Also carried on my blog, Chat Noir, at http://dateline.ph/?p=11780

If there is one thing that the ongoing legislative investigation into complaints of fraud during the nation's first automated elections has taught me so far, it is this: Most of our legislators are not worth the tax money we are paying to fund their salaries.

That they are not technologically adept is one thing. No biggie, really, since not everyone is a natural-born techie. But their arrival at a hearing in the august halls of the House of Representatives without bothering to bone up on the subject of technology as applied to a computerized election is a truly pathetic waste of the prestige of their positions as congressmen and of their salaries, which are paid by "we, the people."

Parañaque Rep. Roilo Golez is one such case. Golez’s response to House Suffrage committee chair and Makati Rep. Teddy Locsin’s query about the definition of an electronic signature was circuitous and empty. In the end, Golez wound up merely referring back to the law that mandated the Comelec to automate the polls for the definition of the term “electronic signature.”

Locsin did his homework, something creditable to his instincts as a journalist. He has always been one to know what he is talking about and, if the knowledge is not stock in his brain, then he finds ways to gain the knowledge he needs by consulting people in the know.

In this case, Locsin obviously spoke with experts in Information Technology (IT), so he could chair the investigation well. Now that man, in my eyes, is not a waste of my tax payments. But, the others? I want to ask the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) for my money back.

For the people who are not familiar with the term “electronic signature,” here is the layman’s language for it: When used for e-commerce, an electronic signature is used as identification of the transacting parties and as a means by which such transactions are validated and credited to a specific person (human or juridical) – i.e. Juan dela Cruz completes and validates his online banking transactions as being transactions he has undertaken with the use of an electronic signature (also known as a digital signature).

One widely-used example of an electronic signature is the data stored on the black magnetic strip of one’s credit card, which, when used in conjunction with the credit card security number, will validate a transaction made with that credit card so the amount paid for with the card will be charged to the card’s rightful user.

This is the same principle that propels the logic behind the use of electronic signatures to identify the authorized Board of Election Inspectors (BEIs) who have the authority to transmit election returns (ERs) from the precinct optical scan (PCOS) machines to the Commission on Elections' central server.

The fact that none of the assembled politicos could explain what a digital signature was points to one thing: These are men who do not do their homework.

Ignorance of a subject, on its own, is not a bad thing. But choosing to remain ignorant about something that will be discussed in an inquiry of Congress shows just how little regard these legislators have for the constituents in their areas of jurisdiction and for the nation as a whole.

These are the people whose salaries we shoulder with the taxes we pay. These are the people we, as a nation, rely on to provide laws that will bring peace, prosperity and progress.

In this information age, copies of the laws that govern the use of electronic signatures and allow for the automation of our election system are available with just a few keywords and clicks on Google.

Here is what I found in under two minutes. According to Section 25 of Republic Act 9369, the law amending the Omnibus Election Code, “The manner of determining the authenticity and due execution of the certificates shall conform with the provisions of Republic Act No. 7166 as may be supplement or modified by the provision of this Act, where applicable, by appropriate authentication and certification procedures for electronic signatures as provided in Republic Act No. 8792 as well as the rules promulgated by the Supreme Court pursuant thereto.”

In plain speech, this segment of RA 9369 mandates the use of electronic signatures to authenticate election returns transmitted from the PCOS machines by the BEIs to the Comelec central server, there the data is collated into certificates of canvass.

Parallel to my search for RA 9369, I sought out RA 8792, the e-commerce law, that defines what an electronic signature is. Here is the definition, verbatim, under Section 5 of the e-commerce law:

“‘Electronic signature’ refers to any distinctive mark, characteristic and/or sound in electronic form, representing the identity of a person and attached to or logically associated with the electronic data message or electronic document or any methodology or procedures employed or adopted by a person and executed or adopted by such person with the intention of authenticating or approving an electronic data message or electronic document.”

My daughters are high school students and they could execute the same Google search within the same amount of time and find these explanations. In fact, they did this after seeing the Congressional inquiry by Locsin’s committee. Now, I wonder why a pair of high school students could think about doing research on a topic some congressmen could not be bothered to research on? It’s not like these legislators are denied access to the internet, hmmm?

I wonder why the legislators at the same inquiry could not have done this self-same thing on their own or asked a member of their research staff (whose salaries we taxpayers also shoulder) to find this information for them and brief them on it prior to the hearing? Perhaps they believe the electorate is so stupid they would be insulting us if they showed they have some intelligence. How considerate of them to value our self-esteem instead of getting their facts straight.

What I see is that these “lawmakers” of ours just want to ride the wave of publicity that these cries of electronic poll fraud have brought rolling into the shores of Congress.

Don’t get me wrong, I am not saying no fraud happened – not even the Comelec will say that. What I am saying is this: Instead of clarifying the issue of digital poll fraud, our legislators have again managed to churn mud and make things even more difficult to comprehend because they arrived at the hearings this week unprepared and seemingly with the aim of keeping their names in the public consciousness instead of sorting out an issue with potentially catastrophic consequences for the electorate and the candidates who stood for election on May 10.

It makes me put my head in my hands to see such things unfolding on national television. I do not know whether to laugh or cry that these politicos (well, maybe save for Locsin) seem to really live up to the maxim that, be it good or bad, free publicity is still publicity.

These are the people who are our representatives in the legislature and are, purportedly, the embodiment of the best and brightest of the Filipino nation. I think. May God have mercy on us.