by UP Political Society
During the Harapan 2013 debate hosted by ABS-CBN, some candidates from the United Nationalist Alliance (UNA) questioned the credibility of the survey firms conducting and publishing surveys for the senatorial race. Their concerns primarily revolved around the transparency of the methods used by the pollsters. Rep. Ma. Milagros “Mitos” Magsaysay alleged that “they were not transparent in saying who paid for the survey, what were the questions asked, and where did they do their survey… It might favor certain interest groups.”
Former Senator Richard Gordon, in a separate interview, remarked, “Simula pa lang mina-mind control na nila eh… ‘Yung resultang survey lalo sa halalan ay ‘wag na nating ilabas. May pag-iisip ang mga tao. Turuan natin ang taong mag-isip.… Huwag susunod sa mga surveys, sapagkat ‘di mo alam kung sinong nagpapatakbo niyan eh.” Other senatoriables from UNA cited the 2010 case of then Makati Mayor, and now Vice President, Jejomar Binay’s case; he ranked low in the surveys during the lead-up to the 2010 Vice Presidential elections yet emerged as the winner.
What rules are in place?
COMELEC Resolution 9615 states that during the electoral period, any person or organization may conduct a survey. However, they should also include essential information such as who commissioned the survey. The resolution however, did not explicitly require mandatory disclosure of the survey’s subscribers or commissioners. Commissioners are groups or individuals who pay to include their own questionnaires in the survey and are given exclusive access to the results. Subscribers, on the other hand, pay survey firms in order to access the raw data of non-commissioned surveys.
On April 23 of this year, the COMELEC promulgated Resolution 9674 requiring the Social Weather Stations (SWS) and other survey firms to submit the names of those who commission and subscribe to their surveys. Such disclosure allows more detailed tracking of the candidates’ spending (which includes commissioning surveys) during the elections. Through this, the COMELEC hoped to achieve a more transparent process. The disclosure, however, of the subscribers and commissioners shall be kept confidential and for the exclusive use of the COMELEC.
What does the SWS have to say?
The latest survey for the senatorial race, released by the Social Weather Stations on April 13-15 and first published in Business World, showed that seven Team PNoy and two UNA candidates made it to the top nine seats. Three Team PNoy and three UNA candidates remained statistically in contention for the last three seats; that is, these candidates had a plausible chance of obtaining these seats given the survey’s stated margin of error.
SWS states that the results of the survey were based from the face to face interviews of 1800 randomly selected registered voters, divided into smaller samples of 300 in Metro Manila, North/Central Luzon, and South Luzon; 400 in the Visayas; and 500 in Mindanao. However, the specific places where the surveys were conducted per region were not specified.
Furthermore, SWS contends that the survey for the senatorial race was not commissioned, and was done on SWS’s own initiative. In addition, it bars anyone from becoming a commissioner or from paying for the inclusion of a particular question.
SWS says that this question was asked in the survey:
“Kung ang eleksyon ay gaganapin ngayon, sino ang pinakamalamang ninyong iboboto bilang mga SENADOR ng PILIPINAS? Narito ang listahan ng mga kandidato. Paki shade o itiman po ang naaangkop na oval katabi ng pangalan ng taong pinakamalamang ninyong iboboto. Maaari po kayong pumili ng hanggang 12 pangalan.”
The respondents answered the ballots on their own, then dropped it in the container brought by members of the SWS staff. SWS says it devises its own questionnaire design, sampling, fieldwork, data processing, and analysis methods.
The Social Weather Station claims that they have been transparent with regards to the background of the surveys they conduct. The surveys do not only cover elections but also other relevant social issues. The results of the survey are to be published alongside its commissioners, if any. Commissioners pay for the surveys to be conducted while subscribers pay to access the data in advance before it is released to the public. However, according to the SWS Website, there is a clause that allows Commissioners to temporarily suspend the release of research data of “highly sensitive topics”. Ultimately, all SWS survey findings are to be made available even without the need for prior permission from sponsors.
Mitos Magsaysay’s accusations, that the way the Social Weather Station conducts and releases survey data is not wholly transparent, are valid. SWS only releases parts of the research data, namely the commissioner of the study and its subscribers, to COMELEC which in turn does not publicly disclose the furnished information. The reliability and replicability of the data produced by the SWS is compromised by this policy. Scholars will have difficulty reproducing the data collection process if this is the case.
The highly questionable provision regarding the embargo of highly sensitive data also
casts doubt on the veracity of the research data. The question of what constitutes “highly sensitive data” is vague and needs to be further operationalized. Furthermore, how long does an embargo of information last? There is a threat that if the data, which might contain damaging or revelatory insight, can be put on ice for a very long period of time, it might prove useless to the public.
We cannot be completely sure that any survey can be done with objectivity. However, to deny the results of the any firm’s survey without supporting evidence encourages the voters, supposedly being educated about their political surroundings, to work blindly. Numbers do not endorse but merely express. Results must be questioned only if the measures in attaining them are questionable, whatever political consequence they may imply.
It cannot be denied that vested or political interests play a role in this kind of situation. Given this, the motives of the candidates who doubted the results of the survey and questioned the credibility of those who conducted it must be considered. What do these candidates get when transparency is attained? To be more specific, what good would the release of a commissioner’s or subscriber’s name bring to the public? At the same time, we cannot help but ask the question: if the results were in their favor, would the candidates still have questioned it?
UP Political Society is an academic organization of the College of Social Sciences and Philosophy, Department of Political Science, University of the Philippines Diliman.
