‘As for the rest who gleefully jumped on the bandwagon, those legislators who publicly humiliated De Lima, what now? Will they do an about face and call for her immediate release, or will they continue to cling to the house of cards that was sold to them?’

THE retractions from self-confessed drug dealer Kerwin Espinosa and ex-Bureau of Corrections chief Rafael Ragos confirm what many of us knew back in March 2017: all the charges against Sen. Leila de Lima are malicious, fabricated, and intended to silence her. It is imperative that the Department of Justice withdraw these cases at the soonest possible time to prevent further injustice against a woman who was once at the helm of the department.

For five long years, De Lima defended herself against these allegations, never once wavering in her belief that her innocence would soon be confirmed. She continued to discharge her duties as a senator of the Republic, penning her dispatches from detention, filing bills and resolutions from the solitude of her cell.

Ragos, one of the principal witnesses against De Lima in the cases pending before the Muntinlupa Regional Trial Court, admitted that he was forced by former DOJ Secretary Vitaliano Aguirre to give false testimony. There was absolutely no truth to his earlier story that he personally delivered money to De Lima’s house in Parañaque, ostensibly as grease money from Peter Co and other drug lords. This admission from Ragos that he was coerced to lie about De Lima’s so-called involvement is especially important since the prosecution relied heavily on these fabrications.

Earlier in the week, Espinosa also retracted his testimony against De Lima, claiming he agreed to pin her to the drug trade in exchange for a promise made by the police that the case against him would be dismissed.

The systematic decimation of De Lima’s reputation, through black propaganda (remember that fake sex video?) pushed by the allies and minions of President Rodrigo Duterte was intended simply to crush the fly in the ointment, and we now know that they spared no expense to bring down a woman who spoke truth to power.

Equally acrimonious is the revelation that part of this was orchestrated by a man who was once mandated to ensure the dispensation of justice. Vitaliano Aguirre deserves no less than a vigorous and unrelenting condemnation for the part he has played in this farce.

The question is, what comes next? Will Menardo Guevarra, the incumbent Secretary of Justice, allow himself to be complicit in this charade, even after being confronted with the glaring repudiations of the principal witness? Sure, he can buy himself time by choosing to dismiss Espinosa’s recantation by saying (as the Prosecutor General did) that it had no effect on the pending cases as Espinosa is neither respondent nor witness, but the same cannot be said of Ragos’ bombshell.

As former Supreme Court spokesperson and UP law professor Ted Te pointed out on Twitter, the implication of Aguirre is a very serious charge that effectively taints the entire process and is, at the very least, opens the door to reasonable doubt.

The basis for establishing probably cause (the standard by which criminal offenses are filed in court from the prosecutorial level) clearly was fabricated, in light of Ragos’ own admission that his story was not just tainted but completely manufactured.

As for the rest who gleefully jumped on the bandwagon, those legislators who publicly humiliated De Lima, what now? Will they do an about face and call for her immediate release, or will they continue to cling to the house of cards that was sold to them? Both Espinosa and Ragos formally apologized to De Lima (whether these apologies are enough considering the harm done is another matter) and it bears asking whether those who came out with pitchforks aloft will do the same.

I hope these developments do not just lead to De Lima’s vindication, post-haste, but also turn the tide for voters who were bamboozled by these fabrications against her. There is still time, my dear millennials and fillennials.

‘It is at this point, too, where voters should be double checking their registration status with the Commission on Elections (Comelec) to ensure there will be no snafu on voting day. Vote suppression tactics are real…’

WE have entered into the most precarious time of any election cycle: the last two weeks.

Here, time will be distorted: it may seem only 14 more days, but in truth, it may be the longest stretch of time for candidates and their teams. Most people will be surprised to find out that a good chunk of voters only think about who they will be voting for during this period; some admit to making the decision when the ballot is staring them in the face, at the polling precinct. My theory here is simple: many Filipino voters are preoccupied with worrying about where their next meal is going to come from to pay attention to politics months or even weeks away from election day.

While it is also true that election-related news certainly reaches their eyeballs (especially in the era of social media), there are far too many other worries that occupy their minds — how to pay for debt, how to avoid getting sick with COVID, how long they will spend waiting in line to get a ride home. To be able to seriously sit down and consider your vote is a privilege, which means that the last two weeks is fertile ground to reach voters who do not share this advantage.

