Or are you hoping the Supreme Court will shave Robredo’s votes for you
Just My Opinion by Raïssa Robles
The Marcos camp presented masked whistleblowers claiming massive cheating in Quezon just before Leni Robredo’s proclamation as vice-president. And yet, Marcos Jr. did not include Quezon province in his pilot protest.[Screengrab from ABS-CBN].
Why would she need to do this when she had the province of Camarines Sur in the bag long before the May 2016 elections?
Marcos Junior claims he was cheated in CamSur.
He only got 41,219 votes. Robredo won there with 664,190 votes.
Just as Davao region was expected and did vote for its beloved “son” Rodrigo Duterte, Camarines Sur was expected to vote for its beloved “daughter”, Leni.
Even the political kingpins of CamSur predicted her win way before the campaign season started.
In early October 2015, just as Robredo and Marcos Jr. filed their certificates of candidacy, former Camarines Sur Governor Luis “LRay” Villafuerte already said that according to a province-wide political survey, Robredo had the “edge” in the province in the six-way race.
As for the Nacionalista Party (of which he was the provincial chair), LRay said NP was setting a “free zone” policy in Camarines Sur for the VP race since three of the six candidates were party mates.
However, LRay’s son, Camarines Sur Governor Miguel “Migz” Villafuerte told reporters: “We will support Leni Robredo. So it’s Grace (Poe for President) and Leni (for VP) in Camarines Sur.” The word “WE” referred to father and son.
With that kind of formidable political support, in terms of political campaigning and logistics, why would Robredo need to cheat in Camarines Sur?
It’s like accusing the Marcoses of cheating to win in Ilocos Norte.
So why accuse Robredo of cheating in her very own bailiwick?
The reason only became clear to me—and I realized what Marcos Jr. was up to—when I read the column of former Supreme Court chief Justice Artemio Panganiban.
CJ Panganiban in his column on the “Unintended peril in VP local protest” explained that Bongbong was insisting that the ballot recount should use a “50% shading rule” on the ovals.
This was even though the Commission on Elections had calibrated the automated voting machines to recognize the 25% shading rule of the ovals.
Because the voting machines were programmed for a 25% shading rule, Marcos Jr. was insisting that a manual recount be done.
CJ Panganiban explained the significance of a 25% shading rule this way:
“In other words, the ovals did not have to be shaded completely. Even if a ballot was just crossed with lines or marked with dots covering at least 25 percent of the ovals, the machine would count it, because the voter had already shown his/her intent to vote for the candidate concerned.”
He then explained the impact of adopting the higher 50% shading rule that Marcos Jr. wanted:
“In contrast, the higher 50-percent threshold would disenfranchise voters who shaded their ballots between the “25- and 50-percent gap.
Thus, a ballot shaded partially to the extent, for example, of 40 percent would be tallied by the automated machines during the counting in the precincts and the canvassing, but NOT during the manual ballot revision at the PET where they would not be counted.”
CJ Panganiban then pointed out that Robredo obtained 664,190 votes in Camarines Sur, compared to the 41,219 votes received by Marcos Jr. there.
A 50% shading rule, he said, could make Robredo lose 33,209 votes.
In other words, her votes would be shaved if the Presidential Electoral Tribunal sides with Marcos Jr.
Marcos’ underlying assertion here is that he should have gotten MORE.
So why did Bongbong only get 41,219 votes in CamSur?
There are three possible reasons for this and all have nothing to do with cheating.
ONE. Voters are more likely to vote for a candidate who visits them during the campaign. It’s the personal touch. It shows the candidate cares.
Marcos Jr. NEVER VISITED CamSur.
He did visit neighboring Camarines Norte once, like an afterthought—on April 29, 2016. Or TEN DAYS BEFORE THE POLLS.
TWO. There were SIX VP candidates and FIVE OF THEM came from the Bicol Region where CamSur is.
Only Marcos Jr. was NOT from the region. Still, he did better than the other four.
THREE. Marcos Jr. abandoned his father’s party, the Kilusang Bagong Lipunan (KBL), and ran as an INDEPENDENT. Meaning, he was not relying on any party structure to help him win.
Even if he had relied on the KBL, he would not have won because the lone KBL candidate in CamSur—Roger Buenaflor running for governor—got only 6,559 votes. The victor, Migz Villafuerte, got 409,788 votes.
FOUR. Because it was a six-way race, the votes in CamSur were divided six ways.
Still, Marcos Jr. came in a far second. Here’s how the vote count went:
Robredo —664,190
Marcos Jr. —41,219
Escudero, Chiz — 37, 122
Cayetano, Alan Peter — 14,933
Trillanes, Antonio IV—11,468
The combined votes cast for six candidates reached 768,932.
Camarines Sur had a total number of 1,001,870 registered voters during the 2016 elections. The Comelec said, of this number, 841,496 voters actually voted. This made the voter turn-out at 83.99%.
This was about average compared to the rest of the provinces. You can download the Comelec stats here for comparison.
Of the total votes [841,496] cast, Robredo got 78.9% of the votes in CamSur. A landslide any way you look at it.
Recall though, that the total number of votes cast for the six VP candidates reached 768,932.
If you deduct the total number of votes cast for the VP candidates from the Comelec voter turnout, it means 72,564 or 8.6% did not vote for ANY of the SIX VP candidates.
In other words, of those who had turned out, 72,564 did not vote for ANY VP. Or maybe had their votes invalidated by the machine. We don’t know.
Is this sinister and foul?
Before we can conclude this, we will need to examine whether such a trend of voters going to the polls but not voting at all for a president or VP is evident in other provinces.
From my coverage of previous elections I have seen the same trend. Not everyone votes for the VP or the president.
Bongbong’s home province of Ilocos Norte showed the same trend. The total votes cast for all six VP candidates there were 308,594.
Of that, he got 298,796 votes. An impressive 96% win.
However, Comelec said 323,138 voters actually turned out. Deducting the total number of votes for all six VP candidates from the voter turnout, this means 14,544 or 4.5% of voters who cast their votes DID NOT CHOOSE TO VOTE FOR THE GRANDSON OF BATAC, nor any other VP candidate.
This concrete example using Bongbong’s bailiwick is merely to show that a portion of the electorate does not vote for the president or the VP.
I obtained the Ilocos vote figures I used as an example from here.
♦ ♦ ♦ ♦
Aside from the percentage of shading, Marcos Jr. has claimed “massive cheating” due to the absence of “voter’s receipts” inside ballot boxes in CamSur.
My question is, how secure were the ballot boxes in CamSur after election day and before these were opened for recounting? Were they guarded 24/7?
