As a staunch supporter of poll automation, I must admit I was a bit disappointed with the position taken by Committee Chairman Makati Representative Teodoro Locsin Jr. In the rather lengthy report, he basically went on to reverse his earlier support for automation. In subsequent interviews he even pointed out that he won't recommend it for future electoral exercises. My only consolation is that he at least qualified his stand by saying that he will not push for automation unless loopholes are plugged.

I would have preferred to hear Locsin giving his all out support to poll automation but then I really can't blame Locsin for having his own opinion. At least, Locsin did not go all crazy like what happened to the other Smartmatic critics out there with all their unfounded allegations.

If you're interested, here's a link to the committee report.

And here's the Inquirer.net report on Locsin's verdict:

Locsin: May polls flawed

He won’t recommend automation in 2013
By Leila B. Salaverria
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 00:49:00 06/29/2010

MANILA, Philippines—Makati Rep. Teodoro Locsin Jr. Monday admitted to being mistaken in his rosy outlook of electronic elections, saying that he was against employing the automated system used on May 10 in future electoral exercises unless loopholes were plugged.

Locsin is the chair of the House committee on suffrage and electoral reforms, which on Sunday released a report based on its hearings that painted a far from ideal picture of the recently concluded automated elections.

The hearings took up the complaints of local candidates who claimed that they lost because of electoral fraud.

Interviewed over ABS-CBN News Channel (ANC), Locsin said Monday that cheating done under the automated system could be untraceable, unlike in manual elections where money and hard work could uncover a fake ballot.

Despite Locsin’s statements, others stuck to their championing of the automated election system.

Cagayan de Oro Rep. Rufus Rodriguez, an active participant in the hearings of Locsin’s committee, said that none of the allegations of fraud were backed by concrete proof.

So as far as he was concerned, automation was a success unless evidence to the contrary would crop up.

“Until that would come out, I would certainly say automation was a success despite being from the opposition,” Rodriguez said in a phone interview, noting that he was a constant presence at the committee hearings, which focused on allegations of poll fraud.

He said the P7 billion spent for the precinct count optical scan (PCOS) machines was money well spent.

Eating own words

Locsin acknowledged that he was eating his words.

“You realize of course that I’m swallowing the words that I said over the past 12 months. I really fought for automation. Well, I’m willing to swallow my pride,” he said over ANC.

Locsin said he was mistaken when he said that the voting equipment, known as the PCOS machines, could not be manipulated.

“I would say one thing: Fortunately, a lot of people believe me and I was wrong when I was boasting that the machine cannot be rigged. There were not that many people who tried to cheat with machines but those who did knew about it, did it,” he said.

Reset PCOS to zero

Locsin said vote-rigging could have been done by resetting the PCOS machines to zero and then scanning ballots again. This was known through the explanations of Smartmatic, the technology provider of the Commission on Elections (Comelec).

“They should have told me though that their machine was capable of being reset to zero. I have no idea it was that easy to do it. The reason also why none of us, including myself, ever thought about that is that the critics of automation kept focusing on other issues,” he said.

Audit logs also revealed that voting in some places began at 10 p.m., he said.

Different date

Locsin said Smartmatic’s explanation about the different date and time stamps on election returns was inadequate.

He said Smartmatic had assured him that the machine would record cheating, but then it later said that the different date and time stamps were of no moment.

If cheating was conducted, there was also active participation of the Board of Election Inspectors and the Comelec, he said.

“So I think, in the end, Director [Jose] Tolentino said it well: ‘Machines don’t cheat, it’s people who cheat and people can use the machine to cheat.’ As long as the people Comelec uses are cheaters, then they can cheat the machines,” Locsin said.

He also said cheating under automated and manual polls was very different, with manual polls providing a way to uncover concrete evidence.

“The difference between cheating in manual is that at the end of the road, if you have the money and the time, you can check whether the handwritten ballot is real or not,” he said.

Indistinguishable

“Whereas, in this kind of machine, all you have are shaded ballots. Now a shaded ballot that is falsely shaded and a shaded ballot that is genuinely shaded are indistinguishable from each other,” he added.

Locsin said that unless these concerns were addressed, he would not push for automated election in 2013.

“And my recommendation is that unless we are unable to plug all these loopholes, I would strongly discourage automated elections in 2013,” he said.

Improve transparency

Rodriguez said the same system could be used again, but with improvements for transparency added, such as projectors to show the results from the machines and the early testing of machines.

