Saturday, May 19, 2012

VOTERS' EDUCATION in HIGH SCHOOL


COMELEC bats for inclusion of voter ed in High School curriculum
 18 May 2012

COMELEC-Education & Information Department

The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) announced Friday that it supports a bill that seeks to make voter education mandatory in the High School curriculum.
House Bill No. 5784, introduced by Paranaque Rep. Edwin L. Olivarez, states that voters’ education should be taught to Fourth Year High School students in both public and private schools including those that are enrolled in the Alternative Learning System (ALS).
The bill tasks the Department of Education (DepEd), the COMELEC and the Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA) to develop a common curriculum that shall include: Values Formation; Importance of the right to suffrage and the sanctity of the ballot; Factors in evaluating and choosing candidates, and; the Electoral Process in the Philippines.
COMELEC Commissioner and Voter Education Champion Elias R. Yusoph lauded the measure, saying that this would be “a big boost to the COMELEC’s continuing effort to educate the electorate, most especially the youth, on the value of the people’s right to suffrage and on the rudiments of the electoral process.”

MESSAGE

HON. ELIAS R. YUSOPH
Commissioner
Commission on Elections

 At the outset, I would like to personally congratulate Congressman Edwin L. Olivares for coming up with House Bill No. 5784 or “An Act Making Voters’ Edu­cation Mandatory in the High School Cur­riculum both Public and Private Schools and Appropriating Funds Therefor”. The Commission on Elections welcomes with keenness this remarkable bill. Personally, it is my belief that this bill would become a piece of legislation as voters’ education is a significant prelude for a successful elec­toral exercise.
For so long a time, Comelec is the rud­der and the forefront of the country’s vot­ers’ education and information campaign. This is so because it is the sole agency mandated with the duty to educate the public and fully inform the electorate of matters relative to the conduct of the free and fair elections. Pursuant to this duty, we have made voters’ education a priority policy, hence, part of our five-year strate­gic plan called COMSTRAT 1116.
As champion commissioner of voters’ edu­cation, I would say that the conception of House Bill No. 5784 is most appropriate; not only for purposes of the 2013 National and Local Elections, but for a sustainable and genuine election reform. By includ­ing voters’ education in the curriculum, the correct perspective or mindset would be in­culcated in the young and receptive minds of our children. We can then envision a set of leaders chosen by the electorate through intelligent evaluation of platforms and track records, not for popularity, name-recall or monetary reason.
I can assure the Honorable Congressman that when this bill gets legislated, Comelec, through our Education and Information De­partment headed by Dir. James B. Jimenez, would put forth best efforts to achieve the purpose for which this bill was conceived. The legal and technical assistance Comelec can offer would be discussed in detail dur­ing the open-forum. 


Monday, May 7, 2012

ON PREMATURE CAMPAIGNING


On premature campaigning
05.06.2012 · by  James Jimenez · in COMELEC

If someone tells you that the ad he put out – or the tarps he strung across the street, or the placards he nailed to trees – isn’t premature campaigning because he didn’t use the words “VOTE FOR ME,” then he’s wrong. Any material that promotes the election or defeat of a candidate is considered campaign material. The actual words used are immaterial. After all, can a poster with a person’s name be any less a promotion of him than a poster with his name and the words VOTE FOR ME? If anything, that exhortation is quite redundant.

However, the offense of premature campaigning is not defined only by the content of the materials, but more importantly by [a] the character of the person either benefited or disadvantaged by the materials, and [b] the timing of the release of those materials.

The Character of the Character

The person being boosted – or trashed – by the materials must be a candidate, first and foremost. If he isn’t a candidate, then the materials – even with “VOTE FOR ME” prominently displayed – will NOT be considered as being in the nature of campaign materials. It is just free speech. Remember, anyone with money to burn can churn out posters, tarps, streamers and flyers that praise him and his accomplishments, as a matter of right.

A candidate, on the other hand, has to accept reasonable limitations on his right of self-expression – and self-promotion – in the greater interest of leveling to level the “playing field between the popular or rich candidates, on one hand, and the lesser-known or poorer candidates, on the other, by allowing them to campaign only within the same limited period.”

Sounds simple enough, til you consider the definition of the designation “candidate.”

The Supreme Court, in a Resolution dated November 25, 2009, said:

Section 79(a) of the Omnibus Election Code defines a “candidate” as “any person aspiring for or seeking an elective public office, who has filed a certificate of candidacy x x x.” The second sentence, third paragraph, Section 15 of RA 8436, as amended by Section 13 of RA 9369, provides that “[a]ny person who files his certificate of candidacy within [the period for filing] shall only be considered as a candidate at the start of the campaign period for which he filed his certificate of candidacy.”

Okay then. In order to be called a “candidate,” a person must have [a] filed a certificate of candidacy, and [b] the campaign period for the election he’s running in must have started.

Now how many of these people, who have started putting up ads and such, qualify? Zilch. For this reason alone, no case can be made for premature campaigning against anyone at this time.

But it doesn’t end there. In fact, it only gets trickier from here on out.