Because, please recall the break-in many years ago right inside the heavily secured Batasang Pambansa. Contested ballots inside ballot boxes were the target of that break-in.
You can read more about the Batasan break-in here.
What I’m asking is, were the contested ballot boxes in CamSur so secure that even the Marcos camp could not break into them and mess them up?
If they were not properly secured, then any questions by the Marcos camp of missing documents cannot be properly validated as cheating.
♦ ♦ ♦ ♦
Another “proof” that Marcos Jr. presented was the presence of square shapes instead of oval shapes in the copy of the printed ballot images found in the digital cards that were ordered decrypted by the court.
He called them “shocking” and “highly questionable”. But he also said this change was done by the Comelec and Smartmatic, not by Robredo.
So he has to prove collusion between Robredo on the one hand and Comelec and Smartmatic on the other.
♦ ♦ ♦ ♦
The Marcos camp has clearly proven it would go to any lengths to claim cheating. Recall the incident when they accused Robredo’s revisor of colluding with PET personnel. The photo they presented as evidence was from an outing of PET personnel with her revisor in a Laguna resort.
It turned out that PET had invited both camps. Marcos’ revisor did not go but had sent food to the outing.
♦ ♦ ♦ ♦
Then remember the flood of “whistle blowers” – bundled and masked like ninjas—that the Marcos camp – aided by Pastor “Boy” Saycon presented to the public just hours before Robredo was proclaimed winner.
It was obviously an attempt to stop her from being proclaimed.
The heavily bundled up witnesses claimed they were made to reconfigure SD cards with votes from Quezon province. One of them alleged that this resulted in:
- Robredo gaining 300,000 votes;
- her presidential running mate Mar Roxas gained 400,000 votes; and
- Marcos Jr. losing 200,000 votes.
Saycon told the media he did not bring the SD cards as proof. You can read more about their claims here.
Since Robredo’s lead over Marcos Jr. in the final count was only 263,473, the testimony of the three whistleblowers — that they padded Robredo’s tally in Quezon with 300,000 fraudulent votes — would have been damning, and enough to overturn Robredo’s proclamation as winner.
And yet, Marcos Jr. did not include Quezon province in his pilot protest. He only included the provinces of CamSur, Negros Oriental and Iloilo.
♦ ♦ ♦ ♦
Before closing, I must mention the oft-repeated accusation by Marcos Jr. —that he was leading initially in the count. But in the dead of night, cheating happened and by the following day he was losing.
I noticed the same trend of of an early Marcos lead after the polls closed. I stayed up nearly the whole night waiting to see if the trend would hold.
In the early hours after midnight, the trend started reversing slowly. Marcos’ lead slowly melted away.
But I would not attribute this immediately to cheating but to the fact that votes from Robredo’s bailiwick had started being tallied by the central servers in Manila. The basis for the quick counts on TV were the Comelec servers.
Whenever I cover elections I always keep in mind that while voting happens simultaneously for one day all over the country, counting does not. In some places, the counting may be delayed for various reasons.
What the PET needs to establish is the digital sequence of when votes from towns and cities of which provinces started coming in to Comelec’s central servers in Manila.
Did the votes from Bongbong’s bailiwick come in first, resulting in his early lead? Only to be inundated by votes from Robredo’s bailiwick provinces?
PET needs to ask a data expert who can interpret the digital election transmission data.
♦ ♦ ♦ ♦
I really wish PET would put online its proceedings so that we may better understand automated elections. Even only via audio stream.
After all, it’s our votes they are talking about.
Any decision of theirs to raise the shading threshold means scrapping the votes of thousands.
leona says
The photo shown of Pres. Duterte
when he was VOTING.
Perpetual examination of the 50%
or 25% shading of the ovals due to
recounts at PET.
Mr. President, for the sake of our
country. people and your
perpetual pain, let VP Robredo
be the President to ease the pain.
The people will not regret it.
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1023947/duterte-im-in-perpetual-pain
Kalahari says
You’re right @ Leona. If PRRD, being the appointing official of the next chief justice and all associate justices of the Supreme Court, must not influence further the PET members who are all members of the Supreme Court – which he already did when he expressed preference to Bongbong to succeed him when he retires before 2022
There’ll probably be turmoil and unrest reminiscent of Edsa Uno if bongbong will win his electoral protest to be led by the victims of his father’s brutal reign of terror during the martial law era.
arc says
sabi ni imee marcos, move on! to the victims of her father’s pang-aabuso. kaso, victims cannot move on and rarely moved on, their lives stuck at the moment their lives changed forever, the moment captured in their memory, set in concrete and played every anniversaries! live and vivid as if it was only yesterday. the victimologies of victims.
imee can never understand what victims go through, she is not victim, but perpetrator!
arc says
I’m in pain, and loving it! else digong has nothing more to complain about, he, he, he. there are so many people in pain too, barely able to cope, in poverty and in perpetual agony. nawalan sila ng loved ones and suddenly found themselves without bread winner. but gotta go on living dahil may mga anak na umaasa at dapat paraalin at palakihin. habing si digong naman, is in pain and suffering in luxury!
ayaw yata ni honeylet na ma-pain free si digong, undergoing surgery to help ease back pain. to be honest po, if honeylet sits for nursing exam today, she wont pass! he, he, he. she was nurse nearly 15yrs ago and been out of practice, her license not renewed yata. and since then, so many things have changed in nursing, many discoveries have taken places, medical science had leapt and bounded and reaching new heights. new medicines, new discoveries, new practices, etc.
okay for honeylet to say na baka may masamang mangyari kay digong, she will never know how successful the surgery might be, hadlang siya. and so digong continues on to suffer and loving it, he, he, he, may ready excuse siya for not good managing the nation.
honeylet is not the patient suffering pain, she is not married to digong and is not next of kin at dapat the decision about digong purported surgery is done by inday sara whether her tatay will undergo the operation or not. if digong has successful operation and is pain free, there is possibility he will no longer need honeylet, no longer needed her ministrations. and what will honeylet do then? therefore po, it’s in honeylet’s best interest to keep digong in perpetual agony, where she can ply her influence over him, and kept her share of his hidden wealth.
gloria arroyo had surgery to her batok and look how good she is now? she even out-danced alvarez and become speaker!
leona says
HOV . . . High-occupancy vehicles.
What is this about at EDSA? MMDA says: ‘MMDA spokesperson Celine Pialago defended the HOV plan, pointing out that the agency merely wanted to instill carpooling in the public, and for drivers to use alternative routes.’
. . . instill carpooling in public – and – for drivers to use alternative routes!
