Former NSA claims Noy’s gov’t to soon self-destruct
By Mario J. Mallari 10/11/2010 The Daily Tribune
The shadowy National Security Adviser and Defense Secretary of former President Arroyo, Norberto Gonzales, yesterday claimed there are strong indications that the administration of President Aquino could self-destruct sooner, as he expressed belief the country needs a “new political initiative” that will let the people gain control of and continue the process of systemic change.
“There are strong indications that the current government could self-destruct sooner than we expect. But this position is alright if we are merely after seeing end to the present reign of hypocrisy,” said Gonzales.
Gonzales, however, stressed that his move is not, in any way, aimed at destabilizing the administration of President Aquino.
“We should emphasize that this is not destabilization. It’s really an honest to goodness opposition. It’s bad not to have any opposition in a democracy,” said Gonzales.
The former defense chief cited the “questionable” results of the last May 10 automated elections and the unceremonious relief of some government officials for perceived closeness to the previous administration.
“While majority of our people may, for now, believe the announced results of the last election, we know that manipulation and cheating did take place on a major scale and that sooner or later, the legitimacy issue will come out,” said Gonzales.
“…I think the basic problem is there are a lot of people being eased out without cause except being identified with the former administration. How will you interpret that?” Gonzales explained.
Gonzales also noted that presently “hypocrisy holds government and the nation in its grip.”
“We should not allow our people to be deceived into treading a ‘straight road’ to a problematic future at the hands of a leadership with neither the competence nor the character to govern well,” Gonzales warned.
Noting the self-destructive tendencies of the present government, he warns of another danger—that of concerned groups taking a ‘do nothing strategy’ today. He reminded that the situation can be used to advance certain selfish ambitions.
“If we are to undergo another leadership change, let us make sure the process remains non-violent, democratic, and truly leading to systemic change,” Gonzales stressed.
Gonzales’ assessment of the country’s present political challenge is contained in a paper titled “Reclaiming our Rights to Initiate Change” released last Sunday, a few days after Aquino’s 100th day in office.
The paper reaffirmed the former government official’s choice of putting up a shadow cabinet-led political movement to effect real change in the country’s political process towards building the kind of society Filipinos deserve. The idea is an old advocacy of Gonzales, who is also the founding chairperson of the Philippine Democratic Socialist Party (PDSP).
Gonzales argued that the nation cannot succeed in building the good society it deserves unless the elitist character of Philippine politics is transformed and the people become real participants of the change process.
Gonzales explained the shadow cabinet-led political movement he seeks to build will bring together the people with authentic mass leaders and leaders of strategic sectors of society to define, from the start, a common vision of society and the common good, prepare for governing well, seek access to state power and, when in government, govern well.
It will also gather people who have served and those who are currently serving government to harness their experiences for good governance. It will link people and bureaucracy as “symbiotic forces for nation building.”
“The way the movement will acquire state power will determine the way it will govern,” Gonzales said. Gonzales’ paper also touched Charter change, saying the people’s common vision of society and the common good will become the foundation of the country’s fundamental law.
The paper defined the vision of tomorrow, in bold stroke, as becoming a First World nation and points out the importance for society to pursue and commit as one to a vision with guaranteed set of universal benefits for all, both rich and poor.
Gonzales noted the increasing impatience of the people with the dysfunctions of Philippine politics to emphasize the urgency of addressing the country’s continuing political challenge.
The former defense chief said he has not discussed his paper to former President and now Pampanga Rep. Gloria Arroyo.
At the same time, Gonzales said he is not looking at active members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) to back his group, saying active military personnel should be insulated from politics.
“I always emphasized that we never approach military people in the active service, they should not be involved into politics…but those who are retired that’s another story,” said Gonzales.
Holding on: A Hacienda Luisita timeline from the Spanish to the Noynoy eras
Article posted August 18, 2010 - 11:19 PM
Spanish Period
Hacienda Luisita was once owned by the “Compañía General de Tabacos de Filipinas," also known as "Tabacalera", founded in November 1881 by Don Antonio López y López, a Spaniard from Santander, Cantabria, Spain.
Lopez acquired the estate in 1882, a year before his death, and named it “Hacienda Luisita" after his wife, Luisa Bru y Lassús.
Lopez was considered a financial genius and the “most influential Spanish businessman of his generation." He counted the King of Spain as a personal friend.
Luisita was just one of his haciendas. Lopez also owned estates in other parts of the country: Hacienda Antonio (named after his eldest son), Hacienda San Fernando, and Hacienda Isabel (named after his eldest daughter).
Tabacalera’s incorporators included the Sociedad General de Crédito Inmobiliario Español, Banque de Paris (now Paribas), and Bank of the Netherlands (now ABN-AMRO). Luisita was a sugar and tobacco plantation.
