THE MAY 2004 ELECTIONS: ASSESSMENTS | CEPPS

Despite these positive aspects of the elections, the representatives noted significant challenges to the election process:

• The Commission on Elections (Comelec) did little to improve its credibility with the public in the pre- and post-election period. Recent appointments of Commissioners with little election administration experience were perceived to be political in nature and contributed to a perception that the commission was no longer operating as an independent body. Furthermore, Comelec's failure to modernize the voting and tabulation process resulted in the reliance on the same antiquated voting system used in the Philippines since the 1930s and a counting process that took several weeks.
• Election officials failed to adequately prepare for and address potential obstacles to broad electoral participation caused by the existence of two voter lists that were released only days before the election in contradiction to existing electoral law.
• An antiquated voting system, system error and improper management of registration databases caused the disenfranchisement of thousands of voters.
• The Philippine Congress, despite numerous procedural challenges, persisted with the canvas and was able to declare a President. Throughout this period, the Philippine people retained their faith in the system overall and rejected calls by detractors to take to the streets in the name of "people power."
• Widespread locally driven vote buying and lack of adequate conditions for secret balloting indicate significant weaknesses in the election process, as many voters are denied the fundamental right to a secret ballot.
• The use of state resources by incumbents at every level of government was widely alleged. While the judicial system addressed these complaints, it seems clear that this is an area in need of reform even if specific laws were not violated.
• The lack of strong political parties that represent the ideological and policy concerns of Filipino citizens is detrimental to the democratic process. This absence of strong parties led to campaigns based on personality rather than substance, reliant on strong dynastic and family organizations to run local campaigns. Without cogent platforms reflective of public concerns, political parties did not adequately fulfill their role in the democratic process.
• Dynastic and family influences on the political system continue to be critical impediments to democratic development in the Philippines. Institutional reform of the campaign financing, anti-dynasty and political party laws are either stalled or not observed.
• The process of adjudicating electoral complaints is exceedingly slow and often results in costly election protests. In the past, some of these protests have remained unresolved until after the following election.
• NAMFREL's Quick Count, slow to produce information on election returns, was hampered by, among other things, the lack of training of data handlers and unclear policies regarding the release of parallel count information from different regions of the country.
• The security situation primarily at the local level did not allow some candidates to freely campaign during the pre-election period. IRI, NDI, and IFES representatives also received reports of National People's Army activists imposing "Permission to Campaign" fees on local candidates.
• Due to the prevalence of candidates with backgrounds in the entertainment industry, the media's coverage was blurred between objective political reporting and entertainment news. This was also the first election to feature television advertising for candidates, truly elevating the medium's importance as a political communication tool.

Southeast Asia’s Uneven Information Landscape