The Long View: Notes for the coming inaugural

Posted on May 31, 2010 by mlq3

The Long View
Notes for the coming inaugural
By Manuel L. Quezon III
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 00:47:00 05/31/2010

THE inauguration of a President is rich in symbolism which is generally little known or understood, but which can be utilized to lend solemnity, a sense of democratic continuity and a spirit of national consecration to the occasion.

The location is the Quirino Grandstand (formerly the Independence Grandstand) where the inauguration of every president from Quirino to Marcos and thereafter, of Ramos, and the inaugural addresses of Estrada and Arroyo, were held.

Prior to independence, inaugurals were held on the front steps of the Legislative Building (Quezon, Laurel, Roxas) but the wrecked condition of the building in July 1946 suggested the need for a different location.

The independence ceremony in July 1946 was held, instead, in front of the Rizal Monument, and the large flagpole in front of the monument is now known as the Independence Flagpole precisely because it marks the spot where Rizal’s dream of national independence was finally achieved.

Thus, the Quirino Grandstand directly faces the execution site of the Gomburza martyrs; the monument and grave of the country’s foremost hero and martyr, Rizal; and the flagpole which commemorates the achievement of independence in 1946 and which bears aloft the flag, symbol of the sovereignty first asserted before the world in 1898. This symbolically presents a vista of the nation’s path to freedom.

Tradition dictates that the president-elect arrive at the presidential palace before the inaugural, to pay a courtesy call on the outgoing, incumbent president. The president and the president-elect then go together to the Luneta.

From 1946 to 1965, the tradition was that at the Luneta, the president received his final military honors as commander in chief, and then departed to go home as the president-elect in turn ascended the Quirino Grandstand.

The vice president-elect is sworn in before noon to secure the constitutional succession; at 12 noon, the president-elect is sworn in. The chief justice administering the presidential oath is tradition and not mandatory.

Immediately upon conclusion of the oath, the traditional presidential anthem, “Mabuhay” is played with the appropriate ruffles and flourishes, and the armed forces shall render its first 21-gun salute to the new commander in chief.

The new President of the Philippines then delivers his inaugural address.

The President then takes symbolic possession of the presidential palace and holds his first Cabinet meeting. Traditionally this was done in the Council of State Room (the Quirino Room) in the Executive Office Building (Kalayaan Hall) but because of Marcos’ failing health, this has been held in the Aguinaldo State Dining Room since the Marcos years.

The Palace itself is rich in meaningful associations: the new President can arrive either at Kalayaan Hall, the old Executive Office Building, now restored, or at the Palace itself. In the Palace, the President takes symbolic possession by means of ascending the main stairs, which legend attributes as having been climbed by Rizal’s mother on her knees, to beg for clemency for her son: a reminder to every president of the portion of the oath of office which pledges justice to every man.

From the main stairs, the President passes Luna’s painting of the Blood Compact, and enters the Reception Hall, lined with the portraits of the past chief executives and which traditionally has, at its center, the table given to President Quezon by inmates who had received a presidential pardon: again, a tangible reminder to every administration of the power to grant clemency and do justice.

To the left is the Presidential Study, with the presidential desk; to the right, the Aguinaldo State Dining Room, where President Aguinaldo was held prisoner by the Americans and where Cabinet meetings have been held since the Marcos administration. At the end of the Reception Hall is the Rizal Ceremonial Hall, where the rituals of sovereignty are undertaken: the receipt of credentials from foreign ambassadors, and the conferment of state awards and decorations.

President Corazon Aquino restored the distinction between the term Malacañan Palace as referring to the official residence of the President of the Philippines, and the use of the term Malacañang to refer to the Office of the President.

The first concern will be whether or not the new president will reside in his official residence.

The President has the option of residing in Bonifacio Hall (the Premier State Guesthouse) or the traditional family quarters of the Palace.

The President has the option of weekday residence in the Palace and returning to his private residence on weekends, which would permit the public to visit the Palace on weekends, in a symbolic gesture of opening up the Palace to the people.

The second is the physical layout of the new President’s working spaces; the location of the heads of the various executive offices. The President has three offices. The Presidential Library, located in the Palace itself, more suited to actual executive work; and the Executive Office (the Quezon Room) in Kalayaan Hall, more suited to ceremonial occasions; and the Private Office, which is traditionally located within the residential quarters of the Palace.

Because of President Marcos’ illnesses, the traditional demarcation between executive working spaces, the rooms of state and the private quarters were blurred.

The great size of the Office of the President in recent years has also led to a pell-mell and willy-nilly growth that increases pressures for executive officials to prove clout by means of demonstrating physical closeness to the working areas of the President.

The Long View: Congressional tightrope

Posted on May 24, 2010 by mlq3

The Long View
Congressional tightrope
By Manuel L. Quezon III
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 22:37:00 05/23/2010

OUR constitution, in Article VII, ordains the procedure for Congress to follow in proclaiming a president-elect: “The returns of every election for President and Vice-President, duly certified by the board of canvassers of each province or city, shall be transmitted to the Congress, directed to the President of the Senate. Upon receipt of the certificates of canvass, the President of the Senate shall, not later than thirty days after the day of the election, open all the certificates in the presence of the Senate and the House of Representatives in joint public session, and the Congress, upon determination of the authenticity and due execution thereof in the manner provided by law, canvass the votes.”

Then, “The person having the highest number of votes shall be proclaimed elected, but in case two or more shall have an equal and highest number of votes, one of them shall forthwith be chosen by the vote of a majority of all the Members of both Houses of the Congress, voting separately.” How Congress actually goes about the canvassing is left up to Congress itself. The wrangling on the rules begins today: with the Constitution further specifying that “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.”