American Period
During the American Occupation (1898 to 1946), the Tabacalera experienced prosperous times because of the legendary sweet tooth of the Americans.
As Cuba could not supply all of the sugar requirements of the United States, they turned to the Philippines. At one point, Hacienda Luisita supplied almost 20% of all sugar in the US.
Japanese Regime
During the Japanese occupation, Hacienda Luisita continued to operate, like all haciendas and tabacaleras in the Philippines, because the Japanese wanted to ensure that commodities such as sugar and rice were available to Filipinos.
Pepe Cojuangco Period
1957 Problems with Huk rebels led the Spanish owners of Tabacalera to sell Hacienda Luisita and the sugar mill Central Azucarera de Tarlac.
Philippine President Ramon Magsaysay blocked the sale of the plantation to the wealthy Lópezes of Iloilo, fearing that they might become too powerful as they already owned Meralco, Negros Navigation, Manila Chronicle, ABS-CBN, and various haciendas in Western Visayas
The late Senator Benigno Simeon "Ninoy" Aquino, Jr. discussed with the late President Ramon Magsaysay the possibility of his father-in-law, Jose Cojuanco Sr., acquiring Hacienda Luisita and Central Azucarera de Tarlac from their Spanish owners.
Magsaysay was a “ninong" (principal sponsor) at the wedding of Ninoy and the late President Corazon Cojuangco Aquino, parents of the incumbent President Benigno Simeon "Noynoy" Aquino III.
August 1957 The Philippine government facilitated the Cojuangcos' takeover of Hacienda Luisita and Central Azucarera de Tarlac by:
(1) Providing Central Bank (CB) support to help the Cojuangcos obtain a dollar loan from the Manufacturer's Trust Company (MTC) in New York for the purchase of the sugar mill (Central Azucarera de Tarlac). The CB had to deposit part of the country’s dollar reserves with MTC for MTC to release Cojuangco’s loan. The CB's intervention was done under the condition that Cojuangco would also acquire Hacienda Luisita, not just the sugar mill, "with a view to distributing the hacienda to small farmers".
(2) Granting the Cojuangcos a peso loan through the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) to purchase the hacienda
November 25, 1957 The GSIS approved the loan made by the Cojuangcos amounting to P5.9 million, on the condition that Hacienda Luisita would be “subdivided among the tenants who shall pay the cost thereof under reasonable terms and conditions."
However, four months later, Jose Cojuangco Sr. asked the GSIS to change the phrase to "...shall be sold at cost to tenants, should there be any." (itals by ed.) This phrase would be cited later on as justification not to distribute the hacienda’s land.
April 8, 1958 Jose Cojuangco, Sr.’s company, the Tarlac Development Corporation (TADECO), became the new owner of Hacienda Luisita and Central Azucarera de Tarlac.
Ninoy Aquino, President Cory’s husband and President Noynoy’s father, was appointed the hacienda’s first administrator.
The Ferdinand Marcos presidency
1965 Ferdinand Edralin Marcos is elected president.
1967 The 10-year window given by the Philippine government for the Cojuangcos to distribute the land elapsed with no land distribution taking place. During this time, farmers began to organize into groups to push for land distribution.
The Cojuangcos, however, insisted that there were no tenants on the hacienda, hence no need to distribute land.
The government sent three letters to the Cojuangcos between the 1960s to the 1970s to follow up the issue of land distribution.
September 21, 1972 Marcos declared Martial Law. His most vocal critic, Ninoy Aquino, was among the first to be arrested.
May 7, 1980 The Marcos government filed a case before the Manila Regional Trial Court (MRTC) to prod the Cojuangco-owned TADECO to surrender Hacienda Luisita to the Ministry of Agrarian Reform so that the land could be distributed to the farmers at cost. The case was filed as Ninoy Aquino and his family were leaving for exile in the US.
January 10, 1981 The Cojuangcos responded to the government complaint by arguing that the land could not be distributed because the hacienda did not have tenants to begin with. They also argued that sugar lands were not covered by existing agrarian reform legislations. Anti-Marcos groups claimed that the government’s case was an act of harassment against Ninoy Aquino’s family
August 21, 1983 After living in exile for three years in Boston, Massachusetts, Ninoy Aquino returned to Manila. He was assassinated on the tarmac of the Manila International Airport.
December 2, 1985 The MRTC ordered TADECO to surrender Hacienda Luisita to the Ministry of Agrarian Reform. The Cojuangcos decried this as an act of harassment because Cory was set to run against Marcos in the February 1986 snap elections. The family later elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals.
December 3, 1985 On December 3, 1985, Cory Aquino officially filed her certificate of candidacy for President. Land reform was among the pillars of her campaign. She promised to give “land to the tiller" and to subject Hacienda Luisita to land reform.