The Timing

Before going into this rather tangetial discussion on the timing of the release of ads and posters, keep in mind that under the Automation Law [RA 8436, as amended by RA 9369] the period for the filing of certificates of candidacy starts and ends earlier than usual. Thus, there are several weeks in between the last day of filing COCs and the actual start of the campaign period. This is radically different from the election calendar before automation when the last day for filing of COCs was usually the day before the campaign period.

Because of this change, and because of the language of the automation law, there has been a lot of question about what candidates can and cannot do in that long interval between filing their COCs and the start of the campaign period. This is the question the Court sought to answer in Penera v. COMELEC.

In the main decision in Penera v. COMELEC [GR181613, 11 September 2009] the Court essentially ruled that, while a person officially becomes a “candidate” only at the start of the campaign period, the filing of a COC makes explicit his intention to run for office. Thus, even before the campaign period actually starts, acts like holding rallies and putting up posters and such, “can be logically and reasonably as for the purpose of promoting his/her intended candidacy.”

Thus, “When the campaign period starts and said person proceeds with his/her candidacy, his/her intent turning into actuality, we can already consider his/her acts, after the filing of his/her COC and prior to the campaign period, as the promotion of his/her election as a candidate, hence, constituting premature campaigning, for which he/she may be disqualified. Also, conversely, if said person, for any reason, withdraws his/her COC before the campaign period, then there is no point to view his/her acts prior to said period as acts for the promotion of his/her election as a candidate. In the latter case, there can be no premature campaigning as there is no candidate, whose disqualification may be sought, to begin with.

To simplify that even further, what the Court was saying that once the campaign period starts, people who have filed their COCs can be made accountable for “campaigning” activities that they undertook during the long interval between filing COCs and the start of the campaign period.

To visualize:

However, barely two months later, the Supreme Court set aside this ruling [Penera v. COMELEC, GR181613, 25 November 2009].

According to the Court, the fact that Congress wrote into the law that  “any unlawful act or omission applicable to a candidate shall take effect only upon the start of the campaign period,” gave rise to inescapable and logical result that those acts – “campaigning” included - are lawful.

“In layman’s language, this means that a candidate is liable for an election offense only for acts done during the campaign period, not before. The law is clear as daylight — any election offense that may be committed by a candidate under any election law cannot be committed before the start of the campaign period. In ruling that Penera is liable for premature campaigning for partisan political acts before the start of the campaigning, the assailed Decision ignores the clear and express provision of the law.

The Decision rationalizes that a candidate who commits premature campaigning can be disqualified or prosecuted only after the start of the campaign period. This is not what the law says. What the law says is “any unlawful act or omission applicable to a candidate shall take effect only upon the start of the campaign period.” The plain meaning of this provision is that the effective date when partisan political acts become unlawful as to a candidate is when the campaign period starts. Before the start of the campaign period, the same partisan political acts are lawful. (provided the emphasis, btw.)

The law does not state, as the assailed Decision asserts, that partisan political acts done by a candidate before the campaign period are unlawful, but may be prosecuted only upon the start of the campaign period. Neither does the law state that partisan political acts done by a candidate before the campaign period are temporarily lawful, but becomes unlawful upon the start of the campaign period. This is clearly not the language of the law. Besides, such a law as envisioned in the Decision, which defines a criminal act and curtails freedom of expression and speech, would be void for vagueness.

Congress has laid down the law — a candidate is liable for election offenses only upon the start of the campaign period. This Court has no power to ignore the clear and express mandate of the law that “any person who files his certificate of candidacy within [the filing] period shall only be considered a candidate at the start of the campaign period for which he filed his certificate of candidacy.” Neither can this Court turn a blind eye to the express and clear language of the law that “any unlawful act or omission applicable to a candidate shall take effect only upon the start of the campaign period.”

As a result, it would appear that in the interval between the last day for the filing of the COC and the start of the campaign period, even those who have already filed their certificates of candidacy won’t be liable for premature campaigning. I suppose the inevitable question here is, did the Supreme Court not see this?

The forum for examining the wisdom of the law, and enacting remedial measures, is not this Court but the Legislature. This Court has no recourse but to apply a law that is as clear, concise and express as the second sentence, and it’s immediately succeeding proviso, as written in the third paragraph of Section 15 of RA 8436, as amended by RA 9369.

Apparently, they did. By dropping such a clear hint for Congress, the Court signified that its own misgivings would not move it to go beyond the scope of its powers. This loophole was created by law, one can imagine the Court saying. And it is the lawmakers who have to plug it. In essence, this was the same dilemma that the COMELEC found itself in back in 2009, and even now, almost two years later.

Back then, most candidates did the honorable thing and the interval passed with fewer political ads and posters than we were expecting, considering the carte blanche handed to them by the reconsideration of the Penera decision. It remains to be seen however, if similar restraint will be exercised beginning October 6, 2012.

In the meantime, we return to the issue of adverts, posters, streamers and what-not, starting to clutter our field of vision now.

