Solita Monsod: Simple Arithmetic

Simple arithmetic
Posted:9:35 PM (Manila Time) | Jun. 25, 2004
By Solita Collas-Monsod

MEMBERS of the FPJ/Angara faction of the opposition (as distinguished from the Lacson faction) joined by all the knee-jerk Gloria-hating crowd (e.g., Sanlakas), plus some of the losers who are trying to justify their poor showing (e.g. Eddie Villanueva), have repeated their charges of "massive fraud" so often that they are beginning to believe it themselves.

That is no problem. What is disturbing is that people of good will who did not have the time to monitor the canvassing and who just hear the sound bites are also expressing doubts about the validity of the Macapagal victory.

The opposition's most telling blow is the "they (the majority)-wouldn't-even-allow-one-single-Election-Return-to-be-examined" complaint, which hits two birds with one stone: It casts the majority as tyrants and as hiders of truth. Milking the issue, comparisons were drawn (with an implied threat) between the refusal to open the ERs and the refusal to "open the envelope" during the Estrada impeachment trial.

It was so effective that it erased from the memories of otherwise thinking men and women the surveys conducted by opinion research firms with proven track records showing Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo trailing at first, then gaining, then pulling ahead, and finally winning (in the exit polls).

Thus, you have Walden Bello saying that while his original opinion was that Gloria had won, his suspicions were aroused by the majority's refusal to open "just three" ERs (he meant, of course, the ERs of three provinces). And others asking, what is wrong with opening these ERs if it means getting to the truth? Why hide behind technicalities?

Let's look at the issues. First is the comparison between the refusal to open the ERs and the refusal to open the Estrada envelope. That is an odious one, and entirely without basis. In the impeachment case, the contents of the envelope were a mystery to everyone. With the ERs, the parties concerned--the Comelec, the majority coalition, the dominant opposition, the citizen's arm--had access to their contents. By law, they get a copy of every document in the counting process. Not only were the ERs available for inspection at the precinct level, they could have been questioned and the counts corrected at the municipal level and then at the provincial level. In effect, the opposition had three opportunities to examine those ERs, complain and have the counts corrected. The truth was there for them to pursue.

Maybe their watchers and lawyers were sleeping on the job or incompetent. But, they argue, this should not result in the Filipino voters being "punished" by the victory of a candidate who "did not really win." What is wrong with opening these ERs one more time in the interest of truth?

Opening the ERs of three provinces seems eminently reasonable; after all, the original opposition demand was to examine all the ERs, which was scaled down to the ERs of 25 provinces, and finally to three.

Let's do some arithmetic to appreciate what is involved in examining those ERs. Start with 216,000 ERs in the country. Divide by 102 (provinces and cities with Certificates of Canvass; the rest of the 177 CoCs were from abroad with one percent of the votes). Rounding off, we get an average of 2,000 ERs per province.

Assume six minutes to examine each ER, an assumption which may be a gross underestimation. Multiply 6 minutes by 2,000 ERs and you have 12,000 minutes. For one province. That is equal to 200 hours. Thus it will take, on the average, 200 hours to examine one province's ERs. How many days? If you are talking of a 24-hour day, with no rest periods, that is 8.3 days. A more reasonable (but still unrealistic) 12-hour day means 16.7 days per province.

Now multiply that by three, and we realize that to examine the ERs of three provinces will take at least 50 days or seven weeks (working seven days a week) to eight weeks (working six days a week). And that time doesn't allow for any but the most cursory examination of the ERs.

That period would extend beyond June 30. The terms of office of the legislators would have expired, except for 12 senators, and the new Congress does not convene until the third week of July.

Let's not even go that far. It turns out (per Romy Makalintal, election lawyer par excellence) that the number of ERs for which the opposition seemed to have some evidence of irregularities totaled--is the reader ready for this?--1,390. Yes, Virginia, all that ranting and raving of someone like JV Bautista was actually, as Makalintal described it, nothing but "kuwentong kutsero (barbershop talk)." There were only 1,390 questionable ERs out of 216,000. Does that constitute "massive fraud"?

Would it have materially affected the results? Let's do some more arithmetic. Say that the number of questionable ERs was actually 2,000, instead of 1,390. On the average, precincts have 200 voters. Assume that all the votes in those ERs were for FPJ, zero for Ms Macapagal. That means 400,000 (2,000 ERs x 200 voters) votes more for FPJ and 400,000 votes less for Ms Macapagal or an 800,000 vote swing.

She won by more than 1.1 million votes. Which means that those questioned ERs would not have materially changed the results. It would be very close, but Ms Macapagal would still be the winner. Which was why they did not need to be opened for purposes of the canvassing.

No conspiracy. No tyranny. No cover-up. Just the plain, bald truth, and some simple arithmetic.

©2004 www.inq7.net all rights reserved

The Prudent Investor: As Monsod shows us, all the fuss about the CoC's is simply an argument of rhetorics vs. plain commonsense. Unfortunately a lot of us fall prey to the former's appeal to the emotions 'argumentum ad populum' rather than the latter. Emotions have clouded alot of people's reasoning out of political partisanship yet plain commonsense is the rudimentary requirement for us Filipinos to succeed.