VOTERS' EDUCATION in HIGH SCHOOL

COMELEC bats for inclusion of voter ed in High School curriculum

 18 May 2012

COMELEC-Education & Information Department

The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) announced Friday that it supports a bill that seeks to make voter education mandatory in the High School curriculum.

House Bill No. 5784, introduced by Paranaque Rep. Edwin L. Olivarez, states that voters’ education should be taught to Fourth Year High School students in both public and private schools including those that are enrolled in the Alternative Learning System (ALS).

The bill tasks the Department of Education (DepEd), the COMELEC and the Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA) to develop a common curriculum that shall include: Values Formation; Importance of the right to suffrage and the sanctity of the ballot; Factors in evaluating and choosing candidates, and; the Electoral Process in the Philippines.

COMELEC Commissioner and Voter Education Champion Elias R. Yusoph lauded the measure, saying that this would be “a big boost to the COMELEC’s continuing effort to educate the electorate, most especially the youth, on the value of the people’s right to suffrage and on the rudiments of the electoral process.”

MESSAGE

HON. ELIAS R. YUSOPH

Commissioner

Commission on Elections

 At the outset, I would like to personally congratulate Congressman Edwin L. Olivares for coming up with House Bill No. 5784 or “An Act Making Voters’ Edu­cation Mandatory in the High School Cur­riculum both Public and Private Schools and Appropriating Funds Therefor”. The Commission on Elections welcomes with keenness this remarkable bill. Personally, it is my belief that this bill would become a piece of legislation as voters’ education is a significant prelude for a successful elec­toral exercise.

For so long a time, Comelec is the rud­der and the forefront of the country’s vot­ers’ education and information campaign. This is so because it is the sole agency mandated with the duty to educate the public and fully inform the electorate of matters relative to the conduct of the free and fair elections. Pursuant to this duty, we have made voters’ education a priority policy, hence, part of our five-year strate­gic plan called COMSTRAT 1116.

As champion commissioner of voters’ edu­cation, I would say that the conception of House Bill No. 5784 is most appropriate; not only for purposes of the 2013 National and Local Elections, but for a sustainable and genuine election reform. By includ­ing voters’ education in the curriculum, the correct perspective or mindset would be in­culcated in the young and receptive minds of our children. We can then envision a set of leaders chosen by the electorate through intelligent evaluation of platforms and track records, not for popularity, name-recall or monetary reason.

I can assure the Honorable Congressman that when this bill gets legislated, Comelec, through our Education and Information De­partment headed by Dir. James B. Jimenez, would put forth best efforts to achieve the purpose for which this bill was conceived. The legal and technical assistance Comelec can offer would be discussed in detail dur­ing the open-forum. 

ON PREMATURE CAMPAIGNING

On Premature Campaigning

05.06.2012 · by  James Jimenez · in COMELEC

If someone tells you that the ad he put out – or the tarps he strung across the street, or the placards he nailed to trees – isn’t premature campaigning because he didn’t use the words “VOTE FOR ME,” then he’s wrong. Any material that promotes the election or defeat of a candidate is considered campaign material. The actual words used are immaterial. After all, can a poster with a person’s name be any less a promotion of him than a poster with his name and the words VOTE FOR ME? If anything, that exhortation is quite redundant.

However, the offense of premature campaigning is not defined only by the content of the materials, but more importantly by [a] the character of the person either benefited or disadvantaged by the materials, and [b] the timing of the release of those materials.

The Character of the Character

The person being boosted – or trashed – by the materials must be a candidate, first and foremost. If he isn’t a candidate, then the materials – even with “VOTE FOR ME” prominently displayed – will NOT be considered as being in the nature of campaign materials. It is just free speech. Remember, anyone with money to burn can churn out posters, tarps, streamers and flyers that praise him and his accomplishments, as a matter of right.

A candidate, on the other hand, has to accept reasonable limitations on his right of self-expression – and self-promotion – in the greater interest of leveling to level the “playing field between the popular or rich candidates, on one hand, and the lesser-known or poorer candidates, on the other, by allowing them to campaign only within the same limited period.”

Sounds simple enough, til you consider the definition of the designation “candidate.”

The Supreme Court, in a Resolution dated November 25, 2009, said:

Section 79(a) of the Omnibus Election Code defines a “candidate” as “any person aspiring for or seeking an elective public office, who has filed a certificate of candidacy x x x.” The second sentence, third paragraph, Section 15 of RA 8436, as amended by Section 13 of RA 9369, provides that “[a]ny person who files his certificate of candidacy within [the period for filing] shall only be considered as a candidate at the start of the campaign period for which he filed his certificate of candidacy.”

Okay then. In order to be called a “candidate,” a person must have [a] filed a certificate of candidacy, and [b] the campaign period for the election he’s running in must have started.

Now how many of these people, who have started putting up ads and such, qualify? Zilch. For this reason alone, no case can be made for premature campaigning against anyone at this time.

