The group Kontra Daya questioned the Commission on Elections (Comelec) for updating the automated counting machines’ (ACM) software set to be used on election day. This software did not pass certification by the Technical Evaluation Committee, it said.

According to the group, the Final Testing and Sealing of the ACMs used version 3.5.0, but the certified version is 3.4.0. Atty. Harold Respicio revealed this “update” when he noticed the difference in the software version on the document posted on the Comelec website.

This difference has raised questions on the transparency and security of the machine-based voting system. Among the questions about this update include why it was changed, what changed in its code, and why the modification was kept from the public.

Because it was not examined by independent groups, it may contain code that could manipulate the election results, such as adding or subtracting votes for candidates and parties, according to Kontra Daya.

“The COMELEC should explain why an updated version of the software which is not in the TEC Certification is now being used for the automated counting machines,” Kontra Daya said on May 11, just one day before the election. “If Comelec fails to make an accounting of this process, then there is every reason to doubt the results of the election.”

According to the group, the machines should not be blindly trusted, and their internal processes should be open to public scrutiny to ensure that the votes they register are correct.

“This is not a simple ‘tech issue’ that should be settled only among IT experts,” the group said. “Comelec should be accountable for not following the right process in the final testing and sealing of the ACMs, putting into question the integrity of the entire automated election system.”

The safety and security of using ACMs from Miru Systems has long been mired in controversy, especially since the company is known for fraudulent and failed elections in other countries.

Kontra Daya believes that only through manual methods can the accuracy of the vote count be ensured.

“This is the only way for us to safeguard our votes,” the group said. “We would rather be slow but sure than fast but uncertain.”

The group calls on the public to be vigilant, insisting on transparency and to fight all forms of election fraud.