“I think we can go along with the automated system unless evidence would come out against it,” he said.

Henrietta de Villa, chair of the Parish Pastoral Council for Responsible Voting (PPCRV), also sees room for improvement in the automated polls, but she believes the 2013 elections should not revert back to manual.

“All reports from our 86 provincial coordinators said they are for the AES (automated election system) but with improvements to avoid glitches,” De Villa said.

No basis

She said there was no basis to say that there was rigged electronic cheating—that the machines were programmed to act in a malicious way.

Any shenanigan conducted could have taken place when other people stepped in to manipulate the process, she said.

De Villa lamented that 11th-hour problems in the preparations had led some to cast doubt on the integrity of the polls.

But she said that people should be wise enough to discern whether candidates’ electoral complaints were valid or not.

As we can all see, Locsin and the other personalities mentioned in that report were not at all dismissing poll automation altogether. They were merely pointing out the obvious -- that the automation of the elections in May was not perfect but that the system itself remains a viable option. The system need only be improved.

As a fan of incremental change, I have no problem with that. 

An opinion piece I critiqued yesterday had me thinking when the author said that the Comelec may have made “the mother of all bad deals.” This was told in the context of the poll body spending about Php 11 billion to run this year's automated elections without necessarily owning the vote-counting machines.

The Comelec will have much lower spending in future polls, with several billions in savings compared to this year, if it agrees to buy the 76,000 machines used last May according to Smartmatic's president for Asia Pacific Cesar Flores.

The author of the opinion piece seemed under the impression that the Comelec agreed to be charged too much this year because the same technology could be used in future elections and yet cost a lot less. Since we're not privy to how exactly Smartmatic would conduct the same magnitude of a project but charge several billions less, let's just entertain the idea of Comelec actually purchasing the machines, partly because it's the rational thing for it to do.

Even more rational is getting the machines to serve other purposes. Consider it maximizing the utility derived from the expenditure. What else could we use those machines for?

Well, in-between elections, possibly sooner than the next one even, the PCOS machines could be instrumental in the conduct of a plebiscite for a People's Initiative. Filipinos could have a real chance at improving on the 1987 Philippine Constitution's provisions to suit the country's needs.

Automation that works, with systems and processes that have been found to work as well last May, plus improvement tweaks of course for better efficiency, could prove to be the clean, legitimate way to run a plebiscite where any and all proposed amendments to the Constitution will be approved or rejected by the people through voting. Amendments that are approved will be ratified within a much shorter time thanks to the automated count, and the results will be verifiable.

If we Filipinos want to bring about change like for example, boosting economy by getting more foreign investors to bring millions of jobs here, or the holding of public officials accountable via a Freedom Of Information law, a plebiscite for a People's Initiative using the Smartmatic technology we've already used looks like the way to go.

It will be a level playing field, the way to really participate in a democratic process, where even the naysayers of Charter Change could easily vote “no” to any proposed amendment that smacks of term extension. Who knows, maybe truly worthwhile legislation will have a real chance of being passed into law, now that we have this technology. That will have made the investment in the PCOS machines definitely worth it.

Suspicion appears to be ubiquitous in anything involving the Philippines. But let's not get into trying to list the countless possible situations where people do become suspicious 'round here; let's focus on just one for now.

Michael Alan Hamlin of the Manila Bulletin wrote in his Bottom Line column's Not so Smartmatic opinion piece how 2008 Miss Universe and Smartmatic “Ambassador for Transparency” Dayana Mendoza spoke to reporters when the company brought her to the Philippines to congratulate Filipinos for successfully holding the country's first automated elections. With Smartmatic hoping to sell the Philippine government about 76,000 PCOS machines “for the fire-sale price of P2 billion,” Mr. Hamlin describes, the backdrop is set for reading more from these words addressed to president-elect Noynoy Aquino that he had quoted from the undeniably candid Mendoza:

“Please just take a little bit of your time – I know you’re super busy to say ‘hi’ to me. Now that I’m in the Philippines, I’d love to meet you,” she said, adding, “Wanna have coffee?”

It didn't help that prior to that she had already said the following to Mr. Aquino via the same press conference:

“I wanna know his family, I wanna know what he’s been working, you know, for the country, stuff like that.”

Are those the sort of statements that we should be hearing from a proper ambassador? Is her sudden arrival and possibly excessive friendliness towards the soon-to-be most powerful man in the land above suspicion? Apparently not, taking a cue from Mr. Hamlin.

