Alyanna Angelina M. Cabral PS 199.

1
2012-65902 Prof. Clarinda Berja
Summary of Preliminary Data
For my study regarding the electoral participation of PWDs, the following informants
were interviewed: Mr. Eric Alvia, Mr. Karel Galang, and Ms. Kristine Cardona, who are all
representatives from the National Citizens’ Movement for Free Elections (NAMFREL). In this
interview, data were gathered regarding their views on the experiences of Persons With
Disabilities (PWDs) last 2013 elections, and on the problems regarding electoral participation of
PWDs.
First, they pointed out good and bad points of the experiences of PWDs last 2013
elections. The good point is that there is the awareness by COMELEC about PWDs’ right to
vote. They made extra effort to empower PWDs to participate in elections by partnering with
civil society organizations (CSOs) and donor agencies. Because of these efforts, there was
somehow an upsurge in PWD participation. However, there were also bad points. Because
Senior Citizens were mixed with PWDs during special registrations, the registrants were mostly
Senior Citizens and there were very few PWDs who registered.
Another bad point is the lack of information dissemination by COMELEC to the local
barangays about the special registration. There were reports that in some special registration
sites, there was a zero turnout from PWDs because PWDs in that area were not aware of the
special registration.
Lastly, another bad point is the weak implementation of COMELEC Resolution 9485.
Example of this are some schools which are not compliant with the building code. Voting in
these schools became difficult for PWDs because there were no ramps, spaces reserved for
PWDs, etc. Furthermore, the informants emphasized that we should not place the whole burden
of the implementation of this resolution on COMELEC. This is because the projects initiated by
COMELEC for PWDs are supposed to be an interagency effort. Thus, the resolution issued by
COMELEC would be useless if other agencies would not enforce existing laws, for example the
Building Code. If local governments would not implement this law properly, establishments
would remain inaccessible for PWDs.
This is where the problems regarding PWD electoral participation come in. Since the
COMELEC Resolution 9485 requires an interagency effort, one problem identified by the
informants is the inaccessibility of elections due to lack of coordination between COMELEC and
other agencies. Moving on to the second problem, it is to be noted that the informants gave
emphasis to the problems in the registration of PWDs. This is because the difficulties
experienced by PWDs in voting centers will depend on whether PWDs were able to indicate
their needs on the special registration forms. So, the second problem is that PWDs feel alienated
because they are isolated from the normal electoral process, as seen in how their registration is
separated from non-PWD voters. The third problem emphasized by the informants is the
inaccessibility of elections for PWDs. Aside from ensuring that the needs of PWDs will be
addressed in voting centers, it is also important to ensure the that PWDs can easily get to these
voting centers. Fourthly, PWDs were also further marginalized because, COMELEC, in
attempting to address PWDs’ needs, clumped them together with other groups, which are the
Senior Citizens.
Overall, the preliminary data gathered made me realize some things about my proposed
study. First, in evaluating the implementation of COMELEC Resolution 9485, I should be
reminded that COMELEC is not the sole implementer of COMELEC Resolution 9485. Its
successful implementation is dependent upon the compliance of other bodies to certain laws.
Moreover, the informants sees the physical barriers faced by PWDs as the main problem.
However, they also did not fail to recognize that societal barriers, such as isolation and
marginalization, can affect PWDs’ electoral participation.