47.

EASTERN SAMAR

The COC indicates 1,121 precincts reported out of 1,568 precincts, for a total of 447 unreported or unaccounted precincts. This should have been enough reason to defer the canvass.

Numerous alterations and intercalations were observed pertaining to the votes received by Mrs. Arroyo, thus:

In precinct 5-A of San Policarpio Municipality, there was an intercalation of the number five after the number 10. so instead of votes cast as ten.

The paper seal used for Esatern Samar is of the "562" series, but the Allocation List from the Comelec shows that the seal allocated for Eastern Samar is of the "563" series. The seal in the envelope is "5628198". The seal as allocated by the Comelec is "5633660"

In Precinct 13A and 13B in the municipality of Arteche, the vote for candidate GMA is originally 18. but the number 1 was obviously rewritten to look like 4 and, therefore, the votes as stated in that precinct is 48 for GMA.

In precinct No. SA in San Policaprio, the original vote of 10 was intercalated with the number 5 or inserted after the 0 between a and the dividing line between the columns so that the original vote of 10 was made to appear for candidate GMA to be 105.

In precinct No. 29A in the town of Lawa-an, the vote for FPa originally was 67 and 7 was crossed out and gave way to 5. therefore, he was understated by vote of 2 votes.

In the town of Balangiga, in precinct 16A, 151 was typed over the originally typewritten number 161. It is very obvious because 5 was typewritten over 1 over 6. So, the vote of Fernando Poe, originally, was 161 but as reported out is now 151 or an understatement of 10 votes.

In the town of Oras, in precinct 4B, the original vote, handwritten, for Fernando Poe was 100 and it was crossed out and the final number that was finally reported out was 56 or a reduction of 44.

In the town of Maydolong, the SOV, by precinct, with Serial No. 004177 contains many erasures and one glaring erasure would be the following: in precinct no. 36a: The original vote of candidate Lacson was 80. It was crossed out and it became O. The vote of candidate Roco, was 1 and it was increased to 5. The vote of candidate Villanueva was 50, crossed out or erased and the final vote tallied for him was 4. The portion for candidate GMA is very dirty in the sense that there were many erasures and what came out after these erasures was readable 80. The same is true for candidate Fernando Poe, Jr. the portion, at least, for that column is very dirty also with many erasures and the vote, as appearing in the SOV by precinct of 177, was changed to 74.

For these reasons, the elections returns should have already been referred to for verification.

Notwithstanding the foregoing observations, and the

continuing

reservation and objection against a canvass, the authenticity of the cae not having been proved; there being no submission by the COMELEC of the security marks to serve as basis for determination of authenticity; with the

the Special Board of Canvassers in order to determine due execution; and, despite the lack of proper identification of the canvass documents, the Committee proceeded to canvass the COC for Eastern Samar.

48. UNITED STATES

There are five signatures missing with respect to the six (6) poll watchers, and there is no statement on the face of the COC or any other document attached to the same that these five (5) poll watchers were absent or unavailable at the time of the preparation of this document.

The SOY presented before the Committee bears Serial No. 0085, which is not the SOY included in the allocation lists of the Comelec intended for Washinton D.C. The SOY for Washington D.C. pursuant to the COMELEC Allocation List bears Serial No. 103.

Notwithstanding the foregoing. observations, and the

continuing

reservation and objection against a canvass, the authenticity of the COC not having been proved; there being no submission by the COMELEC of the security marks to serve as basis for determination of authenticity; with the COMELEC having also failed to submit specimen signatures of the members of the Special Board of Canvassers in order to determine due execution; and, despite the lack of proper identification of the canvass documents, the Committee proceeded to canvass the COC for Eastern Samar.

the Special Board of Canvassers in order to determine due execution; and, despite the lack of proper identification of the canvass documents, the Committee proceeded to canvass the COC for Eastern Samar.

