Public-opinion surveys have become a major part of political reporting and public discussion in the Philippines. During elections, presidential speeches, controversies, economic difficulties, and major government decisions, news organizations frequently cite surveys to explain how Filipinos view national leaders and important social issues. Two organizations are especially prominent: Social Weather Stations, commonly known as SWS, […]
By Rold Yanga
Public-opinion surveys have become a major part of political reporting and public discussion in the Philippines. During elections, presidential speeches, controversies, economic difficulties, and major government decisions, news organizations frequently cite surveys to explain how Filipinos view national leaders and important social issues.
Two organizations are especially prominent: Social Weather Stations, commonly known as SWS, and Pulse Asia Research, Inc.
Both organizations conduct nationwide surveys, publish public-opinion findings, and maintain historical data that allow researchers, journalists, policymakers, businesses, and ordinary citizens to observe changes in Filipino attitudes over time. Their surveys cover elections and government officials, but their work is not limited to politics. They also examine poverty, hunger, quality of life, public priorities, trust in institutions, internet use, social media, and other economic and social concerns.
Although SWS and Pulse Asia are often compared, they should not be treated as identical organizations. They have different histories, institutional structures, survey traditions, terminologies, and areas of emphasis.
| Category | Social Weather Stations | Pulse Asia Research, Inc. |
| Common name | SWS | Pulse Asia |
| Established | 1985 | 1999 |
| Organizational character | Private, independent, nonstock, nonprofit and nonpartisan social-research institution | Nonprofit public-opinion research organization led by academics and professional researchers |
| Best known for | Social Weather Surveys, satisfaction ratings, self-rated poverty, hunger, quality-of-life indicators and public opinion | Ulat ng Bayan surveys, approval and trust ratings, electoral preferences, urgent national concerns and administration performance |
| Major historical figure | Dr. Mahar Mangahas, co-founder and chair emeritus | Professor Felipe B. Miranda, founder |
| Current prominent leadership | SWS publications and academic sources identify Mahar Mangahas as co-founder and chair emeritus; Linda Luz Guerrero has served as president and chief executive | Dr. Ronald D. Holmes, president; Dr. Ana Maria L. Tabunda, treasurer and research director; Dr. Emmanuel S. de Dios, board chairperson |
| Typical national methodology | Usually face-to-face interviews with representative samples, with methodology varying by survey | Face-to-face interviews with representative adult samples; recent nationwide surveys have used 2,400 respondents |
| Major media role | Long-term monitoring of satisfaction, poverty, hunger and social conditions | Frequent measurement of political approval, trust, elections and public priorities |
Social Weather Stations is a private, nonprofit and nonpartisan social-research institution founded in 1985. Its work grew from efforts to develop better measures of Filipinos’ actual social and economic conditions—not only through government statistics, but also through people’s own assessments of their lives.
SWS co-founder Dr. Mahar Mangahas is a Filipino economist and social scientist known for his work on social indicators, poverty, hunger, quality of life and public-opinion research. He previously taught economics at the University of the Philippines and helped establish the idea of “social weather reporting”: regularly measuring public conditions and attitudes in much the same way that weather stations repeatedly observe changing environmental conditions.
Mangahas described SWS as a nonstock, nonprofit and nonpartisan institute that he co-founded in 1985. Academic descriptions of SWS similarly characterize it as a private institution that conducts nationally representative surveys on the social, economic and political well-being of Filipinos.
SWS was not founded by Mangahas alone. Historical accounts also identify academics, researchers and civic-minded professionals among its founding fellows. Its development reflected the belief that democratic societies require reliable and regularly published information about public opinion and everyday living conditions.
In recent years, Mangahas has been identified as chair emeritus, while Linda Luz B. Guerrero has served as president and chief executive.
SWS conducts research in several broad areas:
One of SWS’s most important contributions is its long-term historical database. Instead of treating each survey as an isolated event, SWS frequently compares new findings with results from previous quarters and earlier administrations.