Speaker of the House Prospero Nograles insists that Congress, sitting as the National Board of Canvassers, “will not sacrifice accuracy for speed,” while at the same time suggesting the legislature can complete its work by June 4. There are those who view Congress’ role as largely ceremonial when it comes to proclaiming the president-elect; others prefer to err on the side of scrutiny by means of vigorous debate over the documents submitted to the Senate. At the heart of the clash in approaches to Congress’ duties is a mistrust of our institutions and how they go about their duties.

The public consensus has been—to my mind, at least—that the electorate would trade justice for security to a large extent. The public would, on one hand, insist on the legitimacy crisis being resolved within our institutions and nowhere else, thus having to swallow the galling impunity of the administration if accountability mechanisms failed (as they did). It preferred the ensuing political war of attrition to matters being resolved by means of a blitzkrieg in the streets, since by all accounts the administration was prepared to kill to stay in power. And yet, by forestalling the larger risk of extremist solutions such as juntas and wacky transitional councils, the public emphatically reserved for itself the immense satisfaction of vomiting out the administration and its leading candidates by means of peaceful elections. The writing was on the wall for all to see from the mid-term elections in 2007 onwards.

The Palace refused to see it then; hence its trying to abolish national elections by means of various Charter change schemes and which failed (because public opinion was foursquare behind the principle that the electorate should vote for the next chief executive). It refuses to see it now; hence the schizophrenia exhibited by its having to trumpet automation as among its great legacies, to now being at the forefront at the efforts to turn all the many shortcomings of the system it willfully put in place, into an opportunity to deprive its replacement of the legitimacy it enjoys—precisely because the electorate made a national mandate by means of elections a non-negotiable objective.

In a similar manner its supporters who’d moved to subordinate the Supreme Court to a parliamentary government—for that was one of the long-desired objectives of “constitutional reform,” Palace-style—are now the first to demand upholding judicial supremacy, on the tried-and-tested administration principle that form trumps substance. The truth is, everything is expendable as the President tries to ensure not only her political survival, but the continued relevance of her brand of transactional politics which thrives on ambiguity.

Congress’ dilemma is it has to proclaim a mandate the public conferred despite every effort of the administration to prevent it; it is a dilemma because if it decides to railroad the proceedings, it bequeaths the administration’s own legitimacy crisis to the next: thereby saddling the next Congress with a problem the public precisely set great store in avoiding by enthusiastically trooping to the polls last May 10. But if it bogs things down in wrangling over the results, it also risks the kind of uncertain political situation where the whole house of cards comes crashing down with no certainty of who, if anyone, can pick up the pieces. This is precisely the sort of uncertainty the public insisted on avoiding from 2005 onwards by expressing its displeasure with all extremist proposals, whether to turn the country into a one-party parliamentary state, or put its fate in the hands of a junta.

Had a fully manual count at the very least accompanied the automation process—as Aquino and many others proposed going into the elections—this situation would’ve become impossible. But we have what we have. It will require a great balancing act on the part of Congress to avoid rubber-stamping its proceedings in “noted” fashion on one hand, and on the other, according minorities the democratic opportunity to manifest their objections in a manner that will not prejudice their right to take matters to the Supreme Court if necessary.

It can strike the right balance if it recognizes from the start that the public exactly knows how it voted; that the public recognizes fairness when it sees it; and is generous enough to accord Congress the opportunity to begin redeeming itself by ensuring Ms Arroyo moves into the biggest office in the Batasan not as a PM-in-waiting, but a glorified has-been.

The Long View: Form and substance

Posted on May 20, 2010 by mlq3

The Long View
Form and substance
By Manuel L. Quezon III
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 23:23:00 05/19/2010

SINCE CHIEF JUSTICE RENATO CORONA decided to accept the poisoned chalice from President Macapagal-Arroyo, the least he is expected to do is to drink from it. Not least because he has gotten to be chief justice due to efforts and arguments first forwarded in 1998—when his appointment as a judge by President Ramos was voided by the Supreme Court—and which finally bore bitter fruit in 2010, when the Court granted itself an exemption from constitutional prohibitions on presidential appointments during the campaign and transition period, thus paving the way for Corona’s becoming chief justice.

So in a sense he is joined at the hip to the point of view that there shouldn’t be any sort of ban on appointments during election periods or in the transition from one administration to the next. And here, the contrast between this assertion—whether on the part of President Arroyo, who set aside precedents dating back to her own father’s revocation of the midnight appointments of his predecessor—and the present Supreme Court itself (in granting itself an exemption) not to mention Corona himself, who ignored former Chief Justice Manuel Moran’s decision, based on delicadeza, to decline an opportunity to return to the high court by means of a midnight appointment, is instructive.

The President’s decision to fill the vacancy created by the retirement of Chief Justice Reynato Puno, the decision of the Supreme Court to reject challenges to that assertion of the power to appoint during the campaign and transition period, and Corona’s accepting the appointment—these are part and parcel of the institutionalization of impunity that has become the hallmark and chief legacy of this administration.

It’s the brazenness of the whole thing, the impunity of it all, that is astounding. And, in turn, it indicates why there are such irreconcilable differences between those who oppose the appointment (and criticize Corona’s thinking he can accept the poisoned cup and be exempt from the effects of drinking from it) and those who demand its uncritical acceptance.

At the heart of the clash of perspectives is the role personal ethics should play in such situations: on the one hand, the President has every right to propose wielding her powers in a controversial manner, and the Supreme Court has every right—the duty, even—to resolve it, and that in the end because they said so, that’s the end of that.

Setting aside the recent track record of the high court for making decisions, then reconsidering them, and in the process overturning decisions that in the past would have stood as final, there remains a question that is beyond the province of the law, and more within the province of how, exactly, officials should handle their powers.

