Halalan 2025 Hijacked? The Worrying Signs We Can’t Ignore

A growing chorus of Filipinos – at home and abroad – is asking this question as the 2025 midterm elections approach. Recent events have cast doubt on the credibility of the polls, even as officials project confidence. From alleged internet connectivity of vote-counting machines to delayed certifications and street protests, there’s an undercurrent of skepticism in the air. Let’s break down the facts that are fueling these concerns.

Late February, a Philippine attorney and IT expert named Jeryll Harold Respicio publicly warned that the Vote Counting Machines (VCMs) – officially called automated counting machines (ACMs) – might be vulnerable if not properly isolated from the internet. Respicio claimed that if a voting machine connects online “before the election returns are printed,” hackers could alter the vote-counting software via a backdoor, producing fraudulent results on the printed election returns​. He even alleged that in past elections some VCMs were online too early, potentially causing discrepancies between official tallies and the true votes​. These are serious cybersecurity concerns coming from a lawyer who is also an IT specialist.

It didn’t take long for the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) to react – but not in the way reform advocates hoped. Instead of immediately addressing the issue, the COMELEC sued Respicio. The poll body filed a cyber libel complaint against him, essentially for claiming in his Facebook videos that the machines can be hacked. COMELEC even created a task force to go after election-related “misinformation.” By March 1, COMELEC Chairman George Erwin Garcia himself led the filing of a criminal case against Respicio, accusing him of spreading false information about the voting machines​.

Still, many tech-savvy observers found it troubling that COMELEC responded with a lawsuit rather than full transparency. Respicio maintains he raised a valid issue in good faith – “every possible avenue for election fraud should be minimized,” he said, urging COMELEC to categorically pledge not to connect the VCMs until after printing the returns. The episode has had a chilling effect. If pointing out potential digital weaknesses leads to being sued, will others be afraid to come forward with issues?

Is silencing critics the best way to build trust?

Respicio isn’t the only lawyer who locked horns with COMELEC. Another attorney known for questioning election irregularities – former congressman Glenn Chong – has faced his own battles with the poll body. Glenn Chong has long alleged anomalies in automated polls and championed election transparency. When he sought a Senate seat in a previous election, COMELEC moved to disqualify him as a “nuisance” candidate. Chong fought back in court and won a reprieve: the Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) allowing him (and a few others) to stay on the ballot​. In fact, just this January the Supreme Court stopped COMELEC from disqualifying five candidates for 2025, ordering the poll body to include them pending further review. It’s a reminder that COMELEC’s judgments aren’t infallible – and that judicial oversight is sometimes needed to protect the rights of candidates, especially those viewed as outsiders or whistleblowers.

When election watchdogs and reform advocates are sidelined, it raises eyebrows. Observers wonder if some candidacies were quashed for being too vocal against the status quo. The Supreme Court’s flurry of TROs suggests the neutral courts themselves saw potential overreach. One of those benefiting from a TRO is a controversial figure running under a familiar surname (not coincidentally critical of the administration)​. If these legal roadblocks hadn’t been lifted, thousands of voters would have found their chosen candidates erased from the ballot.

Imagine election day with key opposition names missing – how would that look for credibility?

Election laws in the Philippines include safeguards to ensure the automated system is reliable. One crucial safeguard is the trusted build certification – essentially a seal of approval from a technical evaluation committee and an international software auditor that the entire Automated Election System (AES) is “operating properly, securely, and accurately”. By law, this certification should be obtained “not later than three months” before election day​. With the midterm polls set for May 12, 2025, that meant the deadline was around February 11-12, 2025.

Guess what? February 12 came and went – no certification. As of today (March 24, 2025), the COMELEC still hasn’t presented the required Trust Build Certificate for the election system. Senator Risa Hontiveros blew the whistle on this in early March, calling for a congressional inquiry. She stressed that COMELEC’s failure to secure the certification on time violates the Election Automation Law and could undermine public confidence.