But it doesn’t end there. In fact, it only gets trickier from here on out.

The Timing

Before going into this rather tangetial discussion on the timing of the release of ads and posters, keep in mind that under the Automation Law [RA 8436, as amended by RA 9369] the period for the filing of certificates of candidacy starts and ends earlier than usual. Thus, there are several weeks in between the last day of filing COCs and the actual start of the campaign period. This is radically different from the election calendar before automation when the last day for filing of COCs was usually the day before the campaign period.

Because of this change, and because of the language of the automation law, there has been a lot of question about what candidates can and cannot do in that long interval between filing their COCs and the start of the campaign period. This is the question the Court sought to answer in Penera v. COMELEC.

In the main decision in Penera v. COMELEC [GR181613, 11 September 2009] the Court essentially ruled that, while a person officially becomes a “candidate” only at the start of the campaign period, the filing of a COC makes explicit his intention to run for office. Thus, even before the campaign period actually starts, acts like holding rallies and putting up posters and such, “can be logically and reasonably as for the purpose of promoting his/her intended candidacy.”

Thus, “When the campaign period starts and said person proceeds with his/her candidacy, his/her intent turning into actuality, we can already consider his/her acts, after the filing of his/her COC and prior to the campaign period, as the promotion of his/her election as a candidate, hence, constituting premature campaigning, for which he/she may be disqualified. Also, conversely, if said person, for any reason, withdraws his/her COC before the campaign period, then there is no point to view his/her acts prior to said period as acts for the promotion of his/her election as a candidate. In the latter case, there can be no premature campaigning as there is no candidate, whose disqualification may be sought, to begin with.

To simplify that even further, what the Court was saying that once the campaign period starts, people who have filed their COCs can be made accountable for “campaigning” activities that they undertook during the long interval between filing COCs and the start of the campaign period.

To visualize:

However, barely two months later, the Supreme Court set aside this ruling [Penera v. COMELEC, GR181613, 25 November 2009].

According to the Court, the fact that Congress wrote into the law that  “any unlawful act or omission applicable to a candidate shall take effect only upon the start of the campaign period,” gave rise to inescapable and logical result that those acts – “campaigning” included - are lawful.

“In layman’s language, this means that a candidate is liable for an election offense only for acts done during the campaign period, not before. The law is clear as daylight — any election offense that may be committed by a candidate under any election law cannot be committed before the start of the campaign period. In ruling that Penera is liable for premature campaigning for partisan political acts before the start of the campaigning, the assailed Decision ignores the clear and express provision of the law.

The Decision rationalizes that a candidate who commits premature campaigning can be disqualified or prosecuted only after the start of the campaign period. This is not what the law says. What the law says is “any unlawful act or omission applicable to a candidate shall take effect only upon the start of the campaign period.” The plain meaning of this provision is that the effective date when partisan political acts become unlawful as to a candidate is when the campaign period starts. Before the start of the campaign period, the same partisan political acts are lawful. (provided the emphasis, btw.)

The law does not state, as the assailed Decision asserts, that partisan political acts done by a candidate before the campaign period are unlawful, but may be prosecuted only upon the start of the campaign period. Neither does the law state that partisan political acts done by a candidate before the campaign period are temporarily lawful, but becomes unlawful upon the start of the campaign period. This is clearly not the language of the law. Besides, such a law as envisioned in the Decision, which defines a criminal act and curtails freedom of expression and speech, would be void for vagueness.

Congress has laid down the law — a candidate is liable for election offenses only upon the start of the campaign period. This Court has no power to ignore the clear and express mandate of the law that “any person who files his certificate of candidacy within [the filing] period shall only be considered a candidate at the start of the campaign period for which he filed his certificate of candidacy.” Neither can this Court turn a blind eye to the express and clear language of the law that “any unlawful act or omission applicable to a candidate shall take effect only upon the start of the campaign period.”

As a result, it would appear that in the interval between the last day for the filing of the COC and the start of the campaign period, even those who have already filed their certificates of candidacy won’t be liable for premature campaigning. I suppose the inevitable question here is, did the Supreme Court not see this?

The forum for examining the wisdom of the law, and enacting remedial measures, is not this Court but the Legislature. This Court has no recourse but to apply a law that is as clear, concise and express as the second sentence, and it’s immediately succeeding proviso, as written in the third paragraph of Section 15 of RA 8436, as amended by RA 9369.

Apparently, they did. By dropping such a clear hint for Congress, the Court signified that its own misgivings would not move it to go beyond the scope of its powers. This loophole was created by law, one can imagine the Court saying. And it is the lawmakers who have to plug it. In essence, this was the same dilemma that the COMELEC found itself in back in 2009, and even now, almost two years later.

Back then, most candidates did the honorable thing and the interval passed with fewer political ads and posters than we were expecting, considering the carte blanche handed to them by the reconsideration of the Penera decision. It remains to be seen however, if similar restraint will be exercised beginning October 6, 2012.