48. UNITED STATES

There are five signatures missing with respect to the six (6) poll watchers, and there is no statement on the face of the COC or any other document attached to the same that these five (5) poll watchers were absent or unavailable at the time of the preparation of this document.

The SOY presented before the Committee bears Serial No. 0085, which is not the SOY included in the allocation lists of the Comelec intended for Washinton D.C. The SOY for Washington D.C. pursuant to the COMELEC Allocation List bears Serial No. 103.

Notwithstanding the foregoing observations, and the

continuing

reservation and objection against a canvass, the authenticity of the COC not having been proved; there being no submission by the COMELEC of the security marks to serve as basis for determination of authenticity; with the COMELEC having also failed to submit specimen signatures of the members of the Special Board of Canvassers in order to determine due execution; and, despite the lack of proper identification of the canvass documents, the Committee proceeded to canvass the COC for Eastern Samar.

There was no SOY IF for IIocos Norte.

Upon examination of the COC, numerous erasures as well as alterations were observed, especially on the part of the number of votes as they appear in the statement of votes by municipality of in the case of candidate Roco and alterations on the part of the votes garnered by candidate GMA.

. Notwithstanding the foregoing observations, and the

continuing

reservation and objection against a canvass, the authenticity of the COC not having been proved; there being no submission by the COMELEC of the security marks to serve as basis for determination of authenticity; with the COMELEC having also failed to submit specimen signatures of the members of the Special Board of Canvassers in order to determine due execution; and, despite the lack of proper identification of the canvass documents, the Committee proceeded to canvass the COC for Ilocos Norte.

50. ORIENTAL MINDORO

The parchment with Serial No. 00050, purporting to be the COC for Oriental Mindoro, was accompanied by supporting SOY 1M, and SOY IP.

The following observations were made:

1. The signatures and thumbmarks of the poll watchers are

missing, and there is no statement or indication that the poll watchers were absent or unavailable at the time of the preparation of the canvass documents.

2. In SOV/P with Serial No. 011312 covering of21 precincts,

the total number of votes garnered by GMA was snopaked, without any initial or signature to authen tic ate the same

Notwithstanding the continuing reservation and objection against the canvass, the authenticity of the COC not having been proved; there being no submission by the COMELEC of the security marks to serve as basis for determination of authenticity; with the COMELEC having failed to submit the specimen signatures of the members of the Board of Canvassers in order to determine due execution; and, despite the lack of proper identification of the canvass documents, the Committee simply noted the same and proceeded to canvass the COC for Oriental Mindoro.

51. NUEVA ECIJA

The parchment with Serial No. 00061, purporting to be the cac for Nueva Ecija, was accompanied by supporting SOV / M and sov / r.

However, it was observed that the three signatures of the members of the Board of Canvassers are missing, and that there is no statement or indication on the COC or the supporting statements that they were absent or unavailable at the time of the execution of the canvass documents. It was further noted that, as usual, there are many erasures and alterations found on the fact of the canvass documents.

Notwithstanding the foregoing observations; and the continuing reservation and objection against a canvass, the authenticity of the canvass documents not having been proved; there being no submission by the

authenticity; with the COMELEC having also failed to submit the specimen signatures of the members of the Board of Canvassers in order to determine due execution; and, despite the lack of proper identification of the canvass documents, the Committee simply noted the same and proceeded to canvass the COC for Nueva Ecija.

52. MASBATE

The parchment with Serial No. 00043, purporting to be the COC for Masbate, was accompanied by supporting SOY 1M. and SOY IP.

The following observations were made:

1. In the SOY IP for Cataingan, Masbate -

there is no entry on the space provided for the number of voters who actual voted.

in the entry for the total number of registered voters, it appears that another ink was therein, different from the color of the ink used in filing up the other entries in the SOY IP.

there is a discrepancy in the figures for total number of registered voters. In the SOY IP, the number written is 26,175. In the Project of Precincts, it is reported that the total number of registered voters for Cataingan is 26,273.

as the total number of voters who actually voted were

:xi":i::ea.