COMELEC’s response? They admitted the certificate was delayed, blaming the inclusion of a new Internet Voting system for overseas Filipinos as the holdup. Chair Garcia argued that the law’s three-month rule is “directory” (i.e. more guideline than mandatory) and pointed out that in past elections the certifications also came late – sometimes just days before voters headed to the polls. In other words, “if being late is a crime, then every election since 2010 was technically illegal,” Garcia quipped in Filipino​. It’s a bold defense, essentially saying “we’ve always cut it close, so it’s okay.”

But many aren’t laughing. Legal or not, the absence of a timely independent certification strikes at the heart of transparency. That certificate is meant to assure everyone that the software counting our votes has been double-checked by impartial experts. Without it, voters are asked to take COMELEC’s word that “everything’s fine.”

Where is the certificate? Why the delay?

These questions linger. Hontiveros and other lawmakers have demanded that COMELEC explain to the public why, despite a clear deadline in the law, the certification is “hindi pa nailalabas” – not yet out​. So far, no clear answer. COMELEC says it’s “on track” and will get the cert before election day​, but that assurance only goes so far. The law intended the cert to be done well before election day, not at the last minute when there’s little time to address any problems it might uncover.

Election watchdog groups are raising red flags on other fronts too. The National Citizens’ Movement for Free Elections (NAMFREL), a respected poll watchdog, has called on COMELEC to publicize every step of the election process to ensure it’s fully auditable. They want more openness in everything from how machines are tested, to how ballots are printed, to how results are transmitted. The sentiment among watchdogs is clear: “Trust, but verify.” And right now, they’re not getting enough information to verify.

Consider the issue of the new voting machines supplier. COMELEC awarded a hefty ₱18-billion contract for 2025’s election technology to a foreign firm, Miru Systems Co. Ltd., replacing the long-time provider. This was touted as a fresh start – but COMELEC initially kept the contract details under wraps, especially after Miru’s local Filipino partner backed out. Transparency advocates found this unacceptable and took action. In February, a coalition of journalists and civic groups filed a petition, and the Supreme Court ordered COMELEC and Miru to disclose the documents on their deal. The petitioners simply wanted to know: with the local partner gone, is Miru meeting the 60% Filipino ownership requirement? Who is accountable if something goes wrong? Under public pressure (and now a court order), COMELEC said it will comply and release the contract info. Still, the fact that it took a Supreme Court intervention for COMELEC to share basic contract details doesn’t inspire confidence. If nothing was amiss, why not disclose earlier and willingly?

Technical glitches, too, have made headlines. COMELEC proudly announced a successful mock election in January with 100% transmission of results. But behind the scenes, there were “kinks” and issues that needed fixing – which COMELEC says it addressed. One issue spilled into public view: the new Overseas Voting internet system. COMELEC launched a pilot online voting platform for Filipinos abroad, a first in our country. Unfortunately, the roll-out was bumpy. When pre-enrollment was supposed to begin, many overseas Filipinos couldn’t even find the sign-up link. It was 10 days delayed and still missing on the announced start date​. Confused voters took to social media, asking “Where is the link?”​. Some speculated there was a system glitch or a lapse on COMELEC’s part. Even those eager to try internet voting grew frustrated; quite a few commented that they doubted the new system’s reliability and would prefer to vote the old-fashioned way. That’s not a good look for a project meant to showcase technological advancement. COMELEC later scrambled to clarify and get the enrollment back on track, but the episode left a bad taste. If a simple pre-enrollment link can go missing, what about more complex parts of the system?

Transparency isn’t just a buzzword – it’s a necessity. Every time COMELEC seems secretive or dismissive of concerns, it feeds the skeptics. And there’s a pattern emerging: concerned citizens raise issues (be it hacking fears, or missing certifications, or unexplained procedures), and COMELEC’s instinct is often to downplay, defend, or even litigate, rather than engage and illuminate.

