E·N·Q·U·I·R·Y
DEMAREE J.B. RAVAL
Railroad 2004
Sunday, 06 13, 2004
“Railroad” is defined in Oxford Dictionary as “sending a person to prison by false evidence.” Also, it is synonymous to “rush.”
The joint committee to canvass constituted by Congress is hell-bent on tallying the votes cast for President and Vice-President in the May 10 elections, toward sending to Malacañang the candidate garnering the highest number of votes based on certificates of canvass (CoC) whose authenticity, genuineness and due execution have yet to be established. By sheer force of numbers, those in the committee comprising the majority of 16 as against six are rushing to beat their self-imposed deadline of two weeks before June 30 to finish what they call the “ministerial and administrative” job of canvassing.
A joint committee of 14, when there were seven candidates for President, did its job well in 1992, without any rush to beat any deadline. It allowed the candidates’ counsel 30 minutes to scrutinize one CoC and the accompanying statement of votes by municipality (SoV/M) and the statement of votes by precinct (SoV/P) as required under Section 29 of Republic Act (RA) 7166, and only two at a time for a total of one hour. Thereafter, the counsels were given more than five minutes each to expound on their observations, one after the other.
Now, the joint committee of 22, when there are five candidates for President, allows only three minutes scrutiny per CoC, without the SoV/M or SoV/P, five at a time, for a total of 15 minutes. The counsels are now required to give their consolidated observations, not one after the other.
There is now a mere cursory, if not total absence of, discussions by the committee of the completeness of the documents subject of the canvass. The chairmen declare “NOTED!” with regularity of the counsel’s observations. No debate has been taking place on the completeness, authenticity, due execution or identification of the documents. The most mechanical motion of a member precedes the tabulation, without as much as determining first the threshold questions: Are the documents authentic? Have they been duly executed? Have they been properly identified? In 1992, the tallying was deferred whenever a CoC was not accompanied by SoV/M or SoV/P; now, notwithstanding the incompleteness of the documents, tallying must proceed.
How, indeed, can one make a comparison of the votes cast if only the CoC is submitted, without the SoV/M and the SoV/P?
How can one pass judgment on the authenticity of the documents, if the Comelec has yet to disclose the security marks? The current chairman of the House panel in the committee once said in 1998: “Without Congress knowing what the ‘secret mark’ is, no one can ever know whether a CoC is genuine or authentic if the parchments over which the votes are stated ‘cannot be determined as to genuineness, how can one declare the certificate of canvass authentic and genuine’?” Why is he now taking a different tack, even as his basis for taking an about face is a case decided by the Supreme Court in 1970?
How can one state with reasonable certainty that the documents have been duly executed, if the specimen signatures of all the members of the Board of Canvassers have not been submitted, as basis for comparison? The members of the BoC have not even come forward to identify these documents. The committee is tallying blind!
Except for one or two members of the House panel, and the opposition members, not one has even made the move to scrutinize the CoC laid out on the table. Yet, how can they make an informed judgment as to the authenticity of the documents, much less the completeness of the documents? When they vote – and how they vote is expected notwithstanding the force of the arguments against any tallying – they vote as if they have seen it all and understand everything. They raise their hands in mock surrender to some unseen force and then proceed to tally the votes.
The election returns (ER) are yet to be visited, despite the clear showing of a doubt as to the veracity of the votes cast. What is it exactly that the members of the committee fear will be exposed if the ER are to be opened? They know what everybody knows to be in those ER; that Freudian slip of the Senate president was a dead giveaway. The massive fraud will be exposed, which is why the train must go along its journey, without any stop to check the ER, notwithstanding the clear showing in the CoC, SoV/M and SoV/P that there is a serious doubt as to the veracity of the votes stated therein.
DEMAREE J.B. RAVAL
Railroad 2004
Sunday, 06 13, 2004
“Railroad” is defined in Oxford Dictionary as “sending a person to prison by false evidence.” Also, it is synonymous to “rush.”
The joint committee to canvass constituted by Congress is hell-bent on tallying the votes cast for President and Vice-President in the May 10 elections, toward sending to Malacañang the candidate garnering the highest number of votes based on certificates of canvass (CoC) whose authenticity, genuineness and due execution have yet to be established. By sheer force of numbers, those in the committee comprising the majority of 16 as against six are rushing to beat their self-imposed deadline of two weeks before June 30 to finish what they call the “ministerial and administrative” job of canvassing.
A joint committee of 14, when there were seven candidates for President, did its job well in 1992, without any rush to beat any deadline. It allowed the candidates’ counsel 30 minutes to scrutinize one CoC and the accompanying statement of votes by municipality (SoV/M) and the statement of votes by precinct (SoV/P) as required under Section 29 of Republic Act (RA) 7166, and only two at a time for a total of one hour. Thereafter, the counsels were given more than five minutes each to expound on their observations, one after the other.