3. In Esperanza, it was observed that the number of total registered

voters and also on the total actual voters who cast their vote were snopaked. Further, there is no data found with regard to the number of precincts.

4. The attention of the committee was called on the alterations and

erasures appearing on the fact of the canvass documents. As a result of these alterations and erasures, it was manifested that one cannot ascertain whether these erasures or alterations mayor will cast doubt as regards the number of votes obtained by a particular candidate, and the only way by which one can determine the same, is to go to the elections returns.

5. When the ballot box for Masbate was opened in joint public session

on June 2, only the COC and the SOY 1M for Masbate were found inside the box. There were no SOY IP. Now, there is this Ballot Box No. 95-A that was produced purportedly containing the SOY IP. No explanation was given on the sudden appearance of the SOY IP.

A deferment of the canvass was requested.

However, notwithstanding foregoing observations, and the continuing reservation and objection against a canvass, the authenticity of the canvass documents not having been proved; there being no submission by the COMELEC of the security marks to serve as the basis for determination of authenticity; with the COMELEC having also failed to submit the specimen signatures of the members of the Board of Canvassers in order to determine due execution; and, despite the lack of proper identification of the canvass

------------------------------------------------------------------~.

_ e eoe for _ Iasbare.

53_LEYTE

The parchment with Serial No. 00029, purporting to be the cae for Masbate, was accompanied by supporting sav 1M. and sav IP.

The following observations were made:

1. The signatures and thumbmarks of the poll watchers are not

indicate on the cae, and there is no indication or statement of the chairman of the Boe that the poll watchers were absent or unavailable at the time of the preparation of the canvass documents.

2. An examination of numerous SOy 1M and SOY 1M, with the

many alterations and erasures, reveal that eoe for Leyte is altered.

3. In the Municipality of Capoocan, the votes obtained by GMA

increased by 50. The original figure of 3,005 was changed to 3,055.

4. In the Municipality of Tolosa, the votes obtained by GMA, the

figure "24" was cancelled and changed to "28" These entries were not initialed.

5. In the Municipality of lnopacan, the original 101 votes for

GMA became 131, by the simple expedience of superimposing the figure

"3" over the "0".

6. L the iHuruclpa.uy or Cfu'igara, ill PiecEd 83 A 83 B, me 3

votes of candidate Villanueva was altered to "0".

7. In the Municipality of Mahaplag, in Precinct 19A, the original

2,716 votes for candidate GMA was altered to reflect 2,746.

8. In the Municipality of Calubian, Precinct 19A/20A, the 14

votes for candidate GMA was altered to reflect 94.

9. The total number of votes in 21 precincts in SOV/P No.

003960 was snopaked, and no signature or initial appears. From 2,117, the votes became 2,187.

10. In the Municipality of Sta. Fe, Precinct 38-A/38-B, the original 12 votes for candidate GMA was altered to reflect 42.

11. In Palompon, Leyte, Michelle Pinares, Filipino, resident of Bgy. Masawalo, Palompon, Leyte, issued an affidavit that in the election of May 10, he was a volunteer for Mr. Pelagio Brocolio, candidate for Mayor of Palornpon, Leyte, who had signed him up to tabulate the canvass of election returns of Palompon, Leyte.

Witness Pinares tabulated the votes for president.

In his

tabulation consisting of five pages on the real tabulation at the precinct, at the municipal canvass of Palompon, Leyte, GMA received 11,460 votes; FPJ got 7,304 votes. The tabulation shows the votes for candidate FPJ exceeded what is stated in the SOV / P and in the municipal COCo In the municipal coe of Palompon, GMA got 17,192 votes; FPJ received only 1,805 votes.

votes cast for president totaled 2,574, which is more than the number of voters who actually voted totaling 2,503 or a difference of 71 votes.

