Requested Improvements and COMELEC’s conditions for exercising its option to purchase the Licensed Products (i.e., the “Goods”), which has compromised Smartmatic International’s ability to provide satisfactory customer service and materially harmed Smartmatic’s ability to sell the Licensed Products to COMELEC. See Agreement § 3.3. Moreover, Dominion has also failed to provide the required technical support needed to incorporate the modifications and enhancements requested by COMELEC in preparation for the Philippines 2013 national elections. These requested modifications and enhancements were communicated to Dominion well before its purported termination of the Agreement, which does not serve as a basis for avoiding these support obligations in any event. Instead, Dominion International has sought to use its ownership and control of the Licensed Technology to rewrite the License Agreement by insisting upon the inclusion of ex post contract conditions in the in the amended SOWs as a condition to fulfilling its pre-existing contractual obligations. Dominion International’s failure to perform is not excused by any reason.” (emphasis supplied)

Dominion: “RESPONSE NO. 91: Dominion denies the allegations of Paragraph 91 of the Complaint, except admits that the first and second sentences of the paragraph selectively quote from or cite to the License Agreement and the initial SOW. By way of further response, Dominion respectfully refers the Court to the License Agreement and the initial SOW for their full and accurate contents.”

Tandem: The admission by Smartmatic that it needs the technical support of the software owner Dominion to provide the modifications required by COMELEC for the 2013 elections, and that the support is not coming, proves beyond reasonable doubt that Smartmatic continues to deceive the Filipino people by disregarding all citizen concerns against the reliability of the system, when it knows all along that it cannot by itself provide those modifications.



V. SUPPLY OF UNLICENSED SOFTWARE FOR 2013

Smartmatic: “62. If Smartmatic is denied its bargained-for right either to obtain from Dominion modifications, enhancements, improvements, and new developments to the Licensed Technology, or to access the Escrowed Materials for the purpose of providing the products or services Dominion refuses to provide, Smartmatic will suffer immediate and irreparable harm, the consequences of which are unpredictable and beyond the parties’ control. As demonstrated above, Dominion is systemically engaging in anticompetitive conduct designed to jeopardize Smartmatic’s revenue-generating relationships and harm its ability to compete in a market segment characterized by significant barriers to entry. If Dominion is not prevented from withholding its services and Escrowed Materials from Smartmatic, Smartmatic will be compelled to seek alternative methods of incorporating the modified Licensed Technology into its automated election systems to attempt to mitigate the consequences of its lack of access to the underlying technology, which will jeopardize Smartmatic’s current business relationships and deprive it of opportunities to develop new ones...” (emphasis supplied)

Dominion: RESPONSE NO. 62: Dominion denies the allegations in Paragraph 62 of the Complaint.

Tandem: The admission by Smartmatic that it does not own the proprietary source code to the PCOS based AES, and that the software owner Dominion has denied it access to the source code, proves beyond reasonable doubt that Smartmatic is incapable of supplying COMELEC a licensed software for the 2013 elections.



VI. BREACH OF DUTY TO CONDUCT STANDARD AND ROUTINE TESTING OF PCOS MACHINES PRIOR TO DEPLOYMENT

Dominion: “TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE. To the extent that Smartmatic is seeking damages for alleged functionality problems with Dominion voting machines in the 2010 election in the Philippines, any damages are attributable to Smartmatic’s negligence in failing to conduct standard and routine industry-wide testing of the machines prior to deployment, despite the fact that Dominion International had advised Smartmatic to consider such testing and despite the fact that Smartmatic had conducted such testing in other prior elections. Even if the negligence of Smartmatic was only partly responsible for its damages, Dominion is entitled to a reduction of the damages due to comparative negligence.” (emphasis supplied)

Tandem: Upon information that Smartmatic is familiar and experienced with testing procedures, we demand that Smartmatic and its staunch ally COMELEC account for why they failed to conduct standard and routine industry-wide testing of the PCOS machines prior to deployment, which then led to the rushed and hushed configuration of over 76,000 machines deployed throughout the 7,100 islands, beyond the watchful eyes of the public. We demand certainty and assurance that this disturbing incident did not provide a cover for the tampering of the system immediately before the 2010 elections.



VII. GROSS UNDERPRICING OF PCOS VOTING SYSTEM

Dominion: “21. Upon information and belief, Smartmatic TIM won the bidding process in the Philippines by submitting a price for PCOS voting systems that was only approximately one-third of what it had discussed with Dominion. As a result, during re-negotiations with Dominion in the summer and fall of 2009, Smartmatic International insisted that Dominion reduce its price per unit from ___ per voting machine to ___ per machine and threatened to terminate the License Agreement if Dominion International did not accede to those demands.” (emphasis supplied)

Tandem: Upon information that Smartmatic grossly underpriced its bid to supply the AES for the 2010 elections, we demand an account on how it intended to recover the subsidized costs and earn reasonable profits by “legitimate” means. We demand certainty and assurance that this incomprehensible approach is covered by some “legitimate” business plan, to dispel widespread rumors of systematic fraud nationwide, where elective posts were allegedly sold at uniform prices, i.e. P20 million for mayor, P30 million for congressman, P50 million for governor, etc.


