ALLEGATIONS of election irregularities are easy to dismiss when they come from a losing candidate, but when university professors with no clear political biases say something is rotten, we need to pay attention.
This, in fact, was what professors Antonio Contreras of De La Salle University and Rogelio Quevedo of the University of the Philippines said of the recently concluded automated elections, citing two simple, verifiable facts that strongly suggest that the poll results were being manipulated to produce a certain result.
Fact 1: Some time after the polls closed on May 9, a technician from the Commission on Elections IT service provider, Smartmatic, introduced a new script into the automated election system (AES).
Fact 2: Following the introduction of the new script, the one-million vote margin enjoyed by vice presidential candidate Ferdinand Marcos Jr. over administration candidate Rep. Leni Robredo steadily diminished, as the latter posted strong gains that were manifested in a straight, linear pattern.
That new code had been introduced into the system is indisputable. There is evidence of it, not only in the altered hash code or checksum, but also in the admission by Smartmatic project manager Marlon Garcia that he uploaded the new script, ostensibly to correct a typographical error in names with the Spanish “ñ” character.
The linear pattern in which Robredo’s votes piled up after the new script was introduced is also verifiable—as Contreras pointed out.
A straight linear increase is not normal, Contreras said, especially when the election results were being transmitted from many areas in no particular order.
“There should have been an up and down [movement, with] spikes depending on the areas coming in but in the vice presidential race, there was only one line upwards and then after the 80-percent transmission rate, Senator [Ferdinand] Marcos [Jr. slowed down] in a linear [way] that was really abnormal,” Contreras said.
It was during the hours after the script was introduced that Marcos’ one-million vote lead was overtaken, the two professors said.
Another disturbing pattern emerged, with data showing that Marcos’ lead was dwindling by 40,000 votes for every one percent that was transmitted after the 80 percent mark, Contreras said.
The beneficiary of the abnormal data in the elections results was clearly administration candidate Robredo, Contreras said. “It is obviously Robredo because she was the one who took the lead shortly after the hash codes were changed.”
None of this, of course, is proof positive of cheating. Without further investigation, it is impossible to conclude that there was even a causal relationship between Fact 1 and Fact 2. But the disturbing patterns observed by the two university professors demand at the very least that the Comelec agree to an independent, forensic examination of the automated election system that will reveal much more, including a history of changes made to the system. This, and not the mere assurances of the Comelec or its partner in the quick count, the Parish Pastoral Council for Responsible Voting, is the only way to put to rest suspicions that the election was rigged, and that the will of the people had been subverted.