SARA DUTERTE’S 32 MILLION VOTES, A TRUST SURVEY, AND THE QUESTION I STILL HAVE

I took down an earlier version of this article because I made a mistake.

While watching the impeachment hearing, I saw defense counsel Mark Vinluan present a Social Weather Stations survey during his cross-examination of NBI Director Melvin Matibag. I thought it was the same survey I had recently written about.

I was wrong.

I had confused a trust survey with a separate survey measuring satisfaction with Sara Duterte’s performance.

So I took the article down.

Trust and satisfaction ask different questions. I should have separated the two surveys from the start.

After checking everything again, though, I realized my mistake had distracted me from the question that bothered me in the first place.

Earlier in the trial, lead defense counsel Sheila Sison reminded the impeachment court that more than 32 million Filipinos voted for Sara Duterte in 2022.

Then, during Matibag’s cross-examination, Vinluan presented a survey comparing public trust in Duterte and President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.

Why does Sara Duterte’s popularity keep entering the picture?

THE 32 MILLION VOTES

More than 32 million Filipinos voted for Sara Duterte in 2022.

That tells me something about her political strength when she was elected. She received an enormous mandate.

I understand that.

What I do not understand is what those votes tell me about the accusations against her years later.

I am not a lawyer. I am not going to pretend that I understand every reason a defense lawyer raises a certain point during an impeachment trial.

I am watching this as a Filipino trying to follow the case.

When the 32 million votes are brought up, I am reminded of how many people supported Sara Duterte.

I already knew she was popular.

What I am trying to understand is why her popularity belongs in the conversation about the accusations against her.

THE SURVEY I GOT WRONG

The survey Vinluan presented was about trust.

It showed 57 percent with much trust in Duterte, compared with 34 percent for Marcos. Twenty-seven percent had little trust in Duterte, while 15 percent were undecided.

The survey I had previously written about asked about satisfaction with Duterte’s performance.

Nationally, 58 percent said they were satisfied and 26 percent dissatisfied.

I had questioned the way that national figure was being discussed because the regional results showed a far more uneven picture.

Duterte’s net satisfaction was +84 in Mindanao, +36 in the Visayas, +10 in Balance Luzon, and +3 in Metro Manila.

That was the survey I had studied.

Vinluan presented another one.

Once I corrected my mistake, I knew I could no longer use that regional breakdown to criticize the survey shown during the hearing.

But I was left with another question.

Why show a trust survey comparing Duterte and Marcos during the cross-examination of the NBI director?

WHY SHOW A TRUST SURVEY?

Vinluan was cross-examining Matibag.

Then a graphic appeared comparing public trust in Duterte and Marcos.

I do not know what Vinluan intended to accomplish by presenting it.

There may be a legal reason that lawyers following the case understand better than I do.

I will not invent one.

But I immediately understood the political message.

Duterte was ahead of Marcos in public trust.

Anyone looking at the graphic could understand that without knowing anything about Matibag’s testimony or following the details of the impeachment case.

And that brought me back to the 32 million votes.

At separate points in this trial, viewers have been reminded of Duterte’s enormous electoral mandate and her current standing in a public trust survey.

I cannot say those moments are part of one planned strategy.

I can only describe what I see as someone following the proceedings.

Both direct attention toward Sara Duterte’s political strength.

That is what interests me.

THE TRIAL AND THE AUDIENCE OUTSIDE

The impeachment proceedings are playing out in front of a much larger public audience.

People watch clips. Screenshots get posted. Short exchanges become headlines. A single image can travel much further than the testimony surrounding it.

The trust survey works perfectly in that environment.

A screenshot can leave the hearing and circulate online without anyone explaining why the survey appeared during Matibag’s cross-examination.

The people sharing it do not have to discuss his testimony.

They do not have to explain what the NBI investigated.

They do not have to address the accusations against Duterte.

The graphic gives them a much easier message.

Duterte is more trusted than Marcos.

I am not saying that was Vinluan’s intention.

I am asking what happens when a survey like that enters the hearing and then reaches an audience far beyond the impeachment court.

Because once the screenshot is out there, the original question asked during cross-examination may become almost irrelevant to the people sharing it.

The political message can survive on its own.

THE QUESTION I COULD FOLLOW

Vinluan raised another issue during Matibag’s cross-examination that I could understand much more easily.

He pointed out that Matibag’s wife is a member of the House of Representatives and had endorsed the impeachment complaint before Matibag testified.

I could see the possible question about bias.

The trust survey leaves me with a different problem.

I understand what it tells me about Duterte’s political standing.

I am still trying to understand what it adds to Matibag’s testimony.

Maybe there is an answer.

I am open to hearing it.

But after correcting my own mistake and looking at the hearing again, I am left with a question that goes beyond one survey.

The defense has reminded the public that more than 32 million Filipinos voted for Sara Duterte.

The public has also been shown a survey placing her ahead of Marcos in trust.

Both tell us something about Sara Duterte as a political figure.

What I am still trying to understand is what her popularity tells us about the accusations against her.

And if it tells us nothing about those accusations, then who were those numbers really for?