COMELEC | Election Automation


AUTOMATION PRESS RELEASES

In the matter of the Request for a Copy of the Source Code (COMELEC Resolution No. 09-0366)

Date: 27 August 2009



26 August 2009

 

Center for People Empowerment in Governance
Rm. 304, CSWCD Bldg., University of the Philippines,
Diliman, Quezon City
 
Attention:Evita L. Jimenez, Executive Director
               Bobby M. Tuazon, Policy Study Director, on his own behalf and
               On behalf of Felix Muga II, PhD, Electoral Studies
               Dr. Bienvenido Lumbrera, Chairperson, Board of Directors
               Dr. Pablo Manalastas, IT Consultant
               Atty. Victoria Avena, Legal Consultant

Subject: In the Matter of the Request for a Copy of the Source Code (COMELEC Resolution No.09-0366)

Reference is made to your letters dated August 25, 2009 and May 26, 2009, pertaining to your request for a copy of the Source Code. The Commission En Banc in its meeting held on June 16, 2009 resolved under Resolution No. 09-0366 to approve the recommendation of its Executive Director to grant the request for the source code of the PCOS and CCS. This resolution and approval is premised on the provisions under Sec. 14 of Republic Act No. 93691.

Note however that the source code “for implementation” referred to does not currently exist for the following reasons:

  1. The baseline source code of the provider has not been received. This should not come as a surprise to you since you are well aware that no payment has been made to the provider as of this date, in deference to the Supreme Court Petition filed to withhold payment from the Concerned Citizens Movement, which was supplemented in the oral presentation and Petition of the defunct Information Technology Foundation of the Philippines (as represented in the Supreme Court hearing July 29, 2009 by Gus Lagman of www.transparent.org & OES and by Professor Manalastas of CenPEG).   
  2. The customization of the baseline source code is currently targeted for completion in  November 2009.
  3. Under Sec. 11 of RA93692, the customized source code shall be reviewed by “an established international certification entity”, on which basis, among others, the Technical Evaluation Committee shall issue its certification. The current target for completion of the customized source code review by “an established international certification entity” is end February 2010.
  4. Only thereafter will the AES technology “selected for implementation” be available and can be made “open to any interested political party or groups” for review under a controlled environment.

Should CenPEG be interested to become a technical resource person of the Commission, it is suggested that CenPEG apply with the Commission through the Advisory Council and/or the Technical Evaluation Committee. RA 9369 has granted to the Advisory Council and the Technical Evaluation Committee their respective functions in the technical assistance to the Commission. RA 9369 provides the Council and the Committee the authority to “avail itself of the expertise and services of resource persons who are of known independence, competence and probity, are nonpartisan (underscoring supplied), and do not possess any of the disqualifications applicable to a member of the Advisory Council as provided herein. The resource persons shall also be subject to the same prohibitions and penalties as the members of the Advisory Council.” Sec. 8 of RA9369 enumerates the prohibitions on resource persons, applicable to members of the Advisory Council. 3

In order to facilitate the review of your application, it is requested that you submit CenPEG’s profile with full disclosure on its registration and permits from the respective national and local government authorities, on its by-laws, on its officers and members of the Board, its stakeholders and general membership, its organization and its experience, with testimonials on the audit of software and election systems, including any accreditation, if any, from the respective national or international accreditation bodies on its “independence, competence and probity” in the field of software audit and certification.

The Commission has noted that you have taken the position in your letter dated August 25, 2009, first paragraph of the attached “An Appeal to the COMELEC” that RA9369 “recognize the need to pilot test the technology to be used before going full blast”. This matter is sub-judice, currently under review for ruling soon by the Supreme Court. 4

Finally, more than a mere briefing, the Commission would appreciate a copy of your “19-page, 3-month policy study on the Automated Election System of the COMELEC”, together with the full documentation as per your claim of having “the first comprehensive study”. This should properly support your findings on the alleged “disturbing vulnerabilities in the AES”. This shall be used as additional reference and input together with other voluminous studies that have been undertaken in the field of automated elections since 19945.   

 

Very truly yours,

Atty. Ferdinand T. Rafanan
Director IV, Law Department

 

 

1 "Once an AES technology is selected for implementation (underscoring supplied), the Commission shall promptly make the source code of that technology available and open to any interested political party or groups which may conduct their own review thereof."

2 "SEC. 11. Functions of the Technical Evaluation Committee. - The Committee shall certify, through an established international certification entity to be chosen by the Commission from the recommendations of the Advisory Council (underscoring supplied), not later than three months before the date of the electoral exercises, categorically stating that the AES, including its hardware and software components, is operating properly, securely, and accurately, in accordance with the provisions of this Act based, among others, on the following documented results:

….
2. The successful completion of audit on the accuracy, functionally and security controls of the AES software;
3. The successful completion of a source code review;
…..”

3 "Any member of the advisory council is prohibited from engaging, directly or indirectly, with any entity that advocates, markets, imports, produces or in any manner handles software, hardware or any equipment that may be used for election purposes for personal gain".

4 Please note that no less than the Senate has intervened and clearly articulated that the need for a pilot test is not a condition to implement nationwide automation in 2010. The Joint Congressional Oversight Committee, acting in accordance with Sec. 33 of RA9369  to “provide recommendations as to …  a full implementation of the AES”, had in 2007 issued a Resolution enjoining the COMELEC and the Advisory Council to proceed with the Nationwide Automated 2010 Elections after it recognized the successful implementation of the automation exercise in ARMM based on the report submitted by the Advisory Council.

5 Apart from the most recent 2007 pilot exercise in the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao (ARMM), please note that contrary to your allegations there are other recent various studies, “nationwide public consultations involving not only the IT community but also the academe, media and all other sectors and stakeholders in the elections … as well as feasibility and comparative studies on election technologies ‘most suited to Philippine conditions’ “ (par. 1, p.2, Letter dated May 26, 2009 from CenPEG) that have been conducted by the Advisory Council and its predecessor Technical Working Groups, IFES, among others. It should be noted by the UP-based CenPEG that the academe is represented in the Advisory Council by the University of the Philippines.


Posted: 08.27.09 SMBR