Prominent Lawyer Debunks Statement that "There's No Cheating" in the 2016 VP Race


A prominent lawyer debunks the statement released by UP teaching fellow JC Punongbayan in a Rappler article wherein he noted that by examining the election data, VP Leni Robredo did not steal the Vice Presidency.


Atty. Glenn Chong, a former politician and member of the Liberal Party said on his official Facebook page that he disagrees with the notion that there was no cheating in the 2016 national elections particularly in the Vice Presidential Race.

The statement of the prominent lawyer was his answer to the viral article posted by Rappler written by JC Punongbayan who earlier claimed that by examining the election data, VP Leni Robredo is the real winner, which is contrary to the allegations presented by Sen. Marcos camp that he was cheated during the counting.

According to Chong, the claimed of Punongbayan is a vain attempt to mislead the public as he laced his article with graphs and mathematical calculations from his co-called megamix. Chong noted that relying purely on numbers is simply not enough.


Here's the Complete Explanations of Atty. Glenn Chong:

STEALING THE VICE PRESIDENCY

UP teaching fellow JC Punongbayan asserts in his Rappler article that by examining the election data and subjecting it to various methodologies, it is conclusively established that Robredo did not steal the vice presidency. 

I strongly disagree.

In a vain attempt to mislead the public, he laced his article with graphs and mathematical calculations from his so-called megamix. But relying purely on numbers is simply not enough. To be conclusive, one needs to drill down further and uncover the underlying facts and circumstances that produced the data. With this in mind, I proceed to debunk Punongbayan’s thesis, one by one.

1. Bongbong’s votes grew at the same rate as Leni’s votes.

Punongbayan asserts that the growth in BBM’s votes was mirrored very closely by the growth in Robredo’s votes. In short, it was a very close fight which Robredo ultimately won by accumulating small gains over time.

An examination of the transmitted results will show that the after the system was manipulated by election officials, the undervotes for the vice president suspiciously rose by a whopping 73% in the Negros Integrated Region and by 62.5% in the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao, both of which Robredo won heavily. There were no such movements in BBM’s bailiwicks leading one to conclude that the operation was largely limited to areas in which Robredo won.

Transferring valid votes for BBM to undervotes is not impossible with the use of automation. In fact, this mode of cheating has very practical uses in case of subsequent election protest which I will discuss only with the Supreme Court/PET, if allowed. This theory is based on my discoveries and experience in the last 6 years dealing with the numerous discrepancies and anomalies in the different aspects of the automated election system.

Thus, if BBM’s votes were methodically shaved and transferred to the undervotes to prevent him from gaining huge margins per precinct, the final result will be consistent with Punongbayan’s assertion that there was a high correlation of growth rates in the votes of BBM and Robredo. But mere high correlation never disproves cheating.

2. Bongbong’s votes just arrived earlier than Leni’s votes.

Citing a “beautifully animated graph” and the confluence of the same conclusion from other sources as if to pool credibility from sheer number, Punongbayan simplistically explained that Robredo finally won because BBM’s votes were the ones first transmitted and tallied while Robredo’s votes trickled last allowing her to overtake the lead initially built up by BBM.

An examination of the transmitted results will show that while Metro Manila, won by BBM by a landslide, was packed with 24% more voters per precinct (674) than most precincts in the rest of the country, it was able to finish voting and transmit first. Similarly, in Regions I and II where voters averaged 543 per precinct, and also won by BBM by a landslide, they were able to finish voting and transmit first. In striking contrast, Robredo’s Bicol and Regions VI and VII which only had 548 and 527 average voters per precinct, respectively, largely finished their voting and transmission last. Clearly, while BBM’s and Robredo’s respective bailiwicks, except Metro Manila, are similarly situated, they are poles apart in their times of transmission. 

Difficulties in transmission to explain this glaring discrepancy is not readily acceptable because the Comelec amply provided satellite transmission capabilities in areas where signal is weak. The other logical explanation for this anomaly is that Robredo’s precincts were purposely delayed to be able to determine the maximum plausible position (MPP) of BBM in the vote tally. Once the MPP is determined or reasonably calculated, the automated cheating will kick in to do the rest of the job. 

