The SWS report cards
The people’s satisfaction with government performance is monitored by Social Weather Stations (SWS) in quarterly surveys that refer specifically to the President, Vice President, Senate President, Speaker of the House, and Chief Justice as individuals, the Senate, the House of Representatives, the Supreme Court and the National Administration (NA) as institutions, and a list of specific subjects that effectively constitute the NA’s “report card.”
Last week, I focused on the ratings of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. and Vice President Sara Duterte, citing two SWS reports of 1/15/25 (see “Governance graded from below,” 1/25/25). Today’s piece is based on: “Net Satisfaction for the Senate at +44, House of Representatives at +36, and Supreme Court at +40,” and “Net Satisfaction with the National Administration stayed at +36 from September 2024 to December 2024,” www.sws.org.ph, posted 1/22/25 and 1/29/25, respectively.
How should satisfaction ratings be assessed? My advice is to compare an official’s satisfaction rating with the ratings of the past occupants of the same post at the same stage of the NA, rather than with another official in a different post, at a different stage; in other words, use apples-to-apples principles.
Thus, I would compare VP Sara’s latest net +21 rating (2024Q4), not so much to the latest rating of Mr. Marcos, but more to the net ratings of former vice presidents Leni Robredo (+27 in 2018Q4), Jojo Binay (+70 in 2012Q4), and Noli de Castro (+32 in 2006Q4).
Then I would compare Senate President Francis Escudero’s latest +42 rating to the ratings of former senate presidents Tito Sotto (+61 in 2018Q4), Juan Ponce Enrile (+47 in 2012Q4), and Manny Villar (+39 in 2006Q4). Likewise, I would compare Speaker Martin Romualdez’s latest net +9 rating to those of former speakers Gloria Macapagal Arroyo (-21 in 2018Q4), Feliciano Belmonte Jr. (+15 in 2012Q4), and Jose de Venecia Jr. (+2 in 2006Q4). Note that Speakers of the House have a lower bar, historically, than the other NA officials. Similarly, I would compare Chief Justice Alexander Gesmundo’s latest net +14 rating to the ratings of former chief justices Lucas Bersamin (+11 in 2018Q4), Maria Lourdes Sereno (+14 in 2012Q4), and Artemio Panganiban Jr. (+4 in 2006Q4).
I presume there are historical reasons behind the ratings. I won’t try to justify the high ones or excuse the low ones. The ratings are relevant to us Filipinos, since we happen to live in a democracy, and a democracy functions better when its officials are popular than when they are not. Popularity is measured here by the distance of net satisfaction from zero, which is perfect balance between satisfaction and dissatisfaction; the survey question also allows the fence-sitting answer. Zero means public indifference about the quality of service rendered by the officials being rated.
The present ratings of key institutions should, I think, also be compared to those at appropriate points in the past. The charts of the SWS reports show that the Senate and the House also have honeymoon periods when a new administration takes over. The Senate’s latest net satisfaction rating is +44 (2024Q4), whereas its ratings were +62 in 2018Q4, +26 in 2012Q4, and +18 in 2006Q4. Not as high as in Rodrigo Duterte’s time, but better than Benigno Aquino III’s time and Gloria Macapagal Arroyo’s (GMA’s) time.
The House of Representatives’ latest net rating is +36 (2024Q4), whereas its ratings were +40 in 2018Q4, +31 in 2012Q4, and +7 in 2006Q4—close to the past two NAs, but clearly better than in GMA’s time. The Supreme Court’s latest net rating is +40 (2024Q4), from +37 in 2018Q4, +36 in 2012Q4, and +13 in 2006Q4. The Supreme Court has steadily risen in popularity from the past three NAs.
The SWS surveys periodically provide the people’s grades of the National Administration (NA) in general and on many specific issues, like “subjects” in a report card. The NA’s latest net rating is +36 (2024Q4), whereas its ratings were +66 in 2018Q4, +57 in 2012Q4, and -2 in 2006Q4.
The 2024Q4 report card contains 17 subjects, graded by the survey respondents in random order. Here are the subjects, listed from worst to best, followed by the latest net satisfaction scores: 1. Fighting inflation, -13; 2. Eradicating graft and corruption in government, -3; 3. Ensuring oil companies do not take advantage of oil prices, -2; 4. Fighting crimes that victimize ordinary citizens, +4; 5. Ensuring that no family will ever be hungry, +26; 6. Defending the country’s integrity in the West Philippine Sea, +32; 7. Telling the truth, +34; 8. Preparing for problems being caused by climate change, +38; 9. Being prepared for strong typhoons, +44; 10. Ensuring an efficient public transport system, +45; 11. Ensuring food security, +46; 12. Implementing housing programs for the poor, +49; 13. Developing science and technology, +51; 14. Creating policies that will generate job opportunities, +51; 15, Helping the poor, +57; 16. Improving the quality of children’s education, +60; and 17. Helping victims of disasters, +65.
SWS calls double-digit negatives Poor or worse, single-digit scores Neutral, +10 to +29 Moderate, +30 to +49 Good, and +50 to +69 Very Good. Its report card on governance has been a permanent activity since 1986.
—————-
Contact: mahar.mangahas@sws.org.ph.