In both the main decision and the reconsideration of Penera, the Court consistently indicated that even acts which are clearly partisan or self-promotional in nature, cannot be considered “campaigning,” much less premature campaigning. They are therefore not illegal, falling well within the ambit of free speech.
Unfortunately, these acts are the very same ones that nearly everyone wants the COMELEC to do something about. At the risk of the COMELEC being labeled “helpless,” as we so often are when it comes to this topic, the fact of the matter remains that if something is legal, then there really is nothing that can be done about it.

As far as I know, Congress ought to already be aware of the existence of this loophole since notice of it came directly from a co-equal branch of government. However, apart from the many public pronouncements made by the COMELEC in 2009, these concerns have also been brought up with the appropriate committees in Congress.

Small comfort, I guess.

Sunday, May 6, 2012

COMELEC REACHES OUT PWDs-Photos





ODIONGAN - Every Saturday, starting May 5, 2012, the local Office of the Election Officer, Commission on Elections conducts a one day Special Registration of Voters on field reaching out person with disabilities (PWD) in every barangay of the municipality. They were assisted by municipal local government personnel, MSWD and the barangay councils of every barangays.
                                                          
  
                                                      























 







Thursday, May 3, 2012

SC HEARS PCOS PURCHASE


SUPREME COURT hears PCOS purchase

May 02, 2012. Supreme Court justices started the oral arguments on three petitions consolidated into one seeking the nullity of the Commission on Elections’ P1.8 billion purchase of 2010 automated election system (AES) provider Smartmatic-TIM’s precinct count optical scan (PCOS) machines. Petitioners allege that the Commission on Elections (Comelec) committed grave abuse of discretion and violated Republic Act No. 9184 or the Government Procurement Act when it bought on “option purchase” 82,000 precinct count optical scan (PCOS) machines from Smartmatic-Total Information Management (TIM) without public bidding. Petitioners also added that there were glitches, delays, defects and technical problems in the May 10, 2010 National and Local elections that violated Republic Act No. 9369 (Automated Election System Act).

First to present arguments are petitioners,  Davao City Archbishop Fernando Capalla, former Marawi City Mayor Omar Solitario Ali and former Quezon City Rep. Mary Ann Susano, through her lawyer Dean Abraham Espejo of the New Era College of Law, who said that Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion when it inked a deal to buy 82,000 PCOS machines, with the deed of sale signed last March 27, 2012. He said that since Comelec was purchasing PCOS machines for another set of elections, impliedly, a new bidding process among possible providers must have been conducted by the Commission on Elections since the former contract expired on December 31, 2010 and said contract covered only the 2010 polls.

Dean Abraham Espejo told the High Tribunal that the Deed of Sale signed by Smartmatic-TIM and the Comelec for the purchase of the PCOS should be nullified for violating the Government Procurement Act. Dean Espejo claimed that the September 2009 Comelec and Smartmatic-TIM contract was for the lease of an automated election system for purposes of 2010 elections, while the option to purchase recently entered into by the Comelec and Smartmatic-TIM was intended to be use in the May 13, 2013 National and Local Elections, thus making said contract unlawful, thus illegal. Espejo stressed, “Comelec could not validly accept the extension of time unilaterally extended by Smartmatic because that is tantamount to the Comelec entering into another agreement…that under the law requires a different bidding,” Espejo told the high court. They added that any purchase of technology and election systems for use in the 2013 midterm polls should have to undergo public bidding.

During interpellation several magistrate asked Dean Espejo if the contract to purchase may fall under any of the 5 exceptions to the conduct of public bidding found in the Government Procurement Act? Dean Espejo answered negative.

Associate Justice Presbitero Velasco said the contract pertained to the same set of PCOS machines, and that it should not be confined to the 2010 polls and was intended to be used in the next election.

"The title of the [original] contract pertains to the 2010 elections. There was no mention of the 2013 elections. We contend that if there will be an expansion, there should be expanded provisions of the contract if it would pertain to future elections," Espejo said.

Justice Velasco, on the other hand, asked Espejo if the purchase of the PCOS machines for the 2013 elections could qualify as direct contracting, which is also an exception under the government procurement act.

Under the law, direct contracting could be done under the following conditions:

a. Procurement of goods of proprietary nature, which can be obtained only from the proprietary source, i.e. when patents, trade secrets and copyrights prohibit others from manufacturing the same item;

b. When the procurement of critical components from a specific manufacturer, supplier or distributor is a condition precedent to hold a contractor to guarantee its project performance, in accordance with the provisions of his contract; or,

c. Those sold by an exclusive dealer or manufacturer, which does not have sub-dealers selling at lower prices and for which no suitable substitute can be obtained at more advantageous terms to the government.

Velasco further asked, "Is there any supplier in the world of PCOS machines in these kind?" Espejo answered in the negative.

He noted though that Comelec should still be held liable because it did not specify in its recent contract with Smartmatic that the purchase of the PCOS machines is an exception under the law.

Justice Martin Villarama asked Espejo if his camp was assailing the purchase of the PCOS because they preferred using Optical Mark Reader (OMR) machines.