Should they approach their powers with self-control and restraint in mind, or throw caution to the winds on the Marcosian principle that “nothing succeeds like success!” so long, as a cowed and frightened “Supreme” once whispered to him, “a color of constitutionality” is preserved? There is only one word to describe the President’s decision to assert what she saw as her prerogative to appoint Corona, and that word is, malicious.

And in that sense, the Supremes and their new chief are complicit, though they and the President know full well the truth of that old maxim: possession is nine-tenths of the law. Whether the country is divided on the legitimacy of the new chief justice, with some viewing him as de facto and others, de jure, the reality is he now presides over the high court, has been recognized as such, and the options of the next chief executive in terms of dealing with a co-equal branch of government, are limited.

Since we are bound to respect the office, never mind our personal opinions of the temporary occupant of that office, we will all stand when the new chief justice enters a room, and we are, so long as we remain committed to a government of laws and not men, will accept the decisions of the Supreme Court even when yesterday’s decisions end up overturned by tomorrow’s new decisions based on repeated motions for reconsideration—though hardly anyone doubts the pending second motion for reconsideration of the high court’s paving the way for Corona’s appointment will be overturned.

Only if you view challenging the validity of the malicious midnight appointments of the President—and I am paraphrasing the words of her father in characterizing the midnight appointments of his predecessor, the executive act that formalized what Moran already knew, eight years earlier, as the wrong thing for an incumbent to do in the closing days of his term—as illegal, can anyone think there is a constitutional crisis. Last anyone checked, going to court or even impeachment are bonafide constitutional methods for rectifying wrongs.

But there is a crisis: of legitimacy, and of ethical governance. The line has been drawn in the sand, and the cunning trap here is the clamor from certain quarters to put a premium on appearances and to downplay the deep significance, the fundamental difference in approaching governance, between the President and her expected successor.

In the end what every administration has the right to expect, is to set the tone for its turn at the helm. This is why there have been so many innovations and departures from tradition in inaugurations. Thus putting in place a chief justice who soiled his own robes not only justifies, but almost makes mandatory, some sort of deviation from tradition. Whether a barangay captain or associate justice administers the presidential oath matters less than the next president’s right to demonstrate that ethics will be part of his core approach to the responsibilities of his office.

My views on this subject can be found in my blog entries Midnight appointments (January 15, 2010) and The dynamics of succession (January 23, 2010), and, in my columns Scorched earth to the bitter end (January 18, 2010) nd The presidential tar pit (March 21, 2010), and in this transcript of my interview on The Rundown last Tuesday. See also today’s Inquirer editorial, Corona of thorns.

The Long View: The mandate

Posted on May 17, 2010 by mlq3

The Long View
The mandate
By Manuel L. Quezon III
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 23:29:00 05/16/2010

BACK in April 2009, Rep. Raul T. Gonzalez Jr. filed a bill proposing a “surgical” constitutional amendment to permit run-off elections for the presidency three weeks after the May 10 polls if no candidate achieved 50 percent. I’ve long been a proponent of run-off elections as a more democratic alternative to turning back the clock to the old two-party system (and with the Indonesian experience in mind).

Had Gonzalez’s bill been taken seriously the country would be gearing up for a showdown between Benigno Aquino III and Joseph Ejercito Estrada, with the end result being a president the country would know was supported by at least fully half of the electorate.

But Gonzalez Jr. filed his bill when the Frankenstein Coalition was pushing the Villafuerte and Nograles formulas for ramming through Charter change. This was in order to institute a one-party parliamentary state and thereby save the President and her people from ever having to bother with public opinion in national terms.

The effort would continue until August of last year, when it was quietly dropped, coinciding with the President’s return from her visit to Barack Obama in Washington. The proposal for run-off elections was never seriously considered as the least of the Palace’s priorities was to facilitate a mandate for any potential successor: particularly after Cory Aquino died and the nightmare scenario of a second Aquino presidency surfaced. Not until January of this year, though, did the Charter change attempt officially go belly up.

We should never forget the desire of the administration to head off the result everyone saw coming by attempting to postpone the May 10 elections. Its brinkmanship failed even when it tried to enlist the Cardinal-Archbishop of Manila as an ally to fend off warnings of the risks its dangerous game involved. It seems His Eminence has since seen how he became a tool in a desperate gambit to stop the momentum of Aquino’s campaign (recall Estrada’s and Villanueva’s supporting the postponement proposal).

But the writing was on the wall; the surveys showed it; the public knew it on its own. The Comelec count (6:15 a.m., May 11) at present has Aquino with 12.2 million or 40.19 percent of the vote and Estrada 7.7 million or 25.4 percent. The PPCRV (7:10 p.m., May 15) has Aquino with 13.8 million or 41.85 percent and Estrada with 8.7 million or 26.4 percent; with a turnout ranging from 57.21 percent to 64.62 percent (from Comelec’s pre-election expectation of 85 percent).

It is the largest plurality since the present Constitution came into force; and only the second indisputable presidential win in a generation. It ends the legitimacy crisis of 2001-2005. It has even been called a landslide.

This is not a landslide as traditionally understood in the context of the Quezon (1935, 68 percent; 1941, 81.76 percent), Magsaysay (1953, 68.9 percent, the largest first-term mandate ever); and Marcos (1969, 61.5 percent) landslides. Nor is it a majority like the Roxas (1946, 54 percent), Quirino (1949, 51 percent), Macapagal (1961, 55 percent), Marcos (1965, 54.78 percent) or 1986 Aquino victories.