Ms. Mendoza’s short, awkward stopover in the Philippines illustrates just how little – I hope – Smartmatic and Mr. Flores really understand the Philippine culture. Although I have no firsthand knowledge, I suspect they badly underestimated Mr. Aquino’s political sense as well. The invitation to Ms. Mendoza to visit the Philippines in the hopes of meeting the President-elect could have doomed any chance Smartmatic had of selling its inventory of vote counting machines to the Philippine government. It may have doomed its chances to provide its equipment and services in the next election as well.

Clearly the suspicion, which is deliberate I might add if Mr. Hamlin's “I hope” up there is any indication, is that Smartmatic brought Ms. Mendoza here to sway president-elect Aquino to have his administration buy the machines and give the company future business. On the other hand, Mr. Hamlin might have said “I hope” to mean the ideal case that any party intent on conning the Philippine government should fail on account of misunderstanding our culture. I'm pretty sure he was specific though, not just any party bent on pulling a con.

Shame on Smartmatic for trying to pull a fast one, right? That's what the president-elect's confidential advisers probably think of the “mindbogglingly crude” attempt apparently made at influencing him. Come to think of how supposedly incensed they were at said attempt, don't they realize that their reaction signified a pronounced lack of confidence in the president-elect's own maturity and resolve to not be swayed so easily if it were such an attempt? Worse, they could be wrong too.

Would it have helped if Smartmatic approached this with a fairly gradual buildup of Ms. Mendoza's arrival? Perhaps, yes, but her brief appearance tells of a rather small window of opportunity, the schedule of which was not necessarily the priority during the run-up to the May elections.

Could she have been a lot less casual and candid at the press conference, and maybe more cordial instead? Perhaps, yes, though I can also understand how a former Miss Universe would view our first successful conduct of automated polling as no small feat for an entire country, a cause for celebration. Her candor might have been a matter of personal temperament. The company has just had massive success in introducing poll automation here, so practically anyone from Smartmatic would naturally be upbeat. What more its own ambassador who happens to be a former Miss Universe? Whether her tone was a product of miscalculation is moot, really.

Mr. Hamlin's opinion piece ends with a brief take on ZTE's failed attempt at the path he likens to the one he thinks Smartmatic is treading now:

China’s ZTE Corporation demonstrated with dazzling overkill that playing to the Philippines’ less desirable qualities can be a dangerous gamble when it allegedly attempted to grease government procurement processes.

ZTE may have lost millions in that attempt, but the greatest damage was done to its international reputation, which could ultimately cost the company much more elsewhere. Mr. Flores’ seems determined to follow suit.

Drawing this parallel is easier when something that has never occurred before – specifically a beauty queen ambassador briefly visits to show a gesture of appreciation, congratulations, and enthusiasm in possibly being introduced to the new president-elect who happens to be the first ever “baby” of the technology that they brought here – takes place for the first time, under suspicious eyes.

Let's hope you're wrong about a few things, Mr. Hamlin.

Normally I wouldn't give the following sort of tabloid writing the time of day, but right now I think I should make an example of it and drive home some simple and often overlooked points for the greater good. The author whose piece I'm critiquing today should feel free to donate any large sum of money to his favorite charity to signify the appreciation for his article even making it to this particular venue/forum.

From a sublime piece entitled Kapalmuks ang Smartmatic on Vic Felipe's Bagong Tiktik column “GANITO 'YON” are portions to which I suffix my comments and/or rebuttals:

Ganoon ang paulit-ulit na naipagdidiinan ng marami sa sinasabi ng Smartmatic, kakontrata ng bagsak ang sa paniniwala pa ng publikong Comelec, na umano ay tagumpay ang naisagawa nilang kauna-unahang national automated elections nitong nakaraang Mayo 10, 2010. Kapalmuks lalo na sa maagang pagpapahiwatig na muli silang susubok sa nakatakdang 2013 mid-year elections.

Let's look at this objectively. Granted that some of those candidates who lost in this year's elections may have a good number of followers who could band together and appear “marami” but not “marami enough” to get their bets to win, they most certainly will have a differing opinion as to whether the automated election was a success. So there is no surprise that the same people would object to Smartmatic potentially being the technology partner of the poll body once again in 2013. Setting aside the obvious bias of those complaining, there really is nothing wrong with the tech firm in seeking repeat business where there has already been a very successful transaction.