Espejo said his camp does not prefer any kind of machine to be used next May, adding that he will let the Comelec make the choice.

Associate Justice Arturo Brion, meantime, asked questions regarding the timeline from the signing of the 2010 automation contract up to the date the option to purchase lapsed. He asked Espejo, if at any point in the said period, did Comelec decide to purchase all 82,000 machines.

Espejo answered in the negative, but said he did not know why the Comelec “mysteriously” did not do so and only decided to purchase the machines two months ago.

It was during Brion’s questioning where it was established that the machines, while purchased at a relatively lower price, are not brand new.

Associate Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno asked Espejo if the purchase may not be considered a “repeat order” in which case a bidding may not be undertaken. A repeat order, as defined in the law, is allowed when "the procuring entity directly procures goods from the previous winning bidder whenever there arises a need to replenish goods procured under a contract previously awarded through competitive bidding."

Lawyer Abraham Espejo, however, pointed out that this will amount to an “overstretching of the law.”

Associate Justice Sereno,  said that the Comelec took over 360 days to finalize the contract with Smartmatic-Total Information Management’s (TIM), which provided the PCOS machines in the 2010 elections. Justice Sereno pointed out that there may not be enough time for the Comelec to conduct a public bidding and prepare for the technology and system to be used in the 2013 polls. “Do we have enough days to do another bidding?” Sereno asked the counsel for petitioners.

“The Comelec has enough time,” lawyer Abraham Espejo said, adding that the Comelec has enough intelligent people to study and come up with a new contract.

Sereno also asked if there would be enough time to train election officers to use the election machines. Espejo said the correct posture would be for the Comelec to hire experts that would assist in the operation of the machines.

“Are you now telling us that the Comelec violated the procurement law… regardless of the consequence, we must now proceed with a new bidding. That’s what you are telling us right now, that we have no moral responsibility at all… whether the 2013 elections succeed or not,” Sereno told Espejo.

However, Dean Abraham Espejo  stood his ground and stressed that the Comelec should not be allowed to violate the law.

“The choice is not whether or not we will have automated elections in 2013. I think the choice is whether we will allow the Comelec to violate the Procurement Law. Beyond that is a matter of policy… and I’m sure that the Comelec, with all its resources, can find a viable alternative. We cannot abandon the law simply because it looks good to abandon it and neither can we abandon the law because of a stretched interpretation of the law,” he said.

When asked by Justice Antonio T. Carpio if they would have objected if the Comelec exercised the option to purchase before the original Dec. 31, 2010 expiry date, Mr. Espejo said: "That is debatable."

"Our position is it is illegal to extend the period for another purpose (the 2013 elections)," Atty. Espejo said. "For as long as the extension has something to do with the 2010 elections, we will have no objection. Otherwise, this would be subject to regular bidding."

At this point, Justice Carpio said: "Your legal theory does not stand scrutiny. You have to do better than that."

Ex-Comelec Commissioner Augusto "Gus" Lagman supporting the petitioners, on the sidelines of the oral arguments stress that the purchase is not an exception. He said it is not allowed under the procurement act because extending the option in itself is a violation of the terms of reference of the original contract.

“The (deadline for) purchase already expired and the extension of deadline means substantial modification of the reference,” Lagman said.

Lagman said Comelec should have not renewed the contract with Smartmatic because the technical glitches in the PCOS machines were not addressed. “Proof of the problems is that they were trying to repair it. That is an admission that there is problem with the machines,” he said.

He cited the use of “worm,” or a medium where results are recorded and which is not rewritable. He said this means the machines may be tampered with using an ordinary laptop. “It was very vulnerable to tampering. It does not have enough security features and has no digital signatures, which were supposed to be given by election inspectors rather than the machine,” he said.

Lagman, an expert in poll automation whose appointment to Comelec failed to pass the confirmation of the powerful Commission on Appointments (CA) was not renewed by President Benigno Aquino III, also revealed that the PCOS machines used in the 2010 polls had no mechanism “to check the authenticity of the ballots and votes supposedly shown.”

Lagman likewise said Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion in approving the contract through Resolution No. 9376, in spite of the recommendation of the Comelec Advisory Council (CAC) under a resolution issued last Feb. 8. CAC said Comelec should look for better options for the May 2013 elections.

The petitioners said the contract also violated Section 10 of RA 9369 or the Automated Election System law, which mandates that for the May 10, 2010 election and succeeding automated elections, the system to be used “must have demonstrated capability and been successfully used in a prior electoral exercise here or abroad.”

When asked by Associate Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno if he thinks the technical glitches were irreparable, Lagman said: “I just don’t think they still have the time to do it. Smartmatic had the last two years to correct it but they did not,” he said.

Ask for comment Comelec Chairman Sixto Brillantes on the matter, he did not address the question on Comelec's transaction as a possible exception, but said that he is puzzled by the arguments of the petitioners. He dismissed the argument of petitioners and stood firm too on his belief that the new contract did not violate any law.

“They said there should be new bidding because supposedly we can’t use the machines for 2013 since they’re only for 2010. But that is incorrect because there’s an option to purchase,” he told reporters after the hearing.

