Guidelines for Understanding, Adjudicating, and Resolving Disputes in Elections Case 2: The Philippines Experience Background It is said that no one loses in an election in the Philippines; either one wins or one is cheated. Hence, complaints relating to the conduct of elections are anticipated, and are generally accepted as part and parcel of the Philippine electoral process. For more than a century,10 the Philippines endured a cumbersome and crude election process that was widely perceived to be vulnerable to fraud and cheating. The manual voting, counting, and vote consolidation procedures used in the Philippines have bred a suspicious citizenry critical of election results. For candidates and parties with enough funds to support drawn-out and expensive litigation, suspicious incidents of fraud can become full-blown legal battles through an action called “election protest.”11 As an election complaint adjudication mechanism, election protest provides a post-election remedy in the Philippines to those who question the results of elections. It seeks to determine the true will of the people12 by re-examining the ballots, election returns, and the other documents and materials used in the election. It may affirm or reverse the results of the election, and thus, it can either confirm or cast doubt on the credibility of the whole electoral process. The Philippines ventured into its first ever nationwide automated election on 10 May 2010 purportedly to rectify the flaws and vulnerabilities of the manual voting and counting election process. Automation of elections was The Philippines held its first ever elections in Baliuag, Bulacan under the supervision of American military governor general Arthur MacArthur on May 6, 1899. 11 An election protest is a contest between the defeated and the winning candidates on the ground of frauds and irregularities in the casting and counting of the ballots, or in the preparation of the returns. It raises the questions of who actually obtained the plurality of the legal votes and therefore is entitled to hold the office. See Samad v. COMELEC, 224 S.C.R.A. 631 (July 16, 1993) (Phil.). 12 The purpose of an election protest is to ascertain whether the candidate proclaimed elected by the board of canvassers is really the lawful choice of the electorate. See De Castro v. Ginete, 27 S.C.R.A. 623 (March 28, 1969) (Phil.). 10 180