Tama ba? I can say to ‘instill’ carpooling even if I
do not want it, MMDA is forcing me to do it. Tama? Opo!
I have a right of privacy: Uno. Why should I
get another passenger to ride with me along EDSA?
Dos. Sino ang makukuha kong passenger ng madali?
Tatlo. Why can’t I drive alone along EDSA when I am
even paying Road Tax everytime I register my vehicle
and be deprived along EDSA just because I am alone?
Apat. Is this how we solve our traffic problem by
instilling or prohibiting lone drivers along EDSA and
taking alternative routes to avoid EDSA even if I
do not want?
Lima. Isn’t it abuse by MMDA on HOV regulation? It is.
Anim: What about the Bill of Rights – ‘SECTION 6. The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits prescribed by law shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of the court. Neither shall the right to travel be impaired except in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health, as may be provided by law.’
Is my right to drive alone along EDSA against national
interest, against public safety or public health? Where is
the law on it? There is no law but only because
the MMDC (Council) says so! Not even publicly discussed.
Pito. Di ba loko ito?
Walo. Wala na bang ibang palo?
Siyam. Mag isip-isip mo kayong MMDC at MMDA siyam-siyam.
Sampu. Wala ng pag ampu ang taong nag isa-isa sa EDSA.
Sabi ni ‘MMDA General Manager Arturo Garcia meanwhile explained that his agency was merely developing temporary solutions for the traffic problem while waiting for the long-term ones.’
Isang abala ito na mahahaba at hindi ‘temporary.’ How many days
na ito or weeks?
Marami ang lone drivers everyday along EDSA. Alam nyo na
ang ‘side streets’ NA PUNO ng lone drivers in vehicles due to
this HOV rules? Hindi nyo alam? SUSMA!
Puede ba. . . huliin nyo si LONE RANGER sa kabayo nya!
he he
leona says
HOV
http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/news/metro/664863/mmda-has-best-intention-but-wrong-approach-in-solving-traffic-commuters-group/story/
Alfredo says
I do not know with other states or countries, pero ang HOV ay ginaya dito sa California, special lane, a dedicated ONE lane na tinatawag na carpool lane or diamond lane(diamond shape painted on the road). There are cities that require 2 or more passengers and there are cities that require 3 or more. There are cities also that carpool times are implemented only during rush hours (usually 5am-10am and 3pm-7pm) and other cities like that in Los Angeles have all time 24/7.
They do this to somehow ease the traffic. Nowadays, there are cities that will let you use the carpool lane with a single driver but you have to pay. You are required to have a transponder, a tracking device, so that they can charge your use of the carpool lane. In order to have a transponder, you have to give a credit card number to a government department that handles all the transportation business, that they can charge. They always keep a balance money on your account and when the balance gets low, they charge your credit card automatically.
Are they using all lanes in EDSA for this HOV? That would be too much. Magtira naman sana sila ng ilang lanes.
raissa says
ALL
leona says
‘Where is it in any Philippine law which says it should be 50%? Does Comelec have the discretion to set the shading percentage? If yes, when can it exercise that discretion?’
Raissa, Aug. 19, 2018 11:42 P.M.
SC says relevant to ‘delegation’ and
‘discretion’ in this wise:
. . . ‘Two tests determine the validity of delegation of legislative power: (1) the completeness test and (2) the sufficient standard test. A law is complete when it sets forth therein the policy to be executed, carried out or implemented by the delegate. It lays down a sufficient standard when it provides adequate guidelines or limitations in the law to map out the boundaries of the delegates authority and prevent the delegation from running riot. To be sufficient, the standard must specify the limits of the delegates authority, announce the legislative policy and identify the conditions under which it is to be implemented.’ BUREAU OF CUSTOMS EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (BOCEA) vs.HON. MARGARITO B. TEVES, in his capacity as Secretary of the Department of Finance, et. al., SC En Banc Dec. 6, 2011.
Is the law on ‘shading’ complete as
to how ‘ovals’ on the ballots should
be shaded? The subject law does
not show, and not even mentions about
‘ovals’ on the ballot.
The Court said how to apply delegation
is that –
. . . ‘In the face of the increasing complexity of modern life, delegation of legislative power to various specialized administrative agencies is allowed as an exception to this principle. Given the volume and variety of interactions in todays society, it is doubtful if the legislature can promulgate laws that will deal adequately with and respond promptly to the minutiae of everyday life. Hence, the need to delegate to administrative bodies the principal agencies tasked to execute laws in their specialized fields the authority to promulgate rules and regulations to implement a given statute and effectuate its policies. All that is required for the valid exercise of this power of subordinate legislation is that the regulation be germane to the objects and purposes of the law and that the regulation be not in contradiction to, but in conformity with, the standards prescribed by the law. These requirements are denominated as the completeness test and the sufficient standard test.’ citing the
case of Gerochi v. Department of Energy,G.R. No. 159796, July 17, 2007, 527 SCRA 696.
Is the law on automated
system for elections inadequate
for the minutiae of daily life that
Comelec or PET can be said
to supply the missing part, that
is, supply it by ‘rules’ to allow
‘shading the ovals’ in the ballots
for counting purposes?
Is it that ‘x x x the regulation be germane to the objects and
purposes of the law and that the regulation be not in contradiction
to, but in conformity with, the standards prescribed by the law.’?
‘the standards prescribed by the law’ – Constitution on Suffrage
and the Election Law – says nothing of ‘ovals’ in the ballots.
We do not know if at all this issue will be clarified
by PET or the Comelec. But it looks like it will
be definitely that thousands of ballots will be
decidedly nullified on not having 50% shading or
25% shading, whichever this will be finally
resolved. But am sure my ballot will be counted!
Raissa’s other question: ‘The question the court has to
resolve is this – should 25% shading be interpreted
as proof of cheating? Why or why not?’
We await the court (PET) to answer this. I doubt
shading 25% can always be used
as proof of cheating. It will have to be
‘case-to-case’ for EACH ballot shaded 25%.
This will take maybe 3 pres’l elections from
now to finish Marcos’ protest.
Btw, our country like other Asian
countries now, is ‘rules-based’
system which ‘Amanda Gorely described
the rules-based international order as a process
of states referring a matter to an independent
moderator and managing a situation politically,
and at the same time, accepting the outcome on
the basis that it has been decided independently.’
So, even our laws are like that
after enactments, gov’t goes
to implement the laws by ‘rules-based’
system.