February 1986 The February 7 snap election was marred by allegations of widespread fraud against Marcos. The anti-Marcos sentiments led to the “People Power Revolution," a series of nonviolent and prayerful mass street demonstrations that toppled the dictatorship and installed Cory Aquino to the presidency.
Cory Aquino presidency
January 22, 1987 Eleven months into the Cory Aquino presidency, thousands of frustrated farmers marched to Malacañang demanding land reform and the distribution of land at no cost to beneficiaries. In a violent dispersal, 13 protesters were killed in what has gone down in history as the “Mendiola Massacre".
July 22, 1987 Cory issues Presidential Proclamation 131 and Executive Order No. 229, outlining her agrarian reform program, which covers sugar and coconut lands. The outline also includes a provision for the Stock Distribution Option (SDO), a mode of complying with the land reform law that did not require actual transfer of the land to the tiller.
March 17, 1988 The government under Cory Aquino withdrew its case against the Cojuangcos. Cory's appointee, Solicitor General Frank Chavez, filed a motion for the Court of Appeals to dismiss the civil case the Marcos government filed and won at the Manila Regional Trial Court against the Cojuangcos. The Department of Agrarian Reform and the GSIS, now headed by Aquino appointees Philip Juico and Feliciano “Sonny" Belmonte, respectively, did not object to the motion to dismiss the case.
The Central Bank also did not object to dismissal of case as it assumed that Luisita would be distributed anyway through the upcoming Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP).
May 18, 1988 The Court of Appeals dismissed the case filed by the Marcos government against the Cojuangco-owned TADECO. The government itself, under Cory, moved to withdraw the case that compelled TADECO to distribute land.
June 10, 1988 President Aquino signed into law Republic Act No. 6657 or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law. A clause in the agrarian reform program included SDO, which allows landowners to give farmers shares of stock in a corporation instead of land.
August 23, 1988 Tarlac Development Co. (TADECO) established Hacienda Luisita Inc. (HLI) to implement the distribution of stocks to farmers in the hacienda.
1989 The Cojuangcos justified Luisita’s SDO by saying it was impractical to divide the hacienda’s 4,915.75 hectares of land among 6,296 farm workers because this would give farmers less than one hectare of land each (or 0.78 hectares of land per person).
May 9, 1989 Luisita’s farm workers were asked to choose between stocks or land in a referendum. The SDO won 92.9% of the vote. A second referendum and information campaign were held five months later, and the SDO won again, getting 96.75% of the vote.
Father Joaquin Bernas, a 1987 Constitutional Commission member, said Luisita’s SDO is inconsistent with the Constitution. “The [SDO] is a loophole because it does not support the Constitution’s desire that the right of farmers to become owners of the land they till should be promoted by government," Bernas said in his June 27, 1989 column in the Manila Chronicle.
May 11,1989 When the CARP was implemented in Hacienda Luisita in 1989, the farm workers’ ownership of the plantation was pegged at 33 percent, while the Cojuangcos retained 67 percent.
Luisita’s SDO agreement spelled out a 30-year schedule for transferring the stocks to the farm workers:
“At the end of each fiscal year, for a period of 30 years, the SECOND PARTY (HLI) shall arrange with the FIRST PARTY (TADECO) the acquisition and distribution to the THIRD PARTY (farm workers) on the basis of number of days worked and at no cost to them of one-thirtieth (1/30) of 118,391,976.85 shares of the capital stock of the SECOND PARTY (HLI) that are presently owned and held by the FIRST PARTY (TADECO), until such time as the entire block of 118,391,976.85 shares shall have been completely acquired and distributed to the THIRD PARTY (farm workers)."
November 21, 1989 Agrarian Reform Secretary and now Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago, approved the SDO agreement of Luisita.
However, Santiago's tenure at the DAR only lasted two months. In 2005, Santiago, already a senator, said Cory allegedly removed her from the DAR because of a comment she made to the media—that Cory should inhibit herself from being the chairperson of the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC), which approves SDO agreements.
Fidel Ramos presidency
September 1, 1995 On September 1, 1995, the Sangguniang Bayan of Tarlac (Provincial Board of Tarlac) passed a resolution that reclassified 3,290 out of Luisita’s 4,915 hectares from agricultural to commercial, industrial, and residential. The governor of Tarlac province at that time was Margarita “Tingting" Cojuangco, wife of Jose “Peping" Cojuangco, Jr., brother of Cory Aquino.
Out of the 3,290 reclassified hectares, only 500 hectares were approved for conversion by the DAR.
August 14, 1996 The Department of Agrarian Reform approved for conversion 500 hectares of the Luisita land.
Gloria Arroyo presidency
2003 By this time, the farm workers’ daily wage flattened at P194.50 and work days were down to one per week. The hacienda workers then filed a petition with the DAR to have the SDO agreement revoked.
