Surveys in ‘Endless Journey’

Retired Gen. Jose T. Almonte, aka JoAl, is a very wise soldier-technocrat-ideologue and true servant of the people, who, in addition, fully understands the role of opinion polls in a democracy, and made great use of them during his government service. I feel so honored that he calls me his friend.

I am now enjoying “Endless Journey,” JoAl’s memoir as told to Marites Dañguilan Vitug (Cleverheads Publishing, 2015), which was launched last Wednesday. Going through its 395 pages will take a while, so for now I will comment only on the easy-to-find bits pertaining to surveys. The book’s index has an entry for “surveys,” but not for “public opinion” or “opinion polls.”

Surveys under martial law. The book says (page 78): “Six months after martial law, surveys showed that Marcos and the military rebounded, gaining high points. But before martial law, Marcos scored very low in these surveys, as did the military and police. I came across this information because one of the things I used to do was to coordinate opinion surveys. I do not have copies of these surveys anymore but those conducted much later, in 1984, by the Philippine Social Science Center [sic] and the Bishops-Businessmen’s Conference showed similar results. Public opinion on Marcos’s performance was positive with a score ranging from 44 to 47 percent. I remember that the numbers were much higher immediately after martial law.” [Note: the institution that did the survey was the Philippine Social Science Council (PSSC). The Philippine Social Science Center is the building owned by the PSSC.]

If some survey was done six months after martial law was declared, and showed Marcos as popular, I don’t know about it. The first one I know of was the PSSC national survey of November 1973 to April 1974, which found answers of “this got worse since five years ago” dominant in 9 out of 11 conditions (see “Forget September 21,” Opinion, 9/27/2014).

In the BBC surveys of 1984 and 1985, the net satisfaction ratings of Marcos were +23 and +19, respectively, which are Moderate. They are consistent with the 44 and 47 percent numbers in the book, if referring to gross satisfaction.

The 1992 election. The book says (page 205): “In the 1991 and early 1992 surveys of Social Weather Stations, Ramos was the leading popular choice. Close to the elections, in April 1992, Santiago had inched ahead and tied Ramos for the lead. But this was broken a few days before the May elections, when Ramos surged slightly ahead of Santiago.”

This is quite correct. I first met JoAl in 1991, in meetings with him, Ramon del Rosario Jr., and others of Fidel V. Ramos’ campaign group. In “The accuracy of the SWS surveys” (“The Philippine Social Climate,” Anvil, 1994; originally Manila Chronicle, 5/16/1992), I wrote: “If anyone has the right to claim to have ‘topped all opinion surveys,’ that person should be Ramos, not Miriam.” FVR was No. 1 in July 1991, November 1991, and February 1992. In early April 1992, Miriam Defensor-Santiago and FVR were tied (due, I think, to FVR’s mysterious trip abroad). In SWS’ final preelection survey of April 28-May 4, 1992, FVR led Miriam by 1 point.

With the national security adviser as client, SWS regularly presented its surveys to the Cabinet in Malacañang. The height of our camaraderie was JoAl’s arrangement of an audience with FVR for delegates of the International Social Survey Programme’s meeting in Manila in early 1998.

The 1998 election. The book says (page 275): “Vice President Joseph ‘Erap’ Estrada was the strongest presidential candidate on the horizon. No one could beat him. Consistently, in all the studies and surveys that were done from 1996 to 1998, it was clear that he was going to be the next president—except in one scenario, if Ramos ran against him. I arrived at this conclusion after doing surveys and analyses. I asked experts to conduct these and keep their work confidential. I was sure that Ramos would defeat Erap if he were allowed to run.”

I don’t remember any SWS poll pitting Erap and FVR against each other in 1998. For that to happen, the Constitution would have to be amended first. What SWS did poll, twice, was the question: “Is it right or not right to amend the national constitution now?”   The result in December 1995 was 40 percent Yes, 40 percent No, and 19 percent undecided. In June 1996 it was 34 percent Yes, 44 percent No, and 21 percent undecided.

In June 1996, SWS also asked: “What is your opinion about the term of the President of the Philippines, which according to the Constitution is six years and for only one election, i.e., six years at most—is it just right now, or should it be lengthened, or should it be shortened?” Results: just right, 74 percent; lengthen it, 8 percent; shorten it, 18 percent. This meant that a term extension would fail in a plebiscite; it did not indicate whether FVR or Erap would win, in case FVR could run for a second term.

On babysitting. Not indexed under “surveys” is what JoAl says about Baby Arenas (page 203): “The surveys showed that she was down below, among the five tailenders. … But she had such unshakeable faith in Joe Magno and me that, despite her miserable numbers, she insisted on running.”

The book’s one mention of me is under a photograph, “Breaking bread with former enemies,” listing guests at JoAl’s table as Maj. Gen. Benjamin Libarnes, Casto Alejandrino, Dr. Jesus

Lava, Col. Toby Irlanda, President Fidel V. Ramos, and yours truly, who trusts readers will not count with “former enemies.”

JoAl’s journey is truly endless. He said at Club Filipino: Never give up. I say: Opo.

* * *

Contact mahar.mangahas@sws.org.ph.