For now. . .
leona says
BOCEA case SC 2011
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/december2011/181704.htm
leona says
The Philippines commits to rules-based system in the region
http://www.philnews.com/headlines/2018/headline_news_0818ab.htm
arc says
in short po, bong marcos is asking pet to help him ‘cheat’ voters off their votes so he can win.
it cannot be denied that there are indeed marginal voters who cannot shade properly, they dont have the good muscle coordination that bong marcos has, and missed the ovals, not good shoots sila,e, cannot put tail on a donkey ika. he, he, he.
arc says
the question po, should 25% shading be taken as proof of cheating?
not proof of cheating po yang 25% shading, coz people go to polls to vote, they dont go to polls to cheat, coz they dont know yet who will win or lose. they just went to vote, that’s all.
why do people shade only 25%? coz they’re not as good as bong marcos whose muscle coordination is as ‘good’, his eyesight microscopic and telescopic, perfect today, blinkered tomorrow, he, he, he, focused only on winning, winning, winning.
so, should 25% shading be taken as cheating? yes, yes, yes, so bong marcos can win! please, please, please, so bong marcos can win! yes, yes, yes, so digong can finally make bong marcos president! and the dumb-ing down of pinas is complete.
25% shading is now the only impediment standing on the path of bong marcos, blocking his way.
the humble 25% shading, the marginalized and the oppressed, dared to stand on bong marcos’ way.
leona says
duquemarino says
AUGUST 19, 2018 AT 12:22 PM
25% or even less shading is an intention of the voter to vote for his/her candidate/s
. . . it should as the intent of the voter and because
maybe the Adm Matter by the PET says to do away
‘technicals’ –
. . . “(l) In looking at the shades or marks used to register votes,
the RC shall bear in mind that the will of the voters reflected
as votes in the ballots shall as much as possible be given
effect, setting aside any technicalities. Furthermore, the
votes thereon are presumed to have been made by the
voter and shall be considered as such unless reasons exist
that will justify their rejection. However, marks or shades
which are less than 50% of the oval shall not be considered
as valid votes. Any issue as to whether a certain mark or
shade is within the threshold shall be determined by feeding
the ballot on the PCOS machine, and not by human
determination. (n)”
Rule 43 Conduct of Revision,
Pp. 23-24 PET Rules of 2010.
(n) = means ‘new’
I stand corrected saying that there was no
50% shading rule by PET. Sorry on that.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/2010%20PET%20RULES.pdf
leona says
. . . ‘the ballots shall as much as possible be given
effect, setting aside any technicalities..’
So, 50% shading or less . . . to 25% shading may be
accepted as valid if ‘technicalities’ are
well grounded to justify for a valid ballot?
PET will rule such instance when
shading is less than 50% due to
technicalities.
andrewlim8 says
DUTERTE LICKED CHINA’S ASS AND NOW THE PHILIPPINES SMELLS LIKE POOP
1. What made the NAIA situation much worse after the Xiamen jet skidded was the unauthorized, uncoordinated, balasubas recovery flights Xiamen airlines sent to NAIA to retrieve their passengers. That is how it is to be regarded a Chinese province.
2. Duterte makes a show of slamming China for warning our pilots to stay away from the West Phil Sea but it’s all for nothing. ” We are your friends, why treat us that way?” The dumbest, most naive question in the world of geopolitics and foreign policy.
3. Philippine fish catch has dropped, and everyone is gingerly avoiding the issue of how much China has stolen from our fish supply – reason cited is always weather disturbance,but ask the fishermen in affected areas.
4. Hope is not a strategy! Our foreign affairs people have been quoted as saying ” we hope China keeps its word on the West Phil Sea” What leverage do you have left after spurning the Hague ruling and our alliances?
5. We are eagerly tying ourselves up in China’s economic bondage, unmindful and too ignorant to learn the lessons of other countries now suffering after taking on too much Chinese debt.
arc says
I look forward to the day when pinoys tell china to go and eat your . . . we’re not paying back loans. or take digong and his family as collateral, he, he, he. china can have them.
it’s not on, china would say, pay back the loans as agreed. or else.
or else. or else, or else. dont pay loans back. if china bomb pinas and destroy our infrastructures, then the loans are written off and we’ll start anew. but dont pay the loans. I think there is no shame in not paying chinese loans. no shame in not honoring those loans, and letting china stew on its own greed.
gentlemens agreement, loans must be paid, eh? sorry, we not gentlemen, we ignorant cannibabums, he, he, he, we not pay loans!
leona says
Ma’m Raissa Robles your good questions
– “So these questions.
Assume that the shading threshold was set at 50%.
Why then did the machines “read” and count as votes those less than 50% on election day?
What was it in the code fed into the machine that enabled it to count as low as 25%? Or was the machine so designed that it was sensitive enough to count as low as 25% and it did not recognize the instruction to count only those shaded 50% and above?”
can be answered by the expert-people at the Comelec,
Or by Atty. Macalintal of the Robredo camp, if he knows
and is willing to answer.
arc says
this only prove that machines are better at counting votes than humans! size whether 50%, 25% or less does not matter to machines, walang discrimination po, a vote is a vote.
size dont matter to machine, he, he, he.
arc says
artificial intelligence at work, auto pilot yang machines at better at decision making: straight to the point and does not deliberate.
arc says
there are times when machines do better than what their programers want them to do and manifest higher intelligence than intended.
it’s apparent machines understand humans better than humans themselves, he, he, he.
leona says
arc . . .he he
Can those machines
be charged and if
proven guilty for being
programmly BIASED
to one candidate,
be jailed?
he he
The prophecy is coming
true – We are maked by
NUMBERS by MACHINES
in this age.
Rougeboots Terminators
already here!
he he
leona says
Comelec Resolution No. 9720
of June 20, 2013 amended certain
portions of Reso. 8804
and Reso. 9164 but from
that – NO amendment(s) were
made on the 50% Shading rule
in SEC. 6 Rule 15.
So, as of June 20, 2013, it
was 50% Shading. . . until
for the 2016 elections –
into 25% Shading.
Comelec had its own reason(s)
by reading Its succeeding
Resolutions before and AFTER
the 2016 elections for changing
the [50%] SHADING rules.
http://www.comelec.gov.ph/php-tpls-attachments/laws/RulesOfProcedure/com_res_9720.pdf
leona says
Ma’m Raissa Robles. . . I did paste
that site: Sept. 6, 2016 COMELEC
resolution for the 2016 elections,
it is here at the bottom portion.