Napakarami ng nagsasabi na hindi malinis ang halalan. Nagkaroon ng malawakang dayaan. Nai-pre-programmed na ang marami sa mga machine na nagamit sa halalan.

These claims are too easy to make. Where is the proof of this pre-programming? Anything short of proving it is hearsay, plain and simple.

Kahina-hinayang lamang na mismong mga nakalaban sa eleksyon ni president-elect Noynoy Aquino ang nagsisuko at sumurender na. Ano pang legal na paraan ang maipaghahabol? Sourgraping na lamang na lilitaw ang lahat.

When your bet acknowledges defeat even before the last ballot is counted, it's safe to say even he/she could find no other legal option to turn the tables. So, yes, at this point it does look like sourgraping.

Gaya nitong sinasabi sa 0926-8400627 na “Sana ay maisulat n'yo sa Bagong Tiktik ang buong katotohanan sa dayaang nangyari.”

When you say “buong katotohanan” it's really hard to ignore the word “buo” used for emphasis, and with only hearsay behind the allegations, there is mostly doubt cast on said allegations.

“Marami po silang ebidensya at talagang nagkaroon ng anomalya. Nawala talaga ang 5 milyong boto ng JIL at 5 of Christ. Talagang ninakaw.”

Hearsay and more hearsay. Never mind that it's something that came from some text message sent from who knows? Mr. Felipe could have received that text message from me and still remain none the wiser.

“Pati si Bro. Eddie ay hindi naniniwalang kulang pa sa 2 milyon ang bumoto sa kanya.”

Frankly, it doesn't matter whether or not Bro. Eddie believes it.

Pagkatapos ay kasunod na ang magarbong nagagastusang thank you party ng Smartmatic. Gustong mapagtakpan pa ng byuti at kaseksihan ng isang dating Ms. Universe na sila na rin ang nagsisipagyabang sa taas at laki raw ng talent fee sa bawat pagpepersonal appearance nito.

It's their party and they'll cry if they want to. But they'd rather party after a successful election, I'm sure. Nothing wrong there especially following a job well done.

Marami ang nagsasabi na huwag nang ibigay pa ng Comelec ang anumang balance pa sa kanilang kontrata ng Smartmatic.

There is no better way to destroy a working business relationship than not delivering on agreed obligations like meeting performance expectations and on-schedule payment of dues. Whoever those “marami” are, those completely unnamed unsubstantiated forces that media practitioners bandy about, I'm sure the Comelec knew the extent of how Smartmatic met expectations well enough not to keel over and take flat out bad advice.

Unfortunately in a country of any-which-way-you-can politics, we have an endless supply of hearsay that media professionals like Mr. Felipe waste no time believing and repeating, regardless of how all these electoral fraud allegations could be the product of some other tech company that wants to grab the multibillion peso contracts it lost to Smartmatic. Worse, the same media “professionals” employ cheapshots like name-calling “kapalmuks,” an appalling sense of logic intertwined with undoubtedly emo hearsay as I've exposed above, and channels of communication that obviously make the less privileged, poorly informed masa the real victims of wrong and/or severely incomplete information.

I am at odds how to end this on a positive note, as it is only one of probably – not just possibly – many opinion pieces written on a daily basis that leave most of their readers just about as clueless as before they began reading. Lesson learned: Don't believe everything you read. Make it a habit to think, verify, and employ reason. Come to think of it, the country wouldn't be in a quagmire if we took that lesson to heart decades ago.

Let's make one thing clear: Proof is not the same as evidence.

Quoting from Denney, Duncan & McKinney's Argumentation and Debate,

There is this difference between proof and evidence: evidence is the means; proof is the end. Evidence becomes proof when a pertinent inference is drawn from it. There can be evidence without proof, but there cannot be proof without evidence.

Straight out of a slideshow entitled Rules of Evidence from Montana's Judicial Branch website is one bullet point that succinctly puts it:

Remember—”Proof” is not evidence, it is the result of evidence

Even in a publication called Burma Law Reports from Burma's High Court of Judicature, it says:

There is a difference between “proof” and “evidence”. Proof is the effect produced upon the mind of the Judge by the evidence or evidence sufficient to satisfy the Judge to whom it is presented.

I believe these excerpts will set even the least responsible journalist straight despite the common tendency to use the terms proof and evidence interchangeably where they really shouldn't.

