Consla: PPCRV error warrants Comelec probe

Party-list group Confederation of Non-Stocks Savings and Loan Associations Inc. (Consla) is not buying the explanation given by the Parish Pastoral Council for Responsible Council for Responsible Voting (PPCRV) citing “connectivity issues” to justify the discrepancy in the number of votes it received in the May 9 elections.

In a statement, Consla lawyer Jose Emmanuel G. Hernandez said the explanation failed to address the issue of alleged vote manipulation and stirred more questions that would warrant an immediate investigation by the Commission on Elections (Comelec).

Hernandez said PPCRV’s admission of its failure to monitor errors during its quick count operations made it necessary and urgent for the poll body to commence with its own investigation.

Earlier, PPCRV admitted that they encountered connectivity issues during the transmission of votes after the elections but noted that the issue had been properly addressed.

But Hernandez said PPCRV never issued any advisories to affected party-list groups or to the public regarding such problems.

Likewise, the group noted that based on the screenshots provided by its witnesses, the PPCRV maintained the erroneous results for several days from the commencement of the quick count.

In its complaint submitted to the PPCRV, Consla noted that during the initial hours of the PPCRV’s quick count it already secured 342,513 votes.

The next day, the party-list group claimed that their votes increased to 523,753 at 11 a.m. and to 555,896 by 12 noon to occupy the 14th rank in the tally.

The said results, which were sourced from the transparency server provided by the Comelec, were posted in the Twitter feeds of the PPCRV.

However, based on the Comelec’s final tally for party-list groups, Consla garnered a total of only 213,814 votes, 342,082 lower than the number posted on May 10.

Hernandez said PPCRV’s excuse that what it did was only a quick count and that the Comelec’s tally was the official one contradicted the purpose for which the quick count and PPCRV existed.

“It may be seen as a tacit admission that the quick count serves no other purpose but to confuse the people about the results of the elections. It is an admission by PPCRV that it is not the vanguard against vote manipulation or cheating in the elections,” the group said.