October 14, 2003 Workers from the HLI supervisory group petitioned the DAR to revoke the SDO, saying they were not receiving the dividends and other benefits earlier promised to them. Two months later, a petition to revoke the SDO bearing more than 5,300 signatures was filed by union officers at the DAR to revoke the SDO and stop land conversion in Luisita.
July 2004 The union tried to negotiate a wage increase to P225 per day. Workers also asked that the work days be 2 to 3 days per week, instead of just once a week. The management disagreed, claiming that the company was losing money.
October 1, 2004 Luisita management retrenched 327 farm workers, including union officers.
November 6, 2004 Almost all 5,000 members of the United Luisita Workers Union (ULWU) and 700 members of Central Azucarera de Tarlac Labor Union (CATLU) staged a protest against the mass retrenchment.
November 16, 2004 Violence erupted between the protesters, the police and military forces. At least seven people were killed, 121 were injured, 32 from gunshot wounds. This incident eventually became known as the “Luisita massacre."
The original petition the farm workers submitted lay dormant at the DAR since it was filed in December 2003, but began to move after the November 2004 massacre.
November 25, 2004 to February 22, 2005 The DAR's Task Force Luisita conducted an investigation and focus group discussions among the farm workers.
July 2005 The Arroyo-Aquino alliance broke up in July 2005, the same month Task Force Luisita submitted the findings and recommendations from its investigation, which became the government’s basis for revoking Luisita’s Stock Distribution Option (SDO) and ordering the distribution of the hacienda’s land to the farmers a few months later.
August 2005 A special legal team was formed by the DAR to review the report submitted by Task Force Luisita in July 2005. On September 23, 2005, the special legal team submitted its terminal report recommending the revocation of Luisita’s SDO agreement.
December 2004 In December 2004, a month after the Luisita massacre, picket lines were established around the hacienda. Soon after, eight people who supported the farmers’ cause or had evidence supporting their case were murdered one by one.
The killings began on December 8, 2004 with the death of Marcelino Beltran, a retired army officer turned peasant leader. Beltran was assassinated in his house just before he was to testify about bullet trajectories at the Senate and Congress on December 13 and 14, 2004.
September 22, 2005 Task Force Luisita recommended the revocation of the stock distribution agreement forged in May 1989, saying the SDO failed to fulfill the objectives of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law about promoting social justice and improving the lives of the farmers.
December 22, 2005 PARC issued Resolution No. 2005-32-01, ordering the revocation of Luisita’s SDO agreement and the distribution of the hacienda’s land to farmer beneficiaries.
February 1, 2006 HLI asked the Supreme Court to prevent the PARC from enforcing the resolution.
June 2006 The Supreme Court granted HLI's petition and issued a temporary restraining order, preventing the PARC from canceling the SDO agreement.
June 2007 Negotiations between the HLI management and some farmers began after representatives of AMBALA and the Supervisory group wrote to DAR that they are amenable to an out-of-court settlement.
Noynoy Aquino presidency
February 9, 2010 In Tarlac, then-Senator Noynoy Aquino said at the kick-off of his presidential campaign that Hacienda Luisita’s land would be distributed to farm workers by 2014.
June 30, 2010 Benigno Aquino III takes oath as the 15th Philippine president.
August 6, 2010 HLI and factions of farmers' groups sign a compromise agreement giving the farmers the chance to remain as HLI stockholders, or receive their share of Hacienda Luisita land. Many voted to retain their stocks and receive cash from HLI, only to complain later that they got minuscule amounts.
August 11, 2010 HLI asked the Supreme Court to approve the compromise deal.
August 16, 2010 A faction of the farmers’ groups asked the SC to junk the compromise deal because it was signed even before the high court could rule on the validity of the stock distribution option (SD), one of the two choices offered by HLI to the farmers in the agreement (the other choice was land distribution). The farmers’ also questioned the authority of the signatories in the agreement who claimed that they were representatives of the plantation’s farmer-beneficiaries.
August 18, 2010 For the first time since the land dispute was brought to its doors four years ago, the SC holds oral arguments to hear the Hacienda Luisita case.
Compiled by Andreo Calonzo, Veronica Pulumbarit, and Howie Severino, GMANews.TV
Investigate the former president, but include the previous administrations as well.
Manila Archbishop Gaudencio Cardinal Rosales thus chided President Benigno Simeon “Noynoy" Aquino III for having his Truth Commission focus on the alleged crimes of his predecessor, now Pampanga Rep. Gloria Arroyo, saying he should at least be consistent and probe other past administrations.
“We should be consistent. Even former presidents who allegedly committed similar mistakes during their administration should be submitted for investigation," Rosales said in an article posted on the news site of the Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines.
The bishop nevertheless said he favored subjecting Arroyo to an investigation. “It’s just right to bring (before justice) all those who violated the law, not just one person, so that it would (appear) as a lesson to all," he added.