I am making that distinction clear as an objection to what should have been a fair reportage involving stating the facts without a hint of opinion or bias on the part of the journalist of a major media company. After 15 short paragraphs of reporting Smartmatic's recommendation to Comelec that it buy the technology used in the May 2010 election to save several billion pesos in future polls, the journalist added the following with the misguided notion that the ill-chosen word makes for “balanced” reporting:

This is despite proofs of electoral fraud lately revealed by various watchdogs, IT specialists, and civil society, which put the credibility of Smartmatic and the PCOS machines to question.

Out of nowhere the author of the report stated either out of prejudice or sheer unwitting carelessness how “proofs” of electoral fraud exist when there really are none, never mind that the allegations and speculations have nothing to do with Smartmatic's pitch for Comelec to stick not just with the technology but an entire system already proven to work.

The journalist in question who will remain unnamed demonstrated that (1) he couldn't distinguish between proof and evidence, and (2) what he refers to as proof but most likely defines as evidence is debatable and reeking of slant. Are journalists no longer trained in proper word usage, possessing a relatively wider vocabulary than average, and perfectly capable of responsibly stating only the facts?

At the time of this writing, none of the allegations of fraud have been formally and properly proven to hold water, and I'd expect this journalist to know that better than the consumers of the news he delivers.

For certain, despite journalistic foul-ups like this owing to news media's apparent faltering discipline in verifying facts, the system that Smartmatic and Comelec have successfully implemented for this year's election will set the bar very high for future polls. Knowing that they have done a good job, they only need to stay the course.

Cesar Flores of Smartmatic and his partner, the Commission on Eelections (Comelec), have a ready answer on allegations of automated fraud committed last May 10, 2010: Show me the evidence of cheating -- even just one piece of proof of electronic cheating.

There is plenty of evidence -- all staring them in the face, but no matter what is shown -- even documentary proof showing different voting and transmittal dates  -- this is dismissed as glitches.

I'm sure anyone in his right mind would know that asking for evidence in support of any allegation is a reasonable thing to do. We are after all a civilized society are we not? As far as I know, gone are the days when just a mere allegation would be enough to condemn and punish anyone.

But, of course, the columnist qualifies her opening statement by saying "There is plenty of evidence" and all that crap. She also makes a pointed observation that "no matter what is shown... this is dismissed as glitches."

Well, Ms. Olivares I'm sorry to burst your bubble but what do you expect that all or any of these so called pieces of evidence be accepted even if in truth they really are just "glitches"?

In fairness to Ms. Olivares, her opening statement was just a set up for the real meat of her column. Perhaps she thought a "softer" opening line wouldn't be enough to lend some credence to what comes next in her piece.

The following is what she actually wanted to highlight:

From the start, both the poll body and Smartmatic kept on insisting that these precinct count optical scan machines cannot be hacked, but a forensic examination of the 60 PCOS machines that were found in the Antipolo home of a Smartmatic technician showed a “secret backdoor” or a port called console which opens the door for easy manipulation of votes, and widescale fraud.

An IT expert, Roberto Verzola of Halalang Marangal, another poll watchdog group, pointed out that the “newly-discovered backdoor” in the PCOS machine, as discovered during the forensic examination, allows untraceable manipulation of its operations, as the console in the PCOS found, claimed by Smartmatic to serve as an output, has input capabilities.

This console, he said, “gives anyone full control on the operating system of the PCOS machine. The log is saved to volatile memory, which is lost every time the machine is turned off, which leaves no record of the activity for a forensic examination.”

Explaining further, Verzola said that due to this kind of input capability of the port, any trace of intrusion or cheating “can also be erased by the intruder.”

This secret backdoor allowing an operator to alter electoral data and even erasing all traces of the fraud, was deliberately kept hidden by Smartmatic from the public.

Put more bluntly, Smartmatic and Comelec officials succeeded in committing the perfect electoral crime and are getting away with it.

Admittedly, I need to do more research about this alleged backdoor. I am confident though that this can be easily explained again by Smartmatic.

In any case, I will try to point out one obvious fact that should prove manipulating the PCOS machines using this alleged backdoor was not possible. I will point it out by asking the following question:

Were there no poll watchers around during the actual conduct of the election?

