In the event of failure of elections.

With the Supreme Court dismissal of the petition filed by Rep. Pablo Garcia questioning the poll automation for the 2010 elections, does it now spell smooth sailing for the full automation?

While the Comelec assures that everything is "go" in implementing full automation, its success is still as delicately aleatory and chancy to invoke apprehensive crossed fingers.

The partial computerization in the last Autonomous Regions for Muslim Mindanao election isn't a sure gauge as basis. For one, the automation seemed to focus on the tabulation of votes and their transmission, or partial only. For another, with limited geographical sphere of the ARMM, the Comelec and its military/police deputies had coped with the coverage.

Admittedly, the Comelec has lately conducted seminars and actual demo in the use of poll electronics, among others, and covered by TV photo ops, ostensibly to orient the viewing electorate. But then, full automation in the May 2010 elections is an initial venture nationwide and, as maiden launching of such sensitive projects often goes pfft, chances are that a thousand and one problems could crop up from many polling places.

For instance, the electronic automation system with varied parts of software and gadgets, electrical connections and intricate wirings, etc., may bog down or conk out. Is there an expert at every polling place to attend to such eventualities?

Another, in the ARMM election there were some incidents of ballot box snatching, and like election offenses, what sure security measures that similar shenanigans could be obviated in the 2010 elections? Suppose goons snatch the electronic units and gadgets, or destroy them to paralyze the system, what counterfoils are there to uphold the electoral integrity?

For still another, the automation depends for its operation on a steady source of power, like electricity or battery power. Thus, even if such sophisticated gadgetry may have 100% efficiency and would not conk out, how is the source of power assured?

Of course, the main factor is whether or not the members of the precinct board of inspectors who will man, monitor, and maintain the full operation and efficiency of the automation system, are themselves well-trained and well-oriented as to be equal to their responsibility.

If the automation system bogs down, or somehow unusable, is there an alternative Plan B to take over. What substitute system, or some safety valves to obviate failure of election? Are the precinct boards of inspectors, ready to carry on the electoral process?

At the back of the voters' minds is the 50-50 odd of election failure of the still unproven poll automation nationwide. As Senator Francis Escudero candidly opines, Comelec is not prepared for full poll computerization, if measured against that of USA where it's only 87% automated. Foreseeing such failure of elections, Escudero is preempting by filing with the Senate a joint resolution that 5 days before June 30, 2010, both Houses should choose a new Senate president-elect as caretaker president. This is an urgency measure to fill up the hiatus inasmuch as such eventuality is not covered by a Constitutional provision.

On the other hand, partylist representatives Neri Colmenares, Satur Ocampo, and Teodoro Casino are filing a bill to preempt PGMA's stay in power, should there be failure of elections, most likely to be caused by the precipitate automation in the 2010 elections. Their bill provides, inter alia, for the Chief Justice to assume the presidency until a new president shall have qualified.

 Whatever merits of the Escudero plan and the partylist bill, it's worth mulling over in detail by the legal academe, the IBP, and the judicial academy. In short, it's obvious that the full use of poll automation now isn't surefire to be efficient, effective, and reflective of free, clean, and orderly elections. Failure of elections caused thereby is a 50-50 conundrum.

* * *

Email: [email protected]