While Arroyo could be liable for some wrongdoings, she is not the only one who should be charged, according to the Archbishop of Manila.
Aquino formed the Truth Commission, an independent body headed by a former Arroyo ally and retired Supreme Court Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr., to investigate allegations of corruption, human rights violation and other excesses of the previous administration... —VS, GMANews.TV
Monday, May 31. 2010 Let citizens access ballot images to confirm the random manual audit ROBERTO VERZOLA
The random manual audit (RMA) conducted by the Comelec has lost much of its credibility for the following reasons:
1. while the RMA should have been conducted immediately after the electronic transmission of results, many audits were conducted the next day or even later, providing more time for malicious intervention and tampering;
2. while the RMA should have been conducted right at the precinct where many stakeholders are present, many audits were conducted elsewhere, such as in canvassing centers or the treasurer's office, where the relocation and physical transport of ballot boxes created opportunities for more malicious intervention and tampering;
3. while the RMA should have been conducted in the presence of stakeholders like political party watchers, election watchdogs, and the voting public to witness the process, many audits were done without these stakeholders, whose presence is essential to the credibility of the process;
4. while the results of the audit should have been released immediately after the audit, the results went through several days up to a week or more of “processing” before release; in fact, many results still have not been released, nearly three weeks after the audits were conducted; and
5. while the Comelec should have released the actual manual counts and the earlier machine counts, leaving it to the public to make our own judgment about the results, Comelec officials have repeatedly told the media their findings about “minimal discrepancies” without releasing the actual manual and machine results on which the public can make an independent judgment.
For these reasons, the RMA has lost much of its credibility and it is hard to allay suspicions that its results have been sanitized. Without a credible audit, the public remains in the dark about the accuracy as well as the integrity of the PCOS machine counts.
Halalang Marangal (HALAL) has proposed a way to empower citizens to double-check the RMA and settle the questions about the accuracy and integrity of PCOS counts once and for all: Let all the ballot images stored in the 1,145 CF main memory cards coming from the audited precincts be made public in unencrypted form, grouped by precinct cluster. Then citizens and stakeholders can themselves tally the votes in these audited precincts and compare their findings with the findings of the RMA teams and the Comelec. If the audits were indeed done properly and public doubts about the RMA process are baseless, our counts should match very closely the counts of the audit teams. If so, then we can ourselves vouch for the credibility of the RMA process.
Here are the details of the HALAL proposal: once the ballot images are unencrypted, they will be in a standard format called JPEG, which can be displayed on any computer. All ballot images in one precinct cluster can be compressed into a single file called a zipped file and accompanied by its hash code, to ensure authenticity. The 1,145 compressed files with their hash codes can be made available for download at Comelec websites as well as made available to the public on DVDs, without copyright protection. While cheats have mastered the fine art of ballot box substitution, it will be a huge challenge for them to create new ballot images now and substitute these for the authentic ones stored on the main memory cards.
The public release of ballot images can start with the 1,145 audited precinct clusters subjected to the random manual audit (RMA), so that people may independently confirm the results of the RMA. But nothing prevents the Comelec from making public the ballot images of all the 76,347 precinct clusters. By doing so, the Comelec will effectively be restoring the right of voters, provided for in the Automated Election Law, to verify if the machines correctly registered their choices. This time, the Comelec cannot say that voter verification will delay the voting process.
In the pre-2010 system, candidates and voters could see how their votes were counted one vote at a time. Citizens were active witnesses in tallying the votes that would eventually select their leaders among the various candidates. This was living democracy. We lost this democratic process under automated elections. Today, we have no idea if the machines counted our votes. Excluding candidates and voters from the counting of the votes is actually a big step backward in electoral democracy.
Putting the ballot images online will not only restore that democratic function and truly empower citizens in ensuring that their votes are properly counted, but it will also make it much easier for candidates to accept defeat.
Candidates and voters should see each vote counted, because every vote counts.
Discrepancies found by PPCRV: tip of the iceberg? By ROBERTO VERZOLA
News reports say the PPCRV has received 70,255 and encoded 43,035 election returns ERs). Out of these, they found 29 discrepancies, or an average of one in 1,484 ERs (.07% error rate). PPCRV chair Henrietta de Villa was quoted saying, “We can say that the election is clean because the discrepancy is very minimal.”
Unfortunately, computers are not evaluated that way. If your spreadsheet program makes one error for every 1,484 cells, junk it at once, because it is useless! If your wordprocessor changes one of every 1,484 characters it processes, junk it too.
While the analog side of an automated system (such as the scanning of marks) may introduce errors, we expect from the digital side zero error. Even a single error in a million characters or operations is a cause for worry, because it suggests a bug (a problem) in the machine’s logic. When testing software, testers assume that if you find one bug, more hidden bugs must exist. Unless that bug is found and properly evaluated, we can’t say if the problems it can cause are minor or major. All we know is, something is wrong with the software.