In the meantime, we return to the issue of adverts, posters, streamers and what-not, starting to clutter our field of vision now.

In both the main decision and the reconsideration of Penera, the Court consistently indicated that even acts which are clearly partisan or self-promotional in nature, cannot be considered “campaigning,” much less premature campaigning. They are therefore not illegal, falling well within the ambit of free speech.

Unfortunately, these acts are the very same ones that nearly everyone wants the COMELEC to do something about. At the risk of the COMELEC being labeled “helpless,” as we so often are when it comes to this topic, the fact of the matter remains that if something is legal, then there really is nothing that can be done about it.

As far as I know, Congress ought to already be aware of the existence of this loophole since notice of it came directly from a co-equal branch of government. However, apart from the many public pronouncements made by the COMELEC in 2009, these concerns have also been brought up with the appropriate committees in Congress.

Small comfort, I guess.

COMELEC REACHES OUT PWDs-Photos

ODIONGAN - Every Saturday, starting May 5, 2012, the local Office of the Election Officer, Commission on Elections conducts a one day Special Registration of Voters on field reaching out person with disabilities (PWD) in every barangay of the municipality. They were assisted by municipal local government personnel, MSWD and the barangay councils of every barangays.

                                                          

  

                                                      

 

SC HEARS PCOS PURCHASE

SUPREME COURT hears PCOS purchase

May 02, 2012. Supreme Court justices started the oral arguments on three petitions consolidated into one seeking the nullity of the Commission on Elections’ P1.8 billion purchase of 2010 automated election system (AES) provider Smartmatic-TIM’s precinct count optical scan (PCOS) machines. Petitioners allege that the Commission on Elections (Comelec) committed grave abuse of discretion and violated Republic Act No. 9184 or the Government Procurement Act when it bought on “option purchase” 82,000 precinct count optical scan (PCOS) machines from Smartmatic-Total Information Management (TIM) without public bidding. Petitioners also added that there were glitches, delays, defects and technical problems in the May 10, 2010 National and Local elections that violated Republic Act No. 9369 (Automated Election System Act).

First to present arguments are petitioners,  Davao City Archbishop Fernando Capalla, former Marawi City Mayor Omar Solitario Ali and former Quezon City Rep. Mary Ann Susano, through her lawyer Dean Abraham Espejo of the New Era College of Law, who said that Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion when it inked a deal to buy 82,000 PCOS machines, with the deed of sale signed last March 27, 2012. He said that since Comelec was purchasing PCOS machines for another set of elections, impliedly, a new bidding process among possible providers must have been conducted by the Commission on Elections since the former contract expired on December 31, 2010 and said contract covered only the 2010 polls.

Dean Abraham Espejo told the High Tribunal that the Deed of Sale signed by Smartmatic-TIM and the Comelec for the purchase of the PCOS should be nullified for violating the Government Procurement Act. Dean Espejo claimed that the September 2009 Comelec and Smartmatic-TIM contract was for the lease of an automated election system for purposes of 2010 elections, while the option to purchase recently entered into by the Comelec and Smartmatic-TIM was intended to be use in the May 13, 2013 National and Local Elections, thus making said contract unlawful, thus illegal. Espejo stressed, “Comelec could not validly accept the extension of time unilaterally extended by Smartmatic because that is tantamount to the Comelec entering into another agreement…that under the law requires a different bidding,” Espejo told the high court. They added that any purchase of technology and election systems for use in the 2013 midterm polls should have to undergo public bidding.

During interpellation several magistrate asked Dean Espejo if the contract to purchase may fall under any of the 5 exceptions to the conduct of public bidding found in the Government Procurement Act? Dean Espejo answered negative.

Associate Justice Presbitero Velasco said the contract pertained to the same set of PCOS machines, and that it should not be confined to the 2010 polls and was intended to be used in the next election.

"The title of the [original] contract pertains to the 2010 elections. There was no mention of the 2013 elections. We contend that if there will be an expansion, there should be expanded provisions of the contract if it would pertain to future elections," Espejo said.

Justice Velasco, on the other hand, asked Espejo if the purchase of the PCOS machines for the 2013 elections could qualify as direct contracting, which is also an exception under the government procurement act.

Under the law, direct contracting could be done under the following conditions:

a. Procurement of goods of proprietary nature, which can be obtained only from the proprietary source, i.e. when patents, trade secrets and copyrights prohibit others from manufacturing the same item;

b. When the procurement of critical components from a specific manufacturer, supplier or distributor is a condition precedent to hold a contractor to guarantee its project performance, in accordance with the provisions of his contract; or,

c. Those sold by an exclusive dealer or manufacturer, which does not have sub-dealers selling at lower prices and for which no suitable substitute can be obtained at more advantageous terms to the government.

Velasco further asked, "Is there any supplier in the world of PCOS machines in these kind?" Espejo answered in the negative.

He noted though that Comelec should still be held liable because it did not specify in its recent contract with Smartmatic that the purchase of the PCOS machines is an exception under the law.

