THERE is something familiar about the second Monday of May in an election year. Across the country, people line up early, talk to neighbors, and take part in one of the most important acts in a democracy — choosing their leaders. It is a day filled with anticipation.
But for many Filipinos, that anticipation has, over the years, been mixed with doubt.
As we look ahead to the 2028 elections, more voices are calling for changes in how we conduct our elections. One proposal regaining attention is the so-called hybrid election system. Simply put, it combines manual counting of votes at the precinct level with electronic transmission of results.
At first glance, this may sound like a step backward. After all, the Philippines shifted to automated elections in 2010 precisely to make the process faster and more efficient. And in many ways, it has done just that. Results that used to take weeks now come out in hours.
So, why are some people suggesting we go back, at least partially, to manual counting?
The answer is simple: trust.
The real issue is not whether machines are good or bad. It is whether people can clearly see and understand how their votes are counted.
Before automation, counting was done in public. Teachers would open each ballot and read the names out loud. Watchers from different parties, as well as ordinary citizens, could observe the process. It was not perfect, but it was visible. People could see for themselves how the votes were being tallied.
Today, the process is different. After voters feed their ballots into a machine, the counting happens inside it. We see the final results, but we do not see how those results were produced. For many, this feels like a “black box.”
Even if the machines are working properly, the lack of visibility creates doubt.
This doubt has been reinforced by problems reported in past elections. There have been concerns about the use of software that had not gone through full certification, limited access to reviewing the source code, and technical glitches such as the seven-hour delay in the transmission of results in 2019.
There are also more practical issues. Some machines reject ballots due to smudges or markings, which can happen easily in our hot and humid climate. When a voter sees their ballot rejected, it raises questions. Was the vote counted correctly? Was it counted at all?
Safeguards do exist. For example, there is a process called the random manual audit, where some ballots are checked by hand to compare with machine results. But this usually happens after winners have already been proclaimed. For many people, that is too late to make a difference.
All of these factors contribute to a growing trust gap.
This is where the idea of a hybrid system comes in.
Under this proposal, votes would once again be counted manually at the precinct level, in full view of watchers and observers. Once the counting is done, the results would then be transmitted electronically for faster consolidation.
The goal is to combine the best of both systems: the transparency of manual counting and the speed of electronic reporting.
Supporters of this approach say it brings back something important — the “human touch.” More importantly, it allows people to see the counting process with their own eyes. In a democracy, that kind of transparency is essential.
There is also another issue that is not often discussed. Our current election law requires that any automated system used must already have been tested in other countries. While this was meant to ensure reliability, it has also made it difficult for Filipino companies to participate. As a result, we continue to rely on foreign technology.
A hybrid system could open the door for more local involvement, helping build our own capability over time.
Of course, shifting to a hybrid system is not without challenges.
The Commission on Elections has pointed out that current laws are designed for full automation. Any major change would require action from Congress. There are also concerns about time. Manual counting, done at the precinct level, could take longer. Instead of hours, results might take a day or more.
In a country where election results are closely watched, delays can create tension and uncertainty.
There is also the question of cost. Changing systems is never cheap. New procedures, training and equipment would all be needed.
These are valid concerns. But they should not stop us from asking an important question: What matters more — speed or trust?
An election is not just about producing results quickly. It is about ensuring that those results are accepted by the public. Winning candidates must have legitimacy, and losing candidates must have confidence that the process was fair.
Without trust, even the fastest system will be questioned.
This is why the proposal to pilot the hybrid system in the barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan elections is worth considering. A smaller election provides an opportunity to test the system, identify problems, and make improvements before using it in national elections.
In the end, the goal is not to reject technology. Technology has an important role to play in modern elections. But it should support, not replace, the fundamental principles of transparency and accountability.
Democracy works best when people can see and understand how decisions are made. Elections should not feel like a process hidden inside machines. They should be something citizens can witness and trust.
Restoring that trust requires us to rethink our current system. It may even require bringing back some elements of the past — not because they are old, but because they serve a purpose that remains essential today.
The challenge is to find the right balance.
Because in the end, it is not just about counting votes. It is about ensuring that every Filipino believes that their vote truly counts.