Unless the 29 discrepancies have been traced to the particular portion of Smartmatic software that caused them, and other portions of the software have been searched for similar bugs, it it premature to declare the election “clean”.
PPCRV grouped the 29 discrepancies into four:
1.Candidates got zero votes (four machines). It is not clear from the news report whether some or all of the candidates got zero, and whether this occurred in the transmitted or the printed ERs, so we will leave this type of discrepancy for future analysis.
2.A candidate got one less vote during transmission (at least two machines). The printed ER says a candidate got so many votes. But the transmitted ER has one vote less. That’s a “bawas”. Now, why would that happen? We had been worried earlier that the PCOS machine would print something, but transmit something else. And here’s the proof that the PCOS machine does print something but transmit something else. This is called malicious code. That it exists in one part of the system suggests that other parts of the system may also contain malicious code. In this particular case, the vote-shaving involved only one vote. But it is just as likely that the instruction could deduct not one but two – or for that matter, three or more. The discovery of malicious code really calls for a thorough review of the Smartmatic source code.
3.Total votes in the transmitted ER was less than ten (nineteen machines). The printed ER has several hundred votes, but the transmitted ER has less than ten. The Comelec had earlier explained this away as follows: the board of election inspectors mistakenly transmitted the results of the previous final testing and sealing (FTS) instead of the May 10 results. This means that the FTS data are not zeroed, even if the May 10 data are zeroed at the start of voting. Here’s another case of malicious code. It means that the PCOS machines keep not one but two (and perhaps more) versions of vote data – the data from the FTS, and the authentic May 10 data.
4.Total votes in the printed ER was less than ten (four machines). The transmitted ER has several hundred votes, but the printed ER has less than ten. This confirms that the PCOS machine keeps not one but at least two versions of vote data. It also suggests that BEIs, although it is not in the Comelec general instructions, can actually choose which vote data to print or transmit. In the third type of discrepancy, the BEI correctly printed the May 10 vote data but inadvertently transmitted the FTS data. In the fourth type of discrepancy, they inadvertently printed the FTS vote data but correctly transmitted the May 10 vote data. They must have pressed some keys, or done something different, that would either print the FTS data, or transmit the FTS data. These are undocumented options apparently triggered by hidden commands the BEI must have inadvertently pressed. This is another case of malicious code.
Let us be more systematic about this. There are four possibilities: 1) print May 10 data, transmit May 10 data; 2) print FTS data, transmit FTS data; 3) print May 10 data, transmit FTS data; and 4) print FTS data, transmit May 10 data.
The first one is the honest option, if you want to report exactly what the PCOS machine says it counted. The fact that other possibilities exist already indicate the existence of malicious code.
The third and fourth possibilities are BEI mistakes, caught by the PPCRV as its third and fourth types of discrepancy, respectively. We have already confirmed that these possibilities exist. That there are only 23 cases, means only 23 BEIs made mistakes among those who knew about the hidden commands. This is the tip of the iceberg that PPCRV stumbled on but consider “minimal”.
The second one is the undetected dishonest case: the BEI sends a false report instead of what the PCOS machine counted. This will not show up as a discrepancy. To detect it, we can: 1) count the votes in the ballots and compare the results with the machine count; 2) examine the CF cards in case they still contain both the false and the authentic vote data; 3) search the PPCRV and Comelec database for ERs whose transmitted and printed versions both contain ten total votes or less. The last method will not work, however, if the FTS before the elections was secretly done not with ten ballots but with several hundred. In fact, this looks like a plausible cheating method.
We must thank the PPCRV for detecting these discrepancies. They prove the existence of malicious code in the Smartmatic software and suggest a way high-tech cheating could have been done. Now, we have clues and can investigate further.
Isn't it statistically improbable that Gibo Teodoro got only about 3.5 million votes in the recent presidential elections? Wasn't he at least more popular than Jose de Venecia in 1998? What about Erap Estrada and Bayani Fernando losing in their respective bailiwicks, and Manny Villar losing in his own precinct?
Curiously, the election figures closely follow the pre-election surveys of SWS and Pulse Asia. This seems eerily unusual.
More important than making one's preferred candidate win, is making the system of voting work. It will break the nation's heart if massive electronic cheating is eventually uncovered. More so if those who complain the loudest turn out to benefit the largest.
In the coming days, the Comelec, Smartmatic, PPCRV and the leading candidates will need to convince the majority of the voters that no "electronic election fraud" happened.
Acknowledging that the system is more important than the candidate, let's hope for the best that the May 2010 results reflected only a failure in the electoral campaign rather than a failure of elections. Then again we should also prepare for the worst.
