THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY HAS BEEN LOOKing forward to the 2010 elections as the antidote to the steady decline in business confidence since 2005. In a recent survey conducted among the members of the Makati Business Club, the outlook has not been as positive in a long time.

Part of the reason for the optimism is the apparent recovery from the 2009 recession. But I believe that the coming elections also give us hope for change for better governance.

The only cloud in the bright sky is the conduct of the coming elections. Lately, that cloud has been growing darker as it appears that the Commission on Elections has not managed well the process of shifting from a manual system to an automated election system (AES).

It is not assuring to know that the Philippines is the first country in the world to jump from completely manual elections to fully automated in just one electoral exercise. This at a time when countries like Germany, the Netherlands and Ireland are switching back to manual counting in line with the established election tenet?secret voting, public counting. Neither does it set my mind at rest that the country's first automated elections is Smartmatic's first experience of this magnitude with the Precinct Count Optical Scan (PCOS) machines.

In any project that involves a shift from a manual system to an automated system, both systems are run simultaneously for a period of time. This is to ensure that the automated system is free of errors before it is completely rolled out. Without a parallel run, there is no assurance that the automated system is error-free until a subsequent audit is made.

Imagine if this was a payroll system or an automated teller machine network. Detecting and correcting system mistakes after the system has already been rolled out would be very expensive. The Smartmatic-supplied AES has not undergone a parallel run in an actual election, yet it will be rolled out on a nationwide basis on May 10.

Adding to the darkness of the clouds, many safeguards set in place by law, as defined by IT experts, were disregarded, removed or replaced by the Comelec with vulnerable alternatives. The source code review, as defined by law, was not granted; on-the-spot verification by the voter and the UV detector were disabled; and controlled access features were disregarded.

While there has been deepening concern in the business community over the possible failure of the automation process, a recent proposal by a group of IT experts identified with the Movement for Good Governance (MGG) could provide the last hope to ensure the credibility of the coming polls.

The group's proposal calls for a simplified parallel manual count for the positions of president, vice president and mayor. The whole process will take just about three hours to complete for 600 ballots. For added transparency, there is also a proposal to use projectors to enable watchers and the general public to get a good view of the vote-counting results.

I believe this exercise is doable, rational and will not entail exorbitant costs. Most of all, it will lend credibility to the automated process in the absence of the mandatory parallel run that the Comelec has failed to implement.

The Makati Business Club and the Management Association of the Philippines have expressed support for the proposal and are urging the Comelec to act with haste. The IT experts say the Comelec has to come out with a decision on the implementation of the parallel count by April 23. Beyond that, there will be no more time and the consequences to Philippine democracy could be dire.

The IT group's proposal for a simplified parallel count may be the way to save the democratic process and restore people's trust in the ballot. If the Comelec maintains the PCOS machines are accurate, there is no reason for it not to accept the proposal.

Of course, there will be concerns raised about additional expenses?as if the Comelec had not been so cavalier in its spending for security folders, ultraviolet lamps and indelible ink. Based on very rough estimates, doing the simplified parallel count and the procurement of projectors will cost a maximum of P500 million. Many would ask: Can the Philippines afford it? But the question may well be: Can the Philippines afford not to do it?

If the parallel manual count does produce substantial parallel results to the automated count, then the P500 million would have been money well spent. This would validate the success of the automated election system. On the other hand, if the manual count detects a discrepancy in the results, prompting a full manual recount of all positions to determine the true vote, then it would be an accomplishment of the system of safeguards of our election system.

I join the chorus of voices urging the Comelec to implement the simplified parallel count.

There is no room for failure.

Ramon R. del Rosario Jr. is the chairman of the Makati Business Club. Please send your comments to rrdelrosario@hotmail.com.ph.