Meanwhile, the general public’s trust is teetering. You can feel it in conversations, on Facebook groups, even in the streets. In the Philippines, elections are almost a national sport – people passionately debate candidates and issues. But now the debate has turned to the integrity of the process itself. There have been protest rallies by cause-oriented groups questioning “Halamang Lupa” (alleged election fraud) and demanding a truly clean election. In Manila, protesters have assembled in front of the COMELEC headquarters, echoing the sentiment of “Never Again to Fraud” that was also heard back in 2022 when nearly a thousand rallied against the Marcos-Duterte landslide. Even in overseas Filipino communities, small demonstrations and community forums have been held to vent frustrations over these election issues. OFWs in Hong Kong, the Middle East, and the US – many of whom voted in 2022 and felt their voices weren’t heard – are closely watching 2025. They want assurance that their online votes this time will be secure and properly counted. Some have openly worried that technical blunders or hacking could disenfranchise them yet again.

Ironically, amid all these doubts, the people in power project utter confidence. President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. has brushed aside concerns and repeatedly expressed optimism that the elections will deliver a resounding win for his allies. In fact, a week before the campaign period kicked off, Marcos Jr. boldly predicted a “12-0 sweep” of the Senate by administration-backed candidates. That means he expects all 12 vacant Senate seats to be won by his slate – a landslide victory by any measure. He touted his party’s slate as a “dream team” and urged supporters to deliver an overwhelming mandate. The President’s allies echo this confidence; in campaign sorties they talk as if a clean sweep is inevitable. It’s almost as if the outcome is a foregone conclusion in their minds.

Such confidence can be infectious – or concerning, depending on your perspective. To his supporters, Marcos’ upbeat tone is just positive leadership. But to critics, it rings hollow against the backdrop of unresolved election issues. How can we be so sure of a landslide win when basic guarantees for a fair election are still being worked out? For those raising objections, the President’s certainty comes off as tone-deaf. It glosses over the very real clamor for answers about the election process. There’s a sense that the administration is more interested in winning big than in addressing why many voters feel uneasy.

“Trust is earned, not given,” as the saying goes. Right now, trust in the election system is being tested. COMELEC and the administration are asking the public to trust them – to believe that the machines will work flawlessly, that the count will be honest, that the delays and missteps are nothing to worry about. They might earn that trust if they tackle these issues transparently and lawfully in the remaining weeks. But if they dismiss every concern as fake news or sore losing, the skepticism will only deepen.

Is it really too much to ask for an election that’s not just free and fair but also seen to be free and fair?

As the May 2025 elections draw near, the Philippines stands at a crossroads of credibility. On one hand, we have a government supremely confident in victory and a poll body assuring us that all systems go. On the other, we have watchdogs, experts, and ordinary citizens pointing out gaps and demanding transparency. This tension could either be resolved by decisive action (like securing that certification, engaging IT experts to vet the system, allowing observers full access, etc.) or it could escalate if ignored.

Every voter – whether a jeepney driver in Cebu, a teacher in Manila, or an OFW in Riyadh – deserves to know that their vote will be counted correctly. The election commission’s mission is to make sure of that, not just by doing things right but by showing things are done right. So far, COMELEC has made progress (e.g. conducting mock polls, fixing identified bugs, promising faster results via new tech), but the perceived lapses risk overshadowing these positives. People tend to remember one missing certificate more than a hundred successful test runs.

In the end, the credibility of the 2025 elections will hinge on perception as much as reality. If the public perceives that the process was shady, that perception can delegitimize even actual legitimate results. Conversely, if COMELEC and the administration take the high road – embracing scrutiny, correcting mistakes openly, and punishing any fraudsters – they might just win the skeptics over. The stakes are high: this midterm is not only a referendum on the President’s performance but also a prelude to the 2028 presidential race. Both the Marcos camp and the opposition know a lot is on the line. Ensuring a clean and credible election now is in everyone’s interest, whichever side of the political divide they’re on.

Will Halalan 2025 be remembered for the right reasons or the wrong ones?

Only time will tell, but as vigilant citizens, we must keep asking the hard questions and demanding straight answers. The health of our democracy depends on it.

Disclaimer: This article is a personal analysis based on publicly available information and reports. It is not an official news report. Readers are encouraged to consult multiple sources and think critically about the issues discussed.