13. In the SOV IP No. 004092 for Baybay, Leyte, the number of votes actually garnered by candidate Legarda is 839. But the actual number of votes recorded in the SOV is only 480 or a difference of 359 votes.

14. There are numerous alterations and erasures in the SOY IP for the towns of San Isidro, Villaba, Kananga, Albuera, Inopacan, Merida, Hindang, Ormoc City, Bato, Baybay, Abuyog, and the rest of the province.

15. In Guiuan, Palompon, in precinct 2A where there was supposed to be a 90% turnout, the actual votes were: FPJ - 20; GMA - 124.

16. In Baginbin, Palompon, in Precinct 23A where there was

supposed to be an 85% turnout, the actual votes were: FPJ - 31; GMA - 76. However, in the SOY IP the votes reflected are: FPJ - 3; GMA - 145.

17. In Cambacbac, Palompon, in Precinct No. 28A, the actual votes were: FPJ - 21; GMA - 77. However, in the SOV/P the votes reflected are FPJ - 1; GMA - 158.

18Jn Cambacbac, Palompon, in Precinct No. 28C/29B, the actual votes were: FPJ - 21; GMA - 77. However, in the SOY I P the votes reflected are: FPJ - 1; GMA - 158.

19. In Cangrnoya, Palompon, in Precinct No. 31B, the actual votes were: FPJ - 40; GMA - Ill. However, in the SOY IP, the votes reflected are: FPJ-4; GMA-151.

20. In Cangmoya, Palompon, in Precinct No. 31D, the actual

votes were: FPJ-70; GMA-77. However, in the SOY/P, the votes reflected are: FPJ-3; GMA-93.

21. In Canipaan, Palornpon, in Precinct No. 32A, the actual votes were: FPJ-30; GMA-60. However, in the SOY IP, the votes reflected are:

FPJ-l; GMA-168.

22. In Canipaan, Palompon, in Precinct No. 33, the actual votes were: FPJ-77; GMA-IOO. However, in the SOV/P, the votes reflected are:

FPJ-3; GMA-233.

23. In Catigahan, Palornpon, in Precinct No. 36-A,. the actual votes were: FPJ-44; GMA -55. However, in the SOY IP, the votes reflected are:

FPJ-2; GMA-142.

24. In Lat-osan, Palompon, in Precinct No. 42-A, the actual votes were: FPJ-59; GMA-59. However, in the SOY IP, the votes reflected are:

FPJ-7; GMA-138.

25. In Lat-osan, Palompon, in Precinct No. 43, the actual votes were: FPJ-IOO; GMA-9 However, in the SOY IP, the votes reflected are:

FPJ-7; GMA-138.

are: FPJ-4;Gj\[A~ 146_

27. In Plaridel,Palompon, in Precinct No. 42-A, the actual votes were: FPJ-30; GMA-49. However, in the SOY IP, the votes reflected are:

FPJ-4; GMA-146_

28_ In Sabang, Palompon, in Precinct No. 42-A, the actual votes were: FPJ-80; GMA-84_ However, in the SOY IP, the votes reflected are:

FPJ-l5; GMA -138.

29. In Santiago, Palornpon, in Precinct No. 58-B, the actual votes were: FPJ-77; GMA-28. However, in the SOY IP, the votes reflected are:

FPJ-1; GMA-llL

Given these alterations and erasures that cast doubt on the veracity of the number of votes obtained by a particular candidate, the COC no longer reflects the basis for the numbers printed or typewritten there. In has become an altered COC_ A deferment of the canvass, or a verification of the election returns would have been in order:

However, notwithstanding foregoing observations, and the continuing reservation and objection against a canvass, the authenticity of the canvass documents not having been proved; there being no submission by the COMELEC of the security marks to serve as the basis for determination of authenticity; with the COMELEC having also failed to submit the specimen signatures of the members of the Board of Canvassers in order to determine due execution; and, despite the lack of

proper identification of the canvass documents, the Committee sImply noted the same and proceeded to canvass the COC for Leyte.

