The implementation of the OAV Law was a success in many ways. For the first time in the history of this country, Filipinos abroad had the opportunity to exercise their right of suffrage. But like most initial outings, the conduct and implementation of the OAV Law was not without problems. The tasks given the members of the Foreign Service Corps by the OAV Law are over and above their consular duties. Hence, the time they spent during the whole electoral process meant less time in the performance of their given functions at the Posts. Registration itself was too soon and very brief to enable the Posts to fully prepare for the new task. There was manpower problem as well as the Posts could not easily give up their consular duties. The ERBs were not given sufficient time to be informed of the OAV process which led to the late submission of the results of hearings or in some instances, the non-submission thereof. This resulted in the disenfranchisement of a few thousands of the overseas absentee voters as the Posts reported a registration figure of more than three hundred sixty four thousand (364,000) while the COAV generated a lower number. Misspelling and wrong inputs/data in the voter's records and IDs were attributed to the complicated Application for Registration as Overseas Absentee Voter. Most of the registrants complained of the numerous items to fill-up. As a result, complaints ranged from the issuance of defective IDs and names not appearing in the CLOAV although the COAV did not have any record that these were disapproved. The "Affidavit of Intent to Return", also called the "killer clause", in the Application turned-off potential overseas absentee voters as the same is worded in such away that it contains a penal sanction. The voting period is too long. Some Posts which opened as early as 12 March 2004 did not even have a single voter until the first day of voting for the land-based overseas absentee voters. Even the thirty day voting period is long as overseas absentee voters trekked to the Posts mainly on weekends and during their days off. Voter's education was a main concern of the Posts. Most overseas absentee voters, including the members of the Foreign Service Corps have been away for several years already. They had problems identifying the candidates and in fact some are not known to them. This resulted in voting by "name recall" or voting those whose names are familiar to voters. The party-list elections were another source of confusion. Most voters asked if they should vote for the sector i.e. migrants, laborers or the name of the organization. Low turn-out of voters in some Posts was attributable to the fact that field registration was not translated into actual field voting. Hence, those registered in the field were not able to vote by reason of distance and cost. Voting, counting and canvassing procedures and the corresponding forms in the overseas absentee voting were mostly adopted from the local electoral process. The electoral bodies found most of these tedious, repetitive and impractical. As most voters were excited to exercise their right of suffrage, the ballots were usually filled to the last item. Add to this is the problem of appreciation of ballots. Although the SBEIs were trained and taught how to appreciate ballots, they were still apprehensive came counting. Hence, counting took time to finish especially that each SBEI for counting were assigned at least five hundred (500) ballots, if not more.

Part V