Dodong aka Ka Kiko
* * *
A shot at the heart of the nation FROM A DISTANCE By Carmen N. Pedrosa (The Philippine Star) Updated May 15, 2010 12:00AM
The question before us is not about losing or winning. If that were the only reason we should hail the example of candidates who gallantly conceded in the presidential contest — Villar, Teodoro and Gordon as soon as the unofficial PPCRV count was out putting Noynoy ahead.
Like Al Gore, the losers who have conceded would rather preserve the peace and stability of the country by accepting the results. I go along with the spirit of sportsmanship of candidates who accepted their defeat. But that was not all there was to it.
There is a difference between what happened in the United States between George Bush and Al Gore. Gore’s graceful concession strengthened America and its institutions. As Tom Friedman of the New York Times wrote “Al Gore reinforced the system by his graceful concession; Mr. Bush will have to reinforce it by his presidency.” That was not to be and Americans learned their lesson at such a high cost.
* * *
Filipinos are expected to do the same with losers by taking it on the chin and forget that they had just gone through a grueling campaign that sometimes made us believe (erroneously in hindsight) it was only a matter of choosing candidates who were best for the country. To some it was not about candidates. The background chorus was about a growing resolve that it would also be the most honest with media and foreign observers keeping watch. But revelations have been pouring in that this may not have been the case.
Clean and honest elections by the new automated system was hailed as fool-proof against cheating. In the run up to May 10, it was said that any attempt to cheat would be blamed on the Arroyo administration. The basic reason for holding an election — to choose the best man or woman who would bring change was sidestepped. It was a shot at the heart of the nation.
When the precincts closed at 7 p.m. there was a sigh of relief — the elections were generally peaceful with only pockets of violence. The usual media outlets hailed the victory of automation against cheating because these were released to the public quickly. Not so fast. When the morning after came, some of the candidates and there lawyers were in shock and disbelief at the figures.
Some of those who complained were Erap who allegedly lost in San Juan and Bayani Fernando in Marikina. These numbers were unbelievable even if they came from the machines. They are not complaining about having lost. But you can’t blame them if they would like to know how they could have lost in their own bailiwicks. At this writing, there are teams of lawyers closely combing through the ballots and scrutinizing the system installed by Smartmatic. According to reliable sources, they are looking into why there were no media or civil society groups or party representatives who were present during the three days when the memory cards were reconfigured.
Various losing candidates are investigating to know just why and how it happened. Nicanor Perlas, Sen. Jamby Madrigal and J.C. de los Reyes may be the tail-enders but they are doing a great public service by leading the call for an investigation on just what went on with the machines with results that seemed to have been programmed rather than an accurate quick count. Only then would they concede.
As far as they are concerned the elections are not over until the last vote has been counted and audited. That is what Senator Mar Roxas said who is in a bitter fight against long time Makati mayor Jejomar Binay for the vice presidency.
Manoling Morato has come out on television that he was amazed when the PPCRV released the same percentages at 8.30 and again at 11.30 when more tallies had come in. There was not an iota of change on all four leading candidates. He said “It seemed that the percentages had been pre-set, as programmed.” Incidentally, they do not differ from the surveys. Even ANC anchors were surprised when despite the automation the PPCRV went ahead of the Comelec in tallying the votes. I heard one say, it seemed the roles were reversed. It was expected that Comelec and PPCRV would be doing parallel counts. The mounting criticisms and investigations may reveal that the automation may not have been fool-proof after all.
This article of Carmen N. Pedrosa was intended for publication on the 08 May 2010 issue of the Philippine Star. Unfortunately, it was censored out. Even if you do not agree with the views of the writer, you will have to agree that the non-publication was a clear instance of abuse of media power in gross violation of the constitutional right to freedom of expression. Dodong aka Ka Kiko
From: carmen pedrosa Date: Sat, May 8, 2010 at 8:58 AM Subject: column not printed today May 8, 2010 (Saturday) Carmen N. Pedrosa
The machines that will fail; letters from Boston
It is not as if it is being said for the first time. I repeat what others have said that failure of election will not come from the PCOS but from two other machines - FV (Filipino voter) and FC (Filipino candidates).
The machines are so out of date, they cannot function properly for the selection of leaders for our country. The FV is out of sync and performs as if it has nothing to do with why he is voting a particular FC. The FC operates within this flaw and produces results with nothing to do with FV.
That in brief is the problem we face when the results are known after May 10. When disaster strikes and the country malfunctions (with candidates declaring beforehand that they will not accept defeat) let us put the blame on those who refused to accept that the machines are not and cannot work unless these are fixed.
* * * Among those I turned to in my quest for information that would help voters choose a qualified candidate to be our president is another family friend of both the Aquinos and the Agulars. They formed a tightly knit Filipino community in Boston. Let us just call him Jim because, he, too like so many others who have something to say about Noynoy as unfit to be president of the Philippines does not want to expose himself. * * * Dear Ms. Pedrosa
Just when I think of giving up on RP...because it doesn't want to be helped...I meet someone of your high stature---who is into saving RP (from dud leaders?). I am naturally encouraged again.