54. MISAMIS OCCIDENTAL

The SOY IP for Misamis Occidental was not submitted to the Committee.

The request for deferment of the canvass, pending completion of the canvass, pending completion of the canvass documents, was simply noted.

Notwithstanding foregoing observations, and the continuing reservation and objection against a canvass, the authenticity of the canvass documents not having been proved; there being no submission by the COMELEC of the security marks to serve as the basis for determination of authenticity; with the COMELEC having also failed to submit the specimen signatures of the members of the Board of Canvassers in order to determine due execution; and, despite the lack of proper identification of the canvass documents, the Committee simply noted the same and proceeded to canvass the COC for Misamis Occidental.

55. ZAMBOANGA SIBUGAY

The following observations were made:

1. The canvass documents for Zamboanga Sibugay contain

altered figures, numbers, erasures and snopakes, that resulted into the reduction of the votes for candidate FPJ.

2. The total votes for GMA in 21 precincts in the municipality of Dipalanagan were altered from 715 to 73l.

proper identification of the canvass documents, the CommIttee Slmpty noted the same and proceeded to canvass the COC for Leyte.

54. MISAMIS OCCIDENTAL

The SOY IP for Misamis Occidental was not submitted to the Committee.

The request for deferment of the canvass, pending completion of the canvass, pending completion of the canvass documents, was simply noted.

Notwithstanding foregoing observations, and the continuing reservation and objection against a canvass, the authenticity of the canvass documents not having been proved; there being no submission by the COMELEC of the security marks to serve as the basis for determination of authenticity; with the COMELEC having also failed to submit the specimen signatures of the members of the Board of Canvassers in order to determine due execution; and, despite the lack of proper identification of the canvass documents, the Committee simply noted the same and proceeded to canvass the coe for Misamis Occidental.

55. ZAMBOANGA SIBUGAY

The following observations were made:

1. The canvass documents for Zamboanga Sibugay contain

altered figures, numbers, erasures and snopakes, that resulted into the reduction of the votes for candidate FPJ.

2. The total votes for GMA in 21 precincts in the municipality of Dipalanagan were altered from 715 to 731.

GMA were snopaked then over it is written the figure 3,667_

4. In the Municipality of Dipahan, there is an erasure and snopaked entry in the SOY by municipality appearing on the votes for candidate Lacson from 56 to 210, and there is no initial or signature thereon.

5. The canvass documents do not have the fibers required.

6. They do not have the printing features provided for by the COMELEC.

7. They do not have the necessary watermarks.

The Committee should have deferred the canvass, pending recourse to the election returns to determine the actual number of votes received by each candidate, but it simply noted these observations.

Notwithstanding the foregoing observations, and the continuing reservation and objection against a canvass, the authenticity of the canvass documents not having been proved; there being no submission by the COMELEC of the security marks to serve as basis for determination of authenticity; with the COMELEC having also failed to submit the specimen signatures of the members of the BOC in order to determine due execution; and, despite the lack of proper identification of the canvass documents, the Committee simply noted the same and proceeded to canvass the coe for Zamboanga Sibugay.

Sts. H EGJR!O'S ORIEH 1 AlL

There was no SOV IP for Negros OrientaL

The following observations were made:

1. The COC and SOV/M for Negros Oriental contain

altered figures, numbers, erasures and snopakes, that resulted into the reduction of the votes for candidate FPJ.

2. The signatures and thumbmarks of two poll watchers were

missing, and there is no indication or statement that these two poll watchers were absent or unavailable at the time of the execution of the

COCo

3. There are ten (10) unreported precincts.

In VIew of these, the Committee should have deferred the canvass, pending the recourse to the election returns to determine the actual number of votes received by each candidate.

Notwithstanding the foregoing observations, and the continuing reservation and objection against a canvass, the authenticity of the canvass documents not having been proved; there being no submission by the COMELEC of the security marks to serve as basis for determination of authenticity; with the COMELEC having also failed to submit the specimen signatures of the members of the BOC in order to determine due execution; and, despite the lack of proper identification of the canvass documents, the

Negros Oriental.