But it potentially surpasses the only pre-martial law plurality victory: that of Carlos P. Garcia (1957, 41.3 percent) which not even Joseph Ejercito Estrada managed to beat in 1998 when he obtained 39.6 percent. Over time, with an ever-expanding population, it is the percentages that matter (even with the cheating, Fernando Poe Jr. garnered more votes in 2004 than Estrada in 1998 though the former’s percentages may not have been larger than the latter’s).

Estrada’s 1998 win was a landslide in terms of his getting twice as many votes as his nearest rival. In that sense Benigno S. Aquino III’s victory over Estrada is a landslide, too, though not as vast. But whether in absolute votes or percentages, it eclipses Estrada’s 1998 victory and puts his victory at the very least at par with Garcia’s 1957 election. He won in 51 out of 80 provinces (plus the overseas vote), in contrast to Estrada who won in 23 provinces. A 63 percent victory in provincial terms: a landslide.

Many have seized on the multiparty nature of our elections to point out a large majority of the electorate did not vote for Aquino. This overlooks the reality (and flaw, to its critics) that in a multiparty election with no runoff, achieving a majority is not the built-in purpose of such an election: it is fostering many choices as a more democratic means to select leaders. Had the framers of the Constitution believed in the necessity for majority presidencies, they would have put in place run-off elections.

Even if one adopts the flawed belief that the election revealed a majority opposed to Aquino, it can also be said even more overwhelming numbers voted against the other candidates: if 60 percent can be said to have gone against Aquino, then 75 percent went against Estrada, 85 percent against Villar, 89 percent against Teodoro, 97 percent against Villanueva, and 98 percent rejected Gordon, and so forth. So the end result is the same: more Filipinos wanted to confer a mandate on Aquino than on any of his rivals; and the end result is that the national will has been expressed and a national mandate conferred.

Automation does make instituting run-off elections a practical possibility, especially since this election was also a referendum on the presidential system. After over a decade of sustained efforts to abolish it altogether, the country has shown it overwhelmingly prefers to directly elect its head of state and government. It puts in place the parameters that should confine any talk of constitutional reform.

And tells us why the game plan of Aquino’s critics is to downplay the significance of his mandate and to create artificial controversies like the chief justice appointment. They cannot allow the meaning of this mandate to sink in: Our first indubitably legitimate government in nearly a decade.

The Long View: Glee

Posted on May 13, 2010 by mlq3

The Long View
Glee
By Manuel L. Quezon III
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 05:46:00 05/13/2010

A general sense of national glee greeted the conduct and current outcome of our first-ever national automated elections. In one sense I think the glee was entirely justified: we shouldn’t forget that about this time last week was the point of maximum danger, when the Arroyo administration was moving heaven and earth to postpone the polls and thereby plunge the country into the kind of uncertainty it had been trying to foster for weeks. Precisely because it saw the writing on the wall and wanted to buy time to try to maneuver a more favorable outcome for itself.

Public opposition was so widespread that the administration had to throw in the towel and permit the polls to take place, knowing what we’re seeing: not only a national repudiation but also a remarkable series of local repudiations for its allies (Ermita, Esperon, Devanadera, Bolante, Matias and Mike Defensor, Raul Gonzales and son, seem to have been vomited out by the electorate).

But I think we should bear in mind that if getting to vote was a victory, and that the voting system generally worked, the acid test for automation was the transmission of results in a speedy manner and the reporting of the results by the Comelec.

It will still take some time for the Comelec to report on the first stage of automation, how the actual casting of votes went. That is, how many turned out, how many actually got to cast their votes, and of those who cast their votes, how many had their ballots accepted by the machines and how many ballots were rejected.

The overwhelming majority of voters were able to cast their votes, it seems, and for this reason the general conclusion is that the system more or less worked. The same applies to the transmission of results from the majority of precincts. But the devil, as they say, is in the details. And here something crucial has been overlooked by the public and the media, it seems to me.

In a race where there’s a wide gap between the winner and the first runner-up, automation matters less, simply because the things automation is supposed to help deter—a slow and inefficient count prone to fraud and doubts over the outcome—aren’t very relevant. A case in point was the wide margin between Joseph Ejercito Estrada and Jose de Venecia Jr. in 1998, one widely expected by the electorate itself going into the election and which was so large a margin as to be fraud-proof.

The justification for automation was the controversial count in 2004 when the two leading contenders went into election day with neither one sure if they had an insurmountable lead. It was in such a situation that vote padding and shaving efforts had time and the chaos and confusion of a slow, manual counting of ballots on the side of the manipulators.

As it turned out, going into this year’s elections, the public had a pretty good idea of the expected results in the presidential contest but the vice-presidential race was obviously going to be too close to call. And it is in such a situation that the present automation has demonstrated its partial successes and its potential flaws.

By midnight of election day over half of the votes had been transmitted to, and reported by, the Comelec and its appointed watchdog. This was enough to satisfactorily convince most presidential candidates that the public had expressed its will at the polls—and that the Comelec’s system had generally reported the results in a conclusive manner. And so most presidential candidates conceded to Benigno Aquino III the day after the polls closed.

But not so fast and so thoroughly as to convince Joseph Ejercito Estrada who prefers to withhold comment on the results at this point. From Tuesday to mid-Wednesday, the Comelec got stuck at reporting 78 percent of the precinct results which was, apparently, still not a conclusive figure for Estrada. But the general impression seems to be that the public views the presidential contest as settled.

The same does not apply to the vice-presidential race which remains too close to call as I write this. The race was tight between Manuel Roxas II and Jejomar Binay going into election day, and the lead of Binay as reported has to be tempered by the realization that they include much of Binay’s core strength in the NCR and Balance Luzon while the overall figures still lack significant portions of Roxas’ Visayan bailiwicks. The clincher possibly being whether these Visayan bailiwicks could significantly affect the initial Binay lead. Furthermore, in a real squeaker of a race, the outcome of Mindanao voting will also matter.