Its national Social Weather Surveys were conducted semiannually during the organization’s earlier years and have generally been conducted quarterly since 1992. This produces a long-running record of changes in Filipino economic well-being and public opinion.
SWS is particularly known for reporting net satisfaction ratings.
A net satisfaction score is generally calculated by subtracting the percentage dissatisfied from the percentage satisfied. For example, if 58% are satisfied and 26% are dissatisfied, the net rating is approximately +32, subject to the organization’s rounding procedures.
SWS applies descriptive labels to net satisfaction scores:
| Net satisfaction score | SWS interpretation |
| +70 and above | Excellent |
| +50 to +69 | Very good |
| +30 to +49 | Good |
| +10 to +29 | Moderate |
| +9 to −9 | Neutral |
| −10 to −29 | Poor |
| −30 to −49 | Bad |
| −50 to −69 | Very bad |
| −70 and below | Execrable |
These are SWS’s institutional classifications. They are not universal labels used by every research organization.
As of July 28, 2026, one of the most recent publicly available SWS releases was its Second Quarter 2026 Social Weather Survey, conducted from June 20 to 29, 2026.
The survey measured satisfaction with several high-ranking government officials. It found:
| Government official | Satisfied | Dissatisfied | Reported net rating |
| Vice President Sara Duterte | 58% | 26% | +31 |
| Senate President Sherwin Gatchalian | 45% | 27% | +18 |
| Speaker Faustino “Bojie” Dy III | 33% | 26% | +8 |
| Chief Justice Alexander Gesmundo | 35% | 26% | +10 |
SWS classified the vice president’s rating as “good,” the Senate president’s and chief justice’s ratings as “moderate,” and the House speaker’s score as “neutral.”
Another 2026 SWS release reported that President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. received a −15 net satisfaction rating in March 2026, based on 33% satisfied, 18% undecided and 49% dissatisfied.
These examples demonstrate why SWS findings regularly become national news. The organization does not merely report whether a leader is popular. It shows movement over time, compares leaders with their previous ratings and breaks down results by region, age, education, sex, urban or rural location, and other characteristics where appropriate.
Pulse Asia Research, Inc. is another leading Philippine public-opinion research organization. It was launched in 1999 by professional academics with expertise in political science, statistics, sociology, economics and related fields.
The organization states that its mission is to monitor the social, economic, political and cultural issues present in the minds of Filipinos. It views the periodic measurement of public opinion as an important element of a strong democracy.
Pulse Asia is closely associated with Professor Felipe B. Miranda, a University of the Philippines political scientist who played a central role in founding the organization.
Its current leadership includes:
| Position | Name |
| Board chairperson | Dr. Emmanuel S. de Dios |
| President and trustee | Dr. Ronald D. Holmes |
| Treasurer and trustee | Dr. Ana Maria L. Tabunda |
| Trustee | Mercedes R. Abad |
| Trustee | Dr. Ma. Cynthia Rose Banzon-Bautista |
Pulse Asia’s official company information identifies these individuals as its current board and trustees.
Dr. Ronald Holmes is a political scientist and educator associated with De La Salle University. Dr. Ana Maria Tabunda is widely recognized as one of the organization’s primary survey and statistical experts and frequently explains Pulse Asia’s methodologies and findings to journalists.
Pulse Asia is best known for its Ulat ng Bayan national surveys. These commonly examine:
Pulse Asia distinguishes between approval and trust. Approval measures whether respondents approve or disapprove of an official’s performance. Trust measures whether respondents have substantial trust, are undecided or have little trust in that person.
These two indicators may move together, but they do not measure exactly the same thing.
Pulse Asia released several nationwide survey reports in July 2026. Its July Ulat ng Bayan fieldwork was conducted from June 28 to July 3 and July 6, 2026, using face-to-face interviews with 2,400 representative Filipino adults aged 18 and older.
The organization reported a national error margin of ±2 percentage points at the 95% confidence level, with error margins of approximately ±4 points for major geographic areas. It also stated that its academic fellows were responsible for the survey’s design, conduct and analysis and that no religious, political, economic or partisan organization influenced the process.