This insight is also the reason why political advertising will be at its loudest during this period; candidates who have the resources will proceed to bombard the airwaves with everything they have. Recall will now take precedence over any other message, especially for party-list and senatorial candidates, as you have to ensure that when a voter scans that ballot on election day, your name (and ideally, your face) will be recognizable, in the hope that the circle next to the candidate’s name will be shaded.

Serious contenders for any post will also be paying more attention to voter protection and getting their poll watchers in place. It is, as with most everything about campaigns, a resources and logistics question. Another facet worth looking at is the switching of allegiances when it comes to alliances; these will either hold or break at this juncture, and such is the nature of our politics.

It is at this point, too, where voters should be double-checking their registration status with the Commission on Elections (Comelec) to ensure there will be no snafu on voting day. Vote suppression tactics are real, especially on the local level, so voters should take every precaution against strategies that might deter them from voting on the day itself, like sending people to crowd precincts and create a general impression to turn off voters with long lines.

While we can only gnash our teeth at these tactics, we can plan and prepare ahead to make certain that we are not stymied by such actions. Organize your family members and prepare for long lines; bring snacks, water, fans, power banks, and books to occupy you while waiting. Memorize and write down your precinct ahead of time so you can skip the task of looking for it on election day itself. Do the same for your candidates, if possible; the shorter time it takes for you to cast your ballot means a lesser wait for others waiting outside.

Encourage others to make the same preparations to avoid dropouts while waiting in line on May 9. While I understand that it is allowed to wear your candidate’s color (without any names or other markings) on election day, my suggestion is to refrain from doing so, as it will easily catch the eye of others who may wish to target you with their antics. Someone can easily raise a fuss (despite knowing that wearing colors is not prohibited) and hold up the entire voting process while election officers try to placate them. Again, every minute spent on unnecessary distractions caused by one is a minute added to someone’s else’s waiting time, and that extra minute may very well be the cause of them just giving up and going home.

Whoever your chosen candidate is, I hope all of you go out and exercise your fundamental right to choose our country’s leaders come election day.

‘Despite the posh venue, it seems that the effort was so haphazardly put together that the men sitting beside Mayor Domagoso had no clue that he was going to go off the reservation when he called for VP Robredo to drop out of the race.’

HAPPY Easter, my dear millennials and fillennials!

What would’ve been a quiet Easter day was set abuzz with the joint press conference called by presidential candidates Manila Mayor Isko Moreno Domagoso, Sen. Panfilo “Ping” Lacson, and former Arroyo-era secretary Norberto Gonzales. Until the nth hour, there was no clear reason given why the press conference was being called — I suppose they just wanted to pique people’s interest.

And so it went, that these five men (Domagoso and Lacson were joined by their running mates Dr. Willie Ong and Senate President Tito Sotto, respectively) went on to hold the most peculiar joint press conference — they had gone through all the trouble to boldly let the world know that none of them will be withdrawing their candidacies. From what I gather, Mayor Domagoso was particularly incensed at messages being passed around in group chats and social media conversations that he should withdraw from the race. Funny that he sounded like he was losing sleep over these calls, knowing that he has been an elected official (as he consistently likes reminding people) for more than a decade and would have developed thicker skin against unfriendly comments.

The men took pains to emphasize that the press con was not “anti-Leni” (referring to VP Leni Robredo) but this fell flat as VP Robredo was obviously not invited to the party, in a manner of speaking. It was honestly reminiscent of men gathered around over several drinks to gripe about the latest perceived slight against them. Apparently, the men still carry baggage from the failed unification talks that were said to have happened last August up to the filing of certificates of candidacy. While I do not presume to know more than these players, it is quite obvious that their feathers were ruffled at some point of these talks, and it has become very, very personal.

Not to mention that the call for VP Robredo to withdraw from the race makes zero sense.

She is, after all, in second place behind Ferdinand Marcos Jr., the son of the deposed dictator. By what stretch of logic does it make sense to ask the person closest to the front runner to withdraw and give way to the back of the pack?

It seems that these men have forgotten that there can only be one winner in the presidential race: despite sitting next to each other during that press con, they are all still, in reality, contenders for the post. And people only get to pick one, so what gives? Do they want votes to be evenly distributed among them so they can…lose?