Delaying the voting or transmission at the precinct level is not impossible considering that Bicol and Regions VI and VII, plus throw in the ARMM, are under the control of the ruling Liberal Party. Thus, it is not surprising that the delayed transmissions are from areas controlled by Robredo’s party. And equally not surprising is the fact that the manipulation of the system came a few hours after the start of the vote tally. Again, this assertion is based on my experience in 2010 where the BEIs in suspect precincts stopped the voting for hours as shown by the PCOS logs and resumed only at nighttime with voting continuing throughout the night until noontime of the day after the elections.

3. There was also no evidence of suspicious electoral “fingerprints.”

Citing a more rigorous way of detecting electoral fraud, Punongbayan went on to say that they found no traces of suspicious electoral “fingerprints” that would indicate cheating.

By reference, he also cited a 2012 study of the US-based Santa Fe Institute on detecting election irregularities. The study essentially said that the more precincts there are that exhibit high voter turnout and high level of preference for the winner, the higher the possibility of fraud.

In Precinct 26140007, Eastern Samar, only Roxas and Robredo got all the 97 votes cast. In Precinct 38320006, Maguindanao, only Roxas and Robredo got all the votes cast at 664 and 668, respectively. In Precinct 36350018, Lanao del Norte, only Robredo got all the 330 votes cast. In all three cases, only the LP candidates for Congressman, Governor and Vice Governor got all the votes cast. All their opponents got zero. 

These are but a few examples of the thousands of precincts contested by BBM before the PET for their statistical improbability. Using the Santa Fe Institute study, the higher possibility of fraud clearly exists in these cases. I wonder loudly how their “more rigorous way of detecting electoral fraud” failed to spot these “fingerprints.”

Finally, BBM built a lead of 943,045 votes when roughly 58,836 precincts transmitted their results. Robredo unbelievably wiped out that lead in just roughly 21,925 precincts transmitting late and built her winning margin in the last 11,749 precincts. In other words, Robredo won heavily in the late precincts by almost twice as much as BBM won in his bailiwick precincts. From these facts, the following are clear:

1. They contradict with Punongbayan’s assertion No. 1 of similar growth rates in the votes of BBM and Robredo;

2. They support my assertion in No. 2 that the Robredo precincts were purposely delayed to allow cheating to take place; and, 

3. They contradict with Punongbayan’s assertion No. 3 because clearly Robredo won big in the last 36.4% of precincts transmitting late where all the votes in identified precincts cast in her favor alone which their alleged “rigorous” system miserably failed to detect. 

Somebody is lying here.

In conclusion, Punongbayan asserts that the data don’t lie. He admitted though that the Supreme Court/PET will eventually rely on a wide array of evidence, other than the data, to prove or disprove cheating. This is a clear admission that the data by itself, is not and never sufficient to conclusively proclaim that Robredo won the elections. He is virtually agreeing that one needs to drill down further and uncover the underlying facts and circumstances that produced the data to arrive at a definitive conclusion. 

His conflicting statements can only be harmonized this way… while the data don’t lie, the purveyor of the data can very well make a lie. 

(The author is a former representative who has gained wide experience in the issue of election fraud under the automated election system. He persistently debated with the COMELEC and SMARTMATIC in public hearings of the Senate. He has discovered and proven many of the anomalies that the COMELEC and SMARTMATIC deliberately hide from the public. He was able to extract an admission from the COMELEC that fraud can exist in the automated election system in an executive session by the Senate in March 2012. He argued before the Supreme Court and exposed the COMELEC’s deceptions before the Court on the issue of voter receipt in the case filed and won by Sen. Richard Gordon.)

Source: Glenn Chong FB Page
 

Prominent Lawyer Debunks Statement that "There's No Cheating" in the 2016 VP Race Prominent Lawyer Debunks Statement that "There's No Cheating" in the 2016 VP Race Reviewed by Phil Newsome on 12/13/2016 Rating: 5

No comments:

Powered by Blogger.