Justice Martin Villarama asked Espejo if his camp was assailing the purchase of the PCOS because they preferred using Optical Mark Reader (OMR) machines.

Espejo said his camp does not prefer any kind of machine to be used next May, adding that he will let the Comelec make the choice.

Associate Justice Arturo Brion, meantime, asked questions regarding the timeline from the signing of the 2010 automation contract up to the date the option to purchase lapsed. He asked Espejo, if at any point in the said period, did Comelec decide to purchase all 82,000 machines.

Espejo answered in the negative, but said he did not know why the Comelec “mysteriously” did not do so and only decided to purchase the machines two months ago.

It was during Brion’s questioning where it was established that the machines, while purchased at a relatively lower price, are not brand new.

Associate Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno asked Espejo if the purchase may not be considered a “repeat order” in which case a bidding may not be undertaken. A repeat order, as defined in the law, is allowed when "the procuring entity directly procures goods from the previous winning bidder whenever there arises a need to replenish goods procured under a contract previously awarded through competitive bidding."

Lawyer Abraham Espejo, however, pointed out that this will amount to an “overstretching of the law.”

Associate Justice Sereno,  said that the Comelec took over 360 days to finalize the contract with Smartmatic-Total Information Management’s (TIM), which provided the PCOS machines in the 2010 elections. Justice Sereno pointed out that there may not be enough time for the Comelec to conduct a public bidding and prepare for the technology and system to be used in the 2013 polls. “Do we have enough days to do another bidding?” Sereno asked the counsel for petitioners.

“The Comelec has enough time,” lawyer Abraham Espejo said, adding that the Comelec has enough intelligent people to study and come up with a new contract.

Sereno also asked if there would be enough time to train election officers to use the election machines. Espejo said the correct posture would be for the Comelec to hire experts that would assist in the operation of the machines.

“Are you now telling us that the Comelec violated the procurement law… regardless of the consequence, we must now proceed with a new bidding. That’s what you are telling us right now, that we have no moral responsibility at all… whether the 2013 elections succeed or not,” Sereno told Espejo.

However, Dean Abraham Espejo  stood his ground and stressed that the Comelec should not be allowed to violate the law.

“The choice is not whether or not we will have automated elections in 2013. I think the choice is whether we will allow the Comelec to violate the Procurement Law. Beyond that is a matter of policy… and I’m sure that the Comelec, with all its resources, can find a viable alternative. We cannot abandon the law simply because it looks good to abandon it and neither can we abandon the law because of a stretched interpretation of the law,” he said.

When asked by Justice Antonio T. Carpio if they would have objected if the Comelec exercised the option to purchase before the original Dec. 31, 2010 expiry date, Mr. Espejo said: "That is debatable."

"Our position is it is illegal to extend the period for another purpose (the 2013 elections)," Atty. Espejo said. "For as long as the extension has something to do with the 2010 elections, we will have no objection. Otherwise, this would be subject to regular bidding."

At this point, Justice Carpio said: "Your legal theory does not stand scrutiny. You have to do better than that."

Ex-Comelec Commissioner Augusto "Gus" Lagman supporting the petitioners, on the sidelines of the oral arguments stress that the purchase is not an exception. He said it is not allowed under the procurement act because extending the option in itself is a violation of the terms of reference of the original contract.

“The (deadline for) purchase already expired and the extension of deadline means substantial modification of the reference,” Lagman said.

Lagman said Comelec should have not renewed the contract with Smartmatic because the technical glitches in the PCOS machines were not addressed. “Proof of the problems is that they were trying to repair it. That is an admission that there is problem with the machines,” he said.

He cited the use of “worm,” or a medium where results are recorded and which is not rewritable. He said this means the machines may be tampered with using an ordinary laptop. “It was very vulnerable to tampering. It does not have enough security features and has no digital signatures, which were supposed to be given by election inspectors rather than the machine,” he said.

Lagman, an expert in poll automation whose appointment to Comelec failed to pass the confirmation of the powerful Commission on Appointments (CA) was not renewed by President Benigno Aquino III, also revealed that the PCOS machines used in the 2010 polls had no mechanism “to check the authenticity of the ballots and votes supposedly shown.”

Lagman likewise said Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion in approving the contract through Resolution No. 9376, in spite of the recommendation of the Comelec Advisory Council (CAC) under a resolution issued last Feb. 8. CAC said Comelec should look for better options for the May 2013 elections.

The petitioners said the contract also violated Section 10 of RA 9369 or the Automated Election System law, which mandates that for the May 10, 2010 election and succeeding automated elections, the system to be used “must have demonstrated capability and been successfully used in a prior electoral exercise here or abroad.”

When asked by Associate Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno if he thinks the technical glitches were irreparable, Lagman said: “I just don’t think they still have the time to do it. Smartmatic had the last two years to correct it but they did not,” he said.

