PPCRV’s Betrayal of Public Trust


The Parish Pastoral Council for Responsible Voting (PPCRV) was organized as a citizens’ arm to promote, inter alia, “clean, honest, accurate, meaningful” elections. In the conduct of the 2010 elections and its actuation hence, PPCRV’s leadership has subverted its mandate.

Illegitimate and Unauthenticated 2010 Electoral Results

Foreign Election Observers questioned the legitimacy of the 2010 elections on the basic premise that the results could not be validated or authenticated. Why so? No authorized election inspectors, as required by law, signed any of the national and local election returns.

Nobody knows who authorized the transmission of the election returns. If no one can authenticate any of the returns, none of the proclamations was valid. A machine cannot sign an election return on its own without human intervention.

Who ordered that election inspectors should not affix their signatures on election returns, thereby abdicating legal liability to machines?

The Comelec En Banc itself issued a written resolution to that effect, in violation of the AES Law which ironically it is

mandated to implement.

Additionally, Comelec disallowed the use of built-in Ultraviolet Scanners to detect the use of fake ballots, thereby allowing fake ballot stuffing. Comelec also failed to provide a vote verification process that would have allowed voters to verify whom they voted for.

Significantly, the PCOS machines used by Comelec/Smartmatic reported the total number of voters as over 256 million as against the actual registered number of 50 million. Until today, Comelec/Smartmatic never explained how this anomaly came about.

PPCRV headed a


Attributing the signatures to machines transfers liability to the

machines — absurdly, not in reality. But in essence, the liability remains with Comelec.

triangular group to conduct Random Manual Audit (RMA) of the 2010 elections, with

a directive to carry out the RMA within 12 hours after the closing of precincts. But the RMA was never

finished—75 percent of results were submitted only a month after the elections. Comelec refused

Foreign Observers access to the RMA right after preparation, saying that the Head Office wanted to

keeptheRMAconfidential. Comelec’spre-selectionoftheprecinctsfortheRMAfourdaysbefore

elections is a mockery of the “random” specification.

Was PPCRV incompetent to carry out the RMA or an accomplice to what Foreign Observers

subsequently labelled as a farce, being a Random Manual Edit?


PPCRV Leadership Betrayal of Trust

Did PPCRV raise any objection to the glaring bases for questioning the legitimacy of the 2010 election results? Reflecting their ignorance or complicity, the PPCRV leadership instead quickly declared, the day after the elections, that the entire electoral exercise was an unqualified success! Success was also the label assigned to the recent problem-ridden mock elections. PPCRV’s leadership constantly ignores or approves of Comelec undermining of the security of the automated election system.

The PPCRV leadership showed either more ignorance or complicity by appointing a former Comelec Commissioner as its Vice Chairman for External Affairs. He had signed the illegal resolutions dismantling or disregarding the basic security safeguards during the 2010 elections. That officer publicly collaborated with the Smartmatic President in defending the PCOS, its attendant system and implementation against all criticisms. That same officer, aptly described by some as the “fox in the hen’s house”, now represents PPCRV in its public deliberations. Compounding the incongruities, that very same officer now heads a law office whose practice includes pre-election matters and post- election protests — a clear conflict of interest arrangement.

The case filed by Smartmatic against Dominion, its technology provider, revealed, among others, that: 1) Smartmatic never had access to the Source Code (the instructions guiding the operation of the system); 2) Smartmatic never had a fully-functioning system; 3) Smartmatic does not have the technology to modify or enhance the Dominion technology; and 4) Smartmatic no longer has the indisputable authority to use the Dominion technology.

What was the posture of the PPCRV with respect to the Supreme Court Cases questioning the Comelec purchase from Smartmatic of the Dominion technology and the accompanying PCOS machines? The PPCRV leadership supported both Comelec and Smartmatic. That position was patently contrary to the position taken by IT experts and prominent civil society personalities, particularly Archbishop Fernando R. Capalla and Bishop Broderick Pabillo, who both signed petitions against Comelec and Smartmatic.

PPCRV prepared a manual on voter’s education for 2013 by revising the official version made by the Simbahang Lingkod ng Bayan. The unilateral revision made by PPCRV deceives the electorate by tacitly making it appear that the security measures dismantled by Comelec and Smartmatic are acceptable.

clean, honest, accurate and meaningful

The mandate to be the watchdog to ensure

election is a moral

mission. The transgression of the impartiality, non-bias and non-partisanship of that mission

invalidates the PPCRV raison d’être.


By continuing to use the phrase “Parish Pastoral Council” in its name, the PPCRV leadership is exploiting the credibility, enthusiasm and hard work of parishioners all over the country – to cover up the electoral sabotage consummated in 2010 and planned in 2013.

CBCP Posture

Are top Church officials aware of the destructive actuations of the top PPCRV leadership? The CBCP Board is now aware of the “Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde” behaviour of the PPCRV leadership.

CBCP is legally powerless to reorganize PPCRV, even if the organization holds office at the Pius XII Center, since PPCRV is a legal entity over which CBCP has no jurisdiction. CBCP has acted gently, given that the top PPCRV leadership is an active collaborator in the pro-life movement.

Must the Bishops compromise their position on the defence of our democracy? We believe the top PPCRV leadership’s “split-level Christianity” posture is contrary to the organization’s mandate, the pursuit of Truth and the greater common cause in defence of democracy.

Quo Vadis: Options for the top PPCRV Leadership

What should the top PPCRV leadership do? For the sake of the organization’s credibility and effectiveness, it should immediately and unequivocally resign. Alternatively, PPCRV should drop the use of the words “Parish Pastoral Council” from their name. In any event, PPCRV should vacate their office at the Pope Pius XII Center. We are making this demand since our constituents are members of different parishes of the Catholic Church and many of our members are PPCRV volunteers.

We urge CBCP and the Bishops to apply pressure on the top PPCRV leadership. The top PPCRV leadership must have the mantle of Caesar’s wife.

If the top PPCRV leadership heedlessly chooses to hang on to their positions, they should, as a minimum:

1) call on Comelec to restore all of the legally-required security measures to ensure a legitimate and accurate election, specifically: a) the documented use of digital signatures by assigned election inspectors; b) the use of built-in UV scanners to cull out fake ballots; and c) the installation of a vote verification mechanism; and

2) demand the disclosure, satisfactory review and certification of the Source Code to be used.

THE Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines-National Secretariat for Social Action (CBCP-

NASSA) has dropped its support for PPCRV, although the action is recommendatory and not binding on

the Bishops.


Without the resignation, change of name or definitive action vis-à-vis Comelec, PPCRV will be a travesty to its avowed Pastoral mandate, a deception to the thousands of volunteers and a great disservice to our democratic process.


Bansa Ko Mahal Ko Demokratiko Sosyalistang Kabataang Pilipino EarthSavers Movement Filipino Migrant Workers Group Global Filipino Nation Global Filipinos Australia Konsensyang Pilipino Kontrang Pandaraya Movement for Integrity, Honesty and Transparency in the 2010 Elections Pulsong Sambayanng Pilipino Tanggulang Demokrasya The Filipino Australian News (Romeo Z. Cayabyab, Publisher) http://www.thefilipinoaustralian.com We Care World Filipino Alliance – Australia World Filipino Alliance – USA Youth for a First World Philippines



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s