Another interesting question to me is this: whose idea was the entire thing? Did no one on these campaign teams object to the entire exercise by pointing out that it would have resulted in a net negative for their principals? Again, another mystery to wonder about.

Credit to the advisers of Sen. Manny Pacquiao, who dodged a bullet, citing a scheduling conflict to explain his absence.

Despite the posh venue, it seems that the effort was so haphazardly put together that the men sitting beside Mayor Domagoso had no clue that he was going to go off the reservation when he called for VP Robredo to drop out of the race. Judging by Sen. Lacson’s subsequent interviews, it seems he was caught unaware by the statement, and clarified that Mayor Domagoso was speaking only for himself. That’s what group chats are for, gentlemen. You can figure it out amongst yourselves without everyone and their cousin watching.

All in all, fair to say that the entire event could have been, as pointed out by some social media users: “an email.”

‘Whoever your candidate is, let’s push back, and push back hard, against these propagandists. Report to the platform and block accounts whenever you can, and encourage others to do the same.’

TROLLS and propagandists have crossed a new line: they have resorted to attacking Vice President Leni Robredo’s daughters. Desperation must be afoot if the dregs of society have decided to violate one of the unspoken rules in politics: leave the children of politicians alone. After all, it is not their fault that their parents have been elected. This is especially the case for the children of the President and Vice President, who are usually kept out of the line of fire, shielded from the brickbats thrown the way of their parents. (It is different, of course, for children who choose to step into the limelight themselves by running or holding public office.)

Aika, Tricia, and Jillian Robredo, all accomplished women in their own right, are now being subjected to the basest form of fake news. Deep fakes of pornographic videos have been posted and are being circulated by these unknown cretins hiding behind their computer screens, and gleefully shared by misogynistic supporters of other candidates. It seems that there is nothing that these propagandists would not do in order to chip away at the momentum of VP Robredo, despite holding second place in the presidential horse race.

It seems the big numbers being pulled in by VP Robredo at her rallies, coupled with the tenacious drive of her volunteers to conduct house-to-house campaigning, is spooking her opponents, so much so that these attacks have been launched with a vitriol that we have not seen before. Yes, politics is ugly and elections can be very dirty, but the repulsiveness of these attacks is something truly despicable. I hope that social media users, regardless of stripe and affiliation, will move to report these posts if only to take a stand against the proliferation of fake news.

Fake news is relentless, my dear millennials and fillennials. You might not feel too emphatic when it happens to the children of politicians, but allow it to percolate and permeate enough, it will soon be on your doorstep, whether you like it or not. It can, and will, victimize unknowing users; given the right motivation (or more appropriately, monetization) these cretins will be incentivized to offer their services to anyone with an axe to grind, after election season is over.

Unfortunately, we can only expect this kind of condemnable behavior to continue for the rest of the campaign period. It makes you wonder: if VP Robredo has a snowball’s chance in hell of winning the presidential race (as some “political pundits” would have you believe) then why is she and her daughters the targets of such viciousness? If her massive rallies do not mean anything, why these efforts to bring her down?

Let us not allow these low lives to manipulate the electorate any longer, folks. Whoever your candidate is, let’s push back, and push back hard, against these propagandists. Report to the platform and block accounts whenever you can, and encourage others to do the same.

‘It seems that the Robredo camp is prepared to go down the wire, even launching house-to-house campaigns powered mostly by volunteers to help bring her message to every Filipino family.

WITH barely a month to go until Filipinos troop to the polls on May 9, there are two things that presidential campaign teams may be doing these days: mustering the courage to tell their principals the writing on the wall, or gearing up to leave everything on the floor to ensure that they carry their principal to victory. Every serious presidential campaign runs its own surveys to measure its performance, as I mentioned in the past. By this time, teams should have a clear idea of where they are and where they are headed, and what needs to be done to change that course.

The last two weeks leading into election day are quite crucial to candidates who are in a viable position to win; I have seen several data sets from past surveys showing that a majority of voters tend to only make their choices days before the elections, with some saying that they make their choice when staring down the ballot in front of them. This is important for those within striking distance, to be able to intensify efforts on the ground to keep conversion going.