Ask for comment Comelec Chairman Sixto Brillantes on the matter, he did not address the question on Comelec's transaction as a possible exception, but said that he is puzzled by the arguments of the petitioners. He dismissed the argument of petitioners and stood firm too on his belief that the new contract did not violate any law.

“They said there should be new bidding because supposedly we can’t use the machines for 2013 since they’re only for 2010. But that is incorrect because there’s an option to purchase,” he told reporters after the hearing.

Chairman Brillantes also said they had intended to use the PCOS machines in subsequent elections, insisting that the Comelec need not explicitly state in the original contract whether it plans to use the same machines for the 2013 elections.

He said it was only a matter of time when the Comelec would purchase the machines, adding that the government did not buy the machines before 2012 because it had no use for them yet.

“That would have required expenses for warehousing, manpower, maintenance when those are not yet necessary. What do you want us to do – for the government to spend for those expenses when the machines were not yet needed until 2013?” he said.

Petitioners are Davao City Archbishop Fernando Capalla, former Marawi City Mayor Omar Ali, and former Quezon City Rep. Mary Anne Susano, Solidarity for Sovereignty (S4S) represented by Ma. Linda Montayre, Ramon Pedrosa, Benjamin Paulino, Sr., Evelyn Coronel, and Nelson Montayre and the Automated Election System (AES) Watch led by former Vice President Teofisto Guingona. They all sought the issuance of a temporary restraining order and nullification of the extended contract between Comelec and Smartmatic-TIM.

 online reports

DILG CHIEF URGED LGUs

Prepare Detainee Voting, LGUs Urged

By Czarina Nicole Ong

May 2, 2012, 2:47pm

MANILA, Philippines - The Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) yesterday directed local chief executives (LCEs) to comply with the recently-promulgated resolution regarding the guidelines on detainee registration and voting to ensure that detainees still qualified to vote shall be allowed to register and exercise their suffrage as residents.

In his Memorandum Circular No. 2012-66, Interior and Local Government Secretary Jesse M. Robredo said that LCEs, regional directors, and the governor of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao must comply with the Commission on Elections (Comelec) Resolution No. 9371, or the “Rules and Regulations on Detainee Registration and Voting in Connection with the May 13, 2013 National and Local Elections and Subsequent Elections Thereafter.”

This was agreed upon during a meeting between the DILG and the Comelec’s Committee on Detainee Voting, headed by Commissioner Rene Sarmiento, on March 10.

In her memorandum, Director Esmeralda Amora-Ladra of the Comelec’s Law Department said that detainees are among “certain sectors in our society whose members, though qualified, are effectively deprived of their right to cast their votes.”

She recalled that detainees were previously not allowed to register to vote or transfer their registration records to the place of their confinement, impeding them from participating in the May 2010 elections.

Ladra, however, cited Section 9 of Republic Act No. 8189 stating that persons at least 18 years old, residents of the Philippines for at least a year, and of the place they wish to register in as voters for at least six months, shall be allowed to register.

She added that detainees as well as persons who temporarily live in other places for other reasons such as work should be allowed to register and vote in their temporary residence.

Moreover, through the promulgated resolution, detainees may now enlist in their respective detention centers through satellite registration for the forthcoming 2013 elections.

Meanwhile, detainees who are registered in other areas or prisoners in detention centers without established special polling centers must be escorted to their respective polling places.

Those who are registered in other areas may apply for transfer of registration records to the place of their confinement.

The Committee on Detainee Voting will be working together with the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology (BJMP), Bureau of Corrections, Commission on Human Rights, watch groups, and some non-government organizations in safeguarding the detainees’ right to vote.

During the campaign period, candidates shall also be allowed to enter detention centers but must still comply with the rules and regulations provided by the BJMP and Comelec.

To maintain order, the BJMP said that the division of detainee voters will be done by listing together detainee voters belonging to the same district.

In connection with this, the BJMP also said that registered detainee voters that are released as of the last working day of February of the election year will be excluded from the BJMP list.

They will also give the Election Officer an updated list of detainees who are released from the first Monday of March up to the date of the submission of the list.

Special polling places will be established in an area inside the jail spacious enough to accommodate more than 10 people to ensure that voting will be completed while there is still sufficient time to deliver all the accomplished ballots to the different precincts where detainees are registered.

A special precinct will also be established in case there are more than 500 detainee voters.

ERB NOTICE TO PUBLIC

Republic of the Philippines

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

OFFICE OF THE ELECTION REGISTRATION BOARD

Odioñgan, Romblon

-oOo-

NOTICE OF HEARING

            Notice is hereby given that the following application for registration/transfer/change of entry as voter of the municipality will be summarily heard for approval/disapproval by the Election Registration Board of the municipality on July 16, 2012. Any complaint or objection thereto should be submitted to the Office of the Election Officer before the scheduled hearing date.