Neither the Visayas or Mindanao results should be cliffhangers at this point if automation—particularly the transmission of results to the Comelec’s national office—were an unqualified success. Again: the proof of the success and validity of automation doesn’t depend on contests where winners enjoy big leads, but in close races where time is on the side of both political operators and public skepticism over the eventual results. Too long a delay can only foster precisely the kinds of doubts that can be fatal to the credibility of the mandate of the eventual, official, winner.

As it stands, I don’t see how a messy 2004-style situation can be avoided, with the vice-presidential contest potentially getting bogged down all the way to the Presidential Election Tribunal. It will take maximum statesmanship from both the eventual winner and loser to avoid turning this failure of the system into a festering bone of contention over the next six years.

It may be that the next 48 hours will tell whether glee will turn into dread.

* * *

MY daily Inquirer Radyo show debuts Thursday 9-10 a.m.

Lost in the Counting

Posted on May 9, 2010 by mlq3

The Inquirer editorial today appealed to the public’s Collective aspirations. There was a nice meme today: Today is for my mother, tomorrow is for my motherland. There’s also an eloquent entry in The Marocharim Experiment.

Election Day will be heralded by the ringing of churchbells. Elsewhere (for overseas Filipinos) the results have been discouraging in terms of turnout (see Why the low turnout of absentee voters).

First, some useful information:

See the May 10 Elections Primer on Bayanihan Online: this is a must-follow on Election Day and thereafter. Law Innovations has a handy Election Day Guide (in Filipino and English).
Google has Election 2010: Find Your Precinct.

Ralph Guzman has Election 2010: Contact Numbers, Resources, List of Candidates. Here’s my list of Things to help you make an informed choice.

And now, on E-Day:

Everyone, it seems, has contingency plans ready (see the Comelec’s Contingency plan and see Ralph de Guzman’s entry on corporate contingency plans).

Which brings us to this, the ballot.
:

The new ballot represents some interesting challenges come election day.
The first concerns the potential impact of human error on the elections.
Last May 3, my show was about some interesting findings by Anna Tabunda of Pulse Asia. Here’s the show:

Ana Maria Tabunda went through the sample ballots respondents used during the surveys to find out the incidence of:

1. Overvoting and

2. Improper shading.

She is concerned: her findings show both could have an impact on the elections, regardless of other factors such as fraud.

More or less 2% of presidential and veep votes suffered from overvoting, which would void the votes cast for the positions in actual conditions: potentially 400,000 votes based on an 80% turnout rate.

Most crucial was her finding that 3% of senatorial votes represented overvoting. This could have drastic results for the actual standing of candidates.

With regards to improper shading, the numbers are significantly large: 12% nationally or 4 million votes in actual conditions. Particularly high incidents of improper shading was registered among older voters and in Regions 1, 2, 3, 4A, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 12: potentially very significant for candidates strong in the Visayas.

She also said off camera that the 9% undecided percentage is historically big (6% at the same point in time in 2004) and in double digits (11-12%) in NCR and Balance Luzon, which has 56% of voters.

She also said more recent surveys than their last published one are embargoed, but is willing to share her concerns of the combined effects of the following:

1. The impact, both on undecided voters and the supporters of candidates, of the Erap surge;

2. The impact of heat and delays due to disorganization/voter confusion on actual turnout; supporters of candidates doing well in the surveys may be tempted to give up since their candidate is expected to win, anyway.

For those interested in such things, here are the numbers she shared with me on May 3:

Sample Ballot Analysis

The second concerns the impact of voter indecision (this isn’t specifically related to the ballt; but might be, for eample, in terms of hastily or incompletely-filled ballots).

Anna Tabunda also kindly shared with me her polling firm’s data on undecided voters:

It will be interesting to see whether these percentages hold true on election day. On one hand, they suggest a significant swing vote, not enough to affect the current trends in the presidential race perhaps but adding to the jitters among the top two contenders for the vice-presidency.

But Dr. Holmes, also of Pulse told me off camera last night that another possibility exists with undecided voters: they are the more likely not to bother to vote on election day or to go home without having voted if polling precincts get bogged down by long lines or confusion. In that case one could discount the undecideds as more likely not to have an impact on the final results.

Third there’s the question of whether automation will work on the whole, be an utter disaster, or what.

Come the closing of the polls and the counting of votes, the Comelec seems to have some plans in place.

If the precinct machines work all day in terms of accepting most validly-filled ballots, then the challenge is, will they transmit results and will those transmitted results be received, computed, and reported?

If machines don’t work, the Comelec says it is making provisions for ballots to be transported to nearby machines or, if those fail too, then to municipal or other centers with machines to count the transported ballots.

As it is, the Comelec also has provisions to count 30% of the ballots on a purely manual basis. What I found rather peculiar was that when it was proposed to have the necessary paraphernalia for a fully manual nationwide count prepared, the Comelec replied it would cross that bridge when it gets there. That the Comelec, in such a catastrophic situation (in terms of technology), could pass a Resolution for a national manual count, and that the lack of paraphernalia isn’t an issue, because the rules authorize the Comelec to authorize, in turn, the use of any available paper for impromptu official reports.

And there’s the question of the reporting of results.

Instead of adhering to a strict timetable as originally announced, the Comelec says it will update the results based on incremental percentages: see Comelec: Updates start Monday evening.

The blog alphanumeric has an entry on whether the PCOS machines will accept NPO-printed ballots on election day. See the KontraDaya2010 blog for more information on technical issues.

