The 2025 election dilemma: Risks and promises of Miru’s ACMs

ELECTRONIC VOTING AND COUNTING MACHINES illustrations by Ed Lustan / Inquirer.net

MANILA, Philippines—As millions of Filipinos cast their votes for the 2025 midterm elections, the introduction of the Automated Counting Machines (ACMs) from South Korea’s Miru Systems marks a major shift in the country’s voting technology.

After more than a decade of using Smartmatic’s Vote Counting Machines (VCMs), the Commission on Elections (Comelec) opted to switch to Miru’s ACMs, promising modernization and enhanced security for the electoral process.

While the new system boasts faster vote counting and improved transparency, critics have raised red flags, pointing to Miru’s international controversies and unresolved issues from previous automated elections.

With 68 million registered voters set to cast their ballots for over 18,000 positions, the stakes are high, and the demand for a flawless and credible election is louder than ever.

Promise of automation: Faster, smarter, more transparent

The decision to adopt Miru’s ACMs follows years of complaints about the outdated and error-prone Smartmatic VCMs used since 2010. Comelec asserts that the ACMs offer significant improvements, including increased ballot processing speed, real-time vote transmission, and enhanced voter verification features.

READ: Miru System: A major shift in voting technology awaits 2025 elections

According to Comelec Chair George Erwin Garcia, the ACMs address previous issues by offering the following benefits:

• Enhanced speed and efficiency: With a processing speed of 220 millimeters per second—over three times faster than the old VCMs—the ACMs aim to reduce long queues at voting centers.
• Improved transparency: The new machines feature a large, 12-inch display that shows the scanned image of the ballot after it is inserted, allowing voters to visually verify their choices.
• Integrated security measures: The ACMs print voter receipts with QR codes, which the machines can verify. Unlike before, where separate ballot boxes stored receipts, the ACMs have built-in compartments for organized storage.
• Portable and independent: The ACMs come with battery packs, eliminating the need for an electrical outlet, and can transmit votes online only after a secure dongle is inserted, ensuring offline operation during voting.

Despite these enhancements, watchdog groups such as Kontra Daya remain skeptical. In statements released to the media, Kontra Daya convenor Danilo Arao emphasized that the underlying issues of transparency have yet to be addressed.

“Kontra Daya does not consider the ACM a substantial improvement from the past VCM. The actual counting of votes is still not transparent,” said Arao.

“COMELEC insists on speed as transmission happens immediately after the printing of the election returns. It stresses that waiting for any manual tally based on the ACM’s ballot images may take several hours,” the watchdog group added.

“In other words, COMELEC wants the people to trust the machine and does not see the need to verify first through manual counting prior to transmission.”

Transparency concerns

A report by the International Observer Mission (IOM) — a people-led, independent election observation initiative organized by the International Coalition for Human Rights in the Philippines (ICHRP) — raised concerns over the transparency of the electronic voting process.

Observers noted that the current system’s design does not allow for independent audits or clear verification of votes cast, raising doubts about its reliability and vulnerability to manipulation.

One of the primary transparency concerns flagged by poll watchers involved the online voting system. According to election watchdogs, many voters who participated in online voting reported that they could not visibly verify the names of the candidates they voted for.

This lack of verification is linked to a 146-page document associated with voting confirmation. Tabs Ponciano of Malaya Movement USA explained that this document, which is supposed to serve as proof of one’s vote, is incomprehensible to many voters.

“Marami naman tayong mga kababayan na hindi rin coders, pero ang nakikita nila, o nare-receive nila after i-submit ‘yung kanilang boto, is itong 146-page code containing ‘yung ballot content. Ito ‘yung confirmation. Hindi siya klaro. Hindi naman siya totoong confirmation of voting. Illegible siya for most people.”

(There are many Filipinos who are not coders, but what they see, or receive after submitting their vote, is this 146-page code containing the ballot content. This is the confirmation. It is not clear. It is not a real confirmation of voting. It is illegible for most people.)

The IOM report, in support of Kontra Daya’s push for a more transparent process, recommended a hybrid method for the 2025 elections. This proposal suggests combining online transmission of votes with manual counting at the precinct level, a method aimed at preventing discrepancies and enhancing trust in the system.

IOM further emphasized that increasing transparency through manual counting of electronically cast votes could restore confidence in the electoral process and boost voter participation.

Questionable software update

On the eve of the elections, May 11, 2025, Kontra Daya issued a statement flagging a questionable software update used in the final testing and sealing of ACMs. According to the watchdog group, the version installed during the testing—3.5.0—was not certified under the Technical Evaluation Committee (TEC), which only accredited version 3.4.0.

In its statement, Kontra Daya demanded that Comelec explain the unannounced software change, expressing concerns that it could compromise the integrity of the vote.

“We cannot just subscribe to the official narrative to simply trust the machine,” the group said. “The machine and its inner workings should reflect the people’s vote and be subject to public scrutiny to ensure that it will record our vote.”

Kontra Daya argued that introducing an uncertified software version could open the door to electronic manipulation, locally known as “dagdag-bawas” (vote padding and shaving).

The watchdog insisted that without independent audits and a transparent explanation from Comelec, the credibility of the entire election process remains at risk.

Without independent audits and a transparent explanation from Comelec, the watchdog argued, the credibility of the entire election process remains at risk.

Comelec fires back

Comelec was quick to refute the allegations, pointing to a video originally posted by Jeryll Harold Respicio, a lawyer, accountant, and vice mayoral aspirant from Isabela, as the root of the controversy.

In the video, Respicio claimed that the source code used in the ACMs was not audited since it did not match the hash code found in the audit report posted on the Comelec website.

The poll body responded firmly, stating:

“Para sa kaalaman ng lahat, duly audited ang source code ng ACM at tugma ang hash code na ginagamit nito sa final trusted build na audited ng independent third-party auditor – International Certification Entity.”

Comelec clarified that the 3.4.0 version listed in the Local Source Code Review Report was indeed the one that underwent an independent third-party audit. Following its approval, it was rebranded as version 3.5.0, which is currently deployed in the ACMs.

“Walang dapat ikabahala ang ating mga kababayan bukas dahil ang gamit na sistema ng ACM ay dumaan sa tamang proseso ng review, trusted build, at audit ng iba’t-ibang eksperto at mga organisasyon sa larangan ng Information Technology,” Comelec assured.

Despite Comelec’s clarification, Kontra Daya responded tersely:

“3.4.0 is not equal to 3.5.0.”

The group maintained its stance, reiterating that an unexplained version change is enough to cast doubt on the reliability of the vote-counting process.

International controversies: Miru’s flawed track record

Miru’s technology has been mired in controversy in countries like Iraq and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).

• In Iraq’s 2018 elections, 70 percent of voting machines failed to transmit or record results accurately.
• In the DRC’s 2018 elections, 45 percent of polling stations experienced equipment malfunctions, prompting global observers to call the elections “a failure of technology.”

Despite these issues, Miru retained contracts in these countries. Miru’s representatives attributed the criticisms to “rumors” and “political manipulation,” but global watchdogs remain skeptical.

What lies ahead for the 2025 Elections

As the Philippines steps into a new era of automated elections, the stakes are high—not just for the candidates, but for the credibility of the country’s electoral process. Watchdogs continue to demand manual precinct-level counting and independent audits to prevent electronic tampering.

The outcome of the 2025 elections will not just reflect political choices—it will serve as a test of the nation’s trust in technology and the democratic process.

Graphics by Ed Lustan/Inquirer.net. Sources: Comelec, INQUIRER.net news archive, ndi.org