This was not accepted by PET,
saying ‘SC is not aware’ of this
resolution. ‘Not aware’ daw.
https://www.rappler.com/nation/200293-comelec-resolution-disproves-supreme-court-ruling-ballot-shading-vp-protest
leona says
I will extract-COPY/Paste/insert parts of
this Sept. 6, 2016 COMELEC
[GUIDELINE] Resolution if this is the resolution – in small format lang:
“x x x 16-0600M IN THE MATTER OF
THE REQUEST OF THE PRESIDENTIAL
ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL FOR FOR A
COPY OF THE COMELEC [GUIDELINES] USED IN THE
MANUAL COUNTING OF BALLOTS
SPECIFICALLY ON THE TYPE OF
“SHADINGS” READ BY THE VOTE
COUNTING MACHINE (VCM), FOR
THE TRIBUNAL’S REFERENCE IN
RELATION TO PET CASE NO.
006 (MARCOS VS. ROBREDO)”
We see in this ‘Guidelines’ that a
‘Memorandum’ of Executive Director
Tolentino, reads: x x x etc.
It is my understanding that the
COMELEC ‘adopted’ to use this
as Its resolution for the 2016
presidential elections but again
the PET said It was not ‘aware’
of such ‘resolution’ or guideline.
In short, PET claims ‘ignorance’
of it. Can it be counter-claimed
that ‘Ignorance of the law excuses
no one’?
But what is worth asking is this
‘Guidelines’ and its used was
made AFTER the elections
[if it was] which asks WHY after
the elections?
https://www.rappler.com/nation/200293-comelec-resolution-disproves-supreme-court-ruling-ballot-shading-vp-protest
leona says
Just to assist in our searching
for items/etc. , here is the 2010
Item of COMELEC Resolution
8804 where in here it refers to
50% SHADING of the ovals
on the ballots –
‘k) Upon such determination, the recount committee shall then look at the ballot and count the votes as registered in each and every one of them for the contested position.
l) In looking at the shades or marks used to register votes, the recount committee shall bear in mind that the will of the voters reflected as votes in the ballots shall as much as possible be given effect, setting aside any technicalities. Furthermore, the votes thereon are presumed to have been ,made by the voter and shall be considered as such unless reasons exist that will justify their rejection. However, marks or shades which are less than 50% of the oval shall not be considered as valid votes. Any issue as to whether a certain mark or shade is within the threshold shall be determined by feeding the ballot on the PCOS machine, and not by human determination.’ Rule 15 SEC. 6 Paragraph (l)
In the 2010 elections
50% shading. . . acc to
Comelec,
In the 2016 elections
25% shading. . . acc to
Comelec [ See the Resolution
or GUIDELINES (?).
Amazing, WHY the change in
shading? So, PET said ‘No,
it should be 50% shading!’
50% vs 25% is the trouble now.
https://www.lawphil.net/administ/comelec/comres2010/comres_8804_2010.html
leona says
I put this here ahead to other of my
lengthy blogs –
“You raised a very very valid point there –
“Does the law or for this matter the constitutional provisions on Suffrage or election returns require ‘shading’ to 100% or 50% or 25% shaded votes on the ballots?”
Until then, where is the law, specifically authorizing
COMELEC or even the PET to ‘shade’ the ballots?
Until then, I do not see it. So, per Constitutional
provisions on Suffrage and Article VII which does
not mention about ‘shading’ the ballots, shading
the ballots is questionable, highly questionable
for its constitutionality or validity.
Many, even PET or COMELEC will say: Congress
can delegated shading powers’ to Comelec;
or to PET which has that power [inherent] as
part of its constitutional duty in the Constitution –
a proper term known as ‘judicial legislation.’
Can something be delegated by one body which
does not have or possess the thing to be
delegated, like Congress?
Or where is PET’s power in the Constitution’s
provisions?
If shading the ovals on the ballots is allowed,
thousands of votes will be disenfranchised
due to – not 50% shaded; or not 25% shaded;
or a ballot where the ovals does not show any
shading at all.
‘Ovals’ in the ballots are words not mentioned
in the Constitution nor under R.A. No. 9369 or
other election law(s). ‘Ovals’ appeared only
on resolutions by Comelec and PET.
We appear now under this situation of the
MARCOS protest case in a non-reality
but something into a FICTIONAL stage
into our disputes on elections’ concerns.
Some loves to drink OVALTINE. I did once
upon a long time ago.
Just my opinion.
arc says
it’s about time optometrists speak up now, bong marcos is eroding the right to exist of their client base, and start explaining why a number of people and possibly their own clients can only manage to shade 25% or less of the oval.
it’s like the feet po. size 7 but one foot is maybe size 6 1/2 and not size 7. same with the suso, the breast. women complain that one of their suso is smaller o bigger than the other and have problem finding the correct bra size.
with the eyesight, there are those with vision impairment. instead of the perfect 50/50 vision, with left and right eye both having 50 percent accuracy each and taken together, netted 100 per cent vision clear and immaculate, there are those that have only 35 per cent vision in one eye and maybe, 10 per cent vision in the other eye. these people can just manage their daily living, but accuracy of vision ay wala sila and would need corrective glasses. corrective glasses are expenses and often need upgrading regularly, panibagong expenses na naman.
to many, corrective glasses are not priority. they have to send chidlren to school first, and bills to pay, put food on the table too, etc, corrective glasses can wait.
vision impaired people do exist and there are many of them, though bong marcos wants to deny thier existence and not count their votes, marginalizing them even further.
I think now is the time for optometrists to speak up for those people who cannot speak, too shame to speak about thier own visual kapansanan and not wanting to bring attention to themselves. speak up, optometrists! and educate the masses on why a number of people can only manage to shade 25 per cent or less of the oval. speak up an dont let your client base be marginalized even more, their right to vote eroded because bong marcos said so.
arc says
has anyone heard of macular degeneration? it’s when the eyes cannot see the center or middle of things, and can only see a blurry blob where the center is supposed to be. but, the things around the center, the peripheries, are clear, the details visible and present. it’s just that the center is not there, a hole, walang wala talaga. and if these people are preparing food, they’ll end up cutting their own fingers!
sometimes, macular degeneration is caused by malnutrition, not enough nutrition nourish the eyes.
visual impairment is a medical problem, best dealt with, not ignored.
leona says
Are you SAFE inside Camp Aguinaldo?
Perfecto Pornebo Jr., 62, an imperfect USEC,
was caught by police officers and soldiers at the
building of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP)
Joint Task Force National Capital Region at around noon.
. . . Posing as an undersecretary and head of an anti-smuggling task force under the Office of the President was arrested at Camp Aguinaldo in Quezon City on Friday.
since MAY 15, 2018. Three months over.
He must have been SALUTED by sub-alterns
a thousand times every working days.
Now, maybe he can be slapped more than
that times.
Whatta a joke inside Camp Aguinaldo!