I had the opportunity to catch the Comelec-sponsored presidential debate last Sunday. As expected, only nine out of 10 candidates showed up, with the son of deposed dictator Ferdinand Marcos, Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos, again skipping the event. Moderator Ces Drilon said it best: “Deadma pa rin sa imbitasyon.” I suppose the Marcos team has consciously made the calculation that whatever negativity his absence from the debates might attract outweighs the risk of actually having him exposed on stage. With those survey numbers, I can’t blame them; but a repeated refusal to show up at these debates may have an unwarranted effect on his voters. After all, Filipinos hate cowards; we happen to love gunslinging, hot footing action heroes.

Sen. Ping Lacson continues to put up a brave fight, despite that nasty split with his political party. The loss of political allies in Mindanao is a difficult development in a campaign already struggling to stay above water. But knowing Sen. Lacson, he will soldier on, whatever obstacles come his way.

Sen. Manny Pacquiao seems to also be holding in place, and props to him for continuing to show up and state his piece. Among the presidential candidates, he has the biggest sway in Mindanao, the bailiwick of Mayor Sara Duterte. If Sen. Pacquiao holds, then he has a good chance of taking away votes from the Uniteam in Mindanao. But will he?

Ka Leody De Guzman unfortunately hasn’t made a dent, given the lack of resources and a message that resonates with a bigger swathe of the population, beyond the pro-labor movement. His fellows in the Left also do not seem to agree, as some of them have also professed support for VP Leni Robredo.

VP Robredo’s daughter Aika offered perhaps the best balm to Robredo supporters when she was asked by journalist Christian Esguerra whether the campaign was already in panic mode. VP Robredo, riding a massive outpouring of support for her rallies, still finds herself in second place behind Marcos. “Sa totoo lang, hindi ako kinakabahan because hindi naman ito unfamiliar place for us,” Aika Robredo said. “In 2016, nakita natin ‘yung gapang rin…in all honesty, hindi kami nagpapanic…within range of expectations siguro ‘yung lumalabas,” she continued. Aika, the eldest daughter of VP Robredo, was referencing to her mother’s come-from-behind victory in the vice-presidential election in 2016, which her mother won with a slim but a comfortable margin.

It seems that the Robredo camp is prepared to go down the wire, even launching house-to-house campaigns powered mostly by volunteers to help bring her message to every Filipino family. Only the polls will validate whether these efforts are effective or not, and we shall only have to wait for a few more weeks to see the end to a very divisive and vicious electoral season.

‘If the locals are planting their flags on the Robredo side despite the gap in the surveys, then something must be shifting.’

WITH the official campaign period for local officials kicking off, the ground war for the national elections — for the presidency, in specifics — is heating up an already volatile race.

It’s true that the son of the late dictator Ferdinand Marcos is still leading the horse race in the surveys, but more than a few developments in the landscape makes one stop and think.

First, Sen. Ping Lacson resigning from Partido Reporma. Bebot Alvarez, former speaker of the House of Representatives, announced the shift of support of the party to VP Leni Robredo. It seems that there was a misunderstanding of expectations when it came to financing expenses for poll watchers, which politicians like Alvarez expected the party’s standard bearer to cough up. Sen. Lacson, in his trademark straightforward fashion, upended the expectation and made it clear that no such promises were made, and promptly left. The good senator made it clear that he was leaving the party but would continue his run as an independent candidate.

To a certain degree, Alvarez’s shift to VP Robredo adds more firepower for the latter in the Davao region, if Alvarez and his allies hold true to his word. In the end, that is what matters in these uncomfortable alliances — promises are kept, and bonds held. In any case, there was no space for Alvarez in the Marcos camp, given his very public clash with the vice-presidential candidate when she flexed her muscle to install former president Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo as speaker, effectively ousting Alvarez.

Second, National Unity Party goes for Marcos. Or did it? Last week, the Enrique Razon-backed NUP announced its support for Bongbong Marcos, something that must have stuck in the craw of the campaign strategists of Manila Mayor Isko Moreno Domagoso. Buzz had it that Razon was an early supporter of Moreno due to the latter’s accomplishments in Manila, but the NUP endorsement of another is largely seen as a pivot away from Moreno, who is unmoving at third place.

Shortly after the NUP announcement, party president and Cavite Rep. Elpidio “Pidi” Barzaga and his wife, Dasmariñas Mayor Jenny Barzaga, pledged their support to VP Robredo, effectively veering away from the party stand. It seems NUP is not so solid on the endorsement of Marcos, and word has it that many other members are for VP Robredo.

