How does the PH automated election system work?

The PCOS machines

The PCOS machines scan the ballots fed into them, then count the ovals that voters have
shaded to vote for their preferred national and local candidates.

Canvassing, transmission

When polls close on election day, the PCOS machines transmit the vote counts – also
known as election returns or ERs – to the different servers and canvassing centers in the
AES.

The consolidation/canvassing system (CCS) receives and processes these ERs. The
software used by the CCS, called the real-time election information system (REIS), reads
incoming data and canvasses the votes.

Meanwhile, the electronic results transmission service (ERTS) handles the actual
transmission of votes. The main channel is through public telecommunications
networks, with transmission via satellite as back-up.

From the PCOS machines, the ERs are transmitted to the central server, to a
transparency server, and to the municipal board of canvassers (MBOC).

1
From the MBOC, the results are transmitted to the provincial board of canvassers
(PBOC), where the results are collated and then transmitted to the national board of
canvassers (NBOC), where the results for national positions are canvassed.

The MBOC and PBOC also separately beam ERs to the central server.

In 2013, results from provinces in the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao

(ARMM) were likewise transmitted to the ARMM regional board of canvassers – where
results for ARMM governor, vice governor, and assemblymen are tallied – before being
transmitted to the central server.

For the 2016 polls, there will be a separate server installed in Congress, where members
of the Senate and the House of Representatives will convene to canvass the votes and
officialy proclaim the winning President and Vice President.

Transmitted election results will also be posted via the Internet, via a website set up by
the Comelec.

2
 REMEDIES BEFORE ELECTION

1. Sec. 68 – Disqualification (proper)

2. Sec. 69 – Nuisance candidate
3. Sec. 78 – Material misrepresentation as to the material fact to their COC

Section 68. Disqualifications. –

Any candidate who, in an action or protest in which he is a party is declared by final
decision of a competent court guilty of, or found by the Commission of having
(a) given money or other material consideration to influence, induce or corrupt the
voters or public officials performing electoral functions;
(b) committed acts of terrorism to enhance his candidacy;
(c) spent in his election campaign an amount in excess of that allowed by this Code;
(d) solicited, received or made any contribution prohibited under Sections 89, 95, 96, 97
and 104; or
(e) violated any of Sections 80, 83, 85, 86 and 261, paragraphs d, e, k, v, and cc,
subparagraph 6, shall be disqualified from continuing as a candidate, or if he has been
elected, from holding the office. Any person who is a permanent resident of or an
immigrant to a foreign country shall not be qualified to run for any elective office
under this Code, unless said person has waived his status as permanent resident or
immigrant of a foreign country in accordance with the residence requirement
provided for in the election laws.

Note: candidate is qualified but he committed an election offense.

Hence, he can be substituted

Section 69. Nuisance candidates. –

The Commission may motu proprio or upon a verified petition of an interested party,
refuse to give due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy if it is shown that said
certificate has been filed to put the election process in mockery or disrepute or to cause
confusion among the voters by the similarity of the names of the registered candidates or
by other circumstances or acts which clearly demonstrate that the candidate has no bona
fide intention to run for the office for which the certificate of candidacy has been filed and
thus prevent a faithful determination of the true will of the electorate.

Who is a nuisance: one who has no bona fide intention to run as a candidate.

When to file: within 5 days from the last filing of COC.

Comelec may also act moto proprio.

Note: No substitution

3
Section 78. Petition to deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy. –
A verified petition seeking to deny due course or to cancel a certificate of candidacy may
be filed by the person exclusively on the ground that any material representation
contained therein as required under Section 74 hereof is false. The petition may be filed
at any time not later than twenty-five days from the time of the filing of the certificate of
candidacy and shall be decided, after due notice and hearing, not later than fifteen days
before the election.

Ground: Material misrepresentation

(Means, deliberate intent to mislead or misinform or hide a fact, which
would otherwise make a candidate ineligible.)

When to file: At any time not later than 25 days from the filing of COC.