If this is not peke news.
https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2018/08/19/1843909/cops-nab-fake-usec-camp-aguinaldo
leona says
‘Revocation of school permit mulled over schoolbag torching in CamSur’
Who owns those schoolbags, the students? If yes,
What right or authority has that school to burn students’ schoolbags?
Many are reckless! Abusively reckless.
Sue the school for criminal and civil actions
include the official in his/her personal capacity
who ordered it.
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1022783/revocation-of-school-permit-mulled-over-schoolbag-torching-in-camsur
Rico del Rosario says
All of Digong’s talk of being tired and wanting to step down makes me think the plan all along was for him to step down and restore Bongbong back to power in Malacanang. Except by some mercy of God, who listened to ardent prayers deep into the night, Robredo won by 200K plus votes when counts from other provinces came in. It’s God’s love and grace for the Philippines that Bongbong should really fight against. And now Digong says his stay at Malacanang is overdue but couldn’t step down unless his election financier, Marcos, succeeds him.
raissa says
If you are right, the country needs another miracle.
But aren’t we too greedy for miracles?
leona says
It is interesting to read this latest
article of Raissa Robles.
I do not recall accurately in my voting
whether I did shade 100% or 50% or 25%
my ballot last 2016 elections. I can only
recall that I wanted MY VOTE to be
validly counted, so I guess I did shade
my BALLOT 100% to be sure to reach
beyond a reasonable doubt for this
purpose.
Interesting again to read J. Panganiban’s
Unintended peril in VP Electoral
Protest article especially the peril
on 50% shaded rule by PET and the
Comelec’s 25% shaded rule.
Is it correct that the Comelec first
had a RULE of 100% shading that
later on was questionably changed
to 25% shading contrary to what
the PET body has imposed raise
it up to 50% shading? Why did this
all amount now to a PERIL especially
to Robredo’s win? To Marcos’?
What is the rule really on the counting
of the ballots for the last 2016 elections?
I find it so interesting that a PERIL
could be looming before the PET against
Robredo or against Marcos in months
or years ahead.
Does the law or for this matter the
constitutional provisions on Suffrage
or election returns require ‘shading’
to 100% or 50% or 25% shaded
votes on the ballots?
Before the Automated system was
in place our ballots were counted without
this ‘shading’ rule requirement. Voters
write the names or checked the box where
the names are referred to. . . if I remember
so long ago correctly.
Robredo’s MR before the PET on adopting
a 25% shading was denied by PET.
Why, because Comelec first issued a 100%
shading, then revised it to 25% shading. True?
So, PET said ‘Let’s go for 50% shading.’
Is there a constitutional provision or a valid
law on this ‘shading’ issue of the ballots?
Can the unintended PERIL be shaded to avoid
an unintended DERAIL?
Reading Raissa Robles and J. Panganiban
articles on this topic invites fear or apprehension
of the results of the 2016 elections not
only for the Vice President but maybe also
even for the President, including for Congress,
Provincial and other for local official returns.
If there is no clear constitutional provision
on this shading rule or no clear valid law
on shading rule for the elections of 2016,
are we to anticipate that PET will ‘legislate’
to fill-in any GAP(s) as part of a duty to
under the Constitution to rule on the
matter as the final arbiter?
Why I ask this because if PET lowered
the 100% shading rule to 50% shading it
goes to mean that there is no specific
provision on SHADING as a requirement
on ballots of voters otherwise it will
be a clear unconstitutional change of
voting requirement on ballots how it is
to be validly counted as a vote.
I remember the son-Bush vs. Gore
pres’l issue in the Florida ballots that
the US Sup.Ct. denied the order of
the Florida Sup.Ct for a re-count on
grounds ‘there is no more time to
recount,’ etc. So Gore lost when he
appeared to be winning.
50% SHADING rule favorable to
Bong2 Marcos.
25% SHADING favorable to
Robredo.
The petition or protest of Marcos
is on alleged ‘CHEATING’ by
Robredo camp? Does it cover SHADING
of the ballots or it collaterally does
only? What is the score on this?
I do not find any ‘shading’ rule on these
constitutional provisions:
‘SEC. 4 Article VII.
. . . The Congress shall promulgate its rules for the canvassing of the certificates.
. . . The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of the President or Vice- President, and may promulgate its rules for the purpose.’
What rules did Congress enact?
Is it ‘Supreme Court’ or PET (Presidential
Electoral Tribunal) as the sole judge of all
contests relating to the election, returns,
and qualifications of the President or
Vice-President?
Is there a different rule by ‘SC’ or ‘PET’
from Congress’ rules on canvassing?
If there is which SHADING rules should be
followed, if any?
If none at all about SHADING rules
to be followed, the petition/protest
on alleged CHEATING is going out
of its focus by MARCOS.
Should such action by MARCOS
be allowed to continue before the
PET (or Supreme Court)?
If a woman shaded 25% of her
her eyebrows or below it, or the
lips or cheeks, or 50%
of any of it, or NONE
at all, can she not still be identified at
all as the Miss Marlynn Monroe
the beautiful? Yes! She is still
the Monroe! (Rip)
So, what’s shading for anyway? Maybe
to mislead others ! ? Maybe.
So, just dismiss the SHADE
and DISMISS the Marcos protest.
Let us move forward. . . says GMA.
raissa says
Hmmm.
You raised a very very valid point there –
“Does the law or for this matter the constitutional provisions on Suffrage or election returns require ‘shading’ to 100% or 50% or 25% shaded votes on the ballots?”
I just looked at the poll automation law – https://www.lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2007/ra_9369_2007.html
It does not mention “shading” at all.
This section seems to leave it all up to Comelec –
SEC. 15. Section 14 of Republic Act No. 8436 is hereby amended to read as follows:
“SEC. 18. Procedure in voting. – The Commission shall prescribe the manner and procedure of voting, which can be easily understood and followed by the voters, taking into consideration, among other things, the secrecy of the voting.”
SEC. 18. Section 17 of Republic Act No. 8436 is hereby amended to read as follows:
“SEC. 21. Counting procedure. – The Commission shall prescribe the manner and procedure of counting the votes under the automated system: Provided, that apart from the electronically stored result, thirty (30) copies of the election return are printed.”
But you raised a very valid point there.
THANKS!
leona says
Ma’m Raissa Robles, I did read ahead
this news paper article of Jonathan dela
Cruz before I blogged my blog here,
and I was interestingly astonished of
what Mr. Cruz wrote.
He wrote: ‘In any event, this 25-percent appeal based on a so-called September 2016 Comelec resolution which was hidden from the public and the parties in the May 2016 elections until the PET issued its 50-percent ruling makes the MR even more ridiculous.‘ True?