I like to watch movements on the local front as local officials have, more often than not, more finely-tuned ears when it comes to shifting voter preferences on the ground. It is true that endorsements draw plenty from past relationships and skirmishes, of granted favors and perceived slights; your quintessential local politician, if caught between a rock and a hard place, will open doors to every national candidate wanting to come through on their home turf. Rather than antagonize anybody, they will just welcome everybody — but that’s conventional thinking. Right now, with all these endorsements for VP Robredo coming from local politicians, there seems to be an undercurrent that no one can quite figure out yet. If the locals are planting their flags on the Robredo side despite the gap in the surveys, then something must be shifting.

The question remains whether that shift will be enough to propel VP Robredo’s candidacy to the finish line. The Robredo volunteers have been tireless on the ground and on social media — house to house efforts are being done in the hope that there is sufficient time to catch up and convert.

Again, much remains to be seen, and we can only keep watch to try and divine where these developments will take us. With 41 days left, we can expect harder pushing on all fronts, from all sides, to emerge as victor come May 9.

‘This means that the President cannot make a mistake in his endorsement; back an untrustworthy candidate and they just might throw you to the wolves after, despite a commitment to let you ride off into the sunset; back a wrong one and the closest opponent might win.’

WITH barely three months to go before the end of his term, President Rodrigo Duterte must already be feeling a mixture of excitement and loneliness–something every outgoing president goes through in varying degrees. Certainly, the President must be looking forward to going home to Davao–he can finally wake up without the burden of the country on his shoulders.

Sure, he’s been largely absent from public view since the pandemic started (and left the task of running the country to his minions), so chances are his post-presidency days won’t be markedly different, so let’s just say that it will be a relief that people won’t actually look for him at the first instance when something needs to be resolved.

Like PNoy before him, it seems that President Duterte is actually looking forward to the end of his term. The latter said recently that he has started moving out (again, not unusual) and has begun the long process of transitioning into life outside the Palace. Whether the past occupants of Malacañan Palace will admit it or not, life after the presidency will also be lonely–there will be less people clamoring for your attention, seeking your advice–as the pool of factotums will inevitably move on to the next principal to serve.

Which brings us to the question: will President Duterte endorse any of the presidential candidates? As chairman of the ruling party, he has been giving mixed signals on this matter. It is also quite a unique situation: it is the first time in recent history that an incumbent president’s party does not have a standard bearer for the presidential race.

The fact of the ICC proceedings must be weighing on the President’s mind, and will likely be one of the foremost considerations when it comes to the quid pro quo for an endorsement. Even if Mayor Sarah Duterte wins the vice-presidential race, she won’t be able to do much in case the sitting president decides to cooperate with the ICC proceedings. The president’s men are acutely aware of this, especially the ones who are impleaded in the complaints with him; their fates are closely tied to his.

This means that the President cannot make a mistake in his endorsement; back an untrustworthy candidate and they just might throw you to the wolves after, despite a commitment to let you ride off into the sunset; back a wrong one and the closest opponent might win. Perhaps best not to endorse and just have a “cleaner” slate with the winner, with no baggage of having picked one over another. What a pickle to be in–and it could explain the deafening silence from the Palace.

But just like a religious organization that boasts about their endorsement power, President Duterte just might wait a little further down the road until a clear winner is apparent before making his move. Will he, or won’t he?

‘With 62 days left in the official campaign period, the Filipino voter has yet another standard by which to measure those presenting themselves to be the next president of the Philippines.’

I HAVE been riveted to the news since Vladimir Putin’s unprecedented attack on Ukraine began. I hesitate to use the word “Russian” to describe the origin of the aggression, as I do not want to attribute the attack as the will of the Russian people. It is unfortunate that Putin’s ascent to power has led to this inhumane action, cloaked by his propaganda as a liberation effort.

As an outsider, I can only express my frustration at the helplessness one feels when seeing the suffering of the Ukrainian people, as well as the devastating effect of the war on ordinary Russians. There are many ways to help in our capacities as individual persons, but one cannot help the anger bubbling over at the needless suffering and loss of life caused by one man’s folly.

The attack on Ukraine is a good test of the foreign policy inclinations of our presidential candidates. While the Presidency involves the execution of laws, crafting and implementation of programs apart from running the entire Executive branch of government, it also involves dealing with our neighbors and the community of nations.