Chairman Brillantes also said they had intended to use the PCOS machines in subsequent elections, insisting that the Comelec need not explicitly state in the original contract whether it plans to use the same machines for the 2013 elections.

He said it was only a matter of time when the Comelec would purchase the machines, adding that the government did not buy the machines before 2012 because it had no use for them yet.

“That would have required expenses for warehousing, manpower, maintenance when those are not yet necessary. What do you want us to do – for the government to spend for those expenses when the machines were not yet needed until 2013?” he said.

Petitioners are Davao City Archbishop Fernando Capalla, former Marawi City Mayor Omar Ali, and former Quezon City Rep. Mary Anne Susano, Solidarity for Sovereignty (S4S) represented by Ma. Linda Montayre, Ramon Pedrosa, Benjamin Paulino, Sr., Evelyn Coronel, and Nelson Montayre and the Automated Election System (AES) Watch led by former Vice President Teofisto Guingona. They all sought the issuance of a temporary restraining order and nullification of the extended contract between Comelec and Smartmatic-TIM.

 online reports

DILG CHIEF URGED LGUs


Prepare Detainee Voting, LGUs Urged
By Czarina Nicole Ong
May 2, 2012, 2:47pm

MANILA, Philippines - The Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) yesterday directed local chief executives (LCEs) to comply with the recently-promulgated resolution regarding the guidelines on detainee registration and voting to ensure that detainees still qualified to vote shall be allowed to register and exercise their suffrage as residents.

In his Memorandum Circular No. 2012-66, Interior and Local Government Secretary Jesse M. Robredo said that LCEs, regional directors, and the governor of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao must comply with the Commission on Elections (Comelec) Resolution No. 9371, or the “Rules and Regulations on Detainee Registration and Voting in Connection with the May 13, 2013 National and Local Elections and Subsequent Elections Thereafter.”

This was agreed upon during a meeting between the DILG and the Comelec’s Committee on Detainee Voting, headed by Commissioner Rene Sarmiento, on March 10.

In her memorandum, Director Esmeralda Amora-Ladra of the Comelec’s Law Department said that detainees are among “certain sectors in our society whose members, though qualified, are effectively deprived of their right to cast their votes.”

She recalled that detainees were previously not allowed to register to vote or transfer their registration records to the place of their confinement, impeding them from participating in the May 2010 elections.

Ladra, however, cited Section 9 of Republic Act No. 8189 stating that persons at least 18 years old, residents of the Philippines for at least a year, and of the place they wish to register in as voters for at least six months, shall be allowed to register.

She added that detainees as well as persons who temporarily live in other places for other reasons such as work should be allowed to register and vote in their temporary residence.

Moreover, through the promulgated resolution, detainees may now enlist in their respective detention centers through satellite registration for the forthcoming 2013 elections.

Meanwhile, detainees who are registered in other areas or prisoners in detention centers without established special polling centers must be escorted to their respective polling places.

Those who are registered in other areas may apply for transfer of registration records to the place of their confinement.

The Committee on Detainee Voting will be working together with the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology (BJMP), Bureau of Corrections, Commission on Human Rights, watch groups, and some non-government organizations in safeguarding the detainees’ right to vote.

During the campaign period, candidates shall also be allowed to enter detention centers but must still comply with the rules and regulations provided by the BJMP and Comelec.

To maintain order, the BJMP said that the division of detainee voters will be done by listing together detainee voters belonging to the same district.

In connection with this, the BJMP also said that registered detainee voters that are released as of the last working day of February of the election year will be excluded from the BJMP list.

They will also give the Election Officer an updated list of detainees who are released from the first Monday of March up to the date of the submission of the list.

Special polling places will be established in an area inside the jail spacious enough to accommodate more than 10 people to ensure that voting will be completed while there is still sufficient time to deliver all the accomplished ballots to the different precincts where detainees are registered.

A special precinct will also be established in case there are more than 500 detainee voters.

Tuesday, May 1, 2012

ERB NOTICE TO PUBLIC


Republic of the Philippines
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
OFFICE OF THE ELECTION REGISTRATION BOARD
Odioñgan, Romblon
-oOo-