Loong vs. COMELEC –

The 25 days is mandatory, it will start to run from the filing of COC not from the date of
discovery.

Decision: Not later than 15 days before the election. After due notice and hearing.

Note: COC will be cancelled. Hence, substitution is not allowed.

REMEDIES DURING ELECTION

Section 241. Definition. – A pre-proclamation controversy refers to any question

pertaining to or affecting the proceedings of the board of canvassers which may be raised
by any candidate or by any registered political party or coalition of political parties before
the board or directly with the Commission, or any matter raised under Sections 233, 234,
235 and 236 in relation to the preparation, transmission, receipt, custody and appreciation
of the election returns.

Section 242. Commission's exclusive jurisdiction of all pre-proclamation controversies. – The

Commission shall have exclusive jurisdiction of all pre-proclamation controversies. It
may motu proprio or upon written petition, and after due notice and hearing, order the
partial or total suspension of the proclamation of any candidate-elect or annual partially
or totally any proclamation, if one has been made, as the evidence shall warrant in
accordance with the succeeding sections.

4
Section 243. Issues that may be raised in pre-proclamation controversy. –
The following shall be proper issues that may be raised in a pre-proclamation
controversy:
(a) Illegal composition or proceedings of the board of canvassers;
(b) The canvassed election returns are incomplete, contain material defects, appear
to be tampered with or falsified, or contain discrepancies in the same returns
or in other authentic copies thereof as mentioned in Sections 233, 234, 235 and
236 of this Code;
(c) The election returns were prepared under duress, threats, coercion, or
intimidation, or they are obviously manufactured or not authentic; and
(d) When substitute or fraudulent returns in controverted polling places were
canvassed, the results of which materially affected the standing of the
aggrieved candidate or candidates.

REMEDIES AFTER ELECTION

1. Election protest
2. Quo warranto

Election Protest:
Issue: who really won in the election?
(Nagkadayaan ba? Nagkabilihan ba ng vote?)

Who can file: only candidate running in same office can file election protest.

Effect: if protestant wins, he will assume office.

Quo warranto
Issue: qualification, legibility or lack of it as a winning candidate.

Who can file: any registered voters can file quo warranto.

Effect: if disqualified he will be removed.

Apply succession rule, if applicable.
If not, declare vacant and a special election may be held.

JURISPRUDENCE

Ugdoracion, Jr. v. Commission on Elections38

575 Phil. 253 (2008).

admission that he was at the time of the filing of the CoC still a holder of a then valid
green card

5
involved residency, the Court determined that the candidate lost his residency when he
became a US green card holder despite his mistaken belief that he retained his domicile
in the Philippines.

The candidate-, invoking the legal definition of domicile, claimed that even if he was
physically in the US, he always intended to return the Philippines. The Court, placing
emphasis on his permanent resident status in the US, merely inferred his intent to
deceive when he failed to declare that he was a green card holder.

Coquilla
9 301 J02 434 Phil. 861 (2002).

In Coquilla,299 the Court pointed out that "immigration to the [U.S.] by virtue of a green
card, which entitles one to reside permanently in that country, constitutes abandonment
of domicile in the Philippines. With more reason then does naturalization in a foreign
country result in an abandonment of domicile in the Philippines."

Caasi vs. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 88831, 8 November 1990, 191 SCRA 229.

The Court held that a "green card" holder immigrant to the United States is deemed to
have abandoned his domicile and residence in the Philippines.

In Caasi v. Court of Appeals,19 this Court set aside the appealed orders of the COMELEC
and the Court of Appeals and annulled the election of the respondent as Municipal
Mayor of Bolinao, Pangasinan on the ground that respondent’s immigration to the
United States in 1984 constituted an abandonment of his domicile and residence in the
Philippines. Being a green card holder, which was proof that he was a permanent
resident or immigrant of the United States, and in the absence of any waiver of his
status as such before he ran for election on January 18, 1988, respondent was held to be
disqualified under §68 of the Omnibus Election Code of the Philippines (Batas
Pambansa Blg. 881).

6
7