Given that an estimated 10 million Filipinos are living and working abroad, this means that anything that happens beyond our shores have a potential impact to our fellows as well as to those of us at home.

Case in point: While the number of Filipinos living in Ukraine is relatively lower than, let’s say the Middle East or Italy, government still has to do its duty of making sure that they are safely evacuated, if they wish. (On this note, Secretary Teddy Boy Locsin and the Department of Foreign Affairs deserve recognition for their quick action in this regard. The same goes for our diplomats at the United Nations led by Ambassador Enrique Manalo for the ‘Yes’ vote on the resolution on aggression against Ukraine at the 11th UN Emergency Special Session.)

We simply cannot have a President who thinks that the Philippines is detached from what goes on in the rest of the world, simply because of geography. Such insular thinking can have devastating consequences when made as the foundation of foreign policy and can serve to isolate the country from the international community. A simplistic way of analysis is also quite dangerous when it comes to policy and action; more often, the Presidency is confronted with issues that are complex and multi-faceted, which require a deft understanding from the Chief Executive. A President cannot, and must not, reduce issues to a twisted understanding of “Filipino First.”

This is where candidates who have held national positions have an edge over those with local experience. Governors and mayors have little experience with foreign policy and tend to lead with their mouths when it comes to these issues. Implementation of laws is but a part of a President’s job, and we have seen in the past how local chief executives struggle with foreign policy when they are thrust into the highest office in the land.

Take for example candidate X who mouthed off a pseudo-peacenik response to the Ukraine conflict by essentially saying the Philippines should not join other countries in condemning Putin’s aggression, since well, that’s happening all the way in Europe anyway. What candidate X conveniently forgot (or in all likelihood, was unaware of) that conflict in certain areas has an impact on crude oil prices. The Filipino jeepney driver is certainly thousands of miles away from the cluster bombs going off in Kjiv, but we know that he is now feeling the impact on his wallet, seeing that diesel and gas prices have been going up by the peso since the aggression erupted.

If you fail to understand, then you certainly will fail to anticipate the consequences of these events on your people. What kind of president will a candidate like this be, then? With 62 days left in the official campaign period, the Filipino voter has yet another standard by which to measure those presenting themselves to be the next president of the Philippines. I hope we all use those remaining days wisely.

‘…I am instantly irked whenever misinformed folks oversimplify what happened at EDSA then as merely a fight between two families. Such sweeping ignorance delegitimizes the efforts of tens of thousands of Filipinos that led to the dictator’s ouster and favors the revisionists as they seek to pull the wool over our eyes.’

GIVEN the multifarious and persistent attempts by some quarters to try to revise history, I was motivated by the efforts of many social media users to share my own memory of EDSA. I spent last February 25, the 36th anniversary of the first People Power, learning about the stories shared by real people. Much-appreciated as well is the effort of our historians to remind the youth of the events leading up to the 25th of February, complete with photos and commentary.

I was barely 5 years old when the revolution happened. My memory was that of a busy household, with my mother, my uncle and my aunts rushing about in the morning to cook food.

That food was packed and loaded into our red Fiera (which was adorned in yellow ribbons to offset its color) to be handed out by my uncle to protesters along Ayala Avenue and other places.

My uncle used to call it his “small” contribution to taking the country back from the claws of a dictator. Growing up, he made sure to tell us young ones the story over and over, so we would never forget.

Many a night during the long blackouts, my uncle would park all of us on the sidewalk outside his house and kept us from minding the heat by telling these stories. Our neighbors, equally unable to sleep because of the blackout, would join in and tell their own tales. Back then, it was a community effort: the neighborhood knew which families were supportive still of the Marcoses, and thereby were avoided whenever the others would make plans to go to a rally together.

My mother had apparently run into an argument with my father one time after she had brought me to one of the rallies. Apparently, my father had come home earlier than expected (much to my mother’s dismay) and found the house deserted, me included.

According to my mother, there was no hiding the crime as she came home with me in tow, flashing the “Laban” sign, with yellow ribbons on my wrists.