. . . ‘until the PET issued its 50-percent ruling this
order of PET followed LATER? What’s the legal valid
basis for such order?
I do not know Mr. Cruz. Whether is pro-MARCOS or
not but his article appears against ROBREDO’s
successful winning.
Is this opinion of Mr. Cruz also TRUE?: ‘Clearly, this is an afterthought belatedly certified by Acting Chairman Louie Guia and the poll body’s Executive Director, Jun Tolentino. There is no en banc resolution backing it up.
. . . Comeles acted issuing a questionable
order as an ‘afterthought BELATEDLY’?
Can such things like this be allowed to
take place in our elections?
Mr. Cruz, again, wrote this: ‘the Comelec should have bombarded the public with this bombshell announcement. But no such thing happened.‘ TRUE?
Mr. Cruz calls it a ‘bombshell announcement’ that
NEVER HAPPENED. True?
I like this part of Mr. Cruz article: ‘Indeed, given all the silliness associated with this petition, it should now be dismissed to spare the PET from spending precious time and resources on a decidedly unworthy case.‘
Silly petition. Which petition – MARCOS’ or Robredo’s MR? Mr. Cruz
wants the petition dismissed. To spare the PET’s precious
time and resources on a decidedly UNWORTHY case!
If all this redounds to that there is NO
constitutional or valid law on SHADING
requirement on the ballots, I agree that MARCOS’ protest
be dismissed [ if Mr. Cruz is referring to it ].
Another point by Mr. Cruz that I really
like: ‘Which brings us to another point. It is very possible that this petition is actually meant to divert public and the PET’s attention from the ever increasing number of irregularities being uncovered by that body’s revisors in the ongoing recount.
. . . the petition [ of MARCOS ] is meant to
divert the public ! I wholeheartedly agree
because the alleged ‘cheating’ on ROBREDO’s
camp went outside as ‘a CAUSE OF ACTION’
into ‘cheating and/or SHADING’. If it is
‘cheating’ it cannot be understood as
‘diverting’ the public. But to include or
cover SHADING as a ‘new’ allegation is
true to divert the public [ and the PET also].
Mr. Cruz ends his article like this: Amazing.
For everybody’s concern it is truly AMAZING!
If anybody cares, try reading Mr. Jonathan
dela Cruz article as highlighted as it is
without doubt AMAZING in so many parts.
leona says
http://manilastandardtoday.com/opinion/columns/267377/stick-to-the-50-percent-rule.html
leona says
Please allow me to continue
to possibly get to the bottom
of the ‘source’ of the SHADING
rule -by what authority, either
on the Comelec or the PEt.
It looks like this shading rule
came into Comelec sometime
Sept. 2016 [ after the elections ]
or on August 2016 also after
the elections, said Body stating,
among many, that it is adopting
the shading rule as A GUIDELINE
‘to illustrate the different marks
or shadings that would be
read either as votes or non-votes
by the optical scan counting system
adopted for the 2016 elections.’
Did this ‘Resolution’ by the Comelec
come out AFTER the May 2016
elections or before?
By what authority the Comelec
adopted this Resolution on ‘shading’
as R.A. No. 9369 amending
R.A. No. 8436, either law does
not specific give authority on
Comelec to adopt ‘a shading’
of the ballot by voters?
R.A. 9369 has 47 Sections
and nowwhere is it giving
Comelec authority to say
in a resolution to ‘shade’
the ballots’ by the voters.
I find this truling amazing.
That is why MARCOS objected
in his protest that Comelec is
changing the rules in mid-stream
on his protest, as reported by
Rappler news.
On that point of his objection,
is MARCOS correct?
PET, per Rappler, said they
never werre aware of such
a ‘resolution’ by the Comelec.
True?
But, aware or not, by what
authority really did the Comelec
come out with a ‘shading’ rule
when the specific law(s) mentioned
here does not give it out?
Is this protest a fight over nothing,
that is, fighting over a shading
rule that has a questionable
validity under the Constitution
or elections laws?
Magulo. Really? But PET and
Comelec appears to be dealing
this protest as if it is not magulo.
I find it first of all that all this
election protest of MARCOS.
etc., appears to be over something
that apparently is something
that PET & Comelec have
‘by what authority’ the two is
trying to resolve BECAUSE
there is no clear law, etc.,
about SHADING the ballots,
not even by a resolution by
the Comelec, more so a
contrary rule by PET to 50%
shading. My opinion.
I will only blog relevant
highlighted sites on this
with short blogs, etc. for
others to give concern.
leona says
https://www.rappler.com/nation/200293-comelec-resolution-disproves-supreme-court-ruling-ballot-shading-vp-protest
leona says
https://www.rappler.com/nation/209558-robredo-appeal-electoral-tribunal-ballot-images-initial-recount
leona says
https://www.lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2007/ra_9369_2007.html
leona says
Title: Disturbing Vice-Presidential
Recount
https://www.pressreader.com/philippines/manila-bulletin/20180420/281797104590921
leona says
Comelec spent so much money informing voters all over the country that the egg-shaped spaces beside the candidates’ names have to be completely shaded for them to be counted at all.
https://www.manilatimes.net/shady-shading-scheme/398115/
leona says
Law students urge PET: Stick to 25% shading rule
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/996059/law-students-urge-pet-stick-to-25-shading-rule
leona says
Here is a SC Administrative
Order 2010 on ‘shading’
but does not state
whether shade the ballot
with a pen 100%, or 50%
or 25%. If PET now
says ‘shading at 50%’
of the ballots, where is
the legal basis for it?
d) Official ballot – the paper ballot with the pre-printed names
of all candidates and with ovals corresponding to each of the names
printed. The ovals are the spaces where voters express their choice
by shading with a marking pen;
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/2010%20PET%20RULES.pdf
leona says
The Office of the Solicitor General has urged the Presidential Electoral Tribunal to junk Vice President Leni Robredo’s appeal to apply the 25 percent threshold in determining the validity of votes in the ongoing vice presidential election recount.
‘In a 21-page manifestation and motion, Solicitor General Jose Calida urged the tribunal to uphold its earlier issued resolution dated April 10, 2018, saying that valid votes are those shaded by at least 50 percent.’
This is maybe correct.
