Mariano Carrasco THE Supreme Court has recently decided that Comelec should issue voting receipts as mandated in the computerized elections law. In the 2010 and 2013 elections, this was not complied with. The issuance of a receipt for the ballots, much like getting a receipt when you buy something, is purportedly designed to ensure transparency and to assure the voter that what he voted for and inserted into the PCOS machine is true and correct, and was recorded by the computer as shown by the receipt. But the honorable court gave the caveat or warning that the Comelec may issue guidelines so the receipts could be deposited in a separate box after verification by the voter. However, the secrecy of  the ballots is at the heart of ensuring the integrity of the electoral process. That is the reason why there are polling booths or covers when voters fill out their ballots, and nobody is allowed to come in or to come  near to check what’s written, except when someone is allowed to assist in the case of disabled and illiterate voters. It is even illegal to publicly advertise, announce, or show to the public the contents of the ballot. No names or markings are to be placed therein to enable identification. If a voter gets a receipt that would show how he voted, then certainly that will help vote-buying and vote-selling if someone in the voting precinct who conspires with the corrupt candidates, catches a glimpse of the receipt. The secrecy is lost. If the voter accepted bribe money before voting, he would be afraid of following his conscience since a receipt would be issued and he would be fearful that somehow the corrupt candidate or his conspirators in the precinct would get to know how he voted. If the giving of bribe money or the balance thereof would be paid after voting, the corrupt candidate would also be encouraged to buy votes since he can verify how the voter voted through his conspirator in the precinct. Some election inspectors or BEI members could really get tempted to accept huge bribes from corrupt candidates just to spy on or to check how the voter voted before the receipts are deposited in a separate box. The conspirator can just give hand signals to a candidate’s spy watching near the windows or entrance of the precinct as to how the voter voted. There is really more danger to the idea of issuing receipts than the advantage of transparency or voter verification. Besides, the ballots themselves are deposited in the PCOS machine boxes, and the total of the votes can be verified by examining the contents of the boxes if and when a protest arises. Furthermore, printouts of the total votes per precincts are done before they are electronically transmitted to the canvassing centers at city hall or provincial capitol. Lastly, the flashcards—if they are properly guarded and not switched, can also be used to verify the truth of the voting results per precinct. Over and above all these however is Comelec’s observation that it is simply physically impossible to reconfigure the computer program before the May 9 election, and assuming that it can be done, it would result in a delayed canvassing of the votes, and such delay could be productive of violence and electoral maneuvers by corrupt candidates.  (Mariano B. Carrasco is a lawyer based in Cagayan de Oro.)