DISENFRANCHISING VOTERS

ROSES & THORNS - Alejandro R. Roces

- January 14, 2010 - 12:00am
There are a number of ways to disenfranchise voters (essentially revoking the right to vote, or
purposefully reducing the value of a person’s vote). Some are disenfranchised as a result of illegal
actions; for example being convicted of a felony. Disenfranchisement becomes a crime when people
who are eligible to vote are so prevented from doing. This can come via intimidation, stuffing the ballot
boxes and so forth; essentially any attempt to purposefully subvert the electoral process. Every citizen
has the right to vote and to be heard. This is why voter registration is so important. A more worrying
form of disenfranchisement is implementing a voting system that the electorate is unfamiliar with or has
not been taught how to use.
Spanish-era elections were a simpler affair. For example, in Sariaya, Quezon in the 1880s simple ballots
using pencil and paper were cast by those eligible to vote for those eligible to run, selecting the top two
choices for various positions. Of course, back then the only ones eligible to vote or run were land
owners (thankfully, an antiquated concept). After the “ballots” were cast the results were sent to the
Governor-General as he had the “right of election”. After the ‘elections’ a fiesta was held. Today,
elections are naturally more complex, but the basic concept remains the same. People vote for who they
want. Interference in that most elementary right is criminal.
The concerns about automated elections seem to be mounting. Archbishop Oscar Cruz recently came
out with critical statements about the state of the automated voting process. It has also been reported
that the budget needed for voter education has not been fully released. Who then is educating the
teachers (who will in turn educate citizens on how to use the machines)? Have these voter education
programs been designed, tested and implemented? Another concern: Have the individuals who are
tasked to oversee the machines and the polling locations been trained? What will happen if the
machines break down?
From our understanding, internationally new voting machines are test run in local elections, before
rolling them out nationwide. This allows for any issues to be addressed in a real world setting. It also
helps voters become comfortable with the machines. Voters need to be familiarized with the new
ballots to ensure that, on Election Day, they vote properly and their vote is counted. On Election Day,
random manual counts (by both the election agency and third-party non-partisan groups) are also done
to ensure that vote tallies are accurate.
Last year it was reported that Ireland completely scrapped an e-voting initiative that went on for three
years and cost 51 million pounds; not because the machines didn’t work, but because voters did not
trust or understand how the machines worked and how their votes were tallied. The German Supreme
Court also rejected a new e-voting scheme on the grounds that the general population did not
understand how the process worked. While we are not implementing e-voting schemes the lesson is, in
most other countries care is taken to preserve the integrity of the vote process and make sure that
voters understand it. No system is full-proof (as has been shown in the United States) and problems will
always occur. The trick is to minimize them as much as possible.
No matter what type of vote counting system is used, votes can still be bought and election results
manipulated. It should be less about what system is used to tally votes and more about ensuring that
the counts are honest and above board. There is little time left to ensure the upcoming elections will be.
Programs to education voters and ensure transparency yet remain to be put in place. It is paramount
that the integrity of a Filipino’s vote be protected.

Read more at https://www.philstar.com/opinion/2010/01/14/540311/disenfranchising-

voters#8qKKoC0m3kOUiGhq.99
Forfeited voting rights
By: Raul J. Palabrica - @inquirerdotnet Philippine Daily Inquirer / 12:35 AM September 14, 2015

THE COMMISSION on Elections is purging from the voters’ list the names of those who have passed
away or failed to vote in two immediately preceding successive regular elections.

The delisting of deceased voters is aimed at preventing other people from assuming their identities and
casting votes in their names.

According to reports, as of last month some 430,000 voters have been dropped from the list with the
Comelec confirming their death.

The removal from the list of the names of voters who did not vote in two successive regular elections is
in accordance with the Omnibus Election Code. The failure to vote, regardless of the circumstances
behind it, authorizes the Comelec to bar the voters concerned from ever exercising their right of
suffrage again.

The forfeiture of voting rights is summary in nature. The delisting can be done once the records show
that a voter did not cast his or her vote in two successive national, local or barangay elections.

The Comelec is not obliged to look into the reason for the failure to vote. By keeping away from two
successive regular polls, the voter is presumed to be no longer interested in participating in future
electoral activities.

Based on that presumption, the voter loses what is considered one of the most significant features of
citizenship—the right to choose the people who will perform the duties and responsibilities of public
governance.

Is Duterte subject to the performance principle?

For a country that proclaims strict adherence to the principle of due process, the unilateral forfeiture of
voting rights smacks of arbitrariness.

The affected voter is not given the opportunity to explain why he or she failed to vote, or should be
barred from participating in future elections as a consequence of that failure. No consideration is given
to the fact that the voter may have been sick on Election Day, was obliged to report for work under pain
of disciplinary action or loss of pay, had to attend to an emergency, or was out of the country for
personal or business reasons.

And there is also the possibility that the voter was, through intimidation or harassment, forced to stay at
home or elsewhere on Election Day. It is common knowledge that some politicians prevent voters who
they think will vote for their opponent from casting their votes.

Under ordinary circumstances, any of the causes cited may excuse a person from liability for failure to
perform an act that he or she is obliged to perform.
If, after his or her side has been heard, the reason offered is determined by proper authority to be
invalid or unacceptable, only then will the corresponding penalty be imposed. Our system of
government is structured to “hear before it condemns.”
It is unfortunate that the principle of due process was overlooked in the enactment of the law
authorizing the summary delisting of voters who failed to vote in two successive regular elections. No
lawyer or civic organization has taken up the cudgels for the voters who have been or stand to be
disenfranchised by this provision to question its constitutionality.
The disenfranchisement seems to have been accepted as par for the course in our electoral system. The
right of suffrage is not held to the same test of inviolability accorded to the rights to free speech, press
and religion.
An amendment of the law to correct this mistake will be ideal. However, going through the legislative
mill for this purpose may be an exercise in futility. Our lawmakers are not known for doing their job
unless forced to by strong public opinion, or the action will redound to their personal benefit.

The Comelec need not wait for Congress to correct the legal anomaly. As the government agency tasked
by the Constitution to supervise Philippine elections, it can, as part of its rule-making power, provide a
mechanism to make the delisting conform to the requirements of due process.

In coordination with civic organizations, the Comelec can send notices to the voters concerned,
informing them that their names will be removed from the voters’ list if they fail to satisfactorily explain
their failure to vote in two successive regular elections.

If the voter ignores the notice served at his or her registered address, then it can be reasonably
presumed that he or she is no longer interested in participating in future elections.

The voter who wants to maintain his or her voting rights can be asked to explain in person at the nearest
Comelec office his or her failure to vote, or to submit a sworn statement explaining the reason for the
failure.
If the reason cited is credible, the voter’s name will not be removed from the list. Should there be
doubts about the validity of the excuse given, the voter may be asked to submit additional evidence to
prove it. If the excuse given is not acceptable, the delisting can be immediately implemented or,
depending on the circumstances, reviewed further.

The idea is for the voter to be given the opportunity to present his or her side of the issue before being
deprived of the right of suffrage for good.

The “notice and explain why” process can be undertaken by the Comelec during the three-year break in
elections, or in the course of its review of the voters’ list prior to an election.
Admittedly, this procedure would add another task to the poll body’s already heavy work load. But it
should be given serious consideration because the right of suffrage deserves more than passing respect.

Democratic governance is more meaningful if it is inclusive, rather than exclusive, in terms of voter
participation.

Raul J. Palabrica (rpalabrica@inquirer.com.ph) writes a weekly column in the Business section of the
Inquirer.
Read more: https://opinion.inquirer.net/88511/forfeited-voting-rights#ixzz5vaVvlpVI
Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook