Loyal to the End

It was almost like the Vice Presidential debates. There was cheering and booing. The 228 participants to the townhall meeting that was held in Bahay ng Mabuting Pastol in Tagaytay City on April 9 were young mothers, students, religious leaders, and senior citizens. It was sponsored by PPCRV volunteers.

Prof. Monsod discussed the findings of her study where corruption and dynasties were the major culprits why the Philippines ended up in the bottom of Asian countries. After her discussion, a voter stood to say that he supports Binay. He does not believe that he is corrupt and says that all the allegations against him are part of political persecution. A mother stood up and said her vote also goes to Binay because he will make the 4 Ps into 5 P’s. An elderly person who used to live in Makati gave an opposing vote and shared stories about the Binary wealth.

A student stood up to declare his support for Poe because she represents change. A village leader stressed the need for strong leadership so that laws can be enforced well and citizens need to be disciplined. A Roxas admirer explained that her vote goes for him because of his integrity and experience in public service. The failure of government to respond effectively to the needs of the Tacloban resident was raised again and blamed on Roxas.

Atty. Monsod was asked to explain the citizenship issue against Poe and he explained the provisions of the Constitution. Atty. Monsod expressed hope that all the Presidential candidates would explain their platform on social reforms. He said that the promise of government to alleviate the plight of the poor has not been fulfilled despite the passage of 30 years.

President Pre-voting Post-voting
Binay 18% 14%
Duterte 21% 17%
Poe 23% 22%
Roxas 29 % 44 %
Santiago 8% 4%

 

Vice President Pre-voting Post-voting
Cayetano 12%  10%
Escudero 18% 13%
Honasan 1 % 2%
Marcos 18% 12%
Robredo 47% 62%
Trillanes 2% 2%

Robredo was a favorite among the participants. Almost one-half of them chose her even before the discussions. After the meeting, she was preferred by 6 out of 10 voters.

Roxas got most of the votes among the Presidentiables, 29% during the pre-voting and 44% after. It was clear however that those who chose Poe were loyal. The percentage of voters who chose her remained 23% during the pre-vote and 22% during the post-vote. Those who preferred Binay represented 14% of the voters, down from 18%. And for Duterte, the preference slightly moved downward from 21% to 17%.

Advertisements

What a Difference a Townhall Meeting Makes

Studies show that Filipino voters choose their candidates based on popularity and public image. But the conduct of townhall meetings shows that with access to information and open discussions, voters change their preferences and choose their candidates based on performance.

The Movement for Good Governance (MGG) with its Chairman Prof. Solita Monsod has been using a scorecard since 2009. The qualifications of candidates are assessed based on three criteria: efficiency, empowering characteristics, and ethical character. A five-point system is used:

1 = Mahina (Weak)
2 = Kulang (Inadequate)
3 = Pasang-awa (Mediocre)
4 = Magaling (Good)
5 = Ang Galing-galing

Assessment is based on facts based on written records of the candidate. Then, voters are asked to explain their choices, share stories, ask questions, and engage in friendly debates among themselves.

In a townhall meeting with the household staff in Forbes Park, a Binay supporter said her children enjoyed scholarships. A Duterte advocate in BF subdivision shared how his candidate helps the Lumads. Another supporter in PANA mentioned the need to impose discipline Duterte style. An admirer of Santiago in the same townhall admired the bright mind of the Senator. A religious shared how Senator Poe supported their anti- poverty programs.

The voters share their reservations on the candidates as well. A mother said that having a bully like Duterte as President will not serve as a good model for children. A participant from Tagaytay was apprehensive about the Poe-Cojuangco connection and how it seems that her decisions are based on convenience. The common issues raised against Binay are the allegations of corruption . For Roxas, it is how government handled the rehabilitation of Tacloban. The health of Santiago and Duterte are part of the discussions. A senior citizen said he was dismayed when Roxas gave up his candidacy for the Presidency in 2009.

Voters ask to be clarified on the constitutional provisions on candidates’ qualifications. They are ably explained by Atty. Christian Monsod, former COMELEC Chairman and Delegate to the 1986 Constitutional Convention. He shares his insights on major issues such as the rule of law and stresses the need to discuss platforms of candidates on social justice and the concerns of the poor.

Voting is held prior and after a townhall meeting. In all the townhall meetings, voters changed their preferences. The only constant was the preference for Leni Robredo as Vice President even during the first vote. Voters expressed a preference for Roxas in 4 townhall meetings with a slight margin over Poe. In the Malolos townhall, Poe was the preference of the young volunteers during the pre-voting. In the PANA meeting and that which was held with the clients of a commercial bank, the preferred choice was Duterte. After the townhall, Roxas consistently became the top choice with a significant lead over the others.

In the case of local candidates, Pena was the choice for the mayoralty post in Makati and his lead widened after the townhall meeting. Voters chose J dela Cruz for Governor of Bulacan and garnered 73% of the votes.

One voter summed up why he changed his choices in a townhall at PANA. He said, “I cannot unhear what I heard.”

Results of the Townhall Meetings

February 16, 2016, Tahanan ng Mabuting Pastol, Tagaytay City
NGO and Religious Leaders (55 participants)

President Pre-voting Post-voting
Binay  11% 2%
Duterte  11% 4%
Poe  25% 4%
Roxas  40%  86%
Santiago  13%  4%

 

March 12, 2016, Malolos City
PPCRV Volunteers (233 participants)

President Pre-voting Post-voting
Binay 12%  9%
Duterte  14% 13%
Poe  36%  25%
Roxas  27%  40%
Santiago  11%  13%

 

Governor Pre-voting Post-voting
Alvarado  43% 27%
De la Cruz  57%  73%

 

March 14, 2016, Makati City
Household Staff (165 participants)

President Pre-voting Post-voting
Binay  17% 6%
Duterte  8% 4%
Poe  14%  3%
Roxas  58%  83%
Santiago  3%  3%

 

Vice President Pre-voting Post-voting
Cayetano  7%  4%
Escudero 6% 3%
Honasan  2%  2%
Marcos 18%  9%
Robredo 62%  81%
Trillanes  5%  1%

 

Mayor Pre-voting Post-voting
Binay, A.  30%  13%
Jumawan  5%  0%
Pena  65%  87%

 

March 15, 2016
Clients of a Commercial Bank (63 participants)

President Pre-voting Post-voting
Binay  3%  0%
Duterte  27%  11%
Poe  24%  11%
Roxas  44%  73%
Santiago  2%  5%

 

Vice President Pre-voting Post-voting
Cayetano  10%  2%
Escudero  7%  0%
Honasan  0%  0%
Marcos 26%  12%
Robredo  56%  86%
Trillanes  0%  0%

 

March 18, 2016, Dagupan City
NGO and Religious Leaders

President Pre-voting Post-voting
Binay 3% 1%
Duterte  23%  11%
Poe  30%  25%
Roxas  34%  55%
Santiago  10%  8%

 

Vice President Pre-voting Post-voting
Cayetano 4%  4%
Escudero 0%  0%
Honasan  24%  9%
Marcos 6%  7%
Robredo  66%  79%
Trillanes  0%  0%

 

March 28, 2016, BF Homes, Paranaque
Residents (210 participants)

President Pre-voting Post-voting
Binay 3% 1%
Duterte  23%  18%
Poe  20%  6%
Roxas  51%  67%
Santiago  3%  8%

 

Vice President Pre-voting Post-voting
Cayetano 11%  10%
Escudero 9%  1%
Honasan  0%  1%
Marcos  11%  7%
Robredo  67%  81%
Trillanes  3%  0%

 

April 6, 2016
Members of Philippine Association of National Advertisers (PANA)(103 participants)

President Pre-voting Post-voting
Binay 3%  4%
Duterte  45%  34%
Poe  16%  3%
Roxas  31%  48%
Santiago  6%  10%

 