But what is also the
basis of the tribunal
to have the ballots
shaded 50 percent?
https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2018/07/06/1831136/solgen-no-basis-pet-apply-25-percent-threshold-vp-recount
leona says
Here is Comelec
Resolution 8804 –
“Under Rule 15, Recount of Ballots, Section 6 (l) provided: “In looking at the shades or marks used to register votes, the recount committee shall bear in mind that the will of the voters reflected as votes in the ballots shall, as much as possible, be given effect¸ setting aside any technicalities. Furthermore, the votes thereon are presumed to have been made by the voter and shall be considered as such unless reasons exist that will justify their rejection. However marks or shades which are less than 50% of the oval shall not be considered as valid votes. Any issue as to whether certain a mark or shade is within the threshold shall be determined by feeding the ballot on the PCOS machine, and not by human determination.”
https://news.mb.com.ph/2018/05/26/ignore-claims-of-political-motives-in-pet-recount/
leona says
50% threshold abandoned
Comelec also pointed out that it had promulgated resolutions — with the deletion of the 50 percent threshold.
‘Former PET Clerk Felipa Anama requested for the Comelec Guidelines on revision or appreciation of votes.’
‘She also requested for a copy of the Smartmatic Guidelines which was used by Comelec in the segregation of ballots throughout the manual counting to determine which type of shading was counted or not.’
‘The poll body then submitted the Random Manual Audit Guide on Appreciation of Markings to the PET.’
Which type of shading?
Looks like SHADING
can be every now and
then – changed.
http://cnnphilippines.com/news/2018/07/26/comelec-robredo-marcos-poll-protest.html
raissa says
I think the code itself has to be examined.
I believe the master code is in safekeeping with the Central Bank.
The code that instructs each machine should match that.
leona says
Not justified, Marcos said.
“As it was made suspiciously four months after the May 2016 elections and as an afterthought in support of Robredo’s belated assertions, Comelec’s position on the threshold percentage is not only patently illegal but at best meant to justify the cheating done to favor Mrs. Robredo,” Marcos’ spokesperson Atty. Vic Rodriguez said in a statement.
Illegal – Marcos says.
What then is the
justification for the
shading rule?
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1014800/marcos-lawyer-comelec-siding-with-robredo-patently-illegal-meant-to-justify-cheating
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1014800/marcos-lawyer-comelec-siding-with-robredo-patently-illegal-meant-to-justify-cheating
raissa says
So these questions.
Assume that the shading threshold was set at 50%.
Why then did the machines “read” and count as votes those less than 50% on election day?
What was it in the code fed into the machine that enabled it to count as low as 25%? Or was the machine so designed that it was sensitive enough to count as low as 25% and it did not recognize the instruction to count only those shaded 50% and above? Which would be strange because a code can instruct the machine to adjust how it behaves.
Only programmers and digital experts can determine this.
raissa says
But Leona,
This Resolution only pertains to the May 2010 elections. Not the 2016 elections.
See -https://www.lawphil.net/administ/comelec/comres2010/comres_8804_2010.html
Can you find one that refers to the 2016 elections? Thanks.
leona says
‘How difficult is it to shade a small oval to indicate a voter’s choice among candidates for a political position? Well, with the use of a marking pen, it doesn’t take one second to fully shade the blank space inside the oval. It would be more difficult keeping the shading from spilling out of the oval itself. Hence, it is hard to imagine how a voter, even the old who might have difficulty holding the marking pen, could possibly shade only 1/4 of the oval.’
1 second to shade
the oval? SUSMA!
Isn’t it foolish for
Comelec or PET
to be saying 25%
shading or 50%
shading. . .
Hundreds of thousands
of ballots are involved !
A voter does not
only SHADE but
has to READ what
is in the ballot.
Yes, 1 second but the
voter read the ballot
for 5 minutes!
https://manuelboymejorada.com/tag/ballot-shading/
leona says
Tired with these?
I now quit. . . for
awhile. No more
cites ahead.
duquemarino says
25% or even less shading is an intention of the voter to vote for his/her candidate/s
raissa says
You are right.
If there is no other mark on the ballot, it should be taken as the voter’s intention.
The question the court has to resolve is this – should 25% shading be interpreted as proof of cheating? Why or why not?
Where is it in any Philippine law which says it should be 50%? Does Comelec have the discretion to set the shading percentage? If yes, when can it exercise that discretion?
arc says
I agree with law students, 25% shading to be counted as vote. lot of people have problem eyesight and cannot see clearly at arm’s lenght, they cannot drive cars too and cannot thread needles as well. take a bit of time for them to lace their shoes as well, they would have to feel the holes and eyelets. sa voting po, alam nila the ovals to be shaded are somewhere near the names, so okay, they hoped for the best and did their best po.
the problem with bong is that kunyari he’s buying tomatoes but then, wants the bubble gum included in the price. by all means count all the votes. but disregarding those votes with 25% shading is not recounting but changing the count of the count.
bong paid for the recount of the votes, he did not pay for those with 25% shading not to be included in the recount. two different things.
raissa says
Your comment that — “bong paid for the recount of the votes, he did not pay for those with 25% shading not to be included in the recount. two different things. — is spot on.
arc says
an opthalmologists o eye doctor can best explain why people cannot fully shade an oval.
he, he, he, my sister is worse po, she cannot put on lipstick without it smudging even if following the contours of her own lips! I am betting she’s also one of those that cannot shade ballot paper properly. may problem siya with hand-eye coordination.
I recall someone saying, lest bong marcos has good muscle coordination, he, he, he.
raissa says
That was what Marcos Sr. said about his son when he was asked by Paulynn Paredes-Sicam about him in an interview.
netty says
Interesting Leona.
If shading is becoming the focus, then all those other losers should file each one a protest of cheating because of this raised issue which is really immaterial to the name of the voted shaded candidate… unless one writes down Marilyn Monroe :)
funny but seriously BONG2 appears childish and shall I say the PET/ Comelec as well.
Impressive Leona!
They would do anything to the point of being stupidly funny just to score against the enemy.
Raissa, could your next piece be some update on the recent signed BANGSAMORO LAW? (anytime)
I am not feeling good about this one. Federalism & Bangsamoro in one time is not a good thing, I think.Bangsamoro will put the country into civil war because all factions will not lay down their arms, grabbing power and control of the money and economy is the greatest temptation of all. Thanks.
leona says
Maybe just to suggest for a
solution, a compromise be
done on this hula-hula-labo
shading rule: COUNT as valid
ballots all with 50% shading
and 25% shading, since it
appears that PET and Comelec
are not in agreement which
percentage of shading should
be followed in order to make
this shading shading shading
GO AWAY.
Ballots without any shading at
all – not counted as valid.
BUT for next elections 2019 and
thereafter, do away SHADE and
come out something better in accordance
with the ‘intent’ of the voter on his/her
ballot according to the Constitution
and right of Suffrage provisions.
Getting the experts to do this
may save our many voters’ right to vote.
Welcome, too!