NEW APPLICANT
NO.	APPL. NO.	APPLICANT’s NAME		BARANGAY		Prec. No.
1.	5909300007631	Andal, Arianne Mae Fabro		Dapawan		0027B
2.	5909300007637	Andal, Bless Faith Fabro		Dapawan		0027B
3.	5909300007630	Andal, Julie Jane Fabro		Dapawan		0027B
4.	5909300007643	Cahilig, Neomi Abardo		Gabawan		0033C
5.	5909300007651	Casa, Arjay Rhyl Mingoa		Poctoy		0053B
6.	5909300007638	Dela Rosa, Rosemarie Jusay		Dapawan		0029D
7.	5909300007642	Falcunitin, Mercy Rafael		Amatong		0011A
8.	5909300007642	Ferrer, Jessica Robiso		Libertad		0034C
9.	5909300007629	Fesarillo, Allein Masangcay		Anahao		0014B
10.	5909300007658	Galicia, Rodillo Jr. Cedillo		Taboboan		0060A
11.	5909300007650	Galisanao, Jay Arvis Vergara		Poctoy		0053B
12.	5909300007652	Herrera, Ana Belle Ferriol		Ligaya		0003A
13.	5909300007660	Meñez, Riza Soniel		Mayha		0041A
14.	5909300007654	Motin, Borromeo Billones		Poctoy		0053B
15.	5909300007628	Palacao, Rowena Salidaga		Dapawan		0029D
16.	5909300007639	Pawang, Arbie Familaran		Tulay		0066B
17.	5909300007659	Rubion, Joseph Christian Guyo		Liwanag		0008B
18.	5909300007648	Salvador, Daryl Galicia		Amatong		0011A
19.	5909300007647	Salvador, Decelyn Galicia		Amatong		0011A
20.	5909300007653	Solano, Alkaid Uy		Ligaya		0002A
21.	5909300007644	Villacrusis Ruby Benitez		Libertad		0034A
22.	5909300007732	Advincula, Janno Will Venus		Anahao		0014A
23.	5909300007728	Advincula, Joeffre Osorio		Anahao		0014A
24.	5909300007690	Almodiente, Cherry Ann Yap		Anahao		0014A
25.	5909300007761	Amar, Shielafel Forcado		Anahao		0014A
26.	5909300007662	Anastacio, Geneline Encarnacion		Panique		0046B
27.	5909300007661	Anastacio, Rico Libuton		Panique		0046B
28.	5909300007693	Aungon, Michelle Tejolan		Anahao		0014A
29.	5909300007756	Bantang, Kevin Malunes		Anahao		0014A
30.	5909300007678	Cacananta, Raquel Advincula		Anahao		0014A
31.	5909300007733	Dalisay, Alvin Lozano		Anahao		0014A
32.	5909300007687	Dalisay, Aishele Nino		Malilico		0039B
33.	5909300007700	Dalisay, Jeralyn Fesarillo		Malilico		0039B
34.	5909300007705	Dalisay, Michael Formento		Anahao		0014A
35.	5909300007758	Espanola, Monica Amboy		Malilico		0038B
36.	5909300007673	Espanola, Ruel Villanueva		Malilico		0038B
37.	5909300007771	Faa, Emy Rose Merculesio		Anahao		0014A
38.	5909300007703	Fabito, Cynthia Gregorio		Malilico		0038B
39.	5909300007702	Fabito, Jomel Osorio		Malilico		0038B
40.	5909300007691	Fabito, Mary Jane Formento		Malilico		0038B
41.	5909300007763	Fabul, Mary Grace Falogme		Anahao		0014B
42.	5909300007757	Faclarin, Cyrus Castillo		Malilico		0038B
47.	5909300007751	Factor, Jester Gray Magbanua		Anahao		0014A
48.	5909300007742	Fadriquela, Arsenio Jr. Anas		Malilico		0038B
49.	5909300007738	Fadriquela, Danica Gregorio		Malilico		0038B
50.	5909300007746	Fadriquela, Danreb Formento		Malilico		0038B
51.	5909300007674	Fadriquela, Lorenz Inocencio		Malilico		0038B
52.	5909300007698	Fadriquela, Nimfa Anas		Malilico		0038B
53.	5909300007744	Fadriquela, Pacencia Malunes		Malilico		0038B
54.	5909300007721	Fadriquela, Romalyn Broniola		Malilico		0038B
55.	5909300007679	Fadriquela, Rosinie Broniola		Malilico		0038B
56.	5909300007748	Faeldonia, Jazelle Daclan		Anahao		0014B
57.	5909300007694	Faeldonia, Maylyn Zuela		Anahao		0014B
58.	5909300007692	Faeldonia, Myra Zuela		Anahao		0014B
59.	5909300007670	Faeldonia, Sheena Fran		Anahao		0014B
60.	5909300007685	Famatiga, Eric Gregorio		Malilico		0038B
61.	5909300007737	Famisan, Elarde Zuela		Anahao		0014B