Vice President Pre-voting Post-voting
Cayetano 11%  5%
Escudero  6%  3%
Honasan  0% 0%
Marcos  20%  12%
Robredo  63%  80%
Trillanes  2%  0%

Townhall meetings empower and transform

The Movement for Good Governance (MGG) led by its Chair Prof. Winnie Monsod organized several townhall meetings in Tagaytay, Bulacan, Dagupan City, Obando, Bulacan, a commercial bank, and the exclusive villages in Makati. The Tagaytay meeting was participated in by priests who are alumni of “Tahanan ng Mabuting Pastol.” PPCRV volunteers took part in the Bulacan meeting while the Dagupan meeting was organized by Bishop Soc. Villegas. Drivers and members of the household staff from exclusive villages in Makati participated in the townhall meeting.

The participants described the townhall meeting as the first of its kind. The meeting started with pre-voting. Participants cast their votes on the candidates for President, Vice President, and, Mayor. They were given chips which they placed inside a container that bore the name of the candidates. Thereafter, they discussed the characteristics of the candidates that demonstrate their “Effectiveness as a Leader”, “Empowering Leadership”, and “Ethical Character”. The participants freely exchanged their ideas and experiences using the scorecard that MGG prepared.

The townhall meeting ended with another round of voting. A visible change was noticeable which show that information can be transformative and empowering. Choices of voters change when they are given the chance to be informed and to participate in debates.

The results of the pre-and post voting are as follows:

Tahanan ng Mabuting Pastol, Tagaytay City, February 16, 2016

President Pre-voting Post-voting
Binay 6 1
Duterte 6 2
Poe 14 2
Roxas 22 43
Santiago 7 2
Vice President Pre-voting Post-voting
Cayetano 2
Honasan 1
Marcos 1
Escudero 6
Robredo 40
Trillanes 0

No post-voting was made for the candidates for the vice-president because of the lack of time.

MGG Briefer on Presidential Candidates 2016

MGG briefer on presidential candidates p1

click image to enlarge

MGG briefer on presidential candidates p2

click image to enlarge

Condensed information on the Presidential candidates is available for download here. The briefer can be printed back-to-back on a single sheet and folded into three columns, for easy distribution at townhall meetings.

For more detailed candidate information, please visit our Candidate Information 2016 page, which a summary of comparative information on the candidates for President and Vice President according to the Effective, Empowering, and Ethical criteria in our Scorecard.

2016 Election Scorecard for Voters

MGG2016scorecardenglish

The MGG Scorecard is the first of its kind in Philippine politics. It is a simple and effective guide to evaluate candidates based on three key leadership criteria: effectiveness, empowering, and ethical leadership.

The criteria was initiated by MGG using diverse local and international governance benchmarks from Gawad Galing Pook, the World Bank, and the UN. The scorecard was finalized with the assistance of the Personnel Management Association of the Philippines (PMAP), the country’s leading human resource organization.

“This scorecard helps Filipinos regardless of social class and background to evaluate candidates in terms of whether they are fit for public office. It enables voters to critically think through all the information, jingles, and gimmicks thrown at them by political campaigns,” says Prof. Solita Monsod, MGG Chair.

The MGG Scorecard uses three equally vital leadership criteria and simple guide questions. It looks at a candidate’s effectiveness, or their ability and track record to perform their duty; empowerment, or a candidate’s ability to unite and engage stakeholders to develop and implement policies and programs that meet genuine needs of the populace; and, ethical, which affirms the need for the candidates integrity and character.

“These three complementary traits are all necessary for our country to be governed as we deserve, and the scorecard allows voters to grade candidates on each criteria using simple guide questions. It also ranks the candidates’ total scores — on a basic 1 to 3 score — to determine who among them meets these traits the best,” says Dr. Milwida Guevara, MGG founder and Gawad Haydee Yorac Awardee.

The scorecard may be downloaded from the MGG website and will be disseminated to key cities and communities up to election day. MGG has been promoting the use of its scorecard since the 2010 elections.

Download links: