The OAV Law: Defend and Amend, Guarantee Its Continued Exercise

KASAMA Vol. 18 No. 2 / April-May-June 2004 / Solidarity Philippines Australia Network

The OAV Law: Defend and Amend,
Guarantee Its Continued Exercise

by Ellene A. Sana
Center for Migrant Advocacy Philippines (CMA-Phils)

June 2004: The May 2004 national elections are over. There were winners. There were losers. There was violence, vote buying. There were allegations of mass fraud putting at risk the credibility of the election results. There was violence. Philippine politics and elections anyway have always been one for the record with its usual ingredients of guns, goons, and gold. So what else is new? There is one - the first time implementation of Republic Act 9189 or the Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003.

The OAV was the fresh and perhaps one of the few inspiring ingredients in the May 2004 polls. After more than 16 years of lobbying the Philippine Congress to fulfil the mandate of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, the OAV was passed on 13 February 2003 and for the first time, qualified overseas Filipino voters went out to the 'polling places' abroad to cast their votes. For those in Japan, Canada and United Kingdom where voting was by mail, qualified overseas Filipino registered voters were sent their ballots to the addresses they indicated in their registration forms.

OAV 'LOW TURN OUT'

Overall voter turn out was 65.31% from the more than 358,000 approved registered voters abroad. In Saudi Arabia, voter turn out are as follows: Riyadh - 52.52%; Al Khobar - 76.72%; Jeddah - 63.70%. In Hongkong it was 65%. In other places it was a high 98%.

This early at least two members of the House of Representatives already expressed disappointment on the low turn out and proposed the immediate review of the law with the end in view of scrapping it altogether. They felt that the 'dismal result' did not do justice to the enormous amount of human and material resources spent for the exercise.

Indeed, if the number of those who actually voted will be juxtaposed with the stock estimates of Filipinos overseas placed at more than 7 million and increasing, then one would be quick to give the OAV a failing mark.

But why the low turn out? There are a thousand and one answers to this question. One thing sure though, apathy did not top the list of reasons for the low turn out.

THE OAV - AN INITIAL ASSESSMENT

As Comelec and the Department of Foreign Affairs OAV Secretariat wrap up and assess the OAV, we deem it fitting to share an initial assessment of our own based on initial feedbacks from OAV partners and advocates:

Personal appearance for voting: The requirement for personal appearance for voting except in Canada, United Kingdom and Japan where voting was done by mail was a determining factor in the exercise of suffrage by overseas Filipinos. This plus a compound of other issues are more than enough to discourage an otherwise determined good citizen of the Philippines to exercise his/her right of suffrage.
Limited Number and/or Inaccessibility of Voting Centers: While flexibility was exercised to the hilt during the registration period with some 4
posts being allowed to conduct field registration in some 15
areas where there are big concentrations of Filipinos, during the voting, this was not to be so. Hence those who registered in the field registration had to travel to the post in order to cast their ballots. Security concerns following the spate of bombings in Riyadh were partly to blame for the low turn out in Riyadh during the tail end of the voting period.
Itinerant migrants: In the case of postal voting, initial reports indicated that a significant number of ballots sent was either not received by the addressee or the addressee had moved residence and could not be located anymore. There were also seafarers who failed to vote because they found themselves stuck in a port in New York when they were supposed to sail to Rotterdam and cast their ballots there. Many undocumented migrants also failed to register and vote because they could not provide a more permanent address because of the nature of their status in the host countries.
Voter's IDs: Confusion in the voters' IDs was a big turn off to the voters. It was obvious that overseas Filipinos give premium to identification cards issued by the Philippine government. Failure of Comelec to generate all the OAV IDs and with accurate information therein also took its toll on the voters.
Missing, misspelled names in the Certified List of OAV: Reports from advocates in the field indicated problems with missing and misspelled names in the CLOAV. Comelec's slow response to these problems was enough to douse with cold water the voter's interest.
Serious Flaw in Information Dissemination: Despite efforts by advocates and the communities to disseminate information about the OAV and the candidates, another major reason for the lackluster enthusiasm among OAV voters was the gross lack of information about the OVA processes, requirements and also about the candidates and the positions to be voted upon. This was most evident in the case of the party-list candidates where only a very small percentage of voters filled out the blank for the party-list position. The voters' ignorance was basic. They did not know what the party-list system was all about.
Manual Counting and Canvass: This was the ultimate nightmare for many who volunteered as SBEIs (Special Board of Election Inspectors) and SBOCs (Special Board of Canvassers) as they found themselves virtually locked up in the voting precincts until the last ballot had been counted and tallied. Many suffered exhaustion to the max.

Suffrage is a basic right enjoyed by the citizens of a country where democratic institutions and traditions are observed such as in the Philippines. The disenfranchisement of some 10% of the Filipino population because they become members of the global Filipino diaspora is no excuse for the denial of suffrage. Neither is the perceived high cost of the exercise be the deciding factor for its continued implementation.

The OAV law was finally passed after 16 long years of lobby work in Congress in order to address the injustice done unto the overseas Filipinos. The OAV law gives back the right of suffrage to overseas Filipinos. It is incumbent upon Congress to preserve and defend this right and to ensure that it is not taken away again and that its continued implementation is guaranteed.

LINING UP TO VOTE

RELATED ARTICLES: