This week marks the start of the official campaign period for national positions, in view of the elections on May 12. Then again, the election circus has gripped the country way before today. There has been political infighting, intrigues, the trading of accusations, the shifting of loyalties. The Filipino people are no strangers to the heightened political activity preceding the elections.
The question is, how much of what we are seeing now will actually factor into our votes and ultimately the results?
We have always complained that our electorate bases its decisions on personalities rather than issues. This is true. Results of early surveys show that those most likely to win, if elections were held on the day the survey was taken, are candidates who are either popular media figures, or belonging to families with prominent last names, or affiliated with big names with a powerful mass base.
Thankfully, there is a promise of a growing awareness among our people of the issues that the country faces and that require the attention and action of the officials we elect into office.
A Social Weather Stations survey conducted from Jan. 17 to 20 this year, and commissioned by the Stratbase Institute, found that issues that would make Filipinos vote for candidates remain largely economic in nature.
Among these issues: increasing job opportunities (94%), development of agriculture and ensuring food security (94%), strengthening of the healthcare system (93%), equal access to education (92%), workers’ rights and OFW welfare (92%), reducing the poverty and hunger of Filipinos (87%), addressing the impacts of climate change and enhancing disaster preparedness (87%), controlling the prices of basic services and goods (85%), defending national security and sovereignty in the West Philippine Sea (83%), and the achievement of energy security and the usage of renewable energy (82%).
Some of these issues are linked and what emerges from the survey is the understanding that Filipinos’ top priority continues to be their economic security. Food security, for instance, ranks high up and this should guide our officials into keeping a laser-like focus on something that affects each Filipino directly and intimately — a literal gut issue. Job security will allow our people to imagine being able to provide for their families on a sustained basis. We must find a way to address the underutilization of Filipino talent; unlocking the full potential of our workforce is essential for driving economic progress and fostering inclusive growth.
The prices of goods and services are always a good barometer of the economy. On Feb. 5, the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) announced that inflation was at 2.9% in January, the same level it was in the previous month. This is supposed to be a positive indication, but the survey says otherwise. For a majority of respondents, the Marcos Jr. administration could do better. Fifty-eight percent believe that the solutions provided to control inflation are insufficient, while only 16% said they were sufficient. The perceived insufficiency was most noted in Mindanao at 65%, and the National Capital Region at 60%.
We see, ultimately, that official figures matter less than the actual experience of people in their daily lives. For example, as of December 2024, nearly 26% of Filipino families have experienced involuntary hunger — going without food at least once in the past three months. Coupled with food prices continuing to rise, it is no surprise that many Filipinos still feel trapped by the burden of inflation.
It comes as no surprise that fewer Filipinos now have “much trust” in both the President and Vice-President. The decline in numbers is likely due to the growing frustration over the government’s weak response to rising inflation. Indeed, having the majority of the Filipino people say this month that the government’s inflation control solutions are insufficient should be a wake-up call to our leaders.
And if we demand this much from the two top leaders of the land, we will expect no less from the legislators and local officials that we will be considering for the May elections. They are, after all, the people who would introduce laws and policies, and who would implement these policies at the ground level.
Thus, as the national campaign kicks off in earnest this week, both candidates and voters should be mindful of what elections in a democracy truly demands of them. Specifically, candidates should have a clear-cut agenda based on observable, measurable evidence of what needs to be done, instead of merely relying on political machinery, name recall, and even the persona that they project to the public.
Meanwhile, voters have an even greater and more consequential responsibility. We must stop thinking of ourselves as mere receivers of government action and passive reactors to whatever is done, or not done, by our leaders. We have operated with this mindset for far too long — and look where it has gotten us. Instead, let us take back our agency and carefully weigh whether a candidate’s name truly deserves to be on our ballot. The answer to this relies not on a prominent last name, or charm, or a recent handout, but a careful evaluation of their track record, expertise, and an actual plan to address the gut issues that are most important to us.
Victor Andres “Dindo” C. Manhit is the president of the Stratbase ADR Institute.