NOTICE OF HEARING

            Notice is hereby given that the following application for registration/transfer/change of entry as voter of the municipality will be summarily heard for approval/disapproval by the Election Registration Board of the municipality on July 16, 2012. Any complaint or objection thereto should be submitted to the Office of the Election Officer before the scheduled hearing date.
NEW APPLICANT
NO.
APPL. NO.
APPLICANT’s NAME
BARANGAY
Prec. No.
1.
5909300007631
Andal, Arianne Mae Fabro
Dapawan
0027B
2.
5909300007637
Andal, Bless Faith Fabro
Dapawan
0027B
3.
5909300007630
Andal, Julie Jane Fabro
Dapawan
0027B
4.
5909300007643
Cahilig, Neomi Abardo
Gabawan
0033C
5.
5909300007651
Casa, Arjay Rhyl Mingoa
Poctoy
0053B
6.
5909300007638
Dela Rosa, Rosemarie Jusay
Dapawan
0029D
7.
5909300007642
Falcunitin, Mercy Rafael
Amatong
0011A
8.
5909300007642
Ferrer, Jessica Robiso
Libertad
0034C
9.
5909300007629
Fesarillo, Allein Masangcay
Anahao
0014B
10.
5909300007658
Galicia, Rodillo Jr. Cedillo
Taboboan
0060A
11.
5909300007650
Galisanao, Jay Arvis Vergara
Poctoy
0053B
12.
5909300007652
Herrera, Ana Belle Ferriol
Ligaya
0003A
13.
5909300007660
Meñez, Riza Soniel
Mayha
0041A
14.
5909300007654
Motin, Borromeo Billones
Poctoy
0053B
15.
5909300007628
Palacao, Rowena Salidaga
Dapawan
0029D
16.
5909300007639
Pawang, Arbie Familaran
Tulay
0066B
17.
5909300007659
Rubion, Joseph Christian Guyo
Liwanag
0008B
18.
5909300007648
Salvador, Daryl Galicia
Amatong
0011A
19.
5909300007647
Salvador, Decelyn Galicia
Amatong
0011A
20.
5909300007653
Solano, Alkaid Uy
Ligaya
0002A
21.
5909300007644
Villacrusis Ruby Benitez
Libertad
0034A
22.
5909300007732
Advincula, Janno Will Venus
Anahao
0014A
23.
5909300007728
Advincula, Joeffre Osorio
Anahao
0014A
24.
5909300007690
Almodiente, Cherry Ann Yap
Anahao
0014A
25.
5909300007761
Amar, Shielafel Forcado
Anahao
0014A
26.
5909300007662
Anastacio, Geneline Encarnacion
Panique
0046B
27.
5909300007661
Anastacio, Rico Libuton
Panique
0046B
28.
5909300007693
Aungon, Michelle Tejolan
Anahao
0014A
29.
5909300007756
Bantang, Kevin Malunes
Anahao
0014A
30.
5909300007678
Cacananta, Raquel Advincula
Anahao
0014A
31.
5909300007733
Dalisay, Alvin Lozano
Anahao
0014A
32.
5909300007687
Dalisay, Aishele Nino
Malilico
0039B
33.
5909300007700
Dalisay, Jeralyn Fesarillo
Malilico
0039B
34.
5909300007705
Dalisay, Michael Formento
Anahao
0014A
35.
5909300007758
Espanola, Monica Amboy
Malilico
0038B
36.
5909300007673
Espanola, Ruel Villanueva
Malilico
0038B
37.
5909300007771
Faa, Emy Rose Merculesio
Anahao
0014A
38.
5909300007703
Fabito, Cynthia Gregorio
Malilico
0038B
39.
5909300007702
Fabito, Jomel Osorio
Malilico
0038B
40.
5909300007691
Fabito, Mary Jane Formento
Malilico
0038B
41.
5909300007763
Fabul, Mary Grace Falogme
Anahao
0014B
42.
5909300007757
Faclarin, Cyrus Castillo
Malilico
0038B
47.
5909300007751
Factor, Jester Gray Magbanua
Anahao
0014A
48.
5909300007742
Fadriquela, Arsenio Jr. Anas
Malilico
0038B
49.
5909300007738
Fadriquela, Danica Gregorio
Malilico
0038B
50.
5909300007746
Fadriquela, Danreb Formento
Malilico
0038B
51.
5909300007674
Fadriquela, Lorenz Inocencio
Malilico
0038B
52.
5909300007698
Fadriquela, Nimfa Anas
Malilico
0038B
53.
5909300007744
Fadriquela, Pacencia Malunes
Malilico
0038B
54.
5909300007721
Fadriquela, Romalyn Broniola
Malilico
0038B
55.
5909300007679
Fadriquela, Rosinie Broniola
Malilico
0038B
56.
5909300007748
Faeldonia, Jazelle Daclan
Anahao
0014B
57.
5909300007694
Faeldonia, Maylyn Zuela
Anahao
0014B
58.
5909300007692
Faeldonia, Myra Zuela
Anahao
0014B
59.
5909300007670
Faeldonia, Sheena Fran
Anahao
0014B
60.
5909300007685
Famatiga, Eric Gregorio
Malilico
0038B
61.
5909300007737
Famisan, Elarde Zuela
Anahao
0014B
62.
5909300007716
Famisaran, Aldrin Fontelo
Malilico
0038B
