Marcos’ trust ratings fall Admin weaponizes polls

A SO far still secret poll by the Social Weather Stations (SWS), commissioned by purported think tank Stratbase, shows that President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.’s trust ratings have plunged 8 points, from 65 percent in July to 57 percent in September, for a net trust of 33 from 42.

While some may claim that’s not much, it represents a consistent decline in people’s support for him, which when he assumed office was a high 75 percent.

By comparison, his predecessor Rodrigo Duterte started off with 84 percent trust and, after a similar period of two years in power, even increased his trust rating to 88 percent.

That the administration appears to be exceedingly worried about its political support that it has weaponized poll surveys is revealed in the following two episodes.

First, while it was Stratbase that officially commissioned the SWS to do the poll, I was told that it was House Speaker Martin Romualdez who ordered House Majority Leader Manuel Jose Dalipe to use that purported think tank. Romualdez wanted to keep it secret that it was the Marcos administration that was commissioning these polls.

This is why on October 7, Dalipe’s office issued a press release on that trust poll. It, however, released only the section on Vice President Sara Duterte’s trust rating, which showed Sara’s trust rating falling steeply from 65 percent to 55 percent, for a net trust of 29 points. The Dalipe press release even screamed in all caps in the release’s title: “STAGGERING DECLINE IN VP DUTERTE’S TRUST APPROVAL RATINGS DUE TO UNEXPLAINED DEPED CONTROVERSIES — MAJORITY LEADER DALIPE”

Dalipe, however, didn’t release the poll results on Marcos, which were, however, given to me. The press release was issued to a small “select” — if you know what I mean — group of columnists.

I don’t think Dalipe or Romualdez paid for the poll. It most likely came from House of Representatives funds, and it is certainly immoral for them to use public funds for a political purpose, which is to create a perception that Sara’s popularity is steeply going down.

Second, I used to trust OCTA Research very much, especially its reports on the pandemic. But it has undertaken polls that seem to favor the Marcos administration, yet using highly questionable methods. At point is the banner story (titled “Support for Marcos rises; Duterte’s dips”) in this paper the other day that arguably would have changed, even if only marginally, people’s perception of this regime:

“The number of Filipinos who brand themselves as pro-Marcos has increased, while those who call themselves pro-Duterte have decreased, the third quarter survey of OCTA Research showed. Conducted from Aug. 28 to Sept. 2, 2024, the Tugon ng Masa (TNM) poll showed that 38 percent of adult Filipinos identified themselves as pro-Marcos, 2 percent higher than what was registered in the second quarter survey in March. Meanwhile, those who see themselves as pro-Duterte were 15 percent, or 1 percent lower than the previous poll.”

While it may have been the reporter’s (or editor’s) fault, what does “pro-Duterte” mean? Those who support the former president? But what policies would they be supporting if he is no longer in power? If, say, 50 percent supported him when he was in power, then that support in the past cannot be changed today.

More importantly, OCTA in this poll is making that fundamental error of comparing apples to oranges. How can the support of a president in power be compared to a past president? In such a poll, there is an automatic bias for the one in power because of the subliminal fear of reprisal and expectation of some reward the incumbent can deliver.

Congressmen played by long-suspected drug lord

While I will be writing on Friday about this hideous creature, the congressional investigating committees which have become prosecutors, jury and judge all rolled into one, I can’t help writing about what I witnessed in the other day’s hearing of the so-called quad committee (combining the Committees on Dangerous Drugs, Public Order and Safety, Human Rights, and Public Accounts).

The high point of the hearing was the testimony of Kerwin Espinosa, a longtime suspected drug lord who with his late father Rolando reportedly controlled most of the Visayas provinces’ drug trade for years. Over five cases were filed against Kerwin Espinosa in 2016.

Kerwin’s involvement in illegal drug operations became highly publicized during the Duterte administration’s war on drugs. His case is one of the most notorious in the country due to its connections with high-profile government officials and the extent of the illegal drug trade.