62.	5909300007716	Famisaran, Aldrin Fontelo		Malilico		0038B
63.	5909300007664	Famorcan, Aimee Segarel		Budiong		0023A
64.	5909300007668	Famorcan, Mark Francis Gregorio		Tuburan		0063B
65.	5909300007667	Famorcan, Melissa Faith Gregorio		Tuburan		0063B
66.	5909300007683	Fampo, Alberto Manalon		Malilico		0038B
67.	5909300007773	Fausto, Jose Thadeus Gementra		Anahao		0014B
68.	5909300007708	Felia, Jahaziel Forcado		Anahao		0014B
69.	5909300007750	Ferranco, Manilyn Aquino		Anahao		0014B
70.	5909300007764	Ferrancullo, Jo-an Malunes		Anahao		0014B
71.	5909300007760	Fontanoza, Angelyn Fran		Anahao		0014B
72.	5909300007774	Forcado, Ely Martirez		Taboboan		0060B
73.	5909300007714	Forcado, Joel Guray		Anahao		0014B
74.	5909300007696	Forcado, Pamela Mhae Fabito		Malilico		0038B
75.	5909300007676	Forio, Ma. Erica Lagunday		Anahao		0014B
76.	5909300007695	Forteza, Aideen May Asturias		Anahao		0014B
77.	5909300007768	Fran, Darryl Romblon		Anahao		0014B
78.	5909300007740	Fran, Eddie Gregorio		Anahao		0014B
79.	5909300007767	Fran, Eddiemar Romblon		Anahao		0014B
80.	5909300007759	Fronda, Juliete Fontejon		Anahao		0014B
81.	5909300007753	Gajetas, Reymond Venus		Anahao		0014B
82.	5909300007752	Gajetas, Rolly Venus		Anahao		0014B
83.	5909300007749	Gallos, Keyce Salsona		Anahao		0014B
84.	5909300007770	Gallos, Martin Salsona		Anahao		0014B
85.	5909300007747	Gamos, Kurt Malunes		Anahao		0014B
86.	5909300007718	Gamos, Sammy Forio		Anahao		0014B
87.	5909300007762	Garing, Gino Magbanua		Anahao		0014B
88.	5909300007729	Ignacio, Sarah Marasigan		Malilico		0038B
89.	5909300007725	Inocencio, Ruben Galabay		Malilico		0038B
90.	5909300007725	Lambon, Shena Marie Tambalque		Anahao		0014B
91.	5909300007697	Lanzaderas, Johnmark Malunes		Malilico		0038B
92.	5909300007711	Lerin, Jenifer Ferrer		Anahao		0014B
93.	5909300007730	Lorenzo, John Lee Fernando		Malilico		0038B
94.	5909300007669	Malunes, Babylyn Formento		Anahao		0014A
95.	5909300007745	Malunes, Rudy Famaran		Anahao		0014B
96.	5909300007734	Malunes, Ruel Dalisay		Anahao		0014B
97.	5909300007735	Malunes, Vena Dalisay		Anahao		0014B
98.	5909300007741	Marasigan, Emelanie Fadriquela		Malilico		0038B
99.	5909300007677	Marcelo, Jonathan Osorio		Malilico		0038B
100.	5909300007675	Marcelo, Lovely Galang		Malilico		0038B
101.	5909300007717	Masangcay, Lunico Yap		Anahao		0014B
102.	5909300007755	Ocampo, Genesis De Villena		Malilico		0038B
103.	5909300007715	Pampo, Aldrin Malunes		Malilico		0038B
104.	5909300007723	Paquera, Relyn Dionela		Malilico		0038B
105.	5909300007686	Paulino, Haidy Marcelo		Malilico		0038B
106.	5909300007772	Romero, Dorelee Dalisay		Malilico		0038B
107.	5909300007722	Romero, Val Fontelo		Malilico		0038B
108.	5909300007706	San Luis, Rizza Lopez		Anahao		0014B
109.	5909300007672	Sabulao, Brenda Rena		Malilico		0038B
110.	5909300007765	Sadia, Jannet Galos		Anahao		0014B
111.	5909300007766	Sadia, Judith Galos		Anahao		0014B
112.	5909300007699	Samillano, Trexia Fadriquela		Malilico		0038B
113.	5909300007684	Sanchez, Norilyn Gacula		Malilico		0038B
114.	5909300007663	Servanez, Roxette Dela Pena		Liwayway		0009A
115.	5909300007726	Solis, Jayson Famaran		Anahao		0014B
116.	5909300007671	Sulabo, Florivie Lazaro		Anahao		0014B
117.	5909300007713	Tamayo, Christian Fadero		Anahao		0014B
118.	5909300007712	Tamayo, Zairo Jr. Fadero		Anahao		0014B
119.	5909300007731	Venus, Melody Magay		Anahao		0014B
120.	5909300007665	Villarete, Louie Gramatica		Tabing Dagat		0004A
