DON’T believe in polls.
Mahar Mangahas may shout from the rooftops that Social Weather Stations (SWS) are never manipulated, and Ronald Holmes can defend the sampling methods of Pulse Asia all he wants, but neither of them can deny that their “work” skews our politics toward the lowest common denominator. And that is a national disservice.
In the middle of the impeachment trial, when the nation watched again in horror as a rabid vice president said she had asked someone to kill the president if she herself were killed, a defense lawyer whipped out an infographic showing an SWS survey showing Vice President Sara Duterte’s public trust rating at 57 percent, higher than the president’s rating. Conveniently, he had the survey results in his back pocket.
Is the death threat a betrayal of public trust when 57 percent of Filipinos trust the vice president, was the defense lawyer’s nonsensical question. Logic dictates, of course, that the vice president’s trust rating in a survey does not grant her immunity from the law, but the defense clearly used the SWS findings to manipulate public opinion.
So, what were the details of the survey?
First, it was commissioned by the Stratbase Group, a corporate consultancy that combines a policy think tank with public relations, public affairs and political advocacy operations. While it often appears in news media as an independent research institution, Stratbase explicitly markets its public relations and public affairs services to corporate and political clients.
While SWS acknowledged that its survey was commissioned by Stratbase, it did so without saying who funded the PR company-cum-think tank behind the scenes. Was this an agenda-setting survey? Why the rush to have one now? Who stands to gain by feeding the public the “early” results? So much for transparency.
Still at the impeachment trial, just as senator-judge Robinhood Padilla was making a fool of himself with his arrogant but stupid questions, SWS’ evil twin, Pulse Asia released, as if on cue, survey results showing that he was at the top of voter choices for the May 2028 senatorial elections.
The same survey showed Duterte leading presidential preferences, ahead of former vice president Leni Robredo and Sen. Raffy Tulfo. It also showed Duterte loyalist Sen. Bong Go as the leading choice for vice president in 2028.
Holmes explains the pro-Duterte showing by emphasizing that public support for the Dutertes remains deeply anchored in Mindanao and among Class D and E respondents. In a recent interview, he also referred to the Duterte “brand” as being “disciplined,” “decisive” and “action-oriented,” characteristics that resonated with the public.
The vice president was certainly decisive and action-oriented when she said she hired someone to kill the president, or when she said she imagined cutting his head off, but where was the discipline? Was she disciplined in doing her job when she flew to the Netherlands five times since 2025 to visit her father, who is awaiting trial for crimes against humanity? By raising the Duterte “brand,” Holmes wasn’t just explaining his results, he was reinforcing a political fallacy.
The questionable timing of the latest surveys aside, SWS or Pulse Asia produce inherently flawed or biased results because of the way they choose their respondents.
The former chief of the National Statistical Coordination Board, Romulo Virola, has criticized the way these polling firms allocate a fixed percentage of samples to Balance of Luzon, Visayas, Mindanao and the National Capital Region, arguing that doing so under-represents college-educated voters, younger age brackets or specific socioeconomic classes, whose political behavior differs wildly from rural or lower-income groups.
There is also built-in bias in the face-to-face polling they do, where the interviewer physically enters a barangay or household. Will survey interviewers bother trying to get into gated communities where upper- and middle-income families reside, or will they repeatedly favor more accessible inner city houses or apartments where lower-income families live?
SWS and Pulse Asia like to point to their track record in mirroring election outcomes, but when a pollster brags about its ability to predict winners, it isn’t just observing reality — it’s actively shaping it. When early SWS or Pulse Asia surveys show a candidate leading by double digits, campaign contributions flood into that candidate’s war chest. The leading candidate uses those funds to buy massive TV, radio and social media ads, while trailing candidates are starved of resources and squeezed out of the race. The poll didn’t just measure momentum; it generated the capital that created it.
The polls also have a bandwagon effect. As many undecided voters prefer to vote for the candidate they believe will win, either because they want to be on the winning team or because they do not want to “waste” their vote on an underdog. A candidate shown with majority support attracts undecided voters who want to back a winner, driving the next poll up even higher, creating the impression that the race is already over.
Pollsters like to say a survey is just a snapshot, but it’s much more than that. It’s a self-fulfilling loop that favors the worst political actors.