The Espinosa family first caught the public’s attention when Rolando Espinosa Sr. surrendered to authorities in August 2016 after being accused by President Rodrigo Duterte of being involved in the drug trade. Despite surrendering, Espinosa Sr. was killed in November 2016 in what police described as a “shootout” during a prison raid, sparking controversy and suspicion of a cover-up.

Kerwin suspiciously wasn’t in the country when his father was killed, saying in his testimony that he and his family were on vacation in Malaysia. He then fled to Abu Dhabi (where he said he was looking for a job). He was arrested in Abu Dhabi in October 2016 through a coordinated operation between Filipino and UAE authorities. In November 2016, Kerwin was extradited to the Philippines, where he was detained and faced multiple charges, including drug trafficking and illegal possession of firearms.

Senate

In November 2016, Espinosa appeared before the Senate of the Philippines and testified that he had been involved in the illegal drug trade for years. His testimony implicated several high-ranking officials, including members of the police force, politicians and other influential figures. Among those accused were then-senator Leila de Lima, who was already under investigation for her alleged ties to drug lords during her tenure as justice secretary. Espinosa claimed that he had given millions of pesos in drug money to de Lima to fund her 2016 senatorial campaign, a claim she vehemently denied.

Espinosa also accused various police officers of being protectors of drug syndicates, further tarnishing the credibility of the Philippine National Police (PNP) amid the Duterte administration’s controversial war on drugs.

Kerwin Espinosa has been in detention since his extradition in November 2016, or for approximately eight years. He had been silent all those years, but when he was summoned to Congress the other day, he totally reversed all his allegations, especially that against de Lima, and was aided by three, I suppose expensive, lawyers.

Initially, upon his return to the Philippines, Espinosa was held at Camp Crame. As his cases progressed, he was transferred between various detention facilities, depending on the security needs and where his hearings were held.

Espinosa was later transferred to the National Bureau of Investigation detention facility in Manila, where he has stayed for six years, purportedly due to security concerns, because of potential threats to his life after testifying against several powerful individuals involved in the drug trade.

Most, if not all of the quadcomm members the other day appeared to have believed him, and sympathized with him. I nearly fell off my chair when Batangas 2nd District Rep. Gerville Luistro asked him: “Kung makakausap mo ang yumao mong papa, ano ang sasabihin mo sa kanya?” Espinosa, as if on a director’s cue, cried like a child, asking his father to guide him in his travails. An earlier generation would have shouted: “Pang-Famas ‘yan!,” referring to the actors’ awards, our version of the Oscars.

Dead

What contribution to the inquiry would that question asking Espinosa to talk to his dead father have? To elicit sympathy for a suspected drug lord whose “papa” was killed purportedly by Duterte’s men and bolster his credibility?

Not one congressman tried to probe what is the very obvious question about Espinosa: Why has he reversed his allegations, especially about former senator de Lima’s involvement in the drug trade, only now? He could have told the new administration that these were made under duress by Duterte’s officials, and he could have asked the new administration for help in securing him. That would have hastened de Lima’s acquittal and release, which happened only last June.

The answer to this question was clear in the facts that Espinosa’s lawyers revealed but which none of the quadcomm members appreciated. After eight years in the courts, the five cases against Espinosa moved fast and were dismissed starting in January 2024 and almost on a monthly basis until June. Why were the cases dismissed? Because the courts under different judges granted Espinosa’s demurrer to evidence, which means the judge decided that the evidence presented by the prosecution was insufficient. The quadcomm should summon the prosecutors and ask them why they lost all the cases.

This could happen because of many reasons, one of which is when a prosecutor rests his case and presents no further evidence against the accused — because he was ordered to do so by higher powers.

You don’t get to be a drug lord if you’re not clever. I’d bet Espinosa demanded of the powers-that-be: “Get the Justice Department and the courts to clear me of all these cases, and I’ll sing whatever song you want.” Espinosa’s last case was dismissed in June.

---

Facebook: Rigoberto Tiglao

X: @bobitiglao

Website: www.rigobertotiglao.com

The post Marcos’ trust ratings fall Admin weaponizes polls first appeared on Rigoberto Tiglao.

Marcos’ trust ratings fall Admin weaponizes polls
Source: Breaking News PH