The

S TUDENT JUDICIAL COURT

THE OFFICIAL JUDICIAL ARM
of the

SANGGUNIN NG MGA MAG-AARAL NG MGA PARALNG LOYLA NG ATENO DE MANILA

ATENEO STUDENT JUDICIAL COURT Ateneo de Manila University - Loyola Schools Barangay Loyola Heights, Quezon City SANGGUNIAN VICE-PRESIDENT RYAN CARL YU, SANGGUNIAN SECRETARY-GENERAL ANTONIO RAFAEL ELICANO, SCHOOL OF HUMANITIES CHAIRPERSON REDENTOR JOHN DIMLA, SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT SECRETARY-TREASURER ALEXANDRA FELICE TANJANGCO, 2nd YR SCHOOL OF SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING CENTRAL BOARD REPRESENTATIVE PAMELA GAERLAN, 2nd YR SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT CENTRAL BOARD REPRESENTATIVE RAY CRISTOFER GOMEZ, IGNITE VICE-PRESIDENT FOR INTERNALS VANESSA DEL ROSARIO, GABRIEL CRISANTO NOLASCO, JAMES GREGORY TIENG Petitioner-Appellant Versus COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS Respondent-Appellee DISSENTING OPINION ON CASE 2014-001-DECISION-02202014 Two points of contention were raised in this case: the validity of each partys study and the disenfranchisement of the students with the electoral system. Differences in methodology in the study and the justification for extending or not extending for the sake of disenfranchisement spell out the difference in this dissenting opinion. The study done by Yu et. al did not separate the times needed for the students whose votes were counted and those who votes were not counted. COMELECs study separated the time measurement for these students. Voting days and circumstances for non-affected and the affected students were indeed different and deserved to be recorded as separate. This leads to the question of whose evidence is more credible. Case No. 2014-001

The

S TUDENT JUDICIAL COURT

THE OFFICIAL JUDICIAL ARM
of the

SANGGUNIN NG MGA MAG-AARAL NG MGA PARALNG LOYLA NG ATENO DE MANILA

This opinion does not question the competence of the data-gatherers sent in by the Petitioner-Appellant, but the official studies done by Respondent-Appellee have precedence, as seen in the Courts Decision to Extend Elections back in 2011. COMELECs data indeed proved that the time given to vote was insufficient. No compelling evidence / precedence verifies Yus study. No exact methodology was also proposed. Even the presence of Yu, a candidate running in the General Elections and the commissioning of the study is highly questionable in terms of intent. Mr. Cabreras study has not been established as an independent study either. In terms of the study, the point goes to the Respondent-Appellee. However, when it comes to the disenfranchisement of the students with the electoral system, both parties statements have partial merit. The Petitioner-Appellant successfully argued that the faulty systems and numerous errors in the software did affect voter confidence. It is important to note, however, that disenfranchisement cannot be fully quantified, as the choice not to vote is also dependent on other factors (e.g. breaktimes, personal choice) but the elections were not as free and as efficient as expected. While COMELEC is not entirely culpable due to the defects of the program itself, the Respondent-Appellee also bears the responsibility of ensuring the integrity of the program. The credibility of the General Elections was diminished because of these glitches in the system. This is not to say that COMELEC has not made steps in order to restore voter confidence. COMELEC already introduced hard ballots and had their program rechecked in order to ensure the integrity of the elections, but these were not publicized enough. In the same manner, there was confusion with regard to the recasting of ballots for students affected by the system failure. COMELEC has the responsibility to bring that trust back and be more accountable for the errors that have occurred. Better promulgation and execution of voting alternatives would not only restore confidence in COMELEC, but also in the electoral system. In spite of the following arguments, I do not see the need to grant two (2) days of extension for the elections. Logistical difficulties would arise, given that the decision of the Court cannot be properly promulgated and executed within just a few hours. Also, the Respondent-Appellee expected that the elections would finally close. Mobilization and preparation of COMELEC personnel and election paraphernalia indeed takes time. The student body must also be properly informed. COMELEC has already extended the elections far beyond the scheduled time and doing so may have disrupted normal operations. Given that both parties arguments have partial merit, and that there is a need to restore voter confidence while allowing the Respondent-Appellee to properly promulgate its own procedures, a compromise between the Petitioner-Appellant and the Respondent-Appellee should have been in order.

The

S TUDENT JUDICIAL COURT

THE OFFICIAL JUDICIAL ARM
of the

SANGGUNIN NG MGA MAG-AARAL NG MGA PARALNG LOYLA NG ATENO DE MANILA

I vote for a one-day extension of the elections in order to allow the RespondentAppellee to properly execute electoral procedures and restore confidence in the electoral system. Having a one-day extension gives a sense of urgency and finality, but allows the Respondent-Appellee to prepare. It still follows the provisions of Article XV, Section 3(a), as the proposed last day for voting is on February 21. It also gives the last fair chance for students to vote while allowing for other scenarios to occur.

Danielle Joanna C. Gaite, Magistrate for Audit