Tanggulang Demokrasya (Tan Dem)
27 November 2012
Ilustrado, Intramuros, Manila


10 November 2012

Yellow Hypocrisy


Reeking with arrogance
By Rod Kapunan
Manila Standard Today
Posted on Nov. 10, 2012 at 12:01am


What is manifest about the newly-appointed commissioner of the Commission on Elections is the fact that she is practically reeking with arrogance. Grace Padaca’s conduct amounts to telling the court she could only be removed from her current position through impeachment. Many interpret her statement as coming from one heavily intoxicated with power because the implication is that she is above the law and could get away with anything if she so desires.
We are compelled to say this because Padaca is accused of a serious crime of graft for awarding a P25-million rice contract without conducting a public biding in 2006 to a private entity known as the Economic Development for Western Isabela and Northern Luzon Foundation, Inc. Everybody knows that like President Noynoy Aquino, she is also a creation of the mainstream media, by her foreign brokers and by the local elite.
Padaca’s luck in breaking the well-entrenched political dynasty should not be interpreted that she was voted by the people in Isabela on the basis of her so-called sterling honesty. Instead, it was out of their growing realization that they deserved a break from the clan that had been in politics for almost 50 years now. But that was a myth. No sooner after she was elected on the charm of running as an alleged underdog, her true color as a traditional politician emerged.
That she lost her re-election bid was supposed to have served as an omen that something was wrong with her. Recall that the cases against her were filed before she was appointed by this equally arrogant administration. To be more precise, they were filed while she was still the governor of Isabela.
Moreover, her defeat as governor only rendered moot and academic the imposition of a preventive suspension by the Sandiganbayan as provided under Section 13 of Republic Act 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Nonetheless, she was directed to post a bond for those cases which were filed while she was still in office, and have been pending with the Sandiganbayan since July 2011.
Before the yellow hypocrites came to power, decency demanded that public officials who stand as accused for graft and corruption have no business holding on to their office at least until and after the case has been resolved in their favor. In the meantime, they should desist from seeking any position in government, whether by election or by appointment, to prevent them from using their position and connection to influence the outcome of the case.
Even then, Padaca’s anomalous appointment as Comelec commissioner will not serve to bar the court from prosecuting her despite the fact that the position she now holds is impeachable as provided under Section 2, Article XI of the Constitution. Neither would that serve to dismiss the graft and malversation cases, nor would have the effect of suspending their litigation. Rather, Padaca should be reminded that cases for which a public official could be impeached pertain only to those committed while in office, but not when they committed were and have in fact been charged before they were appointed.
Otherwise, Padaca would be making a mockery of our justice system considering that impeachment proceedings in this country is more of a political circus as when the lawmakers acting as prosecutors ganged up on the accused for grandstanding purposes and for the reward of pork barrel that awaited them. As one lawyer observed, should the Sandiganbayan dismiss those cases and allow them to be re-filed before the impeachment court would only result in Padaca invoking her right to double jeopardy to peremptorily seek their permanent dismissal.
As if to rub salt into the wound of the offended public, her arrogant patron shouldered her bond by chipping in P70,000. The Sandiganbayan also directed her to post P140,000 travel bond to allow her to attend the US-sponsored International Foundation for Electoral System program. It did not even seep into her brain that by posting a bail bond, she in effect submitted herself voluntarily to the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, and that no amount of technicality could divest it of its jurisdiction to convict her even long after she has retired from public service.
Prudence should have prevailed upon her not to accept the appointment. That could have made her more honorable. Alas, she turned out to be another of those power-hungry politicians. In fact, the amount chipped in by PNoy for her bond set a bad precedent, and does not augur well of him as President. The decision to bail out a beleaguered subaltern is indicative of defiance, for strictly speaking, he could be made liable for culpable violation of the Constitution for using public funds to bail out a public official charged for corruption. The arrogance of this regime is blatant as if to tell the people nothing could prevent him from appointing anybody he wishes to appoint, irrespective of whether or not he/she has a pending case in court.
We are saying this not to pre-empt Padaca’s right to be presumed innocent, but for the President to refrain from appointing one with a pending criminal case. In fact, no other president (including the non-lawyers we elected), dared to appoint into office one with a pending case, more so if it involves graft, or hesitated in firing or in not accepting their resignation.
Unfortunately, both the appointing authority and the appointee have the thickness of a carabao skin to be affected by decency, and both appear to be basking with arrogance. This now serves to remind us that as far as his horde of hypocrites are concerned, there is no other honest public official they could trust to implement their slogan of “ang matuwid na daan”, except those that wear the dog tag of being identified with the yellow herd.