Ms. Olivares and this Halalang Marangal group obviously forgot that there were many watchful eyes paying close attention to the PCOS machine during the election. And why is that? Precisely to prevent any attempt by anyone to tinker with the machines. Considering such a scenario, fiddling with the PCOS then would have required the cooperation and possibly the participation of all those poll watchers. So were the poll watchers involved?

I'm sorry to say Ms. Olivares but this allegation of PCOS manipulation through a so-called backdoor is just another tall tale.

I'm really wondering why allegations of massive fraud continue to persist. Why are groups like Halalang Marangal so adamant in painting the automation of the May 10 elections as one big villainous affair? I really want to know -- What's in it for them?

The poll body and the PCOS provider held a demonstration at the Cabuyao, Laguna warehouse where the PCOS machines are stored for safekeeping. The demonstration included a test on data transmission.

The test went smoothly, leading House committee on Suffrage and Electoral Reforms member Congressman Rufus Rodriguez to conclude that double transmission is not possible under Smartmatic's system. Rodriguez was a staunch critic of the automated system.

To address concerns about the compact flash cards used with the PCOS machines, four cards found in a junk shop in Cagayan de Oro were also tested. It was established that the cards transmitted data and that the information sent were consistent with what was reflected in the Comelec tally.

How those cards ended up in that junk shop is another matter, which the PNP will investigate. As to the cards in Congresswoman Annie Susano's possession, well, Committee Chairman Congressman Teodoro Locsin Junior says this issue will no longer be tackled. He says he will no longer let Susano present the cards as evidence during any hearing of his committee.

Kudos to Locsin for putting an end to that particular issue.

Incidentally, Susano, a loser in the mayoralty race in Quezon City, left the demonstration in Laguna after refusing to sign a non-disclosure agreement and making some rather weird demands.

That's what these complainers are. I'm of course referring those politicians who have come out with claims of being approached by individuals and groups offering to rig the elections in their behalf.

I'm disgusted with these people because the fact that they came out with this piece of information only after the elections shows that they're not really doing this to help fix the election system. Had they been motivated by a patriotic sense to help preserve the integrity of the electoral process they would have exposed these alleged offers long before election day.

I sure hope everyone is seeing the reality here. These pseudo-whistleblowers had all the time to reveal what they claim to know but only did so after the elections. What could be the reason for that? Well, we can only speculate that these people may have actually accepted the offer presented to them by these alleged electoral fraud operators.

Word on the street is such operations cost a lot of money. Well, We can only imagine how a politician who availed of such services would feel about losing despite having paid good money for a sure victory. They certainly won't be happy. They certainly would feel sore. They certainly would end up as sore losers.

Here's a scanned copy of a tabloid column piece from Dan Zulueta. Special thanks to my barber Mang Pedring for lending me his copy of Bomba.

I really wonder where Mr. Lagman based his conclusion. Is he seriously using the string of questionable claims and allegations against the automated election system as proof?

In fairness, he did dismiss the claims made by the self-confessed electoral fraud operator known as Koala Bear. I think he found Koala's story incredible.

In any case, it is still rather strange that Mr.Lagman would make such a conclusion about the system considering that none of the ongoing investigations have yielded any solid evidence.

(excerpt from abs-cbnnews.com report)

"We are back to where we were when we were using the manual elections," Augusto Lagman of the anti-election fraud group Transparent Elections.Org told ANC's Headstart, referring to the various complaints about the automated election system.

Mr. Lagman is clearly making a sweeping generalization here. How can he say such a thing when it's very clear that, despite all its imperfections, the automated system clearly changed the game. For one, it is quite clear that the system put many electoral fraud operators out of business.

Ironically, it is this game-changing impact of the system that is making it the target of all sorts of attack. Think about it. Who stands to benefit should our election system revert back to manual?

The same abs-cbnnews.com report says Mr. Lagman also believes that cheating "could not have come from outside, but within the ranks of poll equipment supplier Smartmatic."

I don't think so.

What Mr. Lagman and those gullible enough to believe him fail to realize is that there's just no compelling reason for Smartmatic to sabotage it's own system. And, for what? To help certain politicians win?

The way I see it, Smartmatic's interest lies in the success of the elections. It's obvious. Smartmatic aims to do more business not only here in the Philippines but in other countries in the region as well. Why would it fool around when doing so would clearly jeopardize its business?

I seriously think Mr. Lagman knows whom he should blame but chose to drag Smartmatic because of some other reason.

In case you missed it, Mr. Lagman is an IT expert and a businessman.