Pulse Asia reported that:
The findings are relevant beyond technology reporting. They help explain how political information, news, advertising, misinformation and public debate reach Filipino audiences.
Pulse Asia also found that 81% of Filipino adults were aware of at least one of President Marcos’s previous State of the Nation Addresses.
When respondents were asked what they most wanted the president to discuss in his July 27, 2026 SONA:
| Preferred issue | Percentage |
| Fighting corruption | 29.8% |
| Affordable basic goods | 18.7% |
| Jobs and livelihood | 6.6% |
| Poverty | 6.2% |
| Illegal drugs | 5.5% |
| Low wages | 5.1% |
| High fuel prices | 4.9% |
Within the anti-corruption category, 18.9% specifically mentioned investigating and holding accountable those involved in the flood-control scandal.
Pulse Asia also released July 2026 findings relating to possible candidates for the 2028 national elections, illustrating how early voter preferences and political name recognition are monitored years before election day.
SWS and Pulse Asia receive extensive attention for several reasons.
SWS has operated since 1985, while Pulse Asia has operated since 1999. Their long histories allow journalists to compare current findings with many years of previous results.
A new organization may report one interesting number, but SWS and Pulse Asia can often show whether the number is historically high, historically low, improving, declining or unchanged.
Their research frequently concerns presidents, elections, inflation, corruption, poverty, hunger, employment and public confidence. These subjects have immediate political and social importance.
Major releases commonly disclose the survey dates, sample size, interviewing method, geographic coverage and error margins. This allows journalists and researchers to evaluate the survey more carefully.
A survey does not determine whether a policy is correct, but it may show whether the policy is understood, accepted or opposed by the public. Political leaders, campaign organizations, civil-society groups and analysts use survey findings to assess public sentiment.
Research leaders from both organizations regularly participate in media interviews, academic forums and public briefings. These explanations can help journalists avoid simply repeating a percentage without context.
Survey results are frequently welcomed by politicians who perform well and criticized by those who perform poorly. This recurring pattern itself contributes to media attention.
Disagreement with an unfavorable result, however, is not evidence that the survey is inaccurate. A serious criticism should examine the questionnaire, sampling frame, fieldwork, timing, response patterns, weighting and margin of error.
There is no verified, nationally representative and regularly updated percentage showing how many Filipinos believe SWS results or how many believe Pulse Asia results.
The two firms frequently measure public trust in government officials and institutions, but those trust ratings should not be confused with trust in the polling organizations themselves.
| Question | Verified national percentage available? |
| Percentage of Filipinos who believe SWS survey results | No reliable current figure located |
| Percentage of Filipinos who believe Pulse Asia survey results | No reliable current figure located |
| Percentage who believe one firm more than the other | No credible head-to-head national measurement located |
| Approval or trust ratings of politicians measured by the firms | Yes, frequently available |
It would therefore be misleading to claim that, for example, “70% of Filipinos trust SWS” or “80% believe Pulse Asia” without a specific and verifiable survey asking that exact question.
Their credibility is better evaluated through institutional longevity, methodological disclosure, professional leadership, historical performance, peer recognition and whether their findings generally align with later observable outcomes.
| Organization | Major strengths | Potential limitations |
| SWS | Extensive historical series; strong work on poverty, hunger and quality of life; recognizable net-satisfaction framework; long institutional history | Net scores may be misunderstood without the underlying percentages; some surveys are commissioned; different sample sizes and release schedules require survey-by-survey review |
| Pulse Asia | Detailed nationwide Ulat ng Bayan studies; strong election and political coverage; clear approval and trust distinctions; frequent technical disclosure | Election preferences can change after fieldwork; rankings within the margin of error may be overstated by media; political critics sometimes question perceived affiliations |
| Both | Representative sampling, professional researchers, long experience and substantial media visibility | All sample surveys contain uncertainty; wording, timing, nonresponse and rapidly changing events can affect findings |
Readers should not ask only, “Which candidate is number one?” They should also examine:
SWS’s greatest advantage is the depth of its historical data.