My father argued that it was a dangerous thing to do, knowing that people had been disappearing left and right for the last two decades. There are too many people at the rallies, he said, and you might lose track of her. She simply said: “Tama na ang pananahimik.” Thirty years later, she insisted that we bring her then 11-year-old grandson (my son) to the spontaneous protest on EDSA after the remains of dictator Ferdinand Marcos desecrated the Libingan ng mga Bayani.

Their story was by no means unique and is just one of many stories of thousands of people who collectively made the People Power Revolution happen. This, I suppose is why I am instantly irked whenever misinformed folks oversimplify what happened at EDSA then as merely a fight between two families. Such sweeping ignorance delegitimizes the efforts of tens of thousands of Filipinos that led to the dictator’s ouster and favors the revisionists as they seek to pull the wool over our eyes. Let’s not allow that to happen, dear millennials and fillennials. Let’s keep telling our stories.

‘Given how quick public opinion can turn based on current events, today’s frontrunner may likely be tomorrow’s goat.’

I WAS asked to join a Spaces conversation on Twitter last week to speak on surveys and how to help ordinary volunteers make sense of them. There were a lot of interesting questions and discussions points, and I’ll try to summarize those in this week’s column.

First, what is the use of surveys? In general, surveys help us understand public opinion on certain issues and should be taken as one of the barometers of public sentiment at a given time. I mentioned in the previous column how surveys are described — “snapshots in time” — as the field work or gathering of information is time-bound. It gives us a temperature reading of sorts at the time it was taken; to be indicative of a particular trend, several surveys have to be taken.

For campaign teams, surveys are a useful tool for gauging how the work is being perceived by one’s audience. Communications efforts are meant to persuade and sway the opinion of voters, and given that there are tens of millions of registered voters in the Philippines, a survey sampling is an accepted method of counter-checking the effectivity of persuasion efforts.

Second, how should ordinary folks look at surveys? Media reports usually cover what we call topline results of surveys. During election season, topline results refer to the ranking of candidates by voter preference, or during the regular season, the approval/performance/trust ratings of top government officials. However, there is so much more to surveys than the topline results that are reported, and these responses and data sets help campaign teams calibrate strategy moving forward.

As it is election season, we should expect the mushrooming of survey firms here and there.

There will be plenty, primarily because some politicians and candidates usually target that segment of voters who have a bandwagon mentality. There are a few established pollsters out there (SWS, Pulse Asia, Laylo, to name a few) that have been proven to be reliable.

The fact that these firms accept commissioned work (meaning a private person or entity has paid them to conduct a particular survey) does not mean that they are automatically suspect; these firms have established their credentials over time and in truth have other clients apart from those in the political arena.

Whenever we encounter a new survey firm, the first question we should ask is their methodology. Reputable survey firms usually explain the methodology they employ for these studies; their non-commissioned (meaning no private person or entity paid for the work specially) surveys are usually done as a public service, and the results are published on their websites. If we cannot find information on the methodology used by a certain firm, then that’s a red flag that we should watch out for. Why? If we cannot see or understand their methodology, that means we have no way of knowing if the methodology is sound or viable. Again, we cannot analyze what we cannot see.

For example, the gold standard for surveys is still the face-to-face interview method. While the pollsters in the United States have already developed a tried-and-tested phone survey method, here in the country, face-to-face remains the standard. When adopting new or hybrid methods, pollsters (at least, the credible ones) take care to preserve the randomness of the sampling, as well as other factors. This is important as faulty sampling can skew results. Imagine taking a “random” sample of 10 respondents in a particular barangay or city, knowing fully well that that particular area is a candidate’s bailiwick.

Certainly, doing so will skew results. The transparency of methodology matters.

Lastly, how should the public look at surveys? The first rule of thumb is that surveys should be compared apples to apples — meaning, the results of one conducted by Pollster A should not be compared to one done by Pollster B, given the variance in methodology. One can collate survey results over different periods done by the same pollster to find a trend (if any) then compare to a trend in another series from another pollster, but never to compare results from one firm to another and say candidate went down or up.

Survey results can be baffling, disheartening, or uplifting depending on the candidate you support. But again, the results only reflect perception at the point in time it was taken.

Given how quick public opinion can turn based on current events, today’s frontrunner may likely be tomorrow’s goat. Interestingly enough, a co-panelist pointed out that the frontrunners in the early surveys of presidential elections in past cycles failed to clinch the victory — another indication that fortunes can change just as quickly and turbulently as storm tides.