121.	5909300007769	Visca, John Denver Tolentino		Anahao		0014B
122.	5909300007754	Visca, Mark Dexter Tolentino		Anahao		0014B
123.	5909300007689	Yap, April Ann Soledad		Anahao		0014B
TRANSFER FROM OTHER MUNICIPALITIES
1.	5909300007649		Aquino, Cristy Vidad		Poctoy	0052A
2.	5909300007657		David, Melba Forcadas		Batiano	0020A
3.	5909300007640		Esteves, Kellen Fornea		Mayha	0040B
4.	5909300007632		Foja, Niña Grace Rubas		Dapawan	0028D
5.	5909300007636		Forio, Nena Yap		Liwanag	0008A
6.	5909300007656		Galang, Valentino Macatol		Ligaya	0001A
7.	5909300007634		Guanco, Merelene Fallaria		Gabawan	0030B
8.	5909300007635		Lambatin, Duma Grecia		Dapawan	0029D
9.	5909300007633		Repelar, Doreen Jan Fallaria		Gabawan	0030B
10.	5909300007645		Teologo, Vergie Galachico		Gabawan	0048A
11.	5909300007641		Uri, Wannalyn Lemoncito		Anahao	0013B
12.	5909300007655		Zulueta, Timoteo Rescober		Tulay	0066B
13.	5909300007682		Dela Vega, Rosemarie Anigan		Malilico	0039B
14.	5909300007743		Fadriquela, Michelle Inocencio		Malilico	0038B
15.	5909300007666		Fallaria, Arvie Joy Fabriquier		Budiong	0022A
16.	5909300007736		Ferrancullo, Leny Gregorio		Anahao	0014B
17.	5909300007707		Forcado, Marilyn Fallarcuna		Anahao	0014B
18.	5909300007727		Gamos, Shirley Fajela		Anahao	0014B
19.	5909300007724		Garing, Ma. Vilma Comilang		Anahao	0014B
20.	5909300007680		Inocencio, Mylene Sodoy		Malilico	0038B
21.	5909300007720		Malunes, Monica Prado		Anahao	0014B
22.	5909300007688		Sevilla, Estela Faeldonia		Malilico	0038B
23.	5909300007710		Tambalque, Geraldine Recto		Anahao	0014B
24.	5909300007704		Tayco, Marilyn Organo		Malilico	0038B
25.	5909300007701		Tayco, Pepito Solano		Malilico	0038B
26.	5909300007681		Torre, Arnold Laguna		Malilico	0038B
27.	5909300007719		Vidola, Benita Sanchez		Malilico	0038B
28.	5909300007739		Yuro, Eden Lumogdang		Malilico	0038B
TRANFER WITHIN THE MUNICIPALITY
1.	20143160		Advincula, Celia Fortu		Anahao	0014A
2.	5909300005615		Falcunitin, Meriam Rafael		Amatong	0011A
3.	5910000000001		Falogme, Emalrued Cortez		Tabing Dagat	0004B
4.	37456383		Fran, Nestor Rombines		Ligaya	0001B
5.	20142105		Famisan, Honey Malunes		Anahao	0014B
6.	37334577		Gado, Ernesto Faa		Anahao	0014B
7.	5910000005323		Gado, Marilou Villanueva		Anahao	0014B
8.	20143922		Riel, Evangeline Cruz		Poctoy	0053C
9.	37629133		Teologo, Florencio Gallos		Anahao	0014B
10.	37629103		Teologo, Josefina Tiongco		Anahao	0014B
APPLICATION FOR REACTIVATION
1.	37627246		Mingoa, Arleen Joy Marchante		Poctoy	0053C
2.	5910000003506		Motin, Ma. Cielo Amar		Poctoy	0053B
3.	5910000000058		Servañez, Rodel Robert Fadrigore		Ligaya	0001A
4.	20146428		Solano, Elmor Famero		Malilico	0039B
CORRECTION OF ENTRIES
1.	5910000001350		Dela Rosa, Giome Jusay		Liwayway	0009A
2.	37334821		Fadera, Rita May Fornal		Liwanag	0007A
3.	59093000003483		Falcunit, Marfel Jane Federico		Tulay	0068B
4.	59100000003483		Fallasgon, Bert Garcia		Dapawan	0029B
5.	20141384		Formon, Jane Moratin		Pato-o	0047A
6.	5910000000993		Galisanao, Ludivina Vergara		Poctoy	0053B
7.	20147132		Herrera, Elbie Ferriol		Ligaya	0003A
8.	37631538		Notario, Lensil Forio		Gabawan	0033A
9.	20146876		Paraggua, Mary Jane Fetalco		Tuburan	0063B
10.	5909300006230		Villacrusis, Ramah Gan		Tuburan	0062C
11.	37334803		Villanueva, Madline Fran		Liwanag	0007B
12.	37695479		Fajarito, Janice Falceso		Poctoy	0053A
13.	37594829		Galicia, Gina Forca		Tumingad	0070A
14.	20149066		Yu, Irine Gan		Libertad	0037A

As of May 08, 2012