57. MALABON-NAVOTAS

It was observed that the canvass documents for Malabon-Navotas are

complete, the COC being accompanied by SOY 1M and SOY IP.

However, there appear on the face of the canvass documents altered figures, numbers, erasures, snopakes that resulted into the reduction of the votes for FPJ.

There are two missing signatures with respect to the poll watchers.

There were certain alterations for the votes of GMA in precinct 186-A.

The 21 votes credited to GMA originally was altered to make it appear as 24. In precinct 258-A the original 16 votes was changed to 46.

In view of all these, the Committee should have deferred the canvass of the COC for Malabon-Navotas, pending the recourse to the election returns to determine the actual number of votes received by each candidate.

Notwithstanding the foregoing observations, and the continuing reservation and objection against a canvass, the authenticity of the canvass documents not having been proved; there being no submission by the COMELEC of the security marks to serve as basis for determination of authenticity; with the COMELEC having also failed to submit the specimen signatures of the members of the BOC in order to determine due execution; and, despite the lack of proper identification of the canvass documents, the

cumnnltee smrpIS flOted me same and proceeded to canvass the cae for

Malabon-Navotas.

58. NORTHERN SAMAR

There was no SOY IP for Northern Samar.

The following additional observations were made:

1. On the face of the COC, only the returns from 1,386 out of 1,402

precincts were canvassed.

2. The canvass documents submitted for Northern Samar do not bear

the authenticity features, such as fibers, watermarks, such as the printing features.

3. The COC was 10 an altered state, because all supporting

documents that form the basis for the COC have altered figures, numbers, erasures, snopakes that resulted into the reduction of votes for FPJ.

There are no signatures and thumbmarks for the six poll watchers. And there is nothing in the document that says that these poll watchers were unavailable. Since the presence of the signatures and thumbmarks of the poll watchers is needed, there is an omission and there is a need for the production of the signatures or at least an explanation from the chairman why the signatures do not appear on the COCo

have been deferred, pending the recourse to the election returns to determine the actual number of votes received by each candidate.

Notwithstanding the foregoing observations, and the continuing reservation and objection against a canvass, the authenticity of the canvass documents not having been proved; there being no submission by the COMELEC of the security marks to serve as basis for determination of authenticity; with the COMELEC having also failed to submit the specimen signatures of the members of the BOC in order to determine due execution; and, despite the lack of proper identification of the canvass documents, the Committee simply noted the same and proceeded to canvass the eoe for Northern Samar.

59. NORTH COTABATO

The following observations were made:

1. The eoc was in an altered state, because we examined all the supporting documents have altered figures, numbers, erasures, snopakes that resulted into the reduction of the votes for FPJ.

2. In precinct 4 in the Municipality of Pikit, the 297 votes of GMA was altered was altered to make it appear as 1,297.

3. There is a need to go to the election returns, because the numbers that were altered when tallied in the coe, certainly will not reflect the number of votes received by each candidate.

2,672 precincts as per the COMELEC Project of Precincts.

Notwithstanding the foregoing observations, and the continuing reservation and objection against a canvass, the authenticity of the canvass documents not having been proved; there being no submission by the COMELEC of the security marks to serve as basis for determination of authenticity; with the COMELEC having also failed to submit the specimen signatures of the members of the BOC in order to determine due execution; and, despite the lack of proper identification of the canvass documents, the Committee simply noted the same and proceeded to canvass the COC for Northern Samar.

60. DAVAO DEL SUR

There was no SOY IP for Davao del Sur.

The following observations were made:

1. The COC appears on the face that there are only 2,195 precincts canvassed, but in the Project of Precincts there are 5,685 clustered precincts out of 8,431 established precincts. So, there seems to be some 3,490 precincts that are lacking.

