50 testified that the final registration roll was published on NEC's website and made available at all of the NEC's magisterial offices for inspection by the public, and that the NEC has only one final voter roll. On the allegation of the missing polling places and data, witness Lighe stated that the subpoenaed flash drive the NEC gave to Appellants was in PDF and that Appellants could not analyze it without converting it, and that during the said conversion of the data by Appellants, data were corrupted and lost during the process. The record shows that Appellants did not produce a rebuttal witness to the said testimony by witness Lighe. We note that Section 3.6 of the New Elections Law states that "The general registration roll for each registration center hall be opened for public inspection at the office of the Magistrate of Elections without a fee on any day in a week during the hours the office is opened. A copy of each roll may be kept at such other places as the Commission may designate for public inspection." The record shows that Appellant did not dispute' that the FRR was published on NEC's website and made available at all of NEC's 19 magisterial offices. Appellants argued, however, that same is not the publication contemplated by Section 3.6 of the New Elections Law. When asked whether they were aware that the last sentence of Section 3.6 says that a "copy of each roll may be kept at such other places as the Commission may designate for public inspection," one of counsels for Appellants conceded. The Board says that there seems to be a confusion between the provisional and final voter roll. It is the provisional voter roll which is developed after voter registration exercise that is required to be published and posted at all registration centers, nationwide. The final registration roll (FRR), on the other hand, is developed after cleaning the provisional voter roll and the publication that is required of it is simply to have them distributed and made available at all magisterial offices as required by Section 3.6 of the New Elections taw. Because the record shows that the NEC complied with the requirements. of Section 3.6 of the New Elections Law, we hold that the Hearing Officer did not err. As to Appellants' allegation that the NEC is maintaining more than one voter roll and that writing some voters' names on the addendum amounts to an alteration of the roll, witness Lighe testified that, what is referred to as an. addendum to the voter roll is a procedure practiced in other electoral jurisdictions and provided for in the Polling and Counting Procedure Manual promulgated by the NEC. Defendant presented into evidence the Polling and Counting Manual for the 2005, 2011 and 2017 elections all of which have provisions that allow polling staff, security/police officers who are not registered at a center but assigned there on elections day to vote only in the presidential election and have their profiles recorded on a space at the back of the final registration roll. Witnesses Lighe and Yarsiah testified that the Commission maintains only one roll that which was distributed to the political parties, and that the SMS system on NEC's website is another way for voters to access their polling places. As to Appellants' allegation that polling places were changed;, without notice to the voters, witness Lighe testified that same is false, that the public was given sufficient notice as to the change of any polling place. The record shows that Appellants did not rebut said testimony.