To go into your inquiry, I am sorry to tell you that I do not have any medical information about Noynoy.
Seriously, I don't hope to go into that route. I have always relied on my own personal observation and inference in evaluating a person, and that is how I form my idea of someone who should not even think of being president.
I'm sorry to sound preachy, but I think it is time for us Filipinos to discern that way about candidates who simply "like" public positions, but which are out of their aptitude.
The Agulars and I stayed together everyday of my trip there leading to the Upsilon reunion at the Manila Polo Club. Steve and I belong to that Batch. And to his widow and son's family, it was a sentimental reunion with "Steve's brods."
To this day, we are each other's extended families, as when we both lived in Massachusetts.
Personally, I think the Agulars, (especially the late Dr. S. Agular), are apolitical. But they are very loyal to family friends. The Aquinos are one.
In politics, I am more loyal to RP ( the Republic of the Philippines. That's why Gordon is my candidate. I wish to read more of your regular columns. I think we have many sensible things in common about what is good for RP.
This letter was followed by another.
Thank you for this attention…tho' undeserved... but I would rather not be another 'witness to corroborate' the imperfections of Noynoy. I believe we have enough evidence in the open to convince a nation that Noynoy should best be left to himself...not running for president...and certainly not be used---not by his sisters, not by his relatives, and not fussed about by the media.
Unfortunately, the RP media abetted this yet another political aberration. It's our culture and our habit to promote the bizarre and the incompetent, e.g. Erap, Lapid, Revilla, etc.
We prefer to be entertained, it seems that way. And this might sell newspapers, but it carries no responsibility.
I could not believe, for instance, the headlines that came out from both The Philippine Inquirer and the Philippine Star newspapers. They actually hailed the dramatic internal struggle of Noynoy to make a decision for the 'big plum.' Is there a movie about this heir cashing in on a huge political inheritance?
That's right...the media played a big part in making a Noynoy attractive to the millions of impressionable voters. Of course, it's not lost in me that we (you & I?) might be that child yelling to the crowd that the king is shriveled in the head, and has no clothes.
But we have to look back some 30 years ago. How much can we rely on Pinoy "kantiyaw" humor...things said in anecdotal bantering of a small party of friends?
In MA then, I remember asking why ... "itong anak ni Ninoy ang layo kung sumagot."(not in the presence of Ninoy, of course.)
And the answer I got was: ..."kasi may kulang." ...which was consistent with what I thought was a missing bolt in his head. (never occurred to me that he would run for president, let alone his mother, Cory!...years after. Cory, I think, was a disaster for RP.)
Thirty years since...I repeated the incident, and the answer I got was: "ikaw naman...! 'di naman gano'n ang ibig sabihin ng "kulang".
And what did it mean? The explanation was that...he was "kulang sa pansin ng tatay"....because all the attention was given to the (spoiled) youngest, Kris. And this, supposedly, had a big impact on the "kid."
I see...but not quite. I may get into EXPLANATIONS, but still this is not the DISCUSSION I want to get into with my friends. So I left this matter to rest. Besides, it is a 30 year-old personal observation of a "kid". Times have changed. I'm often chided. Even some people are able to get out of cancer, so I'm reminded.
Today, I am further reassured, "Have you heard Noynoy speak lately? He KNOWS how to speak in public now."
And is this why 'that kid' is urged to run for president?!?
* * * These letters reinforce the opinion that the validity of a psychiatric report on a person’s ability to lead does not rest on whether the report was signed. Indeed the report can be true even without a signature.
What is necessary is that what it reports can be verified through other means. It is not the signature that makes the report. Experts arrive at their conclusions by observation, asking questions and then evaluating their observations through the prism of knowledge through textbooks and experience. Ordinary people can do the same without having formal expertise.
Reports do not become bogus for a lack of signature. The details of the report have been reported widely and interpreted by its readers according to what they hear, what they see, and make their own profile of the person concerned.
I am Dodong aka Ka Kiko.
I created this blogspot in protest of the continuing manipulation of public opinion by the commercial mass media. By following its content and conduct since the People's Power Revolution of 1986, I have come to believe that the mass media has more often than not, become tools of propaganda to promote the vested economic and political interests of its private stakeholders, to the detriment of the public interest.
People say that the mass media is the fourth branch of government. I agree and further say that it is the strongest branch of government, specially in a democratic country like ours. I finally say that being the strongest, mass media is also the most corrupt branch of government. It holds and abuses from time to time, the power to convict the innocent and acquit the guilty, without any consideration whatsoever for fairness and the truth.
Mabuhay!