Now, the joint committee of 22, when there are five candidates for President, allows only three minutes scrutiny per CoC, without the SoV/M or SoV/P, five at a time, for a total of 15 minutes. The counsels are now required to give their consolidated observations, not one after the other.
There is now a mere cursory, if not total absence of, discussions by the committee of the completeness of the documents subject of the canvass. The chairmen declare “NOTED!” with regularity of the counsel’s observations. No debate has been taking place on the completeness, authenticity, due execution or identification of the documents. The most mechanical motion of a member precedes the tabulation, without as much as determining first the threshold questions: Are the documents authentic? Have they been duly executed? Have they been properly identified? In 1992, the tallying was deferred whenever a CoC was not accompanied by SoV/M or SoV/P; now, notwithstanding the incompleteness of the documents, tallying must proceed.
How, indeed, can one make a comparison of the votes cast if only the CoC is submitted, without the SoV/M and the SoV/P?
How can one pass judgment on the authenticity of the documents, if the Comelec has yet to disclose the security marks? The current chairman of the House panel in the committee once said in 1998: “Without Congress knowing what the ‘secret mark’ is, no one can ever know whether a CoC is genuine or authentic if the parchments over which the votes are stated ‘cannot be determined as to genuineness, how can one declare the certificate of canvass authentic and genuine’?” Why is he now taking a different tack, even as his basis for taking an about face is a case decided by the Supreme Court in 1970?
How can one state with reasonable certainty that the documents have been duly executed, if the specimen signatures of all the members of the Board of Canvassers have not been submitted, as basis for comparison? The members of the BoC have not even come forward to identify these documents. The committee is tallying blind!
Except for one or two members of the House panel, and the opposition members, not one has even made the move to scrutinize the CoC laid out on the table. Yet, how can they make an informed judgment as to the authenticity of the documents, much less the completeness of the documents? When they vote – and how they vote is expected notwithstanding the force of the arguments against any tallying – they vote as if they have seen it all and understand everything. They raise their hands in mock surrender to some unseen force and then proceed to tally the votes.
The election returns (ER) are yet to be visited, despite the clear showing of a doubt as to the veracity of the votes cast. What is it exactly that the members of the committee fear will be exposed if the ER are to be opened? They know what everybody knows to be in those ER; that Freudian slip of the Senate president was a dead giveaway. The massive fraud will be exposed, which is why the train must go along its journey, without any stop to check the ER, notwithstanding the clear showing in the CoC, SoV/M and SoV/P that there is a serious doubt as to the veracity of the votes stated therein.
Why not visit the ER for all precincts in Sto. Tomas, Pangasinan or Tipo-tipo, Basilan, or Wao, Lanao del Sur, or Palompon, Leyte, ad infinitum? Or those from Pampanga, Cebu, etcetera? The irregularities are not few; they are many, in fact too many one will puke at the sight of them. The riddles of the immaculately clean CoC have been solved by the opposition, and I wonder how the numbers in the committee will fall once these are detailed in the deliberations, granting the opposition will be allowed. Those ER must be opened.
At the rate the opposition members in the committee are being outvoted at every turn, and the regularity of the banging of the gavel to signal the end of perfunctory discussions, the canvassing could be over within the week, no matter the incompleteness of the documents, no matter the failure to establish their authenticity and genuineness, no matter the non-production of the ER not reported in the CoC, notwithstanding the failure to have the documents properly identified, notwithstanding the alterations and erasures, notwithstanding the doubts as to the veracity of the votes stated, etcetera.
In its rush to arrive as its destination, in complete disregard of the Constitution, RA 7166, and its own rules, Railroad 2004 could get derailed by some force we thought would never ever rise again. Or, if by some luck the train arrives on time, it would nonetheless be sending its prized passenger to prison surrounded by the questionable CoC that serve as ticket to the Palace by the stinking river.
For comments about this website:Webmaster@tribune.net.ph
At the rate the opposition members in the committee are being outvoted at every turn, and the regularity of the banging of the gavel to signal the end of perfunctory discussions, the canvassing could be over within the week, no matter the incompleteness of the documents, no matter the failure to establish their authenticity and genuineness, no matter the non-production of the ER not reported in the CoC, notwithstanding the failure to have the documents properly identified, notwithstanding the alterations and erasures, notwithstanding the doubts as to the veracity of the votes stated, etcetera.
In its rush to arrive as its destination, in complete disregard of the Constitution, RA 7166, and its own rules, Railroad 2004 could get derailed by some force we thought would never ever rise again. Or, if by some luck the train arrives on time, it would nonetheless be sending its prized passenger to prison surrounded by the questionable CoC that serve as ticket to the Palace by the stinking river.
For comments about this website:Webmaster@tribune.net.ph
No comments:
Post a Comment