The Comeback Kids

Posted on May 7, 2010 by mlq3

If the maximum point of peril -for the elections being postponed- was Wednesday, until this afternoon, there were still rumblings that the President had gone back to wanting a postponement. The last pre-election survey may have something to do with this, but then again, the momentum had already shifted to Aquino: on April 29 Amando Doronila who has been observing elections since the Magsaysay campaign already called it A landslide in the making. This is in the post-Edsa sense of the word, in terms of the margin of the winning candidates’ edge over his nearest rival; but also offers up prospects of the first majority win since 1986. It is entirely within the realm of possibility, given the large number ((9% give or take) of undecided voters. What is troubling for the usual suspects is that these numbers do not leave much wiggle room for either shaving Aquino’s votes or padding his opponents’.

Finally, this afternoon, the Supreme Court issued a statement saying it had rejected the petitions to postpone the elections.

So the story on everybody’s lips today -whether one attended any of the Mitings de Avance- is this. The Estrada-Binay tandem are front and center, based on the last pre-election survey, by SWS, which was formally released today but leaked yesterday.

Estrada has overtaken Villar for second place in the presidential derby (though Aquino has a two-to-one lead over Estrada)

While Binay has zommed up in direct proportion to how Legarda is crashing, putting Binay neck-and-neck with Roxas. SWS lists Binay first because he has a fractional margin over Roxas.

So the big story is: they’re baaack! And political junkies are are atwitter over the hows and whys. It might be good at this point to review what public opinion polling has been saying since my last update on this (see Second Leg, March 12, 2010).

Social Weather Stations‘ May 2-3 poll is the freshest; the two other surveys most political camps consider seriously are Pulse Asia and the in-house effort of The Manila Standard Today. A good reading on the role of surveys is in Random Salt: A consensus in the making.

In chronological order, starting April, here were the surveys prior to the latest (May) SWS:

I. Social Weather Stations April 16-19 survey. This has the most complete reporting of interesting data, though SWS says on its website it will publish corresponding updates 2-3 days after BusinessWorld published its findings (today).

For President:

By socio-economic class (trends and breakdown)

By region:

For the National Capital Region and Balance Luzon (basically 56% of voters):

For the Visayas:

For Mindanao:

For Vice-President:

II. Manila Standard Today April 25-27 survey.
For President:
By region/socio-enomic class:

For Vice-President:

By region/socio-economic class:

III. Pulse Asia April 23-25 survey.

(As always, check out the blog alphanumeric for analysis. See also Mon Casiple’s The last survey.)

For President:

For Vice-President:

The three major surveys all serve to act as checks on each other; Pulse has been the first to report, the MST poll tends to come in the middle, and SWS is last in the survey cycle: hence, in the findings reproduced above, SWS represented the end of the March-April cycle and Pulse kicked off the final April-May cycle. But the latter two generally confirms the findings of the first.

Estrada’s numbers were generally steady, but dipped then recovered as Villar’s numbers dipped; Villar ofr his part lost momentum while failing to send Aquino into a sustained dive -instead, he held steady and has regained momentum at the last part of the campaign.

Binay has made a series of significant jumps (the first in Dec.-Jan.), particularly as Legarda’s numbers have crashed -his gains in direct relation to Legarda’s losses. Roxas, on the other hand, has been gliding downwards.

There’s an interesting story here, and it’s about the clash in approaches to campaigning evident in all the campaigns: between those who believed in “air war” and those who believe in “ground war.”

The most extreme practitioner, perhaps, was Villar who believed in carpet-bombing; but his efforts failed; Aquino has had a mixed record in terms of the air war both in terms of initial logistics and an evolving ad strategy; Estrada and Binay, however, stuck to a tried-and-tested formula and in this, while Estrada has regained his former numbers, it’s Binay who perhaps offered something more attractive to voters -the Makati Dream.

Roxas may have been too focused on Legarda, not noticing Binay chugging along, gaining momentum until that momentum had already been reached -Escudero’s declaration in favor of Aquino-Binay being the open declaration of coming in for the kill. This points to another interesting phenomenon: that there are supporters of Aquino more comfortable with Binay as Veep than Roxas.

At the same time, in terms of the ground war, Aquino has proven himself an able campaigner on the stump, while Estrada from the start went on the stump in traditional style: only the two have been reported as really being able to excite large crowds. So as with all things, the dividends seem to be going to the candidates who managed to strike a balance between air and ground war methods.

Almost an Epic Fail

Posted on May 6, 2010 by mlq3

C’est magnifique, mais ce n’est pas la guerre [It is magnificent, but it is not war].

—Pierre Bosquet, 1854 (on the ill-fated charge of the Light Brigade)

For 24 hours it seemed the effort of people like Christian Monsod (see his May 1 commentary ‘Let’s not feed people’s fears with gov’t plots’ ) to calm the waters and boost public confidence in the coming elections would fail. As machines started being rolled out their testing led to a barrage of reports of glitches.

I was told that Smartmatic had a meeting with the Comelec Tuesday night and asked for a 30 day delay in the holding of elections. The Comelec rejected the appeal, and the result was yesterday’s press conference. However, Comelec Spokesman James Jimenez denied a request was made.

I don’t think we should discount the breathtaking ambition of the logistical feats Smartmatic is supposed to accomplish if elections are to be held on Monday. Everything from a pledged massive deployment of the Philippine Air Force, even the drafting of 13 private choppers, the lending of private aircraft, in a logistical operation that has all the characteristics of the Berlin Airlift -except the coverage is from Aparri to Jolo.

Wednesday marked the maximum point of doubt over whether the Comelec would end up postponing the elections or not.

