While Comelec insisted that PET (Presidential Electoral Tribunal) must use 25% as the minimum shading threshold as per Robredo’s request, a professor from La Salle says Comelec is contradicting itself.

La Salle professor Dr. Antonio Contreras made an in-depth study of the Comelec infographic used to educate the voters in the 2016 election how to vote.

Contreras employed mathematical formula to come up with his damning findings that put the integrity of the Comelec in doubt.

Please read Contreras’ post below.

*COMELEC’S INFOGRAPHIC CONTRADICTED ITS OWN CLAIM OF A 25% MINIMUM SHADING THRESHOLD*

Comelec spent millions to impress on voters that partially shaded ballots are incorrect and would not be counted.

Yet it now claims that it allowed ballots whose ovals were partially shaded at least 25 percent.

But it is clear in the infographic of Comelec as shown below that even 25 percent would not be valid.

Look at the partially shaded oval that I enlarged. It is clear that the shade is about 1/4 or 25 percent. Yet it is still clearly labeled as “wrong.”

In fact, a physical inspection of the oval reveals that the shaded portion has a major and minor radius that are 1/2 of the corresponding radius of the larger oval.

The major radius is the longer radius of the ellipse and the minor radius is the shorter radius. An oval is an ellipse.

The area of an oval or ellipse is computed as:

Area = a x b x pi

Where a= major radius, b = minor radius, pi = 3.1416

Hence,

Area of shaded portion = a/2 × b/2 x pi = (a x b x pi)/4 = 1/4 of area of larger oval = 0.25 or 25 percent of area of larger oval.

Comelec in this infographic says that a 25 percent shading is wrong.

It appears therefore that Comelec is now contradicting its own infographic when it now supports Robredo’s appeal to allow 25 percent, and there is a mathematical proof to it.

Worse, when it admitted that it adopted 25 percent during the elections, it tacitly admitted to having deceived the Filipino people.

Your reaction?