Hostage taking in Gingoog City polling place not election-related
DURING the opening process, most polling centers had no major issues reported.
In general, procedures were followed and the environment remained calm and orderly.
Voting began at 5:00 a.m. only if there were persons with disabilities (PWDs) or senior citizens present; otherwise, voting started at 7:00 a.m.
In one instance, the election board chair began setting up the automatic counting machine (ACM) without the poll clerk who had stepped out to retrieve the ballots.
It was also noted that the machine’s clock was two minutes ahead but was corrected by the election board chair.
However, some minor concerns were observed. In a few locations, there were not enough chairsin the waiting area, which made the space uncomfortable for voters.
Around 7:00 a.m., the area started to become crowded as more voters, especially senior citizens, arrived.
Despite these, most voters were well-informed about their assigned rooms, and election officers responded calmly and helpfully to those who asked for assistance.
There were positive observations as well. In one site, the process was described as smooth and systematic.
Election staff checked the seal and ballot numbers thoroughly.
All materials were complete and even a teacher who was assigned as an election board chair in another school was allowed to vote early.
A technical issue was reported where the machine initially failed to read the ballots of the first two voters despite several attempts.
The problem was resolved after a technician arrived and intervened, allowing the machine to function properly.
Overall, the opening process across sites was generally smooth and well-organized with only afew manageable issues encountered.
During the voting period, several issues were obseved across different precincts.
These included instances of paper jams in the vote-counting machines, voters and watchers conversing with one another and ballots being reiected by the machines.
Some members of the electoral board were seen not strictly following standard procedures.
In some cases, senior citizens and PWDs voted ahead of their scheduled time.
Other concerns involved the scanner malfunctioning, watchers approaching too closely to the VCMs, photos being taken ofballots and a lack of secrecy folders, which made it possible to see voters’ choices.
There were also reports of loud watchers, support staff being disallowed entry and voters struggling to find their precincts.
When issues arose, most electoral boards acted promptly.
Some watchers were seen taking photos beside poll clerks as ballots were inserted and in certainprecincts, electoral boards took over inserting the ballots to ensure the process continued smoothly.
Electoral boards also corrected early regular voters who tried to vote during the time allocated for vulnerable groups.
Most respondents reported that ballots were generallyaccepted by the machines.
However, a few experienced ballot rejections, often due to a scanner error or a message stating “Invalid Ballot.”
In cases where ballots were rejected, the electoral board typically sought assistance from technical staff who cleaned the scanner after which the ballots were accepted.
Regarding the number of voters inside the precinct at any given time, the electoral boards generally allowed ten to 15 voters.
The estimated time for a voter to complete the process from waiting area to exit varied with most observers reporting an average of 11 to 20 minutes.
Some precincts took as little as one to ten minutes while others reached up to an hour.
Ballot secrecy was not always fully observed.
While some monitors said voter confidentiality was respected, others noted that secrecy folders were not used and the layout of the precinct made it possible for others to see how voters marked their ballots.
Voters were sometimes heard discussing their choices aloud and watchers stood too close to the machines, further compromising ballot secrecy.Besides NAMFREL, other election monitors present included PPCRV and poll watchers fromvarious political parties and party-list organizations such as ABAMIN, PDP, Tingog, Lakas CMD and others.
Most observers did not report the presence of unauthorized individuals inside the precincts though a few watchers were seen crossing boundaries by getting too close to machinesor taking photos.
Police and military personnel were generally positioned outside the precincts–usually 30 to 50meters away or at the school gates.
They helped with crowd control and ensured overall safety.
Their conduct was mostly appropriate, as they did not interfere with the voting process.
Finally, most observers agreed that the electoral boards were well-prepared and knowledgeable about their roles.
Electoral boards were generally able to guide voters, address technical issues and coordinate effectively with other support personnel.
However, there were a few lapses – such as forgetting to remind voters to use secrecy folders or allowing watchers to behave inappropriately – that need to be addressed in future elections.