63.
5909300007664
Famorcan, Aimee Segarel
Budiong
0023A
64.
5909300007668
Famorcan, Mark Francis Gregorio
Tuburan
0063B
65.
5909300007667
Famorcan, Melissa Faith Gregorio
Tuburan
0063B
66.
5909300007683
Fampo, Alberto Manalon
Malilico
0038B
67.
5909300007773
Fausto, Jose Thadeus Gementra
Anahao
0014B
68.
5909300007708
Felia, Jahaziel Forcado
Anahao
0014B
69.
5909300007750
Ferranco, Manilyn Aquino
Anahao
0014B
70.
5909300007764
Ferrancullo, Jo-an Malunes
Anahao
0014B
71.
5909300007760
Fontanoza, Angelyn Fran
Anahao
0014B
72.
5909300007774
Forcado, Ely Martirez
Taboboan
0060B
73.
5909300007714
Forcado, Joel Guray
Anahao
0014B
74.
5909300007696
Forcado, Pamela Mhae Fabito
Malilico
0038B
75.
5909300007676
Forio, Ma. Erica Lagunday
Anahao
0014B
76.
5909300007695
Forteza, Aideen May Asturias
Anahao
0014B
77.
5909300007768
Fran, Darryl Romblon
Anahao
0014B
78.
5909300007740
Fran, Eddie Gregorio
Anahao
0014B
79.
5909300007767
Fran, Eddiemar Romblon
Anahao
0014B
80.
5909300007759
Fronda, Juliete Fontejon
Anahao
0014B
81.
5909300007753
Gajetas, Reymond Venus
Anahao
0014B
82.
5909300007752
Gajetas, Rolly Venus
Anahao
0014B
83.
5909300007749
Gallos, Keyce Salsona
Anahao
0014B
84.
5909300007770
Gallos, Martin Salsona
Anahao
0014B
85.
5909300007747
Gamos, Kurt Malunes
Anahao
0014B
86.
5909300007718
Gamos, Sammy Forio
Anahao
0014B
87.
5909300007762
Garing, Gino Magbanua
Anahao
0014B
88.
5909300007729
Ignacio, Sarah Marasigan
Malilico
0038B
89.
5909300007725
Inocencio, Ruben Galabay
Malilico
0038B
90.
5909300007725
Lambon, Shena Marie Tambalque
Anahao
0014B
91.
5909300007697
Lanzaderas, Johnmark Malunes
Malilico
0038B
92.
5909300007711
Lerin, Jenifer Ferrer
Anahao
0014B
93.
5909300007730
Lorenzo, John Lee Fernando
Malilico
0038B
94.
5909300007669
Malunes, Babylyn Formento
Anahao
0014A
95.
5909300007745
Malunes, Rudy Famaran
Anahao
0014B
96.
5909300007734
Malunes, Ruel Dalisay
Anahao
0014B
97.
5909300007735
Malunes, Vena Dalisay
Anahao
0014B
98.
5909300007741
Marasigan, Emelanie Fadriquela
Malilico
0038B
99.
5909300007677
Marcelo, Jonathan Osorio
Malilico
0038B
100.
5909300007675
Marcelo, Lovely Galang
Malilico
0038B
101.
5909300007717
Masangcay, Lunico Yap
Anahao
0014B
102.
5909300007755
Ocampo, Genesis De Villena
Malilico
0038B
103.
5909300007715
Pampo, Aldrin Malunes
Malilico
0038B
104.
5909300007723
Paquera, Relyn Dionela
Malilico
0038B
105.
5909300007686
Paulino, Haidy Marcelo
Malilico
0038B
106.
5909300007772
Romero, Dorelee Dalisay
Malilico
0038B
107.
5909300007722
Romero, Val Fontelo
Malilico
0038B
108.
5909300007706
San Luis, Rizza Lopez
Anahao
0014B
109.
5909300007672
Sabulao, Brenda Rena
Malilico
0038B
110.
5909300007765
Sadia, Jannet Galos
Anahao
0014B
111.
5909300007766
Sadia, Judith Galos
Anahao
0014B
112.
5909300007699
Samillano, Trexia Fadriquela
Malilico
0038B
113.
5909300007684
Sanchez, Norilyn Gacula
Malilico
0038B
114.
5909300007663
Servanez, Roxette Dela Pena
Liwayway
0009A
115.
5909300007726
Solis, Jayson Famaran
Anahao
0014B
116.
5909300007671
Sulabo, Florivie Lazaro
Anahao
0014B
117.
5909300007713
Tamayo, Christian Fadero
Anahao
0014B
118.
5909300007712
Tamayo, Zairo Jr. Fadero
Anahao
0014B
119.
5909300007731
Venus, Melody Magay
Anahao
0014B
120.
5909300007665
Villarete, Louie Gramatica
Tabing Dagat
0004A
121.
5909300007769
Visca, John Denver Tolentino
Anahao
0014B
122.
5909300007754
Visca, Mark Dexter Tolentino
Anahao
0014B
123.
5909300007689
Yap, April Ann Soledad
Anahao
0014B
TRANSFER FROM OTHER MUNICIPALITIES
1.
5909300007649
Aquino, Cristy Vidad
Poctoy
0052A
2.
5909300007657
David, Melba Forcadas
Batiano
0020A
3.
5909300007640
Esteves, Kellen Fornea
Mayha
0040B
4.
5909300007632
Foja, Niña Grace Rubas
Dapawan
0028D
5.
5909300007636
Forio, Nena Yap
Liwanag
0008A
6.
5909300007656
Galang, Valentino Macatol
Ligaya
0001A
7.
5909300007634
Guanco, Merelene Fallaria
Gabawan
0030B
8.
5909300007635
Lambatin, Duma Grecia
Dapawan
0029D
9.
5909300007633
Repelar, Doreen Jan Fallaria
Gabawan
0030B
10.
5909300007645
Teologo, Vergie Galachico
Gabawan
0048A
11.
5909300007641
Uri, Wannalyn Lemoncito
Anahao
0013B
12.
5909300007655
Zulueta, Timoteo Rescober
Tulay
0066B
13.
5909300007682
Dela Vega, Rosemarie Anigan
Malilico
0039B
14.
5909300007743
Fadriquela, Michelle Inocencio
Malilico
0038B
15.
5909300007666
Fallaria, Arvie Joy Fabriquier
Budiong
0022A
16.
5909300007736
Ferrancullo, Leny Gregorio
Anahao
0014B
17.
5909300007707
Forcado, Marilyn Fallarcuna
Anahao
0014B
18.
5909300007727
Gamos, Shirley Fajela
Anahao
0014B
19.
5909300007724
Garing, Ma. Vilma Comilang
Anahao
0014B
20.
5909300007680
Inocencio, Mylene Sodoy
Malilico
0038B
21.
5909300007720
Malunes, Monica Prado
Anahao
0014B
22.
5909300007688
Sevilla, Estela Faeldonia
Malilico
0038B
23.
5909300007710
Tambalque, Geraldine Recto
Anahao
0014B
24.
5909300007704
Tayco, Marilyn Organo
Malilico
0038B
25.
5909300007701
Tayco, Pepito Solano
Malilico
0038B
26.
5909300007681
Torre, Arnold Laguna
Malilico
0038B
27.
5909300007719
Vidola, Benita Sanchez
Malilico
0038B
28.
5909300007739
Yuro, Eden Lumogdang
Malilico
0038B
TRANFER WITHIN THE MUNICIPALITY
1.
20143160
Advincula, Celia Fortu
Anahao
0014A
2.
5909300005615
Falcunitin, Meriam Rafael
Amatong
0011A
3.
5910000000001
Falogme, Emalrued Cortez
Tabing Dagat
0004B
4.
37456383
Fran, Nestor Rombines
Ligaya
0001B
5.
20142105
Famisan, Honey Malunes
Anahao
0014B
6.
37334577
Gado, Ernesto Faa
Anahao
0014B
7.
5910000005323
Gado, Marilou Villanueva
Anahao
0014B
8.
20143922
Riel, Evangeline Cruz
Poctoy
0053C
9.
37629133
Teologo, Florencio Gallos
Anahao
0014B
10.
37629103
Teologo, Josefina Tiongco
Anahao
0014B
APPLICATION FOR REACTIVATION
1.
37627246
Mingoa, Arleen Joy Marchante
Poctoy
0053C
2.
5910000003506
Motin, Ma. Cielo Amar
Poctoy
0053B
3.
5910000000058
Servañez, Rodel Robert Fadrigore
Ligaya
0001A
4.
20146428
Solano, Elmor Famero
Malilico
0039B
CORRECTION OF ENTRIES
1.
5910000001350
Dela Rosa, Giome Jusay
Liwayway
0009A
2.
37334821
Fadera, Rita May Fornal
Liwanag
0007A
3.
59093000003483
Falcunit, Marfel Jane Federico
Tulay
0068B
4.
59100000003483
Fallasgon, Bert Garcia
Dapawan
0029B
5.
20141384
Formon, Jane Moratin
Pato-o
0047A
6.
5910000000993
Galisanao, Ludivina Vergara
Poctoy
0053B
7.
20147132
Herrera, Elbie Ferriol
Ligaya
0003A
8.
37631538
Notario, Lensil Forio
Gabawan
0033A
9.
20146876
Paraggua, Mary Jane Fetalco
Tuburan
0063B
10.
5909300006230
Villacrusis, Ramah Gan
Tuburan
0062C
11.
37334803
Villanueva, Madline Fran
Liwanag
0007B
12.
37695479
Fajarito, Janice Falceso
Poctoy
0053A
13.
37594829
Galicia, Gina Forca
Tumingad
0070A
14.
20149066
Yu, Irine Gan
Libertad
0037A







As of May 08, 2012

VOTERS' PLEDGE

I am a Responsible and Principled Citizen.

I will educate myself and others about the issues at hand so that my vote is a meaningful and relevant exercise of my right of suffrage.

I pledge to vote for candidates who will abide by the duly constituted rules on campaigning because I understand that those who refuse to obey the law in the little things are not likely to obey the law in the more important things;

I pledge to vote for candidates who, by word and action, renounce violence, coercion, vote-buying, and corruption as means for getting elected;

I pledge to vote for the candidates who listen to their constituents and are responsive to the needs and aspirations of those they seek to represent;

I pledge to vote as my conscience dictates in all elections.

I make these promises freely and upon my honor.

(This Voter Pledge was read at the Unity Walk of 13 January 2013, by COMELEC Commissioner Elias R. Yusoph)

SOURCE: NAMFREL