2. The security features of the canvass documents are not properly identified.

3. There are no signatures and thumb marks of some of the watchers, and there is no explanation as to why the space allotted for the

2,.672 precincts as per the COMELEC Project of Precincts.

Notwithstanding the foregoing observations, and the continuing reservation and objection against a canvass, the authenticity of the canvass documents not having been proved; there being no submission by the COMELEC of the security marks to serve as basis for determination of authenticity; with the COMELEC having also failed to submit the specimen signatures of the members of the BOC in order to determine due execution; and, despite the lack of proper identification of the canvass documents, the Committee simply noted the same and proceeded to canvass the cac for Northern Samar.

60. DAVAO DEL SUR

There was no SOV IP for Davao del Sur.

The following observations were made:

L The COC appears on the face that there are only 2,195 precincts canvassed, but in the Project of Precincts there are 5,685 clustered precincts out of 8,431 established precincts. So, there seems to be some 3,490 precincts that are lacking.

2. The security features of the canvass documents are not properly identified.

3. There are no signatures and thumb marks of some of the watchers, and there is no explanation as to why the space allotted for the

properly explained by the BOC.

Notwithstanding the foregoing observations, and the continuing reservation and objection against a canvass, the authenticity of the canvass documents not having been proved; there being no submission by the COMELEC of the security marks to serve as basis for determination of authenticity; with the COMELEC having also failed to submit the specimen signatures of the members of the BOC in order to determine due execution; and, despite the lack of proper identification of the canvass documents, the Committee simply noted the same and proceeded to canvass the COC for Davao del Sur.

61. BENGUET

The following observations were made:

1. There are erasures in the canvass documents, which do not bear any initial or signature that will authenticate the validity of the erasures placed thereon.

2. There is no showing of the security marks.

3. There are only 833 precincts as the total number of precincts canvassed appearing on the face of the COC, whereas there are 1,545 precincts in the Project of Precincts, for a total of 712 unaccounted precincts.

reservation and objection against a canvass, the aurhen - ci 0 the canvass documents not having been proved; there being no submission by the COMELEC of the security marks to serve as basis for determination of authenticity; with the COMELEC having also failed to submit the specimen signatures of the members of the BOC in order to determine due execution; and, despite the lack of proper identification of the canvass documents, the Committee simply noted the same and proceeded to canvass the COC for Benguet.

62. NEGROS OCCIDENTAL

The following observations were made:

1. There were many corrections on the canvass documents, all of which were not initialed.

2. The statistical data m the supporting documents are not complete.

3. The authenticity of the canvass documents cannot be determined.

4. Under Section 17 of the Rules, when there are erasures, alterations appearing on the COC, then the COC should be validated as far as such erasure or alteration is concerned because it may cast doubt upon the veracity of the votes cast therein. And upon the request of the candidate for president or vice president, this committee may go to the election returns to count the votes stated therein. Until the process of

NotwltIlstamlmg

oregomg 0

~-----=

reservation and objection against a canvass, the authentici _ of the c:a_.........-ass documents not having been proved; there being no submission by the COMELEC of the security marks to serve as basis for determination of authenticity; with the COMELEC having also failed to submit the specimen signatures of the members of the BOC in order to determine due execution; and, despite the lack of proper identification of the canvass documents, the Committee simply noted the same and proceeded to canvass the COC for Benguet.

62. NEGROS OCCIDENTAL

The following observations were made:

1. There were many corrections on the canvass documents, all of which were not initialed.

2. The statistical data in the supporting documents are not complete.

3. The authenticity of the canvass documents cannot be determined.

4. Under Section 17 of the Rules, when there are erasures, alterations appearing on the COC, then the COC should be validated as far as such erasure or alteration is concerned because it may cast doubt upon the veracity of the votes cast therein. And upon the request of the candidate for president or vice president, this committee may go to the e'ecrion returns to oount the votes stated therein. Until the process of