Anti-Smartmatic groups cautioned
THE COMMISSION on Elections (Comelec) cautioned groups against issuing statements “bordering on contempt” as the poll body is set on rendering soon its decision on the petition to bar automated election systems provider, Smartmatic, from the 2025 midterm elections.
On Monday, a group of information and communications technology (ICT) professionals and anti-fraud advocates reiterated the call against Smartmatic as contained in the petition based on allegations of irregularities during the 2022 presidential elections as cited by the group of former information and communications technology chief, Eliseo M. Rio, Jr.
“The fact that the Comelec and Smartmatic cannot allay doubts based on observed anomalies leads us to believe that electronic fraud has been committed in the 2022 national elections,” said Kim Cantillas, acting chairperson of the Computer Professionals’ Union (CPU).
Comelec’s George Erwin Garcia said: “We have a decision forthcoming. Nobody has the business of preempting it.”
CPU, together with anti-fraud advocacy group Kontra Daya, have reiterated the points raised by Mr. Rio, who alleged that election returns from different vote-counting machines (VCMs) were illegally transmitted from the same IP address. The group also cited the alleged transmission of voluminous amounts of data from the VCMs before the closing of poll hours.
In a statement dated Nov. 25, Smartmatic denied the same allegations, citing that the Comelec has the resources and facts to affirm the election results. “Smartmatic awaits, with hopeful anticipation, Comelec’s swift dismissal of the disqualification petition, thereby confirming Smartmatic’s adherence to the contract’s provisions,” it said in a statement.
Smartmatic said the petitioners’ objective is both political and commercial by attempting to delegitimize the government and supporting Smartmatic competitors. The company added that the claims were unfounded and lacked evidence and that the petitioners had not demonstrated a single vote discrepancy.
Mr. Garcia said that the statements being thrown by groups were “rehashed statements already answered and propounded in several fora by the Commission.” He added that the call of different groups and Mr. Rio “is bordering on contempt in view of the sub judice rule.” — Jomel R. Paguian