What’s clear is there was s a proposal to postpone or delay the elections coming from the Palace (or the President’s election lawyer: same difference!). Overlooked in the concentration on technical issues is that a postponement would allow the President to appoint the next Chief Justice even before elections.

The Palace, after “supporting” the call of the President’s election lawyer, Romulo Macalintal, backpedaled and so Macalintal fell on his sword and resigned.

It may be entirely possible a majority in the Comelec as well as Smartmatic itself believed the fallout from a postponement of the polls would be unbearable. The problem is foreign journalists and observers have already started arriving, and the electorate has already geared up for polls. Not to mention the fury this would have provoked among the candidates and their supporters. So that proposal had to shelved but at least a sense of urgency and looming crisis was already propagated.

As it is, the Comelec has pledged to pursue matters along three tracks:

1. Elections to proceed with machines per precinct as planned.

2. Contingencies for the manual counting of votes in up to 30% of the precincts as previously planned for in the Comelec’s own contingency planning.

3. The provision of Municipal counting machines if the first fallback of bringing ballots to be counted by he machines of neighboring counting machines fails; this will, of course, involving the securing and transportation of ballots in wholesale batches to the regional/municipal counting machines.

Further damage control is taking place, with the Supreme Court ordering the Comelec (news released this evening) to disclose all poll automation details, from the source code to certifications and the procedures for random manual audit terms and protocols.

If one adopts Christian Monsod’s arguments -and by all accounts, he believes this week’s snafus are technical glitches and not because of a plot- then all’s well that ends well. I personally believe that what was instructive was that the Palace was prepared to try to push a postponement of the elections, and only retreated when the public alarm threatened to have international repercussions -and giving at least some of those in the Comelec the benefit of the doubt, perhaps a faction prevailed upon the whole to push through with the elections rather than send the credibility of the whole process into a tailspin.

Still, there are avenues for opportunity for an administration that thrives when the landscape is shrouded in the fog of war. Considering the expanding list of options -from manual counting to fully automated counting in precincts to the automated counting of ballots in other places- the opportunities for human error, and remarkable events to transpire, expands, too: and with it, the possible scenarios to consider and possibly profit from.

These are made even more interesting by what will be tomorrow’s main news: the publication of the last pre-election survey, the results of which were already leaked today. More on that tomorrow.

And they are made even more intriguing by other factors which I will delve into on Saturday.

The Long View: Two to trust

Posted on May 6, 2010 by mlq3

The Long View
Two to trust
By Manuel L. Quezon III
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 22:53:00 05/05/2010

THE FUNDAMENTAL CHALLENGE FACING OUR next chief executive is whether he will confuse the good of the state with his own political and financial well-being, and whether out of a sense of genuine devotion to the country or the temptations of wielding power, he will consider every formal and informal limitation on his ambitions as an irksome burden or a solemn obligation. The first decade of this century has seen us lurching from one extreme to the other: slothful laxity on one hand, and remorseless Machiavellianism on the other.

There are three quotes that best distill my beliefs in terms of our aspirations—and limitations—as a people and what this requires of our leaders. The first dates from a talk between two senators in 1922 with regard to public expectations of leaders: “All they want is to have the present problem solved, and solved with the least pain. That is all.” Another, from 1938, where the same senator (by then president) told an American friend, “The people care more for good government than they do for self-government… the fear is that the head of state may either exceed his powers, or abuse them by improprieties. To keep order is his main purpose.”

For good or ill, this about describes to me our expectations of the presidency and the parameters that define a president’s room for maneuver in terms of the law and public opinion.

While many have come to the painful conclusion that representative government cannot be based simply on a periodic referendum on leaders, the overall reality is that most citizens lapse into apathy in between elections. While our NGO culture thrives on the assumption that public participation improves governance—keeping citizens involved and officials on their toes—it also seems clear to me that while a great many take civic affairs seriously, an even greater number desire peace, quiet and stability at all costs. And that they would prefer a highly imperfect rule of law with an inherent potential to uphold life, liberty and property rather than risk extreme situations or solutions that imperil any of the three—or all of them.

The preservation of life, liberty and property is why government exists; but this also means, as Randy David has pointed out, that so long as impersonal rules don’t fully hold sway, we have to entrust governance to leaders for whom personal honor remains something to jealously protect, and for whom a deep sense of responsibility instills a commitment to exercising self-control in the face of the frustrations inherent to presidential office.

For this reason, this means by which order is kept and authority maintained also represents a problem, as identified in the first State of the Nation Address in 1936: “The army is a double-edged sword. It is the arm of the government which is the last resort for the enforcement of the laws and so compel obedience to constituted authority, for the maintenance of peace and order, and for the defense of the national integrity and liberty. But as contemporary history proves to us, the army can also be a disturber of peace and the enemy of law and established government, and in many instances it has been the instrument for the overthrow of constitutional regime. In building up our national defense, and in organizing the regular armed forces of the Islands, these tragic lessons of history must be constantly borne in mind, and it behooves us, who are for the time being entrusted with the responsibility of leadership over our nation, to be forever watchful and vigilant lest we sow the seeds of a possible future misuse of our armed forces.”

Every president since 1935 has taken an oath to “do justice to every man and consecrate myself to the service of the Nation.” We are now called upon to select who will next take that oath—and who might, in an emergency, be required to succeed to the same office as vice president.

Together, Benigno Aquino III as president and Manuel Roxas II as vice president, have the necessary personal characteristics of leadership and managerial ability to provide an administration characterized by self-control: one that can bring our country back from the brink of executive self-aggrandizement, legislative cynicism and reckless legal experimentation and institutional subversion that has been the path of choice of the present dispensation.

Theirs is a political partnership forged from the deep frustrations we have all felt: whether exasperation with petty scheming of the present gang, or alarm and outrage over the relentless empire-building of its principals and associates. They are at the head of a deeply Centrist coalition that represents the centrist values the majority holds; and because of this, offer the best prospects of healing and stability.

Both men have a keen sense of the balance that needs to be restored—and which needs to be struck—so that the government does its job while at the same time according the public relief from a decade of divisions and scandals. Temperance, justice and mercy—these, I believe, are fundamental qualities of both men, achieved, not because they were born perfect but rather because they have seen how politics must have a larger end in sight than merely the accumulation of power.

We cannot tell what the future will bring. We can only discern whether, all things being equal, in the hysteria and din of the campaign, we can determine who, as of now, are deserving of our trust. Aquino and Roxas are two to trust, because from start to finish their campaign has been anchored not on doubting the Filipino, but on faith in the Filipino as better than those currently claiming to lead us.

Give them the tools they need to do their jobs: your vote on May 10 and your sustained vigilance thereafter.

The Long View: The daring dozen

Posted on May 3, 2010 by mlq3

The Long View
The daring dozen
By Manuel L. Quezon III
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 22:45:00 05/02/2010

WHILE most people seem decided on their presidential and vice-presidential and even local choices, they seem less sure about their list for the Senate. Some people ask me who I have on my list, hence my sharing it with you today. But first, something on how these choices were arrived at.

First, the job of a senator is not just about legislation, it’s about oversight, with the latter being more relevant and required than the former. The House tends to be less focused on national concerns, and thus more parochial in its approach to laws, and generally more obliging of the chief executive. The Senate has to act as a foil to both the House and the chief executive not just in terms of laws, but also in appointments and the scrutiny of treaties. Yet it also needs to conduct its own business smoothly, while knowing when to be cooperative.

I have a preference for candidates with a secular orientation, and who have demonstrated opposition to the administration since 2005 or who took the step of breaking ties with it prior to the campaign. I also believe the Senate plays a crucial role in the success or failure of any administration and thus its coming composition needs to be considered.

A Liberal administration needs to elect five senators to have a solid basis for a majority. The composition of the Liberal group should also represent a balance between experience, new thought and ideas, as well as different backgrounds and regions: the Liberal senatorial slate, on the whole, struck the best balance while retaining a centrist perspective, allowing for the possibility of teamwork. Two non-Liberal candidates, however, are on my list too.

So here are those I intend to vote for, in the order in which their names will appear in the ballot.

1. ACOSTA, Jr. Nereus O. brings a keen environmental perspective to legislation, together with an academic’s appreciation for the importance of policy not just in terms of crafting legislation but in oversight. He also brings with him a firm grasp of the needs of Mindanao.

5. BAUTISTA, Martin D. has put scientific integrity above theology; he will bring much-needed expertise in terms of the legislation that may be needed to further reform and modernize public health throughout the country. He has also been a forceful exponent of good government and Social Justice.

7. BIAZON, Rozzano Rufino B. is better known to me as a blogger, and I for one believe he represents the effort of younger politicians to make their work and deliberations more transparent and accessible to the public.

12. DE VENECIA, Jose III P. gets my vote in recognition of his service to the country in exposing the NBN-ZTE scam, the grit he demonstrated during subsequent investigations and the persecution he endured which will make him a dedicated and competent legislator aware of how modernizing the country will need more than the old ways. His grasp of technological issues is much needed in the Senate.

14. DRILON, Franklin M. brings much-needed experience in marshaling legislative and political support necessary to achieve not only a mutually respectful relationship between House and Senate, but between the legislature and the bureaucracy and the chief executive as well; he would make a brisk yet consultative Senate president.

19. GUINGONA, Teofisto III D. Can be expected to take up where Benigno Aquino III left off: providing scrutiny of the budget at a time of fiscal stress. Together with his fellow graduates from the House, he will bring a familiarity with the legislative process to an institution where his own potential for national service can be further honed.

20. HONTIVEROS-BARAQUEL, Ana will bring a keen sense of Social Justice to the deliberations of the Senate, and will be a driving force for reform and democratization in the upper house. She can be expected to provide positive representation for the disadvantaged.

26. LAO, Yasmin B. is much-needed to provide voice and insight to legislation—and treaties, including peace agreements—from the perspective of women, Moros and Mindanao. Hers will be a powerful voice for these neglected constituencies and a valuable link to NGOs as they work to make citizen’s participation in government a reality.

40. OSMEÑA, Sergio III is not known for being a team player but is the kind of maverick the Senate has done well having in the past and should have again; he is conscientious about legislation and knows how to conduct investigations without being obnoxious.

48. RECTO, Ralph G. has tasted defeat, and this, together with his finally leaving the administration after it wouldn’t even let him do his job, may have tempered the more wheeling-dealing instincts of his past; a new mandate is his chance to achieve statesmanship and redemption.

51. ROCO, Sonia M. should have been elected in 2007 and will be a worthy torchbearer for her husband’s ideals in the Senate.

54. TAMANO, Adel A. gets my vote because he has come the closest to actually upholding the slogan of his party of Country Above All. He has come to demonstrate a fundamental decency and sobriety that, together with his legal and educator’s background, will serve the country well as a reasonable member of the Senate.

For Party-list: 58. AKBAYAN or 89. ANG LADLAD.

Manuel L. Quezon III: The Daily Dose

Punditry. Politics. History. Commentary.

Monthly Archives: May 2010

The Long View: Notes for the coming inaugural

The Long View: Congressional tightrope

The Long View: Form and substance

The Long View: The mandate

The Long View: Glee

Lost in the Counting

The Comeback Kids

Almost an Epic Fail

The Long View: Two to trust

The Long View: The daring dozen