Its long-running measurements of satisfaction, poverty, hunger and quality of life make it possible to compare conditions across administrations and economic periods. Its survey archive is especially useful for researchers studying long-term social change.
SWS’s net-rating terminology can be misunderstood.
A “good” net score does not mean that nearly everyone approves of an official. Readers should always inspect the satisfied, undecided and dissatisfied percentages behind the net rating. Some SWS surveys are also commissioned, making sponsorship disclosure important.
Pulse Asia is particularly strong in nationwide political surveys.
Its Ulat ng Bayan releases commonly provide approval, trust, urgent-concern and administration-performance indicators in a consistent format. Its public releases frequently include subgroup tables and technical information.
Pulse Asia’s political findings can be oversimplified into rankings. A candidate described as leading may be statistically tied with another candidate once the margin of error is considered. In addition, public opinion may change after fieldwork because of new controversies, campaign events or economic developments.
Both organizations present themselves as independent and nonpartisan. They have repeatedly faced accusations from political personalities and supporters, especially when their findings are unfavorable to a particular side. Allegations alone do not prove bias. A credible evaluation should examine sampling, questionnaires, data collection, sponsorship, weighting and consistency with other evidence.
Yes, provided that respondents are selected through a scientifically designed probability sample representing the country’s major geographic and demographic groups. Sample quality matters more than simply interviewing a very large number of conveniently available people. However, every sample survey has a margin of error and possible nonsampling errors.
Pulse Asia is especially visible in electoral-preference, approval and trust surveys. SWS also has extensive experience in election polling and exit polls. The better source depends on the specific survey’s methodology, timing, sample and questionnaire rather than the organization’s name alone.
SWS has a particularly strong and long-established record in self-rated poverty, hunger, quality of life and social-weather indicators. Its historical series makes it highly useful for comparing how families’ experiences and perceptions change over time.
Not exactly. Pre-election surveys measure voter preference during a particular period. They are not official forecasts or vote counts. Campaign developments, undecided voters, turnout, local organization and last-minute decisions may change the final result.
No survey should be accepted automatically. SWS and Pulse Asia are established organizations, but each release should still be reviewed critically. Readers should examine the dates, questions, sample, error margin, sponsor, complete tables and surrounding political context.
Social Weather Stations and Pulse Asia Research are the two most influential names in Philippine public-opinion polling. SWS brings more than four decades of experience and is particularly distinguished by its long-term measurement of satisfaction, poverty, hunger and quality of life. Pulse Asia has developed a strong reputation for Ulat ng Bayan surveys covering political approval, public trust, electoral preferences, urgent national concerns and administration performance.
They are highlighted by Philippine media because their findings concern major public issues, are supported by established research systems and can be compared across time. Their numbers often provide the clearest available evidence of how Filipinos view their leaders and national conditions during a specific period.
However, media prominence should not be confused with universal public belief. At present, there is no reliable national percentage showing exactly how many Filipinos trust SWS or Pulse Asia survey results. Credibility must instead be evaluated through transparent methods, professional standards, historical consistency and careful interpretation.
The most responsible conclusion is not that one organization is always correct and the other is always wrong. Both are important sources of public-opinion data, and both should be read critically, with attention to the survey question, fieldwork dates, sample design, margin of error and full statistical context.
Rold Yanga is a Senior Field Operations Manager at FMR with expertise in field data collection, interviewer supervision, respondent validation, CATI, CAPI, mystery shopping, and quality assurance for nationwide market research and fieldwork projects.
Why Invest in the Philippines? Complete Investor’s Guide Southeast Asia has become one of the most attractive destinations for global businesses seeking…
Read Article
Malaysia & Indonesia Professional Fieldwork to Obtain Reliable Business Intelligence There are big opportunities for companies in South East Asia, but you…
Read Article