In
the previous elections, there were cases of some BEIs adopting a
priority-number system in their polling precincts during election day. While some may have regarded it as being
advantageous, there were also many complaints about it.
NAMFREL
CdO-Mis.Or, for its part, does not support a priority number distribution
system for any precinct, on the following grounds:
Under section 45
(“Voting Area”) of Resolution 9064 (“General Instructions for The Board of
Election Inspectors”), it is stated that:
“The BEI, in
coordination with the DepEd supervisor, shall designate a room to be used as
holding area when necessary. The holding area will be used by the voters
waiting for their turn to vote. The voters shall sit/arrange themselves on a
first come, first serve basis, such that they will vote according to how they
are seated. Giving numbers to the voters
to determine their sequence of voting is strictly prohibited.” (Italics supplied.)
The capacity of a
BEI to manage the election is anchored in the very specific instructions given
to it by the COMELEC—and the decision to give out priority numbers violates
these.
The only
instance in which any form of prioritization is allowed, according to section 41-2
of resolution 9640, is in the case of PWDs, senior citizens, and heavily
pregnant women. There is no other justification for allowing one voter to be
prioritized over another when both are equal in the eyes of the law.
While there is
no provision that prevents BEIs from making their own system of managing the
elections, they may not go against the specific instructions of the COMELEC. The
decision to give out priority numbers, while it may be well-intended, is not always
in the best interest of the voters or the elections. The goals of
well-organized and efficient voting are understandable and admirable, but they
cannot be achieved at the risk of compromising equal treatment and
representation of voters.
In a
priority-number-based system, the absence of any other criterion for granting
priority would allow BEIs a large leeway to make entirely arbitrary decisions,
which in turn would pave the way for grave abuse of discretion. While there
have only been reported and alleged incidents of how priority numbers have been
unfairly and intentionally distributed to voters of particular candidates, and
have not been proven, and yet this should be treated with the precautionary
principle. There would be a large
possibility for many voters to be disenfranchised based on the whims or
political preferences of their respective BEIs. While many voters may be able
to complain when this occurs, but that would by no means assure that they will
be able to regain their lost opportunity to vote. It is for these reasons that
NAMFREL CDO Mis. Or. Chapter stands against the adoption of a priority-number
system on the May 13, 2013 Elections.
Sticking with
the first come, first served system is a fairer standard, enabling any and all
voters to access their right to suffrage without fear of discrimination, since
the bases for priority are clear and simple. The local COMELEC has been
consistent in reminding that during this election, the use of priority number
to enter the precinct is disallowed. Thus, NAMFREL CDO Mis. Or. Chapter strongly
supports the first come, first served (single line) system, as urged by the
City COMELEC Office to ensure a more fair and credible election. ###
No comments:
Post a Comment