Getting bolder

I got an urgent text from Jing Mable of We Care Foundation that she received advice from an Atty. Bantug from the Legal Affairs in the Senate that the Antipolo Pcos Machines would be transferred to the Comelec. We Care Foundation is among the groups who are working hard to get at the bottom of how the May 10 elections were conducted by Smartmatic-TIM and Comelec.

So far they have been doing this through ordinary methods of redress, accumulating evidence, talking to people, applying to the courts. They have not had much support from media. So it is not surprising that the campaign has not reached the public. The opposite is happening. With no support and with time against the voters-protestors, those behind the alleged wholesale election automatic fraud are getting bolder. They think they can do what they want by simply closing the book on fraud in the May 10 election.

Comelec did not bother to answer letters from the groups on their findings why all the security features required by the constitutional body during elections were put aside leaving the process completely in the hands of a foreign election contractor — Smartmatic-TIM. There is also as far as I know a mandamus for Comelec to reply to the request to open the machines and compare the actual ballots with the results. What is happening?

If the 60 Antipolo pcos were transferred to the Comelec without an investigation or even the courtesy of an answer to letters sent to them by the citizens groups, it looks like a move to erase the evidence against them. No wonder the protesters’ requests were frantic. They were texting all who might be able to help stop the transfer. But what about the Senate — why does it allow such flagrant acts?

*      *      *

Dindo Donato, a lawyer member also of We Care in response said there were two ways to stop the transfer.

“One is to immediately procure the conduct of a legislative investigation (i.e. Senate or House) whereby the appropriate committee in charge of election matters takes custody of the machines and subjects them to digital forensic examination by government experts (i.e. NBI or CIDG). The 60 machines can then be transferred to the appropriate legislative committee instead of to the Comelec.

Another is the immediate conduct of a criminal investigation based on a criminal complaint for “hacking” filed with the appropriate government investigation agency (i.e. NBI or CIDG) and involving the same digital forensic examination. In this alternative approach, the 60 machines can be transferred to the appropriate criminal investigation agency instead of to the Comelec.”

“Regarding the letter appeal of Antipolo residents to Senate President Enrile to simply stop the transfer and continue with the investigation, this may not be the proper legal approach because as previously explained in the Senate letter to them, the National Board of Canvassers (of which the Senate is a part) has already completed its task of canvassing the votes for president and vice-president. The Senate will have to act in another capacity, this time as a legislative body, if it would like to legally justify its continued custody of the 60 pcos machines.

This approach however will need a “champion” in the Senate, most likely the Chairman of the committee in charge of election matters, to make the appropriate representations with the Senate President for the transfer of custody to the committee instead of to the Comelec.”

*      *      *

He adds that “as previously discussed, the digital forensic examination should focus on the alleged unlawful “hacking” of the AES punishable under Sec. 33(a) of the Electronic Commerce Act. The examination should cover not only the 60 Antipolo pcos machines and their cf cards, but also the transmission equipment used in Antipolo, and the main servers (in Laguna?) that received and processed the transmissions. In other words, the examination should cover the entire AES that recorded, transmitted and processed the Antipolo vote.

*      *      *

He also sent the text of Republic Act No. 8792 providing for the use of electronic commercial and non commercial transactions. There are penalties for unlawful use thereof and other purposes.

It enumerates the penalties for violating the rules of electronic transaction, that are punishable by fine and/or imprisonment.:

“Hacking or crackling with refers to unauthorized access into or interference in a computer system/server or information and communication system; or any access in order to corrupt, alter, steal, or destroy using a computer or other similar information and communication devices, without the knowledge and consent of the owner of the computer or information and communications system, including the introduction of computer viruses and the like, resulting in the corruption, destruction, alteration, theft or loss of electronic data messages or electronic documents shall be punished by a minimum fine of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P 100,000) and a maximum commensurate to the damage incurred and a mandatory imprisonment of six (6) months to three (3) years;

“Piracy or the unauthorized copying, reproduction, dissemination, or distribution, importation, use, removal, alteration, substitution, modification, storage, uploading, downloading, communication, making available to the public, or broadcasting of protected material, electronic signature or copyrighted works including legally protected sound recording or phonograms or information material on protected works, through the use of telecommunication networks, such as, but not limited to, the internet, in a manner that infringes intellectual property rights shall be punished by a minimum fine of One Hundred Thousand pesos (P 100,000) and a maximum commensurate to the damage incurred and a mandatory imprisonment of six (6) months to three (3) years;

Violations of the Consumer Act of Republic Act No. 7394 and other relevant to pertinent laws through transaction covered by or using electronic data messages or electronic documents, shall be penalized with the same penalties as provided in those laws;

Other violations of the provisions of this Act, shall be penalized with a maximum penalty of One Million Pesos (P1,000,000) or six (6) years imprisonment.

In Section 37 on Statutory Interpretation it says that — Unless otherwise expressly provided for, the interpretation of this Act shall give due regard to its international origin and the need to promote uniformity in its application and the observance of good faith in international trade relations. The generally accepted principles of international law and convention and electronic commerce shall likewise be considered.

*      *      *

If this is the way government institutions handle something as basic as the alleged wholesale fraud in the May 